Preacher’s Study Notes 1996
Although the subject now under consideration is not the burning issue that it was a few years ago, we must not assume it is unimportant. Many today relegate it to a secondary position and seldom study the subject or teach on it. We must remember however, that a failure to teach a subject may cause loss of faith in that subject. Faith comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17). If we never hear anything about the cup, the inevitable result will be a loss of faith concerning it. When we lose faith, we lose our motivation and dynamic. This may explain our lack of zeal and fervor for this subject and other basic doctrinal issues as well. Consequently, we must study God’s Word regarding the cup, and teach it continually.
Is the cup singular or plural?
Obviously the word “cup” is singular. It is not “cups” of blessing. The word “cups” is never used in the Bible with reference to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus began the Supper using a single cup, and it is not difficult to understand the language.
“Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.” (Matthew 26:27, NKJV).
“And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it” (Mark. 14:23).
These verses clearly teach that Jesus took one cup, blessed one cup, commanded His disciples to drink of one cup, and they drank of one cup. If men today would accept that which is simple and obvious, and obey the plain commands about the Lord’s Supper, there would be no problems with it. However, when men wish to change the simple and obvious, they sometimes resort to strange reasoning to do it.
For example, to get around the fact that a single cup was used in the Lord’s Supper, there are those who try to prove that 1 Corinthians 10:16 contains two cups. The argument goes like this: although the singular “cup” is employed, it refers to at least two cups because Paul uses the plural “we” to describe those who blessed it. Paul wrote from Ephesus, and he included both Corinth and Ephesus, when using the phrase “cup of blessing which we bless.” Then the conclusion is reached: if singular “cup” can include two cups, it can include hundreds of them.
There is one basic problem with this reasoning. If the congregation at Ephesus and the one at Corinth both blessed the same cup, they were of necessity worshipping in an inter-congregational capacity. If all congregations of the church bless the same cup, the church is worshipping in a universal capacity. There is no other possible conclusion. There is, however, no scriptural precedent for a universal or inter-congregational function of the church.
In the Bible, each congregation is independent of all others. The church does not act on any level other than the congregational unit. Ephesus blessed a cup and Corinth blessed a cup, but they did it independently of each other. The only way to get two cups from this situation is to have two congregations.
A scriptural parallel to this is the observance of the Passover by the nation of Israel. They were commanded to have a “lamb for an house” (Exodus 12:3). This meant that they were to observe the Passover on a household level. Yet, Exodus 12:5 reads, “your [plural] lamb [singular] shall be without blemish.” They understood this to be one lamb for each household. They did not say as people do today, “the word ‘your’ is plural, and that means there were many households in Israel. If there were many households there were many lambs and that means each house could use several lambs.” The fallacy of this is that the Passover was observed on a household level and not on a national level. Just as each household was to have one lamb, each congregation of the church is to have one cup.
The plural “we” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 refers to the assembled members of each congregation. It is not a reference to congregations forming the universal church. Jamison, Fausset, and Brown identify “we” as “we the many (viz, believers assembled, so the Greek).”1 Alford put it this way, “we (the assembled).”2 These and other scholars recognize that the only level of communion is the congregation. The church functions in no other way.
The Apostle Paul used the pronoun “we” to include himself with the Corinthians in spirit. He often does this in his writings, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 is one such example.
Is the cup one thing and the blessing another?
To answer this, we must find out what the “cup of blessing” means. There are at least three positions about what constitutes the “cup of blessing.”1. Among Bible commentators, the most popular position, is that it refers to the third or perhaps the fourth cup in the Passover feast. This view is based upon the fact that Jesus had been observing the Passover when He instituted the Supper. It is therefore believed that if He were observing the Passover, He must have used a drinking vessel from that feast.
It is never a good idea to take a view that is contrary to world scholarship. If one does take such a view, it must be with extreme caution. Here however, the stance taken by many scholars is based upon assumption rather than Bible facts. First, it is assumed that the Passover included a drink element. Second, it is assumed that Jesus observed the Passover using a drink element. Third, it is assumed He used a cup from the Passover when founding the Lord’s Supper.
The facts are, there was no drink in the Passover feast. The four or five cups of the Passover were introduced much later in history and were a tradition of men. In view of Jesus’ severe condemnation of these traditions (Matthew 15:9), it is not likely that He followed them in this regard. If Jesus did not follow their traditions, He did not use a cup from the Passover. G. G. Findlay says concerning the view that makes the “cup of blessing” the third or fourth cup of the Passover “such a technical Hebraism would scarcely obvious to the Corinthians.”3 The Corinthians were Gentiles and did not understand Jewish tradition. Paul then surely did not employ Jewish tradition as a means of explaining the communion to the Gentiles. Jewish tradition would make no sense to them.
Someone may wonder, if the cup Jesus used was not from the Passover where did it come from? The answer is, Jesus (or someone) brought it for the express purpose of using it in the Supper. The memorial Supper was not begun suddenly or on a whim. Jesus had planned it and was prepared for it.
Again, someone might ask, what does the cup in Luke 22:17 refer to if not to a Passover cup? It refers to the cup used by Jesus in the Lord’s Supper. The fact that Luke mentioned the cup again (v. 20) does not prove that the first cup mentioned was a Passover cup. This is simply an instance of Luke making a general statement and then a more precise statement about the cup. Both statements are alluding to the same cup, the one in the Lord’s Supper.
2. A second description of the “cup of blessing” is that it is a cup over which a blessing is pronounced. The NIV translates it “a cup of thanksgiving,” implying that it is a cup over which thanks is offered. This position is similar to the above but without the trappings of the Passover. It is much closer, I think, to the truth than the first position. That thanks (or a blessing) was offered for the cup in the Lord’s Supper is true. In this sense, as Thayer says, it is a “consecrated cup.”4 It is a cup set aside for communion by offering thanks for it.
3. There is a third view, and I believe the correct one, which affirms that the “cup of blessing” is a cup, containing or conferring a blessing. Olshausen expresses this view in these words, “. . . if we take the poteerion, not passively, ‘cup, that is blessed’ but actively, ‘cup which confers blessing, the cup of blessing.’" F. L. Godet quotes Heninrici who says of 1 Corinthians 10:16, “the cup which contains the blessing of Christ.”6 G. G. Findley comments that it is “the cup which gives blessing, for which we give blessings to God.”7 Then finally, Joseph Exell says of the cup of blessing, “... it [cup] contains the blessing, the long promised, long looked for blessing. The wine in the cup is impregnated with blessing.”8 The idea of all these scholars is that the contents of the cup represents the blood, and His blood (death) is the source of all spiritual blessings.
It does not matter whether one contends that “the cup of blessing” is a blessed cup or a cup containing a blessing, the cup is one thing and the blessing is another.
Is the cup and the fruit of the vine the same?
Our cups brethren have been trying to prove for years that the cup and the fruit of the vine are the same. This verse (1 Corinthians 10:16) however does not help them. There are three basic views concerning this question.1. There are those who take a literal view. Thayer, for instance, lists 1 Corinthians 10:16 under the literal use of the word poterion (cup).9 The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia states, “the cup of wine in the Lord’s Supper is called a cup of blessing.”10 These scholars suggest that the “cup of blessing” is a literal cup containing literal grape juice. If the cup of blessing is literal, it is impossible for it to be the same as the fruit of the vine. A cup is a solid and the fruit of the vine is a liquid.
2. Some believe the phrase cup of blessing is figurative. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich cite “cup” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 under the literal usage, indicate in their comments that it is "used by metonymy.” Lenski states 1 Corinthians 10:16 is a “figure which names the vessel when its contents are referred to.”12 These quotes show that some Bible students understand the cup of blessing to be a figure of speech called metonymy. The reason some scholars list “cup” under literal usage and then say it refers to the contents, is because metonymy requires a literal cup to suggest its contents.
Metonymy is, “a figure of speech by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation.”13 Three things are involved in this definition of metonymy: 1. the thing named, 2. the thing suggested, 3. the relationship between the two objects.14
By applying the above definitions to 1 Corinthians 10:16, we would have the following conclusions:
In this type of metonymy, both the thing named (cup of blessing) and the thing suggested (fruit of vine) must exist.15 One cannot be literal and the other imaginary. The cup is just as literal as the fruit of vine which it suggests.
1. the thing named (cup of blessing);
2. the thing suggested (fruit of the vine);
3. the relationship between the two (fruit of the vine is in the cup).
Also, the thing named (cup of blessing) and the thing suggested (fruit of the vine) cannot be the same. The “cup of blessing,” which is named is one thing, and the “fruit of vine,” which is suggested, is another. It takes both the cup and the fruit of the vine to make metonymy. If 1 Corinthians 10:16 is metonymy and the “cup of blessing” refers to what is in the cup, then what is in the cup is not the cup.
3. There are a few individuals who think the cup of blessing is used in 1 Corinthians 10:16 as a metaphor. Bullinger is one scholar who takes that position.16 He says of a metaphor, “that one thing is another thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. The two nouns must both be mentioned, and always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense. The figure lies wholly in the verb, or copula, which in English, must always be expressed and never understood ellipsis.” E. W. Bullinger then gives an example of a metaphor, “all flesh is grass.” In this metaphor, flesh is literal and grass is literal. The figure is in the verb “is.”
Bullinger translates 1 Corinthians 10:16, “the cup of blessing is it not [i.e., does it not represent] the communion of the blood of Christ.”17 The point being made by Bullinger is that the “cup of blessing” is literal and that which it represents (joint participation of the blood) is also literal. If the “cup of blessing” is a metaphor, it does not make the cup and the fruit of the vine the same.
By any law of language, the cup and the fruit of the vine cannot be the same.
“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).
Do we drink the cup? or the contents?
Clearly, this verse says, “drink this cup.” One of the first rules of language is that words should be understood in their literal sense unless it creates an impossibility.18 Since it is impossible to drink (swallow) a literal cup, the phrase must be understood figuratively. As in 1 Corinthians 10:16, this too is metonymy of the container for the contained. In this metonymy, one thing is named (cup) to suggest something else (fruit of vine) which is closely associated with it (fruit of vine is the contents of the cup).
Thayer comments on 1 Corinthians 11:27 under the definition of the word “drink,” and he says, “this cup” i.e. what is in the cup.19 One can drink what is in “the cup,” only if, it is in a cup. If it is in cups, it would have to be, “drink the cups.” In metonymy of the container for the contained, one can suggest the contents of only as many cups as he names. The plural and singular do not change in metonymy. The reason the fruit of the vine in 1 Corinthians 11:27 is referred to as “this cup,” is because it is in the cup. The fruit of the vine cannot be called a “cup” when it is not in a literal cup.
The answer to the question, “Do we drink the cup? or the contents?” is: we drink the cup by drinking what is in the cup.
Did the church in Jerusalem use one cup for the city?
This question assumes that the city of Jerusalem had only one congregation and that it was too large to use one cup. The argument is then advanced that several cups would have to be employed to accommodate the crowd.
There is no scriptural or historical proof that the early church met in large assemblies. That the church in Jerusalem met in assemblies of thousands is pure supposition. Actually the evidence points in the direction of small home assemblies to observe the Lord’s Supper.
Notice Acts 2:46, "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart” (KJV).
The “breaking bread from house to house” is in contrast to their meeting in the temple. The words “continuing daily” modifies temple not breaking bread house to house. They met daily at the temple, but their home meetings were not necessarily on a daily basis. The NIV guards against the impression that they met daily at home by making two sentences of verse forty two: “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts” (NIV).
There is a solid body of scholarship20 that confirms the early church met in their homes and not in large assemblies.
So, how did the large numbers in Jerusalem meet to partake of the Lord’s Supper? They did it by meeting in small home assemblies. They did not use one cup for the city, but one for each congregation.
What can we scripturally prove and what do we surmise in this regard?
We can prove that the church in Jerusalem met to “break bread house to house.” In Acts 2:42, the phrase, “breaking of bread” has the article “the” before “breaking” as well as before “bread.” It would literally be “the breaking of the bread.” This would indicate that a specific breaking of a specific bread is under consideration, viz, the bread of the Lord’s Supper. The article is not found in verse 46, but it does not have to be because it has already been established that a specific bread is referred to. It is not likely that Luke used the phrase “breaking of bread” in two different ways in the same context. In both verses, the “breaking of bread" is the Lord’s Supper, and they met in homes to observe it.
We can prove there is scriptural authority for more than one congregation in a city, but we cannot prove there is authority for more than one cup. We can prove the early church used one cup and that disproves assemblies too big for one cup. It takes more surmising on the part of the cups advocates to establish large assemblies than to establish one cup in each small assembly. The large assemblies argument is like most arguments used by our cups brethren --- they prove nothing.
In truth, the Bible teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper is not that difficult to understand. We would not have to revert to metonymy, metaphor, syllogism, etc. if men would accept the simple truths concerning the communion.
1. Jameson, Fausset, and Brown., One Volume Commentary (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishing and Authors Inc.), p. 282.
2. Henry Alford, D. D., The Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), vol. 2, p. 558.
3. G. G. Findley, B.A., The Expositors Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll M.A. LL.D. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. reprint 1990), vol. 2, p.863.
4. Joseph Henry Thayer D.D., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), p. 260.
5. Dr. Herman Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1858), vol. 4, p. 315. -
6. F. L. Godet, First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 77.
7. Findley, op. cit., p. 863.
8. Joseph Exell, The Bible Illustrator (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958) vol. 7, p. 32.
9. Thayer, op. cit., p. 533.
10. The Popular and critical Bible Encyclopedia, Edited by R Samuel Fallows A.M., D.D., LL.D., (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1913), vol. 1, p. 484.
11. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 7C
12. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (Minneapolis: Augusbury Publishing House, 1963) p. 408.
13. E. W. Bullinger D.D., Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1968), p. 408.
14. George Battey, Debate Notes Individual Cups, (Jonesboro, GA; Privately Published 1994) p.41.
15. William, Williams, Composition and Rhetoric, (New York; D.C. Heath & Co. 1923), p. 220.
16. Bullinger op. cit., p.741.
17. Bullinger op. cit., p.735.
18. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Co.,), p. 195.
19. Thayer op. cit., p.510
20. The Expositor’s Greek Testament op. cit., p. 97; Jameson, Fauset, and Brown op. cit., p. 259; Alford op. cit., p. 31. These are but a few. Most Bible scholars recognize that the early church met in homes in the first century.
No comments:
Post a Comment