Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
One Cup vs One Container
A friend of mine and brother in Christ believes the “cup” mentioned in the Lord’s supper is the container. First I will present his brief argument, and then present my longer rebuttal:
“I hear people say that the text never tells us how many cups they used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper… “Then He took a cup… gave it to them and they all drank from it” (Mark 14.23).
“I hear people say there is no direct command to use only one cup in the Lord’s Supper… “Then He took a cup… saying ‘Drink from it all of you” (Matthew 26.28).
“These statements are very clear and very clearly are not metonymical, figurative references to the fruit of the vine. If there is a reason why this information and these instructions are not binding on Christians today, explain it – but simply denying the Bible says what it says does nothing helpful for a better understanding of God’s Word.”
Let’s examine Matthew 26:26-29. The strength of his argument (to me) is the preposition from/of/ex in “drink from the cup”. The weakness of his argument (to me) is I can drink “from” the container or “of” the contents; so how is the “cup” defined?
1) “the blood of the covenant” fits the imagery of drinking “of” the contents better than a container.
2) “poured out” fits the imagery of pouring liquids and therefore fits drinking “of” the contents
3) “for the forgiveness of sins” fits the theological import of blood. (All from v.28). Then Jesus completes His thoughts by saying He would drink (same word for the command in v.27) in v.29 the from/of/ek this (referring back to the drinking of vv.27-28) fruit of the vine therefore equating the fruit of the vine with the cup.
If we look at the structure chiastically we learn more:
A – 26) While they were eating, Jesus took some bread,
B – and after a blessing,
A’ He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
Notice how the chiastic structure shows the bread is the body and not that they were literally eating Jesus flesh.
Now let’s see if the chiastic structure helps define what the cup is.
A – 27) And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink (pino) from (ek) it, all of you;
B – 28) for this (i.e. “cup”) is My blood of the covenant,
B’ – which is poured out (i.e. “cup” which is blood) for many for forgiveness of sins (i.e. “cup” which is blood).
A’ 29) “But I say to you, I will not drink (pino) of (ek) this fruit of the vine (i.e. “cup” which is blood) from now on until that day when I drink (pino) it (i.e. cup) new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Notice how the flow of nouns and pronouns shows what we drink is not literal blood, but is the fruit of the vine.
Also, the chiastic structure shows that the cup of v.27 is the fruit of the vine of v.29.
As we allow the context to define the blood that we drink to be the fruit of the vine, so should we take cup as referring to the fruit of the vine and not the literal container.
Further we see how “cup” is used as an metonym when the same language is used in 1 Corinthians 10:21:
“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot share in the Lord’s table and the table of demons.”
“Cup” and “table” are both synonymous and metonyms. Just as there is not a literal table that must be used, there is not a literal cup. The literal table up front is not “the table of the Lord” any more than “the cup of the Lord” is a literal cup. Both refer to the emblems.
I love my brothers and sisters who use one container and hope for them the same grace I need.
Comments