ONE CUP OR MULTIPLE CUPS DISCUSSION - Lone …

1 1 one cup OR MULTIPLE cups DISCUSSION Steve Melton, who believes that we must partake of the fruit of the vine from one literal cup contacted me about this issue. I think we had a great DISCUSSION on the matter, though neither one of us changed our position on the matter. I would like to present our informal email DISCUSSION exactly as it happened. Perhaps you can gain some insight from our DISCUSSION that will help you to determine the truth about this matter. Please note that we could have continued the DISCUSSION further, but all good things must to come to end at some point. Since Steve made the initial response, I decided to let him have the last response as well.

2 I thoroughly enjoyed the DISCUSSION with Steve. Cougan Collins Steve s first email: Cougan, I was very perplexed by your sermon on the Lord's Supper. I do not understand why you contend for keeping the pattern and yet say the Lord allows it in the area of the " one cup "? Jesus and the apostles all used one cup , but we're excused because of metonymy? My understanding of a metonymy is a related word is used to describe the object in reference. There is no misunderstanding by Jesus example about what he drank from and what was contained therein. The burden of proof is on you to show where you have a command to use more than one cup . Please show me that proof from God's Holy Writ.

3 Sincerely, Steve Melton Cougan s first response: Thanks for writing me Steve. I appreciate your question. I would be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. I would like to begin with sharing a article by Wane Jackson with you that answer your questions below. If the things he says in his article is not sufficient to answer your questions, then please tell me why. I have several more logical and Biblical arguments that will show you that multi cups can be used for partaking of the fruit of the vine. Again, I will share these with you if Mr. Jackson letter is not enough for you. In brotherly love Cougan Are MULTIPLE Containers Prohibited in the Distribution of the Lord s Supper?

4 By Wayne Jackson Christian Courier: Questions Tuesday, May 18, 2004 Are MULTIPLE cups (containers) prohibited in the distribution of the fruit of the vine during the Lord s day communion service? Some sincere folks so contend, but what does the evidence actually indicate? Study this question with us. 2 Does Matthew 26:26-29 teach that the church must use only one cup (container) when the communion supper is served in the worship service of each local congregation on the Lord s day? I am searching for the truth. We appreciate all who are searching for the truth. The sacred text referenced above reads as follows: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it; and he gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

5 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, All of you drink of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Drink this Cup Some Christians allege that only one container may be used in the distribution of the fruit of the vine during the observance of the Lord s supper. Advocates of this position contend that there is great significance in the fact that Jesus took a cup, when he instituted the fruit of the vine. This solitary drinking container, it is claimed, sets a precedent for all time.

6 Supposedly, it was emblematic of the New Testament itself - the one covenant bound by God today. At the root of this doctrine is a lack of recognition that the container actually had no spiritual significance whatever; rather, the use of the word cup in this connection is a form of a figure of speech known as metonymy, , when one thing is put for another. An extensive DISCUSSION of this symbol is found in Dungan s work on sacred hermeneutics, which relates to the science of Bible interpretation (see Hermeneutics, Cincinnati, Standard, , p. 270ff). One form of metonymy is when a container is made to stand for its contents. We commonly employ this figure when we use such expressions as: Did he enjoy his tea?

7 Yes, he drank the whole cup. Or, the kettle is boiling. When Moses declared that the earth was corrupt in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:11), he did not allude to this orb of dirt, but to the people that inhabited it. Similarly, when John wrote that God so loved the world (Jn. 3:16), he was not referring to the globe, but to its population. The container represents the contents. That Christ was not placing emphasis upon the material container ought to be obvious from the following facts: 1. The same language is used with reference to both the bread and the cup. One was to be eaten, the other drunk. Since the bread (not a platter) was the emphasis relative to the first element, similarly, the fruit of the vine (not a container) was the focus of the second element.

8 Note that in 1 Corinthians 10:21 there is a 3 reference to the cup and the table. One is not to be pressed as literal any more than the other. 2. The disciples were instructed initially to drink of the cup, which expression means of the supply out of (from) which a thing is taken, given, received, eaten, drunk, etc. - Mt. 26:29 ( Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: Clark, 1958, p. 191; Note also that poterion (cup) is used in Luke 22:20, where Thayer observes that cup represents its contents p. 533). The reference is to the substance drunk, not the container. 3. The cup was poured out (Lk. 22:20), divided (Lk. 22:17), and drunk (Mt.)

9 26:27). All of these terms refer to the liquid, not a solid container. 4. The logical consequence of the one cup doctrine reveals the fallacy of the theory. If the use of the term cup demands that a church be restricted to one container in its practice of the communion, and yet that cup represents the New Testament, then each church would be restricted to one copy of the New Testament in its teaching program. This conclusion, of course, no one accepts. The fact of the matter is, the cup represented the Savior s blood, not the new covenant. The new covenant is mentioned simply because it was by Christ s blood that the covenant was made operative (Heb. 9:15ff).

10 A careful reading of v. 28 corrects the fallacious one covenant/ one cup theory. It is a source of great consternation that the body of Christ has been divided over such a frivolous issue, and a failure on the part of conscientious people to understand the use of a simple figure of speech. Steve s second email: In Lk22:17, did Jesus utilize a literal cup, or was the cup that the apostles drank from a figure of speech, meaning they didn't use a vessel? Does the metonymy in Lk 22:20 negate the use of a literal cup by Christ in v. 17? Can a congregation drink of a liquid without a container, if not how many containers did Jesus use when he instituted the Lord's supper?