by Wayne Fussell
Preacher’s Study Notes 1990
-
A. Question: How many cups should be used on the Lord’s Table?
-
1. We reply, “One.” Others say, “The cup has no significance.”
2. Is this so? Are there only two elements in the Lord’s Supper with any significance? What did Jesus mean then when He said, “This cup is the New Testament?” (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).
II. The Parallel Passages
-
A. Matthew 26:26-29
B. Mark 14:22-25
Note: Again, only the loaf and fruit of vine are given meaning.
C. Luke 22: 17-20
Note: This time significance is given to the cup.
D. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
Note: As in Luke, meaning is given to the cup.
E. We must take all the passages on any subject to learn truth. Example: the Great Commission (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24).
F. Notice the parallel statements concerning elements in the communion:
- “This (bread) is my body which is given for you.” (Luke 22:19)
“This (fruit of the vine) is my blood of the New Testament” (Mark 14:24)
“This cup is the new testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20)
“This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25)
-
1. The three statements are contextual, analogical, syntactical and grammatical parallels in their essential particulars.
2. Each has a subject and a predicate joined by the copula “is.”
3. Each embraces a metaphor which is a figure of comparison and which is suggested by “is”; in which usage “is” carries with it the idea of “represents.” In other words, just as the bread represents the body and the fruit of the vine the blood, so the cup represents the New Testament.
4. Each also embraces a prolepsis --- “is given,” “is shed”; anticipatory language, in which a future event is spoken of as an accomplished fact.
5. The subject of each is a literal something. If the bread is literal and the fruit of the vine is literal, then “the cup is literal.”
6. If after Christ made these statements, the bread was still literal bread but with a spiritual significance, and the fruit of the vine was still literal fruit of the vine but with a spiritual significance, then the cup was still a literal cup but with a spiritual significance.
7. If when Christ said of the bread, “This is my body which is given for you,” the bread and the body of Christ were two different things but with a spiritual relationship; and if when Christ said of the fruit of the vine, “This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many,” the fruit of the vine and the shed blood were two different things but with a spiritual relationship; then, when Christ said, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” the cup and the New Testament were two different things but with a spiritual relationship.
8. If the bread Christ took was literal bread before, when and after He took it; and if the fruit of the vine He took was literal fruit of the vine before, when and after He took it; then, the cup He took was a literal cup before, when and after He took it.
9. Jesus was no more defining “cup” than He was defining “bread” and “fruit of the vine.” Bread was still bread, fruit of the vine was still fruit of the vine, and cup was still cup.
- a. Therefore, these passages in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians are parallel statements. When they are taken together, we see that just as the loaf represents the body and the fruit of the vine represents the blood, the cup represents the New Testament.
b. The cup has meaning. It is the picture of the New Testament or New Covenant.
- Young: “A drinking vessel”
Berry: “A drinking cup”
Liddell & Scott: “A drinking-cup, wine-cup”
Bagster: “A vessel for drinking”
Robinson: “a drinking vessel, a cup”
Bullinger: “a drinking cup”
Thayer: “a drinking vessel”
Therefore, Jesus took a drinking vessel, a literal cup with literal contents.
- Moffatt: “This cup means the new covenant ratified by my blood.”
Williams: “This cup is the new covenant ratified by my blood.”
TCNT: “This cup is the new covenant made by my blood.”
Goodspeed: “This cup is the new agreement ratified by my blood.”
“He took the wine cup and gave thanks and gave it to them and they all drank from it And he said to them, 'This is my blood which ratifies the agreement, I tell you, I will never drink the product of the vine again till the day when I shall drink the new wine in the Kingdom of God” (Mark 14:23-25, Goodspeed).
From his translation, Goodspeed confirms that the fruit of the vine is the blood that ratified the New Testament, while the cup is the New Testament which was ratified by the blood.
I. Figure of Speech: Metaphor
- 1. In the clause, “This cup is the New Testament,” a metaphor is used.
2. Figure often used:
- a. Jesus said, “I am the door” - “the vine” - “shepherd”
b. Definition: “A metaphor is a trope, by which a word is diverted from its proper and genuine signification to another meaning, for the sake of comparison, or because there is some analogy between the similitude and the thing signified.” (Home’s Introduction, p. 134)
c. The cup, or drinking vessel, represents metaphorically the New Testament The copula estin, “is,” suggests a metaphor.
This is called by grammarians the copula of symbolic being. Otherwise, they say, the identity of the subject and predicate would form a conception equally impossible to both speakers and hearers (D. C. Troxel, professor of Greek In Transylvania University, from The Cup of the Lord by J. D. Phillips).
“This cup is the New Covenant.” Not it itself, surely; for the two things are distinct. Its contents, then, cannot be the blood itself. One fact shows this. Just after saying, ‘This is my blood,’ He calls the contents ‘this fruit of the vine.’ The substance, then, in the cup, remained unchanged. The esti, “is” therefore, can only be the copula of symbolic relation. The cup symbolizes, and is a seal of the new covenant. “The fruit of the vine,” then, must symbolize the blood of that covenant, and be the medium through which it is received. (The Holy Supper, H. M. Paynter, p. 182, quoted in The Cup of the Lord by J. D. Phillips).
The phrase is not, “This is the cup,” but, “This cup is the new covenant.” “This” qualifies “cup.” Nor is the cup put for its contents. It is not “the contents,” but the “cup,” including its contents, that is the “new testament” (ibid, p. 163).
J. A Troubling Phrase: “Which is shed for you”
Some have problem with this phrase and suggest that it grammatically refers back to cup. Since a cup cannot be shed, some say that it is a metonymy of the container for the contained and therefore the fruit of the vine represents the New Testament as well as the blood. Authorities have been quoted and a case made for this view.
Sometimes we must just use common sense in interpreting the Word. We understand that a cup cannot be shed, but we also know that fruit of the vine cannot be shed. It was Jesus’ blood that was shed. The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that “which is shed” refers to Jesus’ blood. Ordinary folks do not have a problem with it because we can look beyond the verbage and come to a reasonable understanding of what our Lord was saying. The simple fact is that Jesus said the cup was the New Testament, and we must accept this.
For further study of this passage, I refer you to the explanations offered by Jerry Cutter and Ellis Lindsey some years ago. (J. D. Phillips used the figure of speech “hypallage” to answer this argument. You can find his reasoning in The Cup of the Lord.)
They believe that the antecedent of which, or which is shed for you, is cup, agreeing with the lexicons, thus making the cup the fruit of the vine, rather than the literal cup. Passing quickly over this at the moment, they have found themselves in the unhappy position of having Jesus shedding fruit of the vine rather than his blood (“The Digressive View,” Jerry Cutter, quoted from notes passed out at an annual study).
III. What Is the New Testament?
- A. “Testament” (or “covenant”) denotes an agreement between two or more persons.
- 1. The cup is the symbol of that agreement made by God with Jesus concerning us. We benefit from that covenant when we enter into a covenant relationship with God.
Covenant, from “con,” “together,” and “venio,” “I come,” signifies an agreement, contract, or compact, between two parties, by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on certain conditions and penalties (Adam Clark).
2. The Greeks had two words for covenant viz., suntheke and diatheke. The former was used to denote a solemn agreement made between equals; and the latter, to denote any arrangement made by a superior for the acceptance and observance of an inferior. And hence it is, that all of God’s covenants are expressed in Greek by diatheke. The suntheke is not found in the New Testament; but diatheke occurs in it thirty-three times; and b’reeth is used 267 times in the Old Testament. Three things are implied in every covenant, viz., the covenantor, the covenantee and the various stipulations which are made and entered into by the parties (Robert Milligin, p. 77).
3. The word originally “was an agreement between two clans or tribes represented by their leaders, and also between individuals for themselves ...” The main object of such early agreements was the promotion of peace and safety, since the natural condition of primitive man was that of warfare: (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia).
4. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “In essence a covenant is an agreement, but an agreement of a solemn and binding force.”
5. All covenants have certain common characteristics. James Hastings (A Bible Dictionary) points out four:
- · Every covenant implies two parties.
· A covenant benefits at least one of the parties.
· A covenant creates a new relation between the parties
· A covenant creates a right for each party.
- • A statement of the terms agreed upon.
• An oath by each party to observe the terms.
• A curse invoked if the terms are not observed.
• The formal ratification of the covenant by a solemn act.
B. Major covenants between God and men had signs or symbols:
- · Covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:12-17) --- Rainbow
· Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14) --- Circumcision
· Covenant with Israel (Leviticus 12:3) --- Circumcision
· Covenant of Salt (Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5) --- Salt
· New Covenant - (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) --- Cup
IV. Covenants and Blood
(“the New Testament in my blood,” “blood of the New Testament”)
- A. J. D. Phillips told us in a study many years ago about the custom of making covenants in ancient Oriental countries. The people making the covenant would sit around a table. Each would draw blood from his body into a cup and then the cup would be passed around. Each person would take a sip of the mingled blood. This sealed the covenant or agreement between those individuals. J. D. suggested that this practice would have been well-known by those who were present for the institution of the Lord’s Supper. While they could not drink blood, they could drink a symbol of blood. All ancient societies have blood covenants.
B. Blood has always been associated with God’s covenants from beginning.
- 1. Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15)
God promised Canaan to Abraham. He told him to bring a young bull, goat, ram, dove and pigeons and kill them. These constitute the representative categories of sacrificial birds and animals. Abraham killed all of these and split the animals in two, lay each half over against the other, leaving a passageway between. In Jeremiah 34:18 we are informed that this was a solemn way of ratifying a covenant The parties to the covenant killed an animal, dividing the carcass lengthwise. They placed the pieces opposite each other and walked between them to meet in the middle, where they took the ritual oath.
Abraham did as God required, and at sunset he heard God speaking and saw a smoking furnace and burning lamp pass between pieces of animals, symbolizing that God was entering into a covenant. “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.” (Genesis 15:18). The point is, blood was shed in sealing this all-important covenant.
2. The Old Covenant (Exodus 24:4-8)
a. Note: The “book of the covenant” was one thing --- the “blood of the covenant” was another (2 Kings 23:2; 2 Chronicles 34:30; Hebrews 10:29).
b. Both the blood and the covenant were visible. On the Lord’s Table, both the cup and its contents are visible. Just as the people could see the covenant and the blood which ratified it, we can see a symbol of the covenant and a symbol of the blood which ratified that covenant.
- a. Hebrews shows how the ratifying of the Old Covenant was typical of the ratifying of the New. The blood of animals was sprinkled on the “book of the covenant” then. The blood of Christ ratifies (makes effective) the New.
b. Take note: The blood of the Old Testament was not the testament. And the blood of the New Testament is not the testament. The blood ratified the testament.
c. Matthew and Mark call the fruit of the vine “the blood of the New Testament.” Luke and Paul call the cup “the new testament in the blood”—Two vastly different statements. Matthew and Mark give significance to the grape juice. Luke and Paul gives significance to the cup. Matthew and Mark emphasize the blood, while Luke and Paul emphasize the New Covenant. Is that a contradiction? No more than the differences between the accounts of the Great Commission given by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Is baptism less important or unnecessary because it is not mentioned by Luke? Is repentance unnecessary because it is not mentioned by Matthew and Mark? Is belief unimportant because it is not imposed by the accounts of Matthew and Luke? The answers are self-evident.
C. Thayer says: “1 Corinthians 11:25; Luke 22:20 .. . (In both which the meaning is, ‘This cup containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by the shedding of my blood an emblem of the new covenant’” (p. 15).
D. James D. Bales writes in the Firm Foundation, July 17,1973:
“What is the New Covenant? .. . His blood is the blood of the covenant, His blood made the covenant operative, but the Covenant is not the blood itself, although the cup whose contents symbolized His blood was said to be the new Covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20). However, Christ is the mediator of the Covenant (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). He is not the mediator of his blood. His blood dedicated the Covenant and made it operative (Hebrews 9:15-26). His blood is the blood of the everlasting covenant, but it is not the blood of the everlasting blood --- as it would have to be if the blood and the covenant are the same thing (Hebrews 13:20).”
Even this scholarly brother who believes that it is all right to use individual cups, sees the difference in the blood and the covenant. We would wish that he could see the need to have only one cup to represent the covenant on the Lord’s Table.
V. The Cup Is a Sign of the New Covenant
- A. Genesis 9: 16-17 reads, “And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”
B. God made a covenant, an agreement to never destroy the earth again by water. The rainbow was a token, sign or symbol of that agreement.
In like manner, the cup is a sign or token of the New Testament or new agreement. When we see the cup in communion, we are reminded of the agreement God made with Christ concerning our salvation.
C. Someone might argue, “We do not need a token of the New Testament. We have the New Testament itself.”
But remember: The cup is a symbol of the covenant --- not a symbol of a book of New Testament writings. The New Covenant is not a book. In your copy of the sacred Scriptures, the title page probably bears this statement “The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.” This statement is correct, but not in the sense it is intended. There are not thirty-nine books in the “Old Testament.” There are not twenty-seven books in the “New Testament.”
The New Testament Scriptures explain the agreement and its terms. It was written to a covenant people --- those who had entered into a covenant relationship with God. Also, the New Testament was written when Jesus said, “This cup is the new testament.”
VI. Remembrance of the Covenant
- A. In the communion we remember Jesus. When we remember Him, we should remember the covenant He instituted. The Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal.
B. Illustration: In eastern countries, the act of eating with someone is very meaningful. It suggested that those who ate together bound themselves to care for and protect one another.
-
1. The same is true among Indians. Eating a common meal equals promise never to hurt one another or be unfaithful. So, a covenant is suggested by the very act.
2. When Jesus invites us to His table, something very similar is implied. In a sense, we renew our covenant with Him each time we take the cup. We promise to be faithful to the covenant.
a. On the table we have a reminder of that covenant.
b. Judas was unfaithful: Psalm 41:9 reads, “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.”
c. In literal meaning, “sacrament” has a good purpose. It is from the Latin, “sacramentus”, which alluded to the oath Roman soldiers used when they swore to be faithful to the Emperor. We promise to be faithful to the Lord. We are reminded of that covenant each Lord’s Day in a very special sense.
B. Let us realize that the blood and the covenant are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. The blood seals the covenant; the covenant makes the benefits of the blood available.
This is beautifully portrayed in the communion. The cup, which represents the New Testament, and the fruit of the vine, which represents the blood, are also inseparable. Just as the New Covenant conveys the benefits of the blood, the cup conveys the representative of that blood. And the presence of the fruit of the vine in the cup is that which makes the cup significant. There is no covenant without blood. The cup does not represent the testament without the emblem of blood.
C. There is only one New Covenant. There must of necessity be but one cup to symbolize it.
6126 Land 0’ Trees, Shreveport, LA 71119
No comments:
Post a Comment