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.