One Cup? One Loaf? The Lord's Supper

Do you have questions about the nature, work, purpose, or pattern for the church? This is the place to share your thoughts and questions with others.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

One Cup? One Loaf? The Lord's Supper

Post by email » Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:22 pm

In the process of searching for info. on the Lord's supper online, I came across your article at...

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... pper2.html

Would you mind answering the following question for me in order for me to determine more about where you're coming from? Besides, the Lord's supper is something I'm continually trying to learn more and more about.

Thank You

+++++++++++++++++++++

Since, in the observance of the Lord's supper, people (and rightly so) bind the...
  1. use of unleavened bread and fruit of the grape vine,
  2. eating of the bread before drinking of the cup, and
  3. offering separate prayers for each emblem,...
Because Jesus' command to "Do this" forces those incidents to become examples...

Why does not the same manner of establishing authority for those things also apply to the use of one loaf of bread and one cup of fruit of the vine, especially since Jesus did say something about each of these while He didn't say anything about the items above?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:02 pm

Although we must be diligent to find Scriptural authority for all that we do, we must not fall into the traps of thinking that we must have example for all that we do, or that all examples are binding. For example, only men partook of this supper (Matthew 26:12-20). Does that limitation apply today? That's the example. Moreover, we know they were reclining on the floor (John 13:23-25). Before the supper, they had just completed Passover (Matthew 26:19, 26). After the supper, Jesus immediately washed their feet (John 13:2-17). They also sung a hymn (Mark 14:26). Why are all of these things not also mandated and binding?

What about Acts 20:7? Are we limited to meeting at nighttime to partake the Lord's Supper? Must we meet in an upper story of a building, like they did (Acts 20:9)? Must we have many bright lights, as they did (Acts 20:8)? At least we do have people frequently sleeping through the preaching (Acts 20:9)... :-)

Clearly, some of these things are incidental. They provide background to explaining other points, like why Eutychus fell out of the window (Acts 20:9). All things are relevant to something, but not every one thing is relevant to all other things. But, how do you decide which facts are relevant to which points? In our case, how do you decide what is binding upon us, and what is incidental to the modern observance of the Lord Supper?

I believe you and I can decide by examining other passages for clues, while additionally examining the context, to decide what information is relevant to what point. I have further explanation of this under the Article titled, " Binding New Testament Examples and the Bible Pattern".

Using such reasoning, I responded to the question of one cup and one loaf further down in the article you examined. I've provided the text below for your convenience. In short, I believe the context and the remainder of Scripture place emphasis not on the number of elements, but the elements themselves and what they represent. The de-emphasis of the one cup and one loaf suggests they are incidental to our modern observance. Furthermore, the arguments used to place emphasis upon the number of containers and loafs lead to absurd conclusions, which weakens a consistent belief in their emphasis. Please see the article for a more detailed explanation with Scriptures.

May God bless us to honestly seek His will in all things.
Last edited by m273p15c on Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:28 am

Thanks for your quick reply.

Of your five-paragraph response, you spent four talking about examples as opposed to incidents. Due to that, I'm compelled to ask you if you really read my question closely, because I specifically worded it in order to avoid an answer such as you gave. (I left the question at the end of this email in case you don't still have it to reread.) You didn't specifically and directly answer my question, and neither does what I've read on your site. That's the reason I sent that question. However...

To add a thought to what you wrote, doesn't the very fact that Jesus stated the command to "Do this" twice limit what each case of that command applies to? I.e., it specifically applies to (1) whatever has to do with the bread and (2) whatever has to do with the cup, not peripheral issues such as you brought up with the upper room, reclining, etc.

Thank you for your blessing at the end of your email, because I need it as I really am honestly and open-mindedly wanting to be sure as possible that I'm pleasing God (1 The 5:21). I'm just hoping to find another of like mind, who cares enough for my soul to help me be certain, and who's concerned enough about the division in the church to conform to 1st Cor 1:10. (Incidentally, I can't see unity in such areas coming except via person by person, maybe family by family.)
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:04 am

I will not quibble with you about how closely I read your e-mail, because it does nothing to answer your question or establish your point. However, I am somewhat alarmed that you would jump to the worst possible interpretation of the events, since love "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things" (I Corinthians 13:7). I think if you reread your original post, you may understand why I started with examples.

Although you may not be satisfied with my answer, I believe I did address the logical basis of your question. As I understand it, your question and argument rests upon the cup being understood as a literal container. Even if the text says, "Do this ...", my article responds with two answers. First, it demonstrated that "cup" is used as a figure of speech, metonymy; consequently, the physical container is not even truly mentioned. It was shown that the contents of the cup was the subject of Christ's statement, not the container. The container is only mentioned incidentally and figuratively. Therefore, no authority can be gleamed regarding the specific number of containers from the occasion. Christ said "This is my blood ...". To what was He referring, the container or the contents? Secondly, the article demonstrates that any symbolism attached to the significance of the one cup is contradictive to known truths. Although not necessarily conclusive, this second argument supports the first, while diminishing any unauthorized emphasis placed on the container.

Although I still believe that is sufficient, upon further study, I would like to add a third argument: Jesus commanded the division of the cup.
Luke wrote:"Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

"And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

"Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:17-20)
Please notice that Jesus first took the cup, gave thanks for it, and then commanded the apostles to divide it among themselves. How did they do this with one container? They couldn't have drunk their portion at that moment, because in verse 19, Christ distributes the bread and the apostles then partake of the bread. This is followed by their ultimate drinking the fruit of the vine in verse 20. Mark's and Matthew's accounts make it clear that they drank the fruit of the vine last.

This leads me to two questions: If you take "cup" to be a reference to the literal container, how did the apostles "divide the cup" according to Christ's command (Luke 22:17-18)? And, how did they divide it, eat the bread, and then drink the fruit of the vine, while only using one container (Luke 22:17-20)? I would suggest they "likely" poured the fruit of the vine into their respective containers, thereby dividing it, and drinking it later upon Christ's command, after they ate the bread. The unstated specifics leaves us generic authority for distributing, or "dividing" the fruit of the vine in a manner that is expedient for us.

Although I believe your analysis is incorrect in dismissing the statements regarding examples, I prefer to focus on these three arguments, primarily the first and third.

May God bless us both with open eyes and humble hearts.

==== Added to article: Are we to use only one cup? ====

Are we to use only one cup and one loaf?"

Many conscientious Christians have wrestled with the question, "In the Lord's Supper are we restricted to using only one container of grape juice and one loaf of bread?". This concern comes from a strong desire to "do all things according to the pattern";. However, is this restriction part of the pattern that Jesus specified? Does He require this of us today? The following reasons suggest a negative answer and help explain where others fail in insisting otherwise.

Figurative Language - Metonymy

The failure to recognize Jesus' use of figurative language in the institution of the Lord's supper is the primary cause for this misunderstanding. Metonymy is the figurative use of one word to represent something else closely associated with another word. Many examples of this can be seen throughout scripture. Just a couple examples are listed here:
  • Noah "prepared an ark for the saving of his house" (Hebrews 11:7) - Did Noah save his family, or the timbers and fixtures of his building that housed his family?
  • God promised that Abraham would have a "great name" (Genesis 12:2). Did he make Abraham's name great by putting a great number of letters in it? Did he make it great by painting it in the sky? Or, did he give Abraham a great name by giving him a great reputation, which is closely associated with one's name?
Jesus uses metonymy in representing the fruit of the vine by its container. The cup stands for its contents. Was Jesus concerned about the cup or its contents?
Matthew wrote:"Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.'" (Matthew 26:27-29)
What is used to represent Christ's blood, the cup or the contents?

Generic Authority

Also, please notice what Jesus commanded the apostles in the following parallel account:
Luke wrote:"Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves." (Luke 22:16)
Jesus did not command how the cup was to be divided, but it had to be divided. They could have all drank from the same container using one cup, or they could have poured it into multiple containers and all drank from individual cups. Regardless, Jesus acknowledges that the cup must be divided. In fact, He commanded them to do so.

This shows two things: One, Jesus must have used metonymy. Surely, He did not intend for the apostles to shatter the cup and each keep a fragment as a souvenir. He used metonymy in representing the contents by their container. Second, the method of division is left unspecified. Therefore, we are authorized to divided the contents, but the method of division and distribution is left up to us. We have generic authority to have one cup or multiple cups. We must be careful not to restrict others where God has not restricted, lest we be found "adding to" God's Word and fall under the associated condemnation (Galatians 1:6-8; Revelation 22:18-19).

Standing on Unstated Imagery

Many times we make the mistake of stretching a parable, allusion, or image beyond the intended point. Related to this question, some associate one container with the unity of those who drink from it. However, Jesus never associated unity with a single container. Again, this becomes apparent in Jesus' command to actually divide the cup (Luke 22:16). If the cup stands for the unity of group, then we must understand His command to divide the cup as a command to divide the church! If this is not so, then one container must not be related to the unity of the church, local or universal.

One Loaf

Although Jesus did not make reference to one loaf of bread, Paul did mention that we partake of one loaf in I Corinthians 10:16-17. However, it has no reference to the number of physical loaves. If it did refer to one physical loaf, how could all Christians throughout the entire world, ranging from Corinth to Jerusalem, partake of the exact same loaf of bread, every first day of the week? That would be a mighty big loaf of bread! Paul said there we are many, but we are all part of one body, partaking of one loaf, thereby associating the body and the loaf (I Corinthians 10:16-17). If we are not partaking of the same loaf, then we are not part of one body in Jesus! Since this leads to an absurd conclusion, the basis of the conclusion must be false. The "oneness" or "uniqueness" of the loaf is that it represents one body, one sacrifice, Jesus Christ, not one physical mass (I Corinthians 10:16).
Last edited by m273p15c on Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:42 pm

You said, "the physical container is not even truly mentioned." Did Jesus not pick up a literal drinking vessel (as Grimm, aka Thayer, defines "poterion") with fruit of the vine in it and bless that vessel with fruit of the vine in it? Did Jesus not drink fruit of the vine from a literal drinking vessel? Did He not then pass that vessel to His disciples, telling them to do what He just did?

Since you referred to Luke's account and interpreted it as you did, are you not saying that He conflicts with Matthew and Mark? Wouldn't it be better to keep the harmony (and perfectly so) between the synoptics by realizing that Luke wrote of the Lord's supper twice in that paragraph? I.e., he wrote in verses 15-18 about what they "did," then he wrote in verses 19-20 about what Jesus "said" about what they just did? (It isn't the first time Luke used that sort of organization.)

How did they "divide" it? Doesn't Mark's account say that "they all drank from it." Besides, doesn't the meaning of the original word for "divide" simply mean "to share," as various translations translate it? Sure it does. How beautifully it all fits together when the "consistency hermeneutic" is applied.

So would I be correct in assuming then (with reference to my original question) that you don't believe Jesus and His disciples used (shared in common) one loaf and one cup? If you don't, then I can see how the question doesn't present any consistency problem for you. However, if you do believe they used one and one, then I still need it explained to me how one can bind unleavened bread by the command to "Do this," but not the one and one.

Question: Since the statement, "This (the bread) is My body" means that "the bread represents His body," and since the statement, "This (the fruit of the vine) is My blood" means that "the juice represents His blood," then doesn't the statement, "This cup is the New Testament" (Luke & Paul) not mean that the cup represents His New Covenant that His blood was shed to ratify? If not, why not?

One more thing: I would really love to read your take on the exact meaning of the phrase "cup of blessing." I.e., cup = ? of = ? blessing = ?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:57 pm

Yes, I stick by my original statement, "the physical container is not even truly mentioned." Jesus did pick up a cup, but you know that only by inference. Please consider Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's accounts a little more closely:
Matthew wrote:And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Matthew 26:26-29)
Regarding the bread, please notice that Jesus takes bread, blesses it, brakes it, gives it, commands them to eat it, and equates, or compares it to His body. Did the subject every change during that verse? The same object is under consideration for each of these actions.

Similarly, please notice that Jesus takes "the cup", "gives it", commands them "drink from it", and equates "this" to the "blood of the new covenant". Again, please notice that the same object is under consideration throughout all of these phrases too. If not, what is the preceding antecedent to which the pronoun "this" refers? Now, if you are saying that the cup under consideration is a literal cup, opposed to a use of metonymy, thereby understanding the cup for its contents, then you must believe that a physical cup represents Christ's blood, and the contents have nothing to do with the symbolism. It's the same object represented by the pronouns throughout the verses. If "it" or "this" refers to a physical cup at the end of verse 27, then it still refers to a physical cup at the beginning of verse 28. If not, why not? You see, the continual use of a pronoun after the use of cup makes them all the same object. As you said, "poterion", does refer to a physical vessel, unless you take it figuratively, i.e., metonymy. Please see the following verses as other examples of poterion being used by the figure, metonymy: Matthew 22:22-23; Matthew 26:39, 42; John 18:11.

If "the cup" is understood as metonymy, then the text could be understood as:

Then He took the [contents of the] cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Moreover, Jesus bolsters and refreshes the identity of the pronouns, when he continues by saying:
Matthew wrote:"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (Matthew 26:29)
He is talking about the contents of the cup, the fruit of the vine, from beginning to end. The physical container is not even truly mentioned, because the use of the word is figurative. Therefore, nothing can be learned regarding the number of cups. Moreover, the emphasis is on the contents, not the cup. Consequently, there is no directive regarding the number of cups. It is a matter of expedience.

Regarding the "contradiction" between the gospels, I am sure you are aware of a similar charge that the atheist makes in comparing the resurrection accounts between the four gospels. The answer that applies to that charge also applies here: The gospels are not written so as to convey every detail about every situation. They are all abridged accounts, for obvious reasons (John 21:25). Some emphasize one part of a conversation, while others emphasize another by choosing what to record with the Spirit's guidance. The resurrection accounts are classic proofs of this point, as is Jesus' birth, Jesus' death, and occasion of the final Passover. Consequently, Luke provides some detail that is not recorded in the other gospels; otherwise, one must assume they are in contradiction.

Additionally, the chronology must stand as I gave it. Notice in verses 14 and 15, "the hour had come ... He sat down ... Then He said, 'With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer...'". They had not eaten yet. Jesus opens the meal with this preceding comment. Verse 17 follows his comment with, "Then he took the cup...". Apparently, verse 17 follows shortly after verses 14-16, because the events are connected by "then", indicating chronological sequence. However, in verse 20, we read, "Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying ...". Please note that He took the cup after supper. If verses 14-17 occurred at the beginning of the supper, and verse 20 occurs at the end of the supper, then they cannot be two descriptions of the same event, since they have opposing chronological tags. Consequently, the harmony you proposed would contradict the embedded chronology of this text. Furthermore, since both sections of verses that you outlined contain things done and said, I do not see any evidence for your division.

The word, diamerizo, primarily means to cut, or divide. It only means share in the sense that something must be divided and distributed to be shared. It is true that the NASV translates this word as "share", but the ASV, KVJ, NKJV, NIV, and YLT all translate the word as "divide". Furthermore, how could they have shared a physical vessel only? The contents can be shared and distributed, but there is no way to share a cup without sharing its contents. Remember, it only says, "took the cup". If you insert, or use any other passage to insert contents, such as fruit of the vine, you will have to use metonymy to get it in there.

Since I find no reference to the number of physical masses of bread or physical containers of fruit of the vine, I therefore understand that the Lord has no will on the subject. Consequently, such matters are left to the judgment of expediency, falling under the classification of "generic authority".

To answer your next question, please consider this: If one assumes that the container is equivalent to the New covenant, and the contents are equivalent to the Lord's blood, then how can the contents be in the container, but the "covenant in the blood"? Since the proposed symbol leads to an logical inconsistency, the figure cannot be true. It is a case of "pushing a parable too far". Matthew's and Mark's account help explain this figurative language. Additionally, Hebrews 9:18-20 helps in explaining the relationship.

Finally, in I Corinthians 10:16, Paul states that when one partakes of the "cup of blessing", he has fellowshipped, or shared in the "blood of Christ" (note that "share" is koinonia, not diamerizo). In this passage, Paul's point is not to detail the Lord's Supper, but to teach the Corinthians not to eat meat as part of the Gentiles worship to demons. He uses the Lord's Supper as a proof point, showing how participating in a feast fellowships you to the table's provider. To understand how the blood of Christ is linked to the "cup of blessing", I would point you back to the gospels where Jesus prays for the contents of the cup and links the fruit of the vine to His blood.

For truth, and in brotherly love.
Last edited by m273p15c on Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:02 pm

You said, "Yes, I stick by my original statement: 'the physical container is not even truly mentioned. ' Jesus did pick up a cup, but you know that only by inference." Perhaps you didn't know that Greek scholars such as Grimm (aka Thayer) say that the word for "cup" in Matthew 26:27 is refers to a "drinking vessel." Since the cup is clearly stated as existing, then we have to infer that the contents exist ... from later statements. I.e., it's contents you actually know by inference, not a cup; that would be some sort of inverted (perverted) figure of speech. So...

1. The cup there is a synecdoche, where one part of something is named to bring the entirety of that thing to mind (e.g., breaking bread = the entirety of the Lord's supper). And...

2. It was of that synecdoche--that singular cup of one volume of fruit of the vine--that Jesus said, "This is My blood of the New Covenant," AND "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood."

Speaking of that second statement, it literally reads in Luke's account, "This--the cup--is the New Covenant in My blood." I.e., Jesus seemed to be differentiating the container from its contents (though He never meant to imply that either is anything apart from the other). Here's the picture I get: Just as a cup without a drink element is worthless and a drink element without a cup is worthless, so the new covenant without Jesus' blood is worthless and His blood without the new covenant is worthless. So, in answer to your question, "If one assumes that the container is equivalent to the new covenant, and the contents are equivalent to the Lord's blood, then how can the contents be in the container, but the covenant in the blood?" ... it's the relationship between the two which is important (cf. #2 above). So...

Since Jesus said that something "is (represents) the New Covenant" in His supper, what on a "communion table" with "individual communion" (an oxy-moron) cups represents that NC? Didn't Jesus do three things on the cross? Since He sacrificed His body, shed His blood, and ratified a new covenant by that shed blood, why wouldn’t all three of those things be symbolized? Related...

I asked you what you believe "cup of blessing" means exactly: cup = ? of = ? blessing = ? But you declined to specify. Well, if we use the Bible to explain the Bible, then it isn't too difficult to find God's help in Isaiah 65:8, where He said not to destroy the cluster of grapes, because in it is a blessing. Cup = container. Of = containing. Blessing = the contained. That's not only a normal interpretation (hermeneutical), but also fits with Isaiah 65:8. So in 1st Cor 10:16 we have Paul referring to how that we bless a cup containing fruit of the vine. With your interpretation that "cup" in the supper is always metonymical, you have Paul saying that we bless fruit of the vine of fruit of the vine. Or, if you take "blessing" to mean something other than fruit of the vine, such as that the idea that there's a blessing in partaking, then I'd say it must be noted that, according to Paul, it's a cup of blessing "before" it's blessed. The point is, the only logical conclusion is that Paul expected the church at Corinth to take a cup of fruit of the vine (a cup of blessing) and bless it (set it apart). What's "it"? The entire entity as one unit, i.e., the container (which represents the covenant His blood was shed for) is included. Further...

Using your interpretation that the cup is the fruit of the vine, let me ask you an important question: When does the fruit of the vine become "the cup of the Lord"? For that matter, when does the bread become "the bread of the Lord" (to coin a similar phrase)?

You referred to Matt 22:22-23, 26:39, & John 18:11 as uses of metonymy in relation to poterion. Yes, but each of these are metonymies found within idioms, not, therefore, being parallel to the Lord's supper; i.e., there is a literal cup (whether you take it as a metonymy or not) taken, blessed, drank from, and passed.

You said, "If 'the cup' is understood as metonymy, then the text could be understood as, 'Then He took the [contents of the] cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."'" Yes, you could do that, but it alters the meaning when it is not necessary (breaking one of the primary rules of interpretation); i.e., we should only do such when it's absurd to take it as literal as possible. Noting especially the Greek preposition "ek" (which means "from, from out of"), we actually have it saying, "He took a cup containing fruit of the vine [a synecdoche], and gave thanks, and gave the cup containing fruit of the vine to them, saying, 'Drink FROM [or out of] this cup containing fruit of the vine, all of you. For this [now we have metonymy coming into the picture] is My blood of the New Covenant which is shed for many.'" See, there's nothing absurd about taking it this way; i.e., we have no hermeneutical authority to slide into metonymy until we get to the pronoun "this," where Jesus clearly speaks of the contents of the cup as being His blood. Also, with reference to "ek," Mark said that "they all drank FROM [or out of] it." Then, as touched on above, we have to remember Jesus also taught that the cup represents that new covenant, meaning that if we take the word "cup" in Matthew 26:27 as a metonymy instead of a synecdoche, we're doing away with the very thing Jesus said "IS the new covenant."

>From your comments on Luke 22:15-20, you seem to have misunderstood me. I don't know that I'll say it any differently than before, but here goes: Luke wrote about what Jesus and disciples DID in verses 15-18, while he wrote about what Jesus SAID concerning what they just did in verses 19-20. You cannot find the partaking of the supper itself in verses 19-20, as you seem to be doing. They ate and drank in 15-18, then Luke recorded what Jesus said to them along the way about what they did in verses 19-20. Just because Luke separates what Jesus said during the institution itself (perhaps in order to emphasize it), does not necessitate that he was out of chronological order. He merely separated what they did from what Jesus said during what they did. This makes Luke perfectly harmonize with Matthew and Mark, while your interpretation or application produces discrepancies.

Concerning the word "divide"..., we still have the Bible defining the Bible by noting that Matthew and Mark define Luke's word "divide" by "drink from it, all of you," and "they all drank from it." I challenge you to find any literate six year old who would read the accounts of the supper and come away with anything but that they shared the drink element among themselves by the use of a common cup. If I sat my family down, picked up a cup (no matter if they all had their own cups or not), drank from it, and passed it to them, telling them to "Do this," to do with it what I just did with it, there's no doubt that they would take the cup and drink from it ... not pour it into their own cups. Besides, that would imply that Jesus drank from a pitcher, not a cup, but it says He drank from a cup.

Since you said that you don't find any evidence pointing to the number of loaves, here's some relevant information...

1. The singular Greek word "artos" first and foremost in definition refers to a loaf of bread, and an infamous hermeneutical rule is to always take a word in its strictest meaning unless to do so creates an absurdity or contradicts some clear teaching in the immediate or remote context. And in the institution of the supper, not only does taking "artos" in such a manner not conflict with one of these exceptions, but the remote context (viz., 1st Cor 10:17) supports this interpretation (see #2 next).

2. The literal rendering of 1st Cor 10:17 reads, "Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, because we all partake of that one loaf." (Cf. Berry's Interlinear, the Diaglott, NIV, ASV [footnote], The Living Oracles, et al.) Note a couple sub points here...

A. The cardinal adjective and number "one" clarifies the quantity of loaves Paul had in mind and the quantity of loaves the church in Corinth was taught by him (11:2 & 23) to use in their observance of the Lord's supper. One of the reasons he spoke of this the way he did was to poke at them again for their horrible disunity (a foundation he laid in the first four chapters): i.e., as Paul taught here, not only does the one loaf represent the one physical, crucified body of Jesus, but it also represents the oneness of His church, especially among members of congregations where disunity (at least at that time) was most likely to occur (something he dealt with once again in chapter twelve, even calling them "a body," the literal of v. 27). Incidentally...

B. It's a custom of the Jews that to eat of a loaf of bread and especially to drink from the same cup of liquid is to symbolize unity or oneness: if you've ever been to a Jewish wedding, you may have noticed that it's still their custom today to not have the bride and groom drink from separate cups with their arms entwined (as my wife and I did), but to have them drink from one and the same cup to denote that the two have become one.

3. Besides the Greek word "artos," there are a couple other significant Greek words relative to the Lord's supper supporting the idea that only one loaf was used...

A. The Greek word for "break" (eklasen, Luke 22:19) in reference to the Lord's supper means "to break off" as opposed to the Greek word for "break" (kateklasen, Luke 9:16) which means "to break down into pieces."

B. The Greek word for "gave" (edoken, Luke 22:19) in reference to the Lord's supper means "to give once to all" as opposed to the Greek word for "gave" (edidou, Luke 9:16) which means "to keep on giving." So, in other words...

Jesus "broke off a piece" for Himself, then He "gave it once to all" of them to do what He had just exemplified; otherwise, if He had broken it into pieces, they couldn't have done what He just did.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:46 pm

Since I haven't heard from you since 2/22/04, and since I know it sometimes occurs that an email gets deleted making it impossible to reply, I thought I'd resend my last email to you just in case. TD PS I hope I didn't do this already. :)
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:52 am

Since I haven't heard from you since 2/22/04, and since it's possible to lose emails making it impossible to reply, I thought I'd resend our last couple emails below just in case. I realize my last one was pretty long, but I hope to back from you soon anyway.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:31 am

I apologize for the long delay. My son had been bad sick for some time, and all my spare time was devoted towards the local church here. Although somewhat delayed, it is my prayer that you will still readily consider my response.

........................................................

It seems to me that you have surrendered the bulwark of your position, when you said:
email wrote:1. The cup there is a synecdoche, where one part of something is named to bring the entirety of that thing to mind (e.g., breaking bread = the entirety of the Lord's supper). And...
Is it a literal cup? Or, is it a figure of speech? This whole time you have been riding me about it being a literal cup. You told me about how the experts, such as Grimm (aka Thayer), described poterion as a literal cup. So, which is it? Should we understand it figuratively, or literally? You can't have it both ways. Now, having admitted that Matthew's account contains a figurative expression, we must ask, "Which type of figure is used?" The context will bear it out. Rehashing my earlier argument: In both Matthew's and Mark's account, Jesus takes the cup, blesses it, commands them drink from it, and says "For this is My blood of the new covenant..." (Matthew 26:27-28; Mark 14:23-24). Please note the subject does not change throughout this whole rehearsal. So, whatever is meant by "the cup" is equated to the "blood of new covenant". Additionally, Jesus affirms the antecedant as being the contents of the cup in the following sentence, when He says "drink of this fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25). Now, we have ruled out that it was a literal cup under consideration. Unless you believe the cup represents the blood of the New Covenant? I believe we are almost agreed upon this point, based on your last correspondence. But, not fully agreed...
email wrote:2. It was of that synecdoche--that singular cup of one volume of fruit of the vine--that Jesus said, "This is My blood of the New Covenant," AND "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood."
You say, "synecdoche". I say, "metonymy". How do we tell which God intended? The context will bear it out! Rehashing my rehash: In Matthew's and Mark's accounts, if "the cup" is indeed "synecdoche", then to keep consistency, you must say: Jesus took the cup and the contents, blessed the cup and the contents, commanded the apostles to drink from the cup and the contents, stated "For the sum of this cup and its contents are the blood of the new covenant", and finally state "I will no longer drink of this cup and its contents, whoops, I mean this fruit of the vine ..." Will you disagree with this consistent application? From both Matthew's and Mark's accounts, especially Matthew's, how do you avoid Jesus equating the cup and the contents to His blood? And, how do you avoid the misdirected antecedant of "this fruit of the vine"? Only metonymy can be applied consistently in these two parallel passages: Jesus took the contents of the cup, blessed the contents of the cup, commanded the apostles to drink from the contents of the cup, stated "For the contents of this cup is the blood of the new covenant", and finally state "I will no longer drink of the contents of the cup, which is the fruit of the vine, until ..." Clearly, a container is present. How else do you contain the contents, which is the fruit of the vine? But, as has been shown by the context, a literal cup cannot be under discussion; rather, the subject is the contents. There is therefore no specific authority for number of cups.

................................

The following is presupposition. You're assuming the thing to be proven. Interesting, but not evidence. I could just as easily introduce additional elements giving them valuable symbolism, but that would be an addition ...
email wrote:... Here's the picture I get: Just as a cup without a drink element is worthless and a drink element without a cup is worthless, so the new covenant without Jesus' blood is worthless and His blood without the new covenant is worthless. So, in answer to your question, "If one assumes that the container is equivalent to the new covenant, and the contents are equivalent to the Lord's blood, then how can the contents be in the container, but the covenant in the blood?" ... it's the relationship between the two which is important (cf. #2 above). So...

Since Jesus said that something "is (represents) the New Covenant" in His supper, what on a "communion table" with "individual communion" (an oxy-moron) cups represents that NC? Didn't Jesus do three things on the cross? Since He sacrificed His body, shed His blood, and ratified a new covenant by that shed blood, why wouldn't all three of those things be symbolized? Related...
------------------------------------------

The following seems to be a big stretch. Please see discussion following yours...
email wrote:I asked you what you believe "cup of blessing" means exactly: cup = ? of = ? blessing = ? But you declined to specify. Well, if we use the Bible to explain the Bible, then it isn't too difficult to find God's help in Isaiah 65:8, where He said not to destroy the cluster of grapes, because in it is a blessing. Cup = container. Of = containing. Blessing = the contained. That's not only a normal interpretation (hermeneutical), but also fits with Isaiah 65:8. So in 1st Cor 10:16 we have Paul referring to how that we bless a cup containing fruit of the vine. With your interpretation that "cup" in the supper is always metonymical, you have Paul saying that we bless fruit of the vine of fruit of the vine. Or, if you take "blessing" to mean something other than fruit of the vine, such as that the idea that there's a blessing in partaking, then I'd say it must be noted that, according to Paul, it's a cup of blessing "before" it's blessed. The point is, the only logical conclusion is that Paul expected the church at Corinth to take a cup of fruit of the vine (a cup of blessing) and bless it (set it apart). What's "it"? The entire entity as one unit, i.e., the container (which represents the covenant His blood was shed for) is included. Further...
1) Isaiah does not even contain the phrase "of blessing". Instead, it uses the preposition "in". Therefore, it cannot be used as a parallel. This is a critical mistake. Consequently, there's nothing "normal" or "hermeneutical" about streteching Isaiah 65:8 to somehow be a parallel. It is a misapplication. 2) Since there is no linguistic parallel, to use it to show how a blessing is contained in something else is again assuming the thing to be proven. The only parallel exists if you assume I Corinthians 10:16 has the same meaning, or usage as Isaiah 65:8. 3) "blessing" is used as part of figure of speech in Isaiah 65:8. Did you not disregard such "idioms" previously? 3) I never said every usage of "cup" is metonymy. 4) There is no chronological information embedded in I Corinthians 10:16. If you assume there is some, then notice that "cup of blessing" precedes "which we bless". If there is any ordering at all, then the cup is associated with blessing before it is blessed. This seems only to hurt your case. ... I do not see where you found "before" in this verse. If you can show me how you got it, without proving that the cup was associated with blessing before being blessed, then I'll be glad to reconsider your point. 5) Notice the parallel again - cup=blood. Covenant is no where mentioned. Only Christ's body and blood are mentioned. This harmonizes easily with Matthew's and Mark's accounts: Two elements: bread=body, fruit of the vine=blood - nothing more. Where is the covenant, if the cup refers to the covenant!

------------------------------------------------------

I have not given this much thought, and do not believe there is evidence to be found within this question. Feel free to make your point, and I'll consider it. It seems a very strange question to me. It's kind of like asking, "When does bread become bread?". You'll have to explain the significance.
email wrote:Using your interpretation that the cup is the fruit of the vine, let me ask you an important question: When does the fruit of the vine become "the cup of the Lord"? For that matter, when does the bread become "the bread of the Lord" (to coin a similar phrase)?
------------------------------------------------------
email wrote:You referred to Matt 22:22-23, 26:39, & John 18:11 as uses of metonymy in relation to poterion. Yes, but each of these are metonymies found within idioms, not, therefore, being parallel to the Lord's supper; i.e., there is a literal cup (whether you take it as a metonymy or not) taken, blessed, drank from, and passed.
As I stated earlier, I believe you already surrendered this point when you admitted that the cup under consideration was a figure of speech. I did not argue that there was no cup present. I only argued that the cup is not the subject of the sentence, and I stick by that. Consistency demands it.

-------------------------------------------------------
email wrote:You said, "If 'the cup' is understood as metonymy, then the text could be understood as, ... Yes, you could do that, but it alters the meaning when it is not necessary (breaking one of the primary rules of interpretation); i.e., we should only do such when it's absurd to take it as literal as possible. Noting especially the Greek preposition "ek" (which means "from, from out of"), we actually have it saying, "He took a cup containing fruit of the vine [a synecdoche], and gave thanks, and gave the cup containing fruit of the vine to them, saying, 'Drink FROM [or out of] this cup containing fruit of the vine, all of you. For this [now we have metonymy coming into the picture] is My blood of the New Covenant which is shed for many.'" See, there's nothing absurd about taking it this way; i.e., we have no hermeneutical authority to slide into metonymy until we get to the pronoun "this," where Jesus clearly speaks of the contents of the cup as being His blood. Also, with reference to "ek," Mark said that "they all drank FROM it."
As you admitted, it could be understood this way, but you say we must take it as literally as possible. I recognize this rule, and this is indeed my very point. You cannot maintain a literal interpretation or syndoche, because you cannot maintain a consitent subject from when Jesus "took", through "bless", "gave", and finally equating to His blood. You must violate the rule about pronouns referring to the most recent applicable antecedant. If "this" from "this is my blood", does not refer back to the cup (i.e., the contents by way of metonymy), then to what does it refer back? You must harmonize this within the context.

----------------------------------------------------------
email wrote:From your comments on Luke 22:15-20, you seem to have misunderstood me. I don't know that I'll say it any differently than before, but here goes: Luke wrote about what Jesus and disciples DID in verses 15-18, while he wrote about what Jesus SAID concerning what they just did in verses 19-20. You cannot find the partaking of the supper itself in verses 19-20, as you seem to be doing. They ate and drank in 15-18, then Luke recorded what Jesus said to them along the way about what they did in verses 19-20. Just because Luke separates what Jesus said during the institution itself (perhaps in order to emphasize it), does not necessitate that he was out of chronological order. He merely separated what they did from what Jesus said during what they did. This makes Luke perfectly harmonize with Matthew and Mark, while your interpretation or application produces discrepancies.
Your argument was understood; however, as stated previously, this interpretation cannot be correct, because it VIOLATES the local context of Luke. Here's my old argument again: Additionally, the chronology must stand as I gave it. Notice in verses 14 and 15, "the hour had come ... He sat down ... Then He said, 'With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer...'". They had not eaten yet. Jesus opens the meal with this preceding comment. Verse 17 follows his comment with, "Then he took the cup...". Apparently, verse 17 follows shortly after verses 14-16, because the events are connected by "then", indicating chronological sequence. However, in verse 20, we read, "Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying ...". Please note that He took the cup after supper. If verses 14-17 occurred at the beginning of the supper, and verse 20 occurs at the end of the supper, then they cannot be two descriptions of the same event, since they have opposing chronological tags. Consequently, the harmony you proposed would contradict the embedded chronology of this text. Furthermore, since both sections of verses that you outlined contain things done and said, I do not see any evidence for your division. In brief, the first statement happens after Jesus sits down for the feast, while the other happens at the end of the supper. From Matthew's account, we know that the bread part occurred in between, "during supper". Please tell me how the first statements could have occurred at the beginning of supper, while the other statements happend at the end of supper, and yet they all happend at the same time? The chronology for your interpretation won't work. It violates the chronology inside Luke's account, regardless of anything else.

-----------------------------------------------------------
email wrote:Concerning the word "divide"..., we still have the Bible defining the Bible by noting that Matthew and Mark define Luke's word "divide" by "drink from it, all of you," and "they all drank from it." I challenge you to find any literate six year old who would read the accounts of the supper and come away with anything but that they shared the drink element among themselves by the use of a common cup. If I sat my family down, picked up a cup (no matter if they all had their own cups or not), drank from it, and passed it to them, telling them to "Do this," to do with it what I just did with it, there's no doubt that they would take the cup and drink from it ... not pour it into their own cups. Besides, that would imply that Jesus drank from a pitcher, not a cup, but it says He drank from a cup.
1) This is highly prejudicial. One could equally argue, "Name one literate six year old, who would read Luke 22:17 and not understand both the chronilogical order and that there were multiple containers!" This is no argument. Only accusation. 2) Show that he drank from a cup that was passed to the apostles. You're assuming the thing to be proven again. 4) What lexicon equates "divide" and "drink"? They are two very distinct words, which I believe we have covered previously. The text just says that "He gave to them". If one argues that "it" must be supplied, then it must be the same "it" that Jesus blessed and said "This is my blood of the new covenant ... fruit of the vine." Consistency requires it.

-----------------------------------------------------------
email wrote:Since you said that you don't find any evidence pointing to the number of loaves, here's some relevant information...

1. The singular Greek word "artos" first and foremost in definition refers to a loaf of bread, and an infamous hermeneutical rule is to always take a word in its strictest meaning unless to do so creates an absurdity or contradicts some clear teaching in the immediate or remote context. And in the institution of the supper, not only does taking "artos" in such a manner not conflict with one of these exceptions, but the remote context (viz., 1st Cor 10:17) supports this interpretation (see #2 next).

2. The literal rendering of 1st Cor 10:17 reads, "Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, because we all partake of that one loaf." (Cf. Berry's Interlinear, the Diaglott, NIV, ASV [footnote], The Living Oracles, et al.) Note a couple sub points here...
This point was discussed in the original article. ... "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17) How can "we" partake of the same one mass of bread? You have many interesting points; however, they all violate the immediate context. Look at the phrases: "we bless", "we break", "one bread and one body, for we all partake of that one bread." The tense of "partake" is present active, as are the other verbs. Please explain how Paul could partake of the same mass of bread as the Corinthians, at the same time? We're they drinking from the same physical container too? This seems to do more damage to your case than good. ... Clearly, the universal body of Christ is under context. Of what other body could Paul and the Corinthians both simultaneously be members? Since he was in Ephesus as he wrote this, for several years, how did they "bless", "break", and "partake" - present tense - from the same literal physical cup and the same literal phsical mass of bread? Is this not absurdity enough to abandon a literal interpretion and adopt a figurative interpretation?

-------------------------------------------------------

Significance of the cup...
Then, as touched on above, we have to remember Jesus also taught that the cup represents that new covenant, meaning that if we take the word "cup" in Matthew 26:27 as a metonymy instead of a synecdoche, we're doing away with the very thing Jesus said "IS the new covenant."
It seems the fundamental problems to your arguments revolve around consistency with the local context. I do not believe any of the passages you have provided indicate the cup was ever discussed, much less significant. Only Luke's account offers a statement of concern, which I would like to address here: As argued earlier, the cup must be understood as metonymy in both Matthew's and Mark's accounts; otherwise, the subject pronoun, "this", will have a missing antecedent. However, Luke's account is recorded differently, as we have noted on other points. I have no problem with this, because Luke provides additional time tags to help clarify the other two accounts. Yet, the question remains, "How are we to understand Luke's statement regarding the cup?" "Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20)

1) If there is signficiance to the cup, then it is not mentioned in Matthew's, Mark's, or Paul's I Corinthians account, per previous reasoning. Therefore, only Luke records this signficance - strange, but not conclusive.

2) If there is significance to the cup, then the symbol does not match (agrument from previous correspondence): The new covenant is in the blood, in the sense that the new covenant is sustained in the blood. It's binding, authoritative power comes from Jesus' blood (Hebrews 9:15-22). However, the cup is not inside the fruit of the vine! That makes the symbol backwards! The fruit of the vine is bound inside the cup, not the other way around. Argued the other way, the covenant does not contain the blood! There is no meaning to this containing relationship. Therefore, this symbol could not have been intended.

3) Given Matthew's and Mark's accounts, the chronology of Luke's account, the removal of significance from Paul's I Corinthian account, I must recognize that Luke is still referring to the contents of the cup, despite his additional equating to the new covenant. How do I justify this? a) Again, I feel forced to this conclusion given the context of all the other passages... b) However, this is reasonable considering the close relation between the covenant and the blood, which you previously noted. c) Although it would be a symbol on top of a symbol, it could be interpreted "This cup is the new covenant in [the form of, or embodied in] My blood, which is shed for you." (see again Hebrews 9:15-22 for justification of this relationship) Although I'm even less likely to adopt a "symbol of a symbol" interpretation, I feel forced there, given the other passages and the otherwise backwards symbolism. Since you may chide me for this, I would like to point out that you recognized this possibility, when you refered to "metonymy inside of an idiom" as a way of disregarding my other passages as proof of metonymy in relation to poterion. Additionally, if you refuse the second layer of symbolism, then I will want a literal explanation of how the blood of Christ resides and is contained inside the new covenant (see #2). I think you will need another figure to explain this, which I believe will justify my point c).

------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'm sorry for the excessive delay. I pray you are still open to studying these points. If I overlooked something, it was most likely deliberate. Many things seemed sub-points, built upon a faulty premise. I saw no reason to argue all the sub-points, when the premise was faulty, which I tried to demonstrate. Also, I thought you'd like to get this response sometime this year. Wink I know it can be frustrating when someone does not "roll over" in submission to your arguments, but I pray we can continue to study this as Christians, humbly in search of God's will, with only each other's best interests at heart. If a brotherly rebuke is needed here and there, then so be it. If I'm being deliberately blind, I want to know it, as I'm sure you do too.
Last edited by m273p15c on Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

will
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:47 pm

Post by will » Fri May 21, 2004 10:53 pm

Don't care for some of Wayne's stuff on 'fermented wine", but found this might be useful.

http://www.christiancourier.com/questio ... leCups.htm

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:59 pm

I finally got around to scanning your email to me concerning the Lord's supper. It was sent in early April. Since I lost both my parents in less than a month, things have really been upside down (you know, the estate and all). Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your email, and I will try to get around to studying it more closely and maybe even reply with or for more info. Thanks Much
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

Post Reply