The Lord's Supper

Blog Archive

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Sanitation in Communion

Second Edition
by James D. Orten
Knoxville, Tennessee
and Alton B. Bailey
La Grange, Georgia

An Informer Publication
909 Truitt Ave.
LaGrange, Georgia 30240
December 1993
(Not yet edited for errors!)

Table of Contents

Part I: CONTROVERSY OVER A SYMBOL OF UNITY
A. What Does It Say About Christ?
B. Does Jesus Care?

Part II: HOW DID JESUS SET UP HIS SUPPER?
A. Little Disagreement on the Facts
B. Must We Follow the Lord’s Example?
C. Guidelines and Blueprints
D. The Inventor of Individual Cups

Part III: SCIENCE AND SANITATION IN COMMUNION
A. A British Government Study
B. The University of Chicago Study
C. A Canadian Department of Health Study
D. A Study With Problems
E. Gill’s Review
F. The First Fifty Years
G. Summary

Preface
The first edition of Sanitation in Communion was published by brother Alton Bailey exactly ten years ago. In that booklet, he pulled together articles and reports on the topic from an impressive variety of sources. Those included stale-news by pioneer preachers, medical doctors, scientists and others knowledgeable on the subject Five thousand copies of the booklet were struck in the original printing, and a second issue of equal number was soon required. This number gave it a wide distribution for a publication that is of interest mainly to members of the church of Christ. That little volume, out of print for some time, did a great deal of good.

In the Fall of 1992, brother Bailey approached me to see if I would help him do a second edition of Sanitation in Communion. We agreed that the topic is still of great relevance, perhaps more than ever because of publicity around the recent AIDS epidemic. In times of high emotion, Christians, as is true of everyone else, need solid information.

We agreed also that a thorough study of the medical/scientific aspects of the topic is needed, one that pulls no punches, allows readers to know in depth what human evidence has to contribute on the issue, and gives guidance in evaluating the quality of that information. It was human evidence that ticked off the germ scare that brought about a change in the communion service about a century ago. As it turns out, that evidence was faulty. But as is usually true in hysterical reactions, the original scare got much more publicity than the gradual and sober turn around that followed. Although I am convinced that any scholar could have done such an inquiry, it was believed that my training in the scientific method and access to an excellent research library would be a help. I considered it an honor to be asked.

Brother Bailey and I agreed on still another matter: i.e. that the best evidence for Christians is always in the Bible. The track record of humanity’s search for truth is weak by the most optimistic estimates. The absolute truth of God’s Word should never be sacrificed in favor of human evidence. Our agreement on these convictions guided, to some extent dictated, the organization of the booklet.

Part I of this volume discusses Biblical evidence that God and Jesus, when He was on earth, knew about the causes of diseases and the ways they are transmitted. It also discusses the depth of God’s love for mankind. These truths give Christians the best possible assurance that they will not be hurt in observing the Lord’s Supper as Jesus instituted it.

Part II describes how Jesus set up the Lord’s Supper. For spiritual and physical welfare, we must make sure that we know exactly what the Lord did when He instituted this part of the public worship.

Part III begins with a discussion of the limits of science in discovering truth. It continues by describing good studies and poor ones and noting common methodological weaknesses, such as drawing conclusions that are not supported by data. Then, all the studies of communion, revealed by a computer search of the literature, are analyzed in depth. We conclude this section by looking at the studies completed in the early days of the communion cup controversy. Most readers will be surprised at what modern scholars have to say about the quality of the evidence that caused such a controversy in the religious world and created a division in the Lord’s church.

Many persons gave support and encouragement to the project. We thank them all Preachers of the gospel, physicians, pharmacists, and other professionals reviewed the manuscript and gave valuable suggestions. Their names are listed in the back of the booklet. We are indebted to Joe Norton, Ph.D. of Arlington, Texas, who did the final edit of the manuscript. Susan Ayers, of the Oakwood church in Edmond, Oklahoma, has our special thanks for the tasteful design on the front cover.

We send the booklet forth with goodwill toward all, malice toward none, and a prayer that the Lord’s cause will be served through it.

James D. Orten
Knoxville, Tennessee
November 1, 1993

Part I
Controversy Over A Symbol Of Unity

Great Bible scholars have described the observance of the Lord’s Supper as man’s highest act of worship, the place where “the deepest draughts of spiritual life” are drawn? That description is appropriate. It honors the world’s greatest sacrifice, the death of the Son of God on the cross of Calvary. The lofty purpose of that sacrifice was reconciliation and unification—reconciliation of God and man from the alienation caused by human sins and unification of men with each other through the love of God and Christ. The meaning of the word communion signifies this sublime purpose. Synonyms are fellowship, association, joint participation, and intimacy.2

The context in which the Lord’s Supper was established was noble and solemn. It was during the Last Passover that Jesus ate on earth, one He said He had looked forward to with great desire (Luke 22:15). As they ate, the Lord explained how the Son of Man would be crucified as it was prophesied of Him. He described how He would be betrayed by one of His own disciples. In this rare atmosphere, Jesus symbolized the end of the Old Testament order and the beginning of the New Testament age by establishing His memorial at the end of that Passover celebration. Even the disciples’ description of the scene is simple and elegant

As they were eating. Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup. and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28).

How sad that this sacred symbol of love and unity should have become a source of contention and division among members of the body of Christ. Although there are differences over more than one aspect of the Lord’s Supper, the widest division and the most acrimonious debate has been ova how many cups should be used in distributing the fruit of the vine. Until early in the Twentieth Century, no church of Christ used individual communion cups. All churches practiced some form of sharing of the communion cup. and many were committed to the use of one. This practice fits the example of Jesus as “He took a cup and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying, Drink of it, all of you” (RSV, Matthew 26:27-28).

Members of the body of Christ. for good reasons, are usually adamant against making changes in patterns the Lord has given. Why the change of attitude on this integral pan of the worship? To answer that question, one must understand the times in the Inner part of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. Medical science was just beginning to discover the role of microorganisms in human health and illness. ‘The state of their knowledge did not allow them to know that many bacteria are beneficial and some essential to human life. They had only sketchy knowledge about how microorganisms are transmitted and how the body handles them.

A real germ hysteria developed. Many people became frightened of drinking after each other in using a single cup for the congregation. In some denominations, extreme measures were taken. Dr. J. 0. Thomas, a physician and Presbyterian minister, is reported to have had members of his church bring their own cups to worship, spraying them with carbolic acid and examining them under a microscope to make sure all organisms were killed) Such measures sound foolish and they were, but they show the state of fear at the time.

There were, to be sure, wise heads who spoke out to calm the fear and oppose the changes being proposed because of it. These men, such as G. A. Trott, a pioneer preacher and medical doctor, pointed out that no one had ever been known to be hurt by participating in the Lord’s Supper.’ That statement is still true. Out of their faith, they argued that God would not inaugurate a practice that endangered His followers. Nevertheless, for many persons, fear carried the day and in 1915 the first congregation of the church of Christ broke ranks with her sister churches around the world and followed the denominations by installing the newly-invented individual communion set

• One would think that a controversy that began when medical science was young and crude could be settled by the space-age technology now available. It has been, as far as the general medical community is concerned, as we shall see later. But oddly, some Christians are still frightened. And, in the debate that flares occasionally, some of the most derogatory terms are used toward those who hold to the original pattern. For example, the practice is called filthy, and their intelligence is even questioned.

Since the controversy was unsettled during years when diseases were not headline matters, we think it is likely to get worse with the advent of illnesses, such as AIDS, and the alarmist publicity that has attended them. It is vitally important that Christians examine the evidence and decide once and for all whether their health is at risk in following the Lord’s directions in communion and other matters.

What Does It Say About Christ?
Christians may not realize the statements they are making about Christ when they argue that their health is endangered by observing the communion as Jesus instituted it. If one risks a disease by following the Master’s example, then

    a) Jesus did not know about diseases, or
    b) He did not care about His disciples.
Neither of these conclusions is worthy of Christians.

Let us examine each assumption more closely. First, is there Biblical evidence that Jesus knew, at the time He lived on earth, about the causes of diseases and the ways they are transmitted? The evidence is sufficient to convince the most demanding inquirer if it is received and evaluated objectively. For example. Paul said of Jesus, ”By Him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible...” (Colossians 1:16). Visible things in earth would include elephants, and invisible things would include viruses and bacteria.. Is it reasonable to think the Lord had knowledge and power to create these organisms but lacked understanding of how they work?

Not only did Christ know how diseases develop. He had power to cure them. “And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Matthew 9:35). Notice that the Master did not heal just some mild illnesses, but every type of disease.
Leprosy baffled medical scientists for centuries, but Jesus healed it with a word. “There came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying. I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed” (Matthew 8:2-3). In describing the same case, Luke (5:12) indicates the man’s disease was in an advanced stage. Terminal cases of deadly diseases were no more difficult for the Lord than early forms of easily curable diseases.

Jesus gave His disciples power over diseases and evil spirits (Matthew 10:1) and they amazed both the people and themselves (Luke 10:17). The power over diseases that Jesus demonstrated so convincingly should not surprise us, for the Lord had power over everything. “All power is given unto rue in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). Is it a great thing that the one who could stop storms, raise the dead, and open blind eyes also had power over diseases?
Centuries before Jesus cured lepers in Palestine, His Father demonstrated the same type of power with the Egyptians. With God’s power, Moses brought diseases upon the Egyptians and their cattle while the Israelites and their animals were spared (Exodus 9:1-1l). Later God reminded the Jews that He had this power and promised to use it for their benefit. “If thou wilt diligently hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God ... and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee” (Exodus l5:26; see also Deuteronomy 7:15).

The promise of God to protect the Hebrews in their obedience was repeated by Solomon. “Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones” (Proverbs 3:7-8). The navel and bone marrow were considered centers of sustenance and health as, indeed, they are. The navel is the site of nourishment for the unborn and bone marrow makes a strong contribution to health throughout life.

Although there have been special and miraculous cases, the protection God promises conies primarily through the general laws that govern the universe and the moral and religious laws given to His followers. The book of Leviticus, often called the Public Health Manual of the Bible, contains wonderful illustrations of religious laws that serve physical and spiritual purposes. Such requirements as isolating the sick, washing in miming water, and cleansing houses after sicknesses and death have clear health benefits. These practices also indicate God’s knowledge of how diseases are transmitted.

The Israelites may not have known why they were not allowed to eat animals that were killed by wild beasts or that died of themselves, but we know that seven] diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans. Even the eighth day for circumcising male children was not a random choice. We cannot read what was in God’s mind when he made the choice. But we do know that vitamin K, which facilitates blood clotting, is produced by bacteria in human intestines, and this process is not fully developed until a few days after birth. Can there be any doubt that God, who made the human body, knows what is beneficial for its health?
Does Jesus Care?

If we accept that Jesus knows what is good for human health, does He also love enough to cause Him to use that infinite knowledge in our behalf? The question itself may sound blasphemous to the truly devout. John said, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). It does seem strange, does it not, that humans would question God’s goodwill when He has already made the supreme sacrifice in our behalf by giving His son for our sun

One facet of the meaning of the word “loved” in John 3:16 is to be full of goodwill and to exhibit it with actions.5 That definition is profoundly fitting in view of what God did for mankind. The complex little word “so,” that precedes love, is used as an adverb of degree. It suggests that without some action to illustrate it, humans would not be able to understand the depth of God’s love. Having loved in this way, would He then allow practices to be set in motion that put His children at risk?

God, who created man in His own image, respects the human body more than most humans do. Paul said “What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (I Corinthians 6:19-20).

These statements were made in the context of teaching Christians to stay away from sexual sins. Paul said that the person who commits fornication “sins against his own body.” Dr. MacKnight interprets this phrase to mean pollution of the body with diseases.’ The world became worried about sexually transmitted diseases several decades ago, and worry has become open fear in the last few years. But God was concerned about these diseases for man when the Sacred Word was given. Is it logical that He would give such instructions and then organize His worship in a way that would put us in danger of catching those diseases?

Paul laid down a principle that Christians should observe with utmost care, i.e. that God’s people are never hurt and always helped, in this life and the next, by obedience to Him. “Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and that which is to come” (1 Timothy 4:8). The word godliness here means reverence toward God; it includes the attitudes one holds and the acts one performs in obedience to God.

Paul is not promising that God will suspend the natural operation of the universe where Christians are concerned. Instead, it is assurance that the order was made with them in mind. It is not a commitment that disciples will never catch a cold or have an accident. We are aware that Job, Paul, and others were allowed, for distinct purposes, to suffer for their faith, These special circumstances do not suggest that God would jeopardize all Christendom by injecting danger into the worship itself. The promise that obedience to God benefits us here and hereafter is unequivocal.

The preceding facts should convince honest hearts that God has dealt with humans from a position of absolute knowledge and from an infinite concern for our physical and spiritual welfare. This being a fact, our only real concern should be to discover how the Lord ordained His Supper. On that issue, we are fortunate because the record is exceptionally clear, as we shall see in the next section.
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh:
is there anything too hard for me?

(Jeremiah 32:27)


Part II
HOW DID JESUS SET UP WS SUPPER?
If we believe that one is always blessed by obedience to the Lord, our first order of business should be to find out exactly how Jesus instituted His Supper. On that score, we are fortunate, for there are several descriptions of that sacred event, and they are remarkably clear.

Matthew 26:26 says “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.” The word bread here means a loaf, as many translations of the New Testament render it. Thayer describes how the loaf was made, i.e. flour mixed with water and baked into a thin flat cake.’ He adds that these loaves were broken for eating, not cut. The phrase “as they were eating” referred to the fact that the institution took place while they were eating the Jewish Passover Supper. Ellicott comments on this verse:

Again we must represent to ourselves an interval of silence, broken by the act or words that followed. The usual “grace” or blessing had been spoken at the beginning of the feast Now, taking one of the cakes of unleavened bread, He again utters a solemn formula of blessing, and gives it to them with the words, “Take, eat, this is my body.”’

The account is simple and straightforward. Jesus took a loaf of bread, He gave thanks for it, He broke of it Himself, and He passed it to His disciples with instructions for them to break and eat. He explained, in the symbolic language to which the disciples had become accustomed, “This is my body.”

After the bread had been passed around, “He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of It” Thayer, and every Greek dictionary we have seen, says the word cup means simply a cup or drinking vessel9 Although the word can be used symbolically, Thayer rightly indicates that its use here is in the ordinary sense. Paul said, “After the same manner also he took the cup,..” (I Corinthians 11:25), explaining that as the bread was passed among the disciples for their eating, the cup was now passed for their drinking. The phrase, “Drink ye all of it,” demands this view. It is a command that means “all of you drink from It.” Since the “it” is the drinking vessel Jesus had given them, it means all of them were to drink of the cup.

Ellicott states that by choosing a cup, solemnly consecrating it through prayer, and passing it around to the disciples, Jesus made it into a “symbol of diviner truth than had yet been revealed to the listening and wondering disciples.

The Supper, as Jesus instituted it, is a simple and elegant ceremony. It consists of a loaf of unleavened bread that is consecrated through prayer to represent the Lord’s body. The loaf is passed among the disciples for each to break and eat a piece of it in memory of His death. Then a cup of the fruit of the vine is blessed and, in the same manner, is passed around to the disciples; and each partakes in memory of the Lord’s blood that was (to be) shed for them. There is little room for doubt about what took place on that fateful night so long ago.
Little Disagreement on the Facts

Actually, though we sometimes lose sight of the fact, the church has never been divided over how many loaves and cups the Lord used in His Supper. There is rather virtually complete agreement among Bible scholars that He used one loaf and one cup. (The division is over whether we are required to follow the Lord’s example.) Notice, for instance, some statements from the Gospel Advocate Commentaries, the first complete set of New Testament reference books written by scholars of the church of Christ. In the beck on Mark, the writer explains Chapter 14, Verses 22 and 23 this way:

He took bread — or a loaf. One of the thin flat loaves of the country, made without leaven of any kind A loaf does not mean two or more loaves, but one. The loaf, which was one, points to the body of Christ Jesus had one body which he offered for the sins of the world and the loaf represents that one body. "Two loaves on the Lord’s table are out of place and have no divine sanction. One loaf is safe, two are doubtful, to say the least. It is always safe to be on the safe side.”

Then in the same commentary we read regarding Mark 14:23, “A cup is one, not two nor a dozen.” Brother C.E. Dorris, who wrote those words, worshipped at a church that used individual communion loaves and cups. But when it came to explaining what the Lord did, he was faithful to his scholarship of the sacred text, describing it exactly as it was.

Alexander Campbell preached three quarters of a century before the germ scare brought about a change in the Lord’s Supper. Notice what he said in the Millennial Harbinger of December 1830:

"On the Lord’s table there is of necessity but one loaf. The necessity is not that of a positive law enjoining one loaf and only one, as a ritual of Moses enjoined 12 loaves. But it is a necessity arising from the meaning of the Institution as explained by the Apostles. As there is but one literal body and but one mystical or figurative body having many members; so there must be but one loaf. The Apostle insists upon this, I Cor. (10:) 17. “Because there is but one loaf, we, the many, are one body; for we are all partakers of the one loaf.”’12

Religious literature that was written soon after the death of the inspired apostles shows that the church of that day used one loaf and one cup in observing the Lord’s Supper Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) stated, in The First Apology, that a loaf of bread and a cup of wine were used in communion by the disciples to remember their crucified Lord)’

Must We Follow The Lord’s Example?
Although the facts concerning the institution of the Lord’s Supper are clear, some people argue that we are not required to follow the Master’s example. We are told that Christians must commune but that the details of how it is done are unimportant and, therefore, are left up to us. The condition of Christians’ hearts as they commune is what is important, the argument goes, not how many cups are used. Is this argument strong enough to risk our eternal salvation upon?

The answer to the preceding question is found in Romans 10:1-3 where Paul condemned that type of thinking. “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” This is a matter of being saved or lost. “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” The word knowledge here means “precise and correct knowledge ... of God, especially of His holy will.14 This type of knowledge implies an objective standard to which one holds and by which his behavior is measured. In this case, the standard is God’s revealed Word. “For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” “Righteousness” means the condition of being acceptable to God and the doctrine that tells man how that state may be obtained.15
A conservative paraphrase of these passages is that the way to please God and be saved is not in establishing our ways which we think will please Him but rather in becoming knowledgeable about His will and precisely submitting to its dictates.

Most great divisions in the religious world have resulted from arguments, like the foregoing one, that “details” have been left up to man. For example, those who sprinkle for baptism justify the practice on the same grounds. “It is what is in one’s heart that counts,” we are told, “and not in the way the ordinance is carried out” Any departure from God’s Word that one wishes to make can be justified by this argument.

The ordinances of God were not given to man for his consideration and possible adoption, but for his obedience and safe keeping. Paul said, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you” (I Corinthians 11:2). The word “as” means “just as”.” Paul is praising the Corinthians because “in general” they had kept his instructions about public worship. But it was clear from verse 17 that they had not kept the Lord’s Supper “as delivered”.17 He said, “In this I praise you not” By praising Christians when they kept the ordinances and condemning them when they did not, Paul takes the strongest possible stand that the Lord’s Supper must be kept “just as delivered.” He further declared that he delivered it just as Jesus did it on the night He was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23).

Guidelines and Blueprints
Some Christians confuse the way God directs the organization and public worship of the church with the means by which He guides our private lives. The former is by blueprint the latter is by guidelines. Guidelines provide a general outline, and details appropriately are left to individuals. On the other hand, a pattern, or blueprint requires strict compliance. Guidelines are often written in negative form, telling one what he cannot do. A blueprint is positive; it names what must be done, and everything that is not named is not allowed.

When God gave Noah the pattern for building the Ark (Genesis 6:14), He told him to make it of gopher wood. He did not name all the types of wood that were not acceptable. By putting the type He wanted in the pattern, He excluded all other types. God instructed Moses (Hebrews 8:5) in the building of the tabernacle to see “that thou make all things according to the pattern.” The ark and the tabernacle were Old Testament types of the church. The message is clear that “all things” in the church must be done according to the blueprint. And the pattern regarding the Lord’s Supper is also clear.

The Bible teaches in four, and only four, ways:\
    1) statements of facts,
    2) commands to be obeyed,
    3) examples to follow, and
    4) necessary inferences.


If a practice is not taught by at least one of these ways, it is not authorized at all; and one is going beyond God’s Word to use it in the public worship. “Whosoever goeth onward, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (II John 9). The use of a common communion vessel is taught by all of the above methods.

By command:And he took the cup, and gave dunks, and gave it to them saying, Dunk ye all of it” (Matthew 26:27). That “ye all” is like a southerner’s “you all;” it means “all of you.” Wilson’s translation gives it., “Drink all of you out of It
By example: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). Again, Wilson’s translation says, “they all drank out of it” Weymouth’s translation says, “they all drank from it
By statement:The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (I Corinthians 10:16). This is a statement of fact about what the church at Corinth did. As brother Dorris said, the cup always means one, not two or a dozen.
By Necessary inference:But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (I Corinthians 11:28). The direct teaching of this verse is about the state of mind in which communion should be done,

As a summary of the discussion regarding whether we must follow the Lord’s example in communion, let us notice some highlights of Scriptures and definitions of words:
    1. Paul said keep the ordinances “just as” I have delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2).

    2. Jesus took a cup, “a drinking vessel” (I Corinthians 11:25).

    3. Jesus gave the cup to His disciples and told them to drink of it (Matthew 26:27).

    4. The disciples took the cup and drank of it (Mark 14:23).

    5. Jesus said “This do ye” (I Corinthians 11:25). Note that I Corinthians was written to all Christians everywhere (1 Corinthians 1:2).


We solemnly ask, where is the statement saying the early Christians used individual communion cups? Where is the Biblical command for their use or an example of it? Where does Biblical language even infer they were used?

The Inventor of Individual Communion Cups
Christians are interested in who originates changes in the Lord’s church. And we agree with brother David Lipscomb that the motives that prompt a change are important.18 If we find we have drifted away from what the Lord commanded, we should be quick to make changes to get back to the original pattern. King Josiah faced this situation in his people’s observance of the Passover—a type of the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 5:7-8).

Josiah followed in office evil kings who allowed the nation to dabble in many sinful practices. In reading the book of the law, he found their Passover had not been conducted properly. The king inquired of the Lord and “commanded all the people, saying, Keep the Passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of the covenant” (II Kings 23:21). God spared Josiah’s life for tuning the nation around, but the people were punished for leaving God’s original pattern.

What a contrast Josiah’s story is with the invention of individual cups. Dr. J. G. Thomas, preacher and physician, was mentioned in Part I of this booklet. If you predicted, when you read about him, that the extreme measures Dr. Thomas introduced into his congregation of the Presbyterian Church would not last, you were right. But Dr. Thomas worked at refining his ideas, and on March 6, 1894, he was granted a patent on an individual communion set and a machine with which to fill the cups. We have a copy of the patent. It contains many illustrations and 170 lines of description of how it works, In all that detail, the words God, Christ, or the Bible are not mentioned. There is no reference to Scripture. Instead he said, “I, John C. Thomas, a citizen of the United States, residing at Lima, in the county of Allen and State of Ohio, have invented certain new and useful improvements in Communion service...” Indeed!

Incidentally, although Dr. Thomas has been credited for decades with inventing individual communion cups, and he certainly was issued a patent for them which his family still holds, there is evidence that the “honor” really does not belong to him. The Congregational Church of Saco, Maine, used them a year earlier, and by 1894 several denominational churches in Rochester and Philadelphia had adopted the practice.19 Apparently those groups were not interested in commercializing the venture and never applied for a patent.

So much for how individual communion cups came into denominational churches. How were they brought into churches of Christ? Brother G. C. Brewer claims that “credit” In the Introduction to his autobiography, Forty Years or, the Firing Line, he said:

I think I was the first preacher to advocate the individual communion cup and the first church in the state of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching, the Central Church of Christ at Chattanooga, Tennessee, then meeting in the Masonic Temple. My next work was with the church at Columbia, Tennessee, and, after a long struggle, I got the individual communion service into that congregation. About this time brother 0. Dallas Smith began to advocate the individual communion service and he introduced it at Fayetteville, Tennessee; then later at Murfreesboro. Of course, I was fought both privately and publicly and several brethren took me to task in religious papers and called me digressive.”20

You might have added, brother Brewer, that “several brethren” around the world still do call your practice digressive. How sad that a sacred memorial instituted by Jesus Christ, in the presence of His apostles, on the night of His betrayal should be changed by a group of men and women meeting in a Masonic Temple in Chattanooga, Tennessee!

Part III
Science And Sanitation In Communion
We begin this review of experimental studies and medical opinions regarding the communion cup with considerable ambivalence. Our ambivalence is not related to the evidence, which is strong and positive, but to reporting this type of evidence at all. Our conviction is that Christians should trust in the great physician, who has declared Himself our “Lord that healeth thee” (Ex. 15:26). This physician is never wrong.

Human evidence, by contrast, must always be kept in perspective. Science has created many mundane but useful advancements and about an equal number of brilliant discoveries and stupid blunders. Many of the developments that seemed brilliant, Sir Alexander Flemming’s discovery of penicillin for example, actually were done by accident. The blunders are caused by all sorts of human frailties, ignorance, arrogance, prejudice, and outright fraud, just to name a few. The infamous Piltdown Man that was “discovered” in a gravel pit in East Sussex, England, fooled scientists who labeled him a link with our “animal ancestors.” In reality “he” was a combination of human and animal bones planted by a dishonest laboratory assistant, This classic blunder occurred because scientists wanted to believe evolution (prejudice), because they overtrusted their methods of dating relics (ignorance), and because of one worker’s clear dishonesty.

We give these facts about the limitations of science not to say that such evidence is worthless, but as a reminder that it should not be placed on par with inspiration. “Science does not lie.” it is said, but the statement is only a play on words because scientists, the men and women who practice science, are human and subject to all weaknesses common to other mortals. We use human evidence in human matters because that is all we have. It seems especially unwise to rely on human evidence when divine evidence is available.

These limitations of science should be kept in mind when making assessments of the value of the evidence from experimental studies on communion. In such situations, it is almost never a simple matter of seeking scientific opinion and accepting it. For one thing, the scientists often disagree. Then it becomes necessary to make judgments about the quality of one study over another. Thus readers must assess the soundness of the methods of study, be alert for signs of bias, observe whether researchers’ conclusions are truly supported by their data, and so forth. Laymen often think that some expert somewhere “knows the truth” on the questions that trouble them. But that is a naive and unwarranted trust in human expertise. In the end, one usually must survey all the evidence and make a decision for himself about whether it generally supports one view or another.

Many Opinions—Little Evidence
While there have been hundreds of newspaper reports and articles giving opinions on the safety of common-cup communion, there have been very few actual studies. A computer search of the literature indexes revealed only about half a dozen efforts in the century that this topic has been discussing. Some of those are methodologically so flawed that no competent scholar would credit them with worth. Others are excellent and worthy of all the confidence that is realistic to place in human endeavors. Still others are mixtures of wheat and chaff.

We shall begin our review by discussing those experimental studies that are of highest quality. Then, we will review a study that we consider of poor quality and explain why we see it as we do. Our intentions are to review, or mention and reference, every known study so that interested students may pursue the matter to the fullest and come to solid decisions about what human evidence says. After our own review, we will summarize a comprehensive assessment of many studies that relate directly and indirectly to the topic—an assessment completed by an internationally recognized scholar. We will close this section with comments by several medical authorities and religious leaders.

A British Government Study
The most respected scientific experiment to date was done at the Central Public Health Laboratory in London by three researchers named Hobbs, Knowlden, and White (1967).21 The Medical Research Council, an agency of the British government, commissioned the study in response to complaints against the Church of England, which uses the common communion cup. Among medical personnel, this is the single most influential study on the topic, probably because it was unbiased, it was more thorough than usual, and it created real-life conditions in the laboratory.

To answer the general question about the danger of disease transmission, this group sought answers to specific questions, i.e. how many organisms are deposited on the surface of the cup by each communicant, how long do such organisms survive, are these organisms transferred to other communicants, and, if so, arc there ways the number of organisms on the cup can be reduced? These are relevant questions because modest numbers of bacteria are present everywhere, even on the surfaces of unused cups, and comparing common-cup communion against totally sterile conditions is not realistic.

Researchers had volunteers drink from a silver cup filled with fermented communion wine as used in the Church of England. Average number of communicants was 24. Several trials were done. First, all persons drank from the same place on the cup. Second, the cup was rotated to a different spot after each communicant. Third, all persons drank from the same spot, but the rim of the cup was wiped after each use; and finally. the cup was rotated and wiped after each person drank. In each experiment, swabs were taken after each participant and the recovered material examined microscopically to make counts of organisms. A swab was taken from the rim of the chalice before anyone had drunk for comparison (known as a “control” in experimental studies).

In another set of experiments, saliva was placed directly from the mouths of participants onto the rim of the cup, directly into communion wine, and into Ringer’s Solution. (Ringer’s is a salt-water compound with a mineral composition that is similar to the fluids in human tissue and blood.) Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli bacteria that had been grown in the laboratory (known as “cultured” bacteria) were placed on the cup, in the wine, and in Ringer’s Solution. Examinations were made of the survival rates of these bacteria at intervals ranging from 30 seconds to 30 minutes. These experiments were designed to test the germicidal powers of silver and wine. What follows is a summary of their findings.

The specific number of organisms recovered from the cup after participants drank was low in all cases. For several participants, the number was below 100. The average number recovered was 654, which included normal benign bacteria as well as any unusual organisms. In some cases, the number taken from the unused cup rim exceeded that recovered from droplets left by communicants! Rotating the cup did not reduce the number of organisms; in fact, somewhat more were found than when communicants drank from the same place. Wiping the cup after each user, however, reduced the number of organisms present by about 90 percent.

As a means of comparison for the preceding figures, a single milliliter of blood from a person infected with Hepatitis B may contain more than 100,000,000 —(one hundred million) infected viral particles. If one of the communicants ingested every organism left by the person who preceded him (which would be impossible), the average number gotten would be approximately 1 over 150,000 of this amount. These figures explain why epidemiologists are more concerned about other means of disease transmission, for example, sharing drug needles. Not only is the number of organisms apt to be thousands of times greater, needles put them directly into the blood stream where they are more lethal, rather than into the mouth, where the body can more easily handle them. In samples of the remaining communion wine, no organisms were ever isolated.

The London groups’ experiments showed that both silver and wine have an inhibiting effect on bacteria but that the effect is produced too slowly to kill organisms deposited on the cup rim before the next communicant drinks. The germicidal effect of silver appeared to begin at about 3 minutes. The cup is passed from one person to the next in a matter of seconds.

When 100,000 to 200,000 cultured bacteria were placed in small amounts of wine in glass and silver containers, the germicidal effect began to show strongly in about 3 minutes but varied with the type of bacteria and the type of container. The use of a silver container with the wine always quickened the effect.

These researchers give three reasons that the risk of disease transmission by the common cup is small:
    1. The number of pathogenic bacteria on the lips of humans is generally small, the risk of another person ingesting them from the cup is negligible, and even when bacteria are ingested in small numbers, the body can handle them.

    2. Even organisms that infect by mouth, such as typhoid bacilli, are not likely to be found on human lips. Because of how they are excreted, they are more likely to be found on the fingers.

    3. The more easily transmissible diseases are those of childhood, and small children do not commune.


This group’s conclusion regarding the communion cup is that “the risk of transmission is very small, and probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people.

Dr. G. A. Trott, the pioneer preacher and physician mentioned in Part I of this booklet, said that he would stake his professional reputation on the proposition that Christians who commune from a common cup are exposed to no more germs than those who do so from individual cups.22 He was speaking from his faith. It is too bad that he did not live a half century later so that he could read this study. Dr. Trott would have felt vindicated by the fact that the number of organisms recovered from unused cup rims sometimes exceeded those recovered from the common cup.

The University of Chicago Study
William Burrows and Elizabeth Hemmens, from the University of Chicago, studied communion two decades earlier than the London group (1943).23 Burrows and Hemmens made it clear that they had no interest in “the theory of the sacrament” or in “the relative ecclesiastical merits of the various methods of its administration.” They were concerned exclusively with the possibility of disease transmission.

The specific issues and methods of the Burrows and Hemmens experiment were similar to the London study. By placing various types of cultured bacteria onto the rim of the cup and into the wine and making counts after various time lapses, they concluded, like the London group, that both silver and wine have a germicidal effect Their findings showed somewhat stronger and quicker effect than those of the British study.

The Chicago study tried to create the worst possible conditions of communion or, conversely, the most favorable conditions for bacterial transmission. They made a “mouthwash” of cultured bacteria and had some participants rinse their mouths with it before drinking from the cup. This allowed them to “trace” the bacteria from the cup rim and even in the saliva of later communicants. They also asked participants not to be “careful” but to deliberately leave more saliva on the cup than would occur in a normal communion service.

Burrows and Hemmens, like the London group, found that wiping the cup rim removed approximately 90 percent of the bacteria. But even when the cup was not wiped and when participants were making conscious efforts to be “sloppy,” few organisms were transferred. These researchers concluded, “In these experiments the enumeration indicated that only 0.001% of the bacteria present in the saliva of the first individual may be found in the saliva of the second, and then only when considerable conscious effort was made to transfer as many as possible, and when the cup was not wiped.” One can see how they concluded that the possibility of airborne infection makes sitting in the room with infected persons more dangerous than drinking from the communion cup.

Some readers have taken the Burrows and Hemmons figure (0.001%) to mean that one has just one chance in a thousand of catching a disease by communing from the common cup after an infected person. Actually the meaning is more conservative than that. It means that only one one-thousandth of microorganisms are likely to be transferred from one mouth to another. The human body can handle small amounts of bacteria and, based on these findings, the researchers were well within their scientific domain to say the chances of actually contacting a disease by this means is small. But no one can precisely calculate the chances of a specific person’s getting a disease. Many factors influence that possibility other than the number of bacteria that are present, However, because the general death rate for persons 35 years old is higher than could be postulated in any communion-cup danger, Burrows and Hemmens concluded that it is more dangerous to live to age 35 than to drink from the communion cup!

Both of the studies reviewed so far have shown that silver, as is true of most heavy metals, has an inhibiting effect on the growth and reproduction of bacteria. That effect does not work fast enough to destroy microorganisms as the cup passes from person to person in the process of communion. But it does appear to work from about three minutes onward. Imagine this Sunday morning scene. In two churches brethren prepare the communion Table. In one, the fruit of the vine is poured from a previously sealed bottle into a silver chalice, placed upon the table, and covered to await the hour of use. In the other congregation, the fruit of the vine is unsealed, poured into a filler, and then into plastic or paper individual cups. The chances are that the chalice, the filler, and the individual cups all acquired minute amounts of dust and bacteria while on the shelves and in the filling process. In one case, the silver cup has from one to two hours to purify itself. In the other, because plastic and paper do not inhibit bacterial reproduction, the cups have the same amount of tine to become more contaminated. Too bad Dr. Trott did not live to review this study.

Canadian Department of Health and Welfare Study
Although Jack Konowalchuk and Joan Speirs of the Canadian Bureau of Microbial Hazards were not studying communion, their research is often cited in this regard.24 Earlier studies by these scholars had investigated the power of various fruit extracts to inactivate different types of viruses; the one reviewed here did the same for grapes and wines.25

These researchers prepared two-milliliter bottles of red wines, white wines, commercial grape juice (Welch’s), whole fresh grapes homogenized in water, and raisin infusion (water in which raisins had been soaked for 24 hours). Cultured polio, echo, coxsackie, and herpes viruses were deposited in the test bottles in batches of 8,000 plaque-forming units. Counts were taken at periods from one hour through 24 hours. They monitored the effects of the substances over longer blocks of time, rather than in minutes as in the other studies, because they were interested in the effect of the compounds on microorganisms in human digestive systems, not in possible spread of disease in communion. For the same reason, no tests were made on cup rims or with silver or other types of containers.

All of the grape substances had an inhibiting effect on the viruses. The strength and rapidity of the effect varied with the type of virus and the substance. Raisin water and white wines were least effective. Pure grape juice was clearly the most effective. In general, polio and herpes viruses were inactivated more quickly and to larger extent For example, polio virus was reduced to one tenth its former count after 24 hours incubation in pure grape juice.

As far back as the First Century, people believed that wine had purifying properties. Roman soldiers are said to have mixed wine with drinking water in the countries they conquered in the belief that the alcohol in the wine would purify the water. It may have helped, but if so, it was not due to the alcohol. This and other studies have shown that it is the phenols in and near the skins of the fruit that possess this power. The reason red wines are more effective than white is that red wines are made by fermenting the whole fruit, including the skins, whereas white wines are processed from juice only. Apparently the fermentation reduces some of the power of the fruit since pure juice is more effective than red wines.

One value of this study is that it explains certain findings from other studies. For example, when the wine remaining after communion has been tested, it is found to be “practically sterile.” This is puzzling because even unused cups and —healthy mouths are not ordinarily sterile. The probable explanation is that unused wine is usually tested from one to several hours after the communion service—long enough to allow the phenols in the wine or grape juice to produce this effect.


Gregory, Carpenter, and Bending A Study
With Methodological Problems

Two of the above researchers were from the University of Guelph in Canada and the third was from Loma Linda University in California.26 They state that their work was intended to test whether “good quality” wine and sliver communion cups in would rapidly kill microorganisms. A variety of experiments were conducted. In one test, four types of cultured organisms were placed on a silver cup rim and in wine contained in a silver cup. The rim and the wine were checked intermittently for an hour. The efficacy of wiping the cup rim was tested by placing organisms on a cup, allowing them to dry, wiping with a cloth, and swabbing for viruses. Then, thirty university-student volunteers simulated a communion service, and the cup rim was checked for organisms. The researchers also took saliva from volunteers mouths, inoculated it with cultured organisms, and deposited droplets of it directly into the wine These droplets were later retrieved and tested for growth or decline of the organisms.

Gregory, Carpenter, and Bending concluded that silver had no effect on test organisms, wiping the cup was of very little value in reducing organisms on the cup, and a ‘variety’ of organisms were found on the cup after the simulated communion. Droplets of the virus-infused saliva recovered from the wine showed an increase in numbers! They did find that wine was strongly antiviral on three of the four test organisms. They concluded that “the common communion cup and its contents could serve effectively as vehicles for rapid transmission of disease organisms.”

If one assumes that all researchers were honest, how could these authors achieve such different finding and arrive at far different conclusions from Hobbs, Knowlden and White and from Burrows and Hemmens? It may not be so difficult as it seems. In the first place, although these experiments were described as similar to those of other researchers, they actually were quite different. For example, Burrows and Hemmens wiped the cup right after communicants had drunk, the real-life procedure in churches that use this practice. Gregory et al. placed virus preparations on the cup rim, allowed them to dry, and then wiped. It seems easy to understand why a dry cloth would not be effective in removing dried solutions.

These authors’ test of the cup after simulated communion was not the same as in other studies, nor was it a valid research procedure. They say “a variety of bacteria was recovered from the cup surface,” but they give no counts of any types of bacteria and they did not test an unused cup as a control. Remember that the London experiment recovered more bacteria from some unused control cups than from cups used by several communicants. This finding could have been announced before the experiment was done. There are bacteria on all surfaces that have not been sterilized and sealed. In the form reported, the findings of this study are worthless.

Gregory et al. exhibit two of the most common failures of scientists: 1) sloppy work, and 2) drawing conclusions beyond their data. Almost every task can be done well or poorly, a fact that is as true of science as of auto repair. For instance, they acknowledged not having read Burrows and Hemmems before conducting their work, even though the former had been a standard reference in the field for 20 years. One of the canons of science is that one becomes familiar with what others have done on the subject before beginning an experiment. The purpose is to build on others strengths and avoid their mistakes. These authors’ carelessness is evinced in conclusions that were well beyond their data, some of which now make them appear foolish.

Gregory et al. concluded that the communion wine itself could be an effective vehicle for disease transmission, yet they acknowledged that “we have no evidence as to the entry of saliva droplets into communion wine during actual communion.” In fact in their own simulated communion service, they had evidence to the contrary. They tested the remaining wine for amylase activity (enzymes in human saliva) and found none! Why would they conclude as they did in the face of their own evidence and is view of others having tested unused wine and finding it sterile? Perhaps they did not read those studies either.

Another example, that now must be very embarrassing, is Gregory, Carpenter, and Bending’s assertion that churches that use pure grape juice, ratter than fermented wine, are at even greater risk. “There can be little doubt, nevertheless, that wine is safer from the epidemiological point of view, than unfermented grape juice would be in a common communion cup.” Since they did not test grant juice in comparison to wine, they were going beyond their data to make this conclusion, It was based on the common sense notion that the alcohol in the wine is the effective agent. One hopes that by now they have read Konowalchuk and Speirs. Unless scientists discipline themselves to be good scholars, they are no more immune to prejudice than ordinary folks.

Gill’s Review of Studies
The most useful and up-to-date information on the danger of disease transmission by the common communion cup is contained in a report by Noel Gill (1987) from the London Public Health Laboratory, the agency that produced the Hobbs, Knowiden, and White study 20 years earlier.27 Gill did not conduct research himself. Instead he reviewed approximately 100 experimental studies and clinical reports on most known transmissible diseases, giving special attention to AIDS. These “state of the art” reviews, when done by competent scholars, are more valuable to laymen than individual original studies. Because much more data is assembled, its quality readily can be assessed, findings can be compared, and conclusions realistically made. Such matters as routes of disease transmission and sites of entry into the body often emerge. Field studies, done in the real world, are especially valuable.

An example of findings from the field relates to transmission of Streptococcus bacteria, Although these organisms are frequently found in human saliva, airborne droplets entering nasal passages, rather than mouth to mouth contact, are believed to be the major route of transmission. This conclusion is supported by the fact that hospital-ward-acquired cases are reduced by placing beds at least eight feet apart.

These studies indicate that a suitable site and means of entry into the body are needed for infection and those vary with the type of organism. For example, diseases that do infect by mouth (i.e. typhoid, dysentery, salmnonellosis and others) are usually gotten from contaminated food or water, in which the concentration of bacteria are very high, not from other persons.

Several follow-up studies of individuals who were exposed to Hepatitis B by direct mouth to mouth contact revealed no cases of transmission. During the infective, pro-clinical phase (i.e. just before “coming down” with the disease), a music teacher shared wind instruments with twelve students. A follow-up of the students showed that none developed the illness, in two separate incidents, students in two-day cardiopulmonary resuscitation courses practiced on the same life-sized dolls with a member of each group who was clinically infected with Hepatitis B. Several students served as mouth to mouth practice partners with the infected persons. None of the 39 participants (18 in one group and 21 in another) developed the disease.

Gill reviewed studies in which direct attempts were made to infect chimpanzees with the HIV virus (AIDS). In one study, concentrations of HIV virus were placed into the chimps’ mouths and their teeth and gums brushed to the point of bleeding. No case of HIV infection took place. Experiments like this support the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s statements that AIDS is not transmitted by mouth to mouth contact.

Based on the studies noted above and many similar ones, Gill concluded that the risk of infection via the communion cup is negligible. Noting that “No episode of disease attributable to the shared communion cup has ever been reported,” he stated that there is no scientific “support for suggesting that the practice of sharing a communion cup should be abandoned.”

The First Fifty Years
The preceding studies are the only ones revealed by a computer search of relevant literature indexes that appear worthy of review.28 The earliest of these was Burrows and Hemmens (1943) and, as is incumbent upon good scholars, they carefully assessed all previously published works. Although the communion cup controversy was then a half a century old, Burrows and Hemmens noted that there was “a remarkable scarcity of experimental evidence,” This finding is not surprising. The state of knowledge, methods of study, and equipment were all crude by today’s standards. But it should be instructive to observe the basis on which the great controversy came about.

Two vehement warriors in the battle for individual cups were doctors named Charles Forbes and H. S. Anders. Forbes did not publish his work, but he made speeches (i.e. to the Rochester Pathological Society in April, 1894) and was widely quoted in newspapers. The New York Times carried articles on the controversy for a decade. Anders, described as a “passionate advocate” for individual cups, was a prolific writer. Around 1900, he engaged in a debate with a British doctor through the medical journals.29 The emotional and demeaning quality of the exchange made it clear that this was no objective scientific discussion. A few years later a man named C. G. Page entered the fray.30

All three men “studied” communion sanitation and made fearsome “discoveries” about what remained “in the dregs” of communion cups, on the rims, and so forth. Oddly’, even then, when they tested the wine remaining after communion, they found it “practically sterile,” but this discovery did not deter them. We are not suggesting that these men were dishonest, but their lack of knowledge and their emotions certainly caused them to stack the deck in favor of finding reasons to worry? For example, Page would swab communion cups right after use place the swabs in solutions that foster bacterial growth and then test them five days later. Sometimes he would grow the bacteria and post the materials to a laboratory for testing.

By observing how these men worked and noting the types of bacteria they found, Burrows and Femmens concluded that what they were seeing was the remnants of ordinary house dust.31 They compared the findings to what a first-year bacteriology student might see in his microscope after exposing a clean agar plate to air for several days. Alas! The great Controversy in the religious world and the division in the Lord’s church came about over fear of ordinary house dust. House dust—which the average human breathes in hundreds of times a day. What troubles could have been avoided if the religious world had waited in faith for a few short years!

What More Can Be Said?
Because there is so much material, we are tempted to go on giving competent medical opinions on this issue. There are Edward Dancewicz’s comments from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in the Journal of the American Medical Association.32 Referring to the Hobbs, Knowlden, and White study and acknowledging its quality, Dancewicz agreed with them that there is little cause for alarm. We could call attention to a recent question in a German medical journal about the possibility of AIDS transmission via the common cup. The questioner ask about the worst case scenario, assuming the patient had bleeding mouth sores. Professor Doctor Maas responded that there is “little probability of infection” and cited evidence the disease is not transmitted that way.33 And we could refer readers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s pamphlets and FAX Service memos that cite studies showing that family members who lived with AIDS patients, shared food utensils, razors, and even toothbrushes did not catch the disease.34 But what benefit would still more evidence give?

There is a point at which additional proof serves no good purpose. Jesus found this situation with the Scribes and Pharisees who kept demanding more and more signs of His divinity. No one can absolutely guarantee a Christian or anyone else that he will not get a disease. There are so many factors, often unknown factors, that influence a human body. But if he does get one, the best evidence is that it will not be from the communion cup. We agree with Dr. 0. Noel Gill, of the British Public Health Service, that the fact that no disease has ever been shown to come from the common cup is strong evidence of its safety.35 If no case of illness has been traced to the communion cup in a 100 years, the chance of being the first victim seems less than that of being hit by a falling meteor.

One of the pioneer researchers said that he was more afraid of the reverence of God for defying His will than of germs. We are, too. And, in addition, we trust the love and power of our God to protect us more than that of physicians, even beloved physicians, like those named in the back of this booklet. God is the great physician. “I am the Lord that healeth thee.”

Summary

In conclusion, we would like to return to the themes emphasized earlier in this booklet. There is strong Biblical evidence that Jesus understood microorganisms and diseases at the time He lived on earth. His love for mankind was demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The Bible also is clear about how the Master established His Supper—with one loaf of bread and one cup of the fruit of the vine— a fact upon which most knowledgeable Christians agree. The scientific community, after a century of maturation, generally has come to terms with the way the Lord organized the communion, no longer seeing it as a hazard to health. Finally, our carefulness in keeping the Lord’s Supper “as delivered” should not obscure its purpose. That grand goal is our spiritual growth through a loving remembrance of the body that was given and the blood that was shed for remission of our sins.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9)


Notes and References

1. Ellicott, Charles John. Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. VII (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 334.
2. Thayer, Joseph H. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1977), p. 352.
3. This report of Dr. Thomas’ strong fear of the common communion cup is related in several privately published sources. It appears reasonable from his avid work on individual communion cups; but we could find the story reported in no publication that is now generally available.
4. Trott, 6. A. “Those Individual Cups,” The Apostolic Way (September 1, 1913).
5. Thayer, ibid., p. 3.
6. MacKnight, James. MacKnight on the Epistles, One-Volume ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984). p. 160.
7. Thayer, ibid., p. 75.
8. Ellicott, ibid., Vol. VI, p. 162.
9. Thayer. ibid., p. 536.
10. Ellicott, ibid., Vol. VI, p. 162.
11. Dorris, C.E.W. Commentary on the Book of Mark (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1950), pp. 328-329.
12. Campbell. Alexander, “The Breaking of the Loaf,” Millennial Harbinger, extra No. 2, (December 1830), p. 64.
13. Martyr, Justin. ‘The First Apology,” in Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids. Ml: Win. B. Eerdmans Co., 1985), pp. 185-186.
14. Thayer, ibid., p.237.
15. Thayer, ibid., p. 149.
16. Thayer, ibid.. p. 314.
17. MacKnight, Ibid., p. 179.
18. Lipscomb, David. “Individual Communion,” Gospel Advocate. (May 22,1913).
19. Price, E.G. Pennsylvania Pioneers Against Tuberculosis (New York: National Tuberculosis Association. 1952),pp. 111-114.
20. Brewer, G. C. Forty Years on the Firing Line (Kansas City: Old Paths Book Club. 1948), p. xii.
21. Hobbs, Betty C., Knowlden, Jill £, and White. Anne. “Experiments on the Communion Cup Journal of Hygiene. 65(1967). pp. 37-48.
22. Trott, Ibid.
23. Burrows, William and Hemmens, Elizabeth S. “Survival of Bacteria on the silver Communion Cup," Journal of Infectious Diseases 73(1943), pp. 180-190.
24. Konowalchuk, Jack and Speirs, Joan I. “Virus Inactivation by Grapes and Wines,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 32(Dec. 1976), pp. 757-763.
25. Konowaichuk, Jack and Speirs, Joan I. “Antiviral Activity of Fruit Extracts,” Journal of Food Science, 41(1976), pp. 1013-1017.
26. Gregory, Kenneth F., Carpenter, John H., and Bending, Glen C., “Infection Hazards of the Common Communion Cup,” Canadian Journal of Public Health. 58(1967), pp. 305-310.
27. Gill, 0. Noel, "The Hazard of Infection from the Shared Communion Cup," Journal of Infection. 16(1988), pp. 3-23.
28. Two Kentucky physicians report what they describe as a study of communion in a letter to the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine. When a work is described in this way, it usually means that the editors would not accept it as having professional merit, and thus relegate it to the place where opinion and comment are given. In any case, a letter to the editor does not qualify as a scientific report. See Furlow, Terrance G. and Dougherty, Mark J. Letter to the Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine. 118(April 1993). p. 572.
29. Anders. H. S., "The Progress of the Individual Cup Movement, Especially Among Churches.” Journal of the American Medical Association 29(1897), p. 789; and Letter, Journal of the American Medical Association 35(1900), p. 1291.
30. Page, C. O., “The Common Cup,” The Churchman (June 27, 1925).
31. Bunows and Hemmens, ibid., p. 186.
32. Dancewicz, Edward R “What is the Risk of Infection from the Common Communion Cup?”, Journal of the American Medical Association. 225(July 1973), p. 320.
33. Maas, G., “Fly Transmission by the Communion Chalice,” Duetsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 117(June 1992), p. 1004.
34. Centers for Disease Control. “HIV Transmission,” FAX Service Document No. 320020, p. 1.
35. Gill, ibid., p. 16.

List of Reviewers


The following preachers of the gospel, physicians, pharmacists, and other professionals reviewed a draft of the manuscript and made helpful suggestions. Some provided materials for our use. We are grateful to all of them for their support and the time they took to help.

Allen Bailey, Evangelist
Irving, Texas

Smith H. Bibens, Evangelist
Buffalo, Missouri

Gary Barrett, Elder
Wichita, Kansas

George F. Battey, Evangelist
Morrow, Georgia

Jerry L. Cutter, Evangelist
Crescent, Oklahoma

Wayne L. Fussell, Evangelist
Shreveport, Louisiana

Joe Hisle, Evangelist
Ada, Oklahoma

Galen W. Hutcheson, M.D.
North Arkansas Family Practice
Harrison Arkansas

Nancy Minter, R.Ph., Pharmacist
Chicago. Illinois

Edwin S. Morris, Evangelist
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Mark Bailey, Evangelist
Arlington, Texas
Irvin Barnes, Evangelist
Springfield, Missouri

Alan Bonifay, Evangelist
Manteca, California

Clovis T. Cook, Evangelist
Springfield, Missouri

Johnny Elmore, Evangelist
Ardrnore, Oklahoma

Jeff Haggard, M.D.
Emergency Medicine
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Gerald Hill, Evangelist
Red Oak, Texas

Keith Minter, Operations Manager
Abbcn Laboratories
Chicago, Illinois

J. Wayne McKamie, Evangelist
McGregor, Texas

Kris Morgan, M.D.
Pediatrician
Tulsa, Oklahoma

Rocky Morgan,
M.D., Surgeon
Tulsa, Oklahoma

Lynn R. Nesbitt, M.D.
General Practice of Medicine
Graham, Texas

Billy H. Qrten, Evangelist
Marion, Louisiana

Don R. Pruitt, Evangelist
Ada, Oklahoma

Jimmie C. Smith, Evangelist
Harrison, Arkansas

Paul 0. Nichols, Evangelist
Oakdale, California

Alex C. Orten, M.D.
U.S. Public Health Service
Anchorage, Alaska

Steven S. Orten. M.D.
Demrtment of Otolaryngology/
Head and Neck Surgery
University of Arkansas Medical Center
Little Rock, Arkansas

Ronny F Wade, Evangelist
Springfield, Missouri

Read more!

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Lord's Supper Menu

1) A Bible Study Study on the Lord’s Supper
2) History of the Communion
3) How Should the Lord’s Supper Be Observed?
4) When Should the Lord’s Supper Be Observed?
5) The Benefits of Partaking of the Communion
6) This Cup is the New Covenant
7) Questions Regarding the Cup
8) Sanitation in Communion
9) Opposing Arguments by Those Who Oppose Biblical Communion

Read more!

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

How Should the Lord's Supper
Be Observed?

by Rick Cutter

The Lord's Supper, also called the "Communion," is a simple memorial of the death of Christ - the most renowned event in history.

Unfortunately, the mechanics of how it should be observed has been a lamentable and unnecessary source of much division, uncertainty, and confusion across the "Christian" religious world. Of course, the proper way for us to avoid division is to ensure our practices are in harmony with the "ultimate authority" - the Word of God.

God's Word is complete and contains all relevant truth for the Christian (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 16:13; & 17:17). Not 80% of God's will, 90% of God's will, or even 99% of God's will. It's 100% complete. Everything we need to know about what we need to do as Christians is in the Bible. Obviously, this includes what we need to know about the Lord's Supper.

Furthermore, God has expressly prohibited any adding to or subtracting from His Word (Dueteronomy 4:2 & 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; & 119:160; Hebrews 13:7; Revelation 22:18-19; Matthew 24:35; Luke 16:17; Acts 20:27). Therefore, it is God's Word alone with which this article will be entirely concerned. The prophet of old summed it up quite well when he said: "I would not be able to go beyond the word of the Lord, to do either good or bad of my own will; what the Lord speaks, that will I speak" (Numbers 24:13).

In this article we want to survey the following:

1) How did Christ observe the Communion? Since Christ was the One who instituted the Lord's Supper, investigating this should give us vital clues on how He wants it to be observed today.

2) How did the Apostolic Church observe the Lord's Supper? Did they follow Christ's original pattern or was this unimportant?

3) How did the Jews observe the Passover? Understanding this is important since Christ instituted the first Communion right after the conclusion of the Passover. Therefore, knowing how the Jews practiced the Passover gives us insight into the mechanics of Communion.

4) How did the Post-Apostolic Church observe Communion? This is interesting since it gives us information about whether or not the Church continued to follow the Biblical pattern of Christ and the Apostles, or whether they felt it was unimportant.

5) When did significant change occur in the Communion, and why? This section helps us understand when the first major changes to certain aspects of Communion occurred, and what was behind these changes.

6) Opposing Arguments to Biblical Communion. This final section examines 10 top reasons why many choose not to follow the Biblical pattern of Communion, and the problems in their logic.

HOW DID CHRIST OBSERVE
THE COMMUNION?

Since Christ was the One who originated the Supper, and since He's the central focus of the Supper itself --- then most people would probably agree that finding out exactly how He instituted it is of paramount importance. Since this is the logical starting point, we begin by noticing exactly how Christ observed Communion.

Matthew 26:26-29. The first Biblical account of the Lord's Supper is in Matthew 26:26-29 (inside brackets are author's comments; all Biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Version):
“And while they [the disciples] were eating [during the Jewish Passover Feast], Jesus took some bread [unleavened because that's all that was allowed during Passover], and after a blessing [prayer], He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is [represents] My body.’ And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it [the cup] to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; For this [what you are drinking] is My blood of the covenant [the New Covenant of Christ], which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine [what was inside the cup] from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.’ "

That's it. As you can see, it's incredibly simple: Jesus was sitting at a table with His disciples eating the Passover Supper. At the end of the Passover Supper, Jesus simply took a loaf of bread (the original Greek word artos means "loaf"). He then thanked God for it in prayer. He then broke it (or broke a piece from it, literally a fragment from it, according to the original Greek) and gave the rest to His disciples. He then issued a command: He told them to eat it - not from the bread that was probably directly in front of each of them, but from the same loaf He had blessed and given to them.

But why did Christ do this? Why did Christ take a loaf? Because of its symbolism. The bread represented, or symbolized Christ's body. Of course, the disciples probably didn't realize what Christ meant by all of this - they were oblivious to the fact that He was going to be crucified the very next day - within 24 hours. Not realizing this, they probably did not make the connection that the loaf would represent Christ's body, which would soon be dying on a cross to take away the sins of the world. Furthermore, we know the bread was unleavened because the Jews did not allow leaven in their homes during the Passover Feast (Exodus 12:15).

Next of all, Christ took "a cup" [containing liquid "fruit of the vine" or grapejuice]. He gave thanks [prayed] for it. He then gave this same cup to the disciples and asked each of them to drink from that cup. It is important to realize that although each of the disciples probably had individual cups in front of them (we'll see why in a moment), Christ did not "propose a toast" here - but rather, He asked His disciples to do something a bit strange - a bit inconvenient - something they would not understand until later. He asked them to all drink from the same cup, from His cup.

This is an important point that should not be "glossed over." Think about the extra effort required in what Christ did here. Wouldn't it have been easier and more sanitary for Christ to have asked each of them to eat the bread nearest them and perhaps directly in front of them? Wouldn't it have been more convenient for Him to have proposed a toast and asked each of His disciples to simply drink from their own cups that were undoubtedly sitting in front of them? But, instead, Christ asked His disciples to all share the same cup. Why? Why go to all this extra trouble? Was it all meaningless?

Of course, sincere Bible students realize that Christ did not conduct His life frivolously. Everything He did here had meaning, significance, and purpose. We are going to notice that not only did the loaf, cup, and fruit of the vine contain symbolism, but so also did the "oneness" of the loaf and cup. Said another way, the fact that there was only one cup and one loaf was just as symbolic as the loaf itself and the cup itself and the fruit of the vine itself. Paul explains all of this in I Corinthians 10, a passage we will notice shortly.

Finally, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus explains His actions. He explains that the "fruit of the vine" (v 29) they drank represented His blood, which in the next few hours He would shed for the forgiveness of the world's sins. (Note that Jesus did not use the common Biblical word "wine," but rather "fruit of the vine," strongly suggesting that this was not fermented wine, but the natural fruit, or product, of the vine.)

Later, in I Corinthians 11:25 (to be examined shortly), Paul will explain that not only did the fruit of the vine represent Christ's blood, but the cup from which He drank also had great symbolism; it represented the "New Testament" which was ratified by Christ's death on the cross.

The only other 2 accounts of Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-20, essentially say the same thing as Matthew 26:26-29.

A Brief Summary. In summary, Christ's example of the Communion went like this: He took a loaf of unleavened bread, He gave thanks for it, and He ate a fragment from it and then passed the loaf on to His disciples, commanding them to do the same.

He then took a cup containing "fruit of the vine"; He gave thanks for it, drank from it, and then gave the cup to His disciples commanding them to all drink from the same cup as well. While doing these things He explained what it all meant. The bread represented His own body (to be sacrificed shortly, like the Passover Lamb, for the sins of the whole world). We also know the cup represented the New Covenant between God and man (I Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:7-13); and the fruit of the vine within the cup represented the blood He would soon shed. In essence, it was an extremely simple memorial packed with meaning.

HOW DID THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH OBSERVE
THE LORD'S SUPPER?

We've just noticed how Christ and His disciples observed the original institution of the Lord's Supper. We've seen how Christ went to special effort to be sure the disciples all drank from one cup and not from their own individual cups; and that they all ate from one loaf and not from individual pieces of bread; and how that basically everything He did had important symbolism.

Due to the special and particular effort of Christ in originating the Lord's Supper, it should come as no surprise that this is exactly the way the Apostolic churches of the 1st century were commanded to observe the Lord's Supper. Regardless of the many various and interesting man-made approaches to Communion among modern Christians, we're about to discover that the Church founded by Christ and established by His Apostles was strictly instructed to keep it exactly as it had been originally delivered by Christ.

I Corinthians 11:23-34. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he found himself writing to some spiritual babes in Christ who were having difficulty comprehending several fundamental concepts of Christianity. Among their challenges were divisions, gross immorality, and misunderstandings about the resurrection - to name a few.

Also among their problems was a misunderstanding concerning the correct observance of the Lord's Supper. Like many modern day churches, the Corinthians didn't realize it was unacceptable to observe the Lord's Supper "just any old' way you please." This is why I Corinthians 11 is an extremely important chapter, because it essentially silences any conjecture about how the Lord's Supper was to be properly observed.

According to I Corinthians 11:17-22, the Corinthians were divided. And although it's not completely clear just exactly what was going on at Corinth during Communion, fortunately it's not important to know all the trivial details. The main thing to know is that they were doing it wrong and Paul was about to tell them how to do it right:

“20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in your eating each one takes his own supper first... What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God...What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.”

Stern words indeed! The Corinthians had corrupted the Lord's Supper to Paul's conspicuous displeasure. And it no doubt shocked them to know they were not eating the Lord's Supper at all! They certainly thought so. After all, they were assembling, they were communing, and they were remembering Christ - weren't they? True, but the problem was that they had altered this simple memorial to the extent Paul would say, in effect, "it's not the Lord's Supper you're eating any more." In other words, they were eating their own Supper rather than the Lord's Supper.

What did Paul do to correct this situation? Did he give them some guidelines totally different from those Christ prescribed in Matthew 26:26-29? Quite to the contrary, Paul directed the Corinthians right back to the way the Supper had been originally observed (I Corinthians 11:23-27):

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.’In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.‘ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.”

Doesn't this sound familiar? Needless to say, Paul basically quotes the gospel accounts of how Christ observed the Communion, telling the Corinthians to do exactly the same. In other words, Paul vigorously urged the Corinthians to observe the Lord's Supper - not as they pleased - but exactly as Christ had originally ordained. Even though decades had passed since Christ, in that upper room in Jerusalem, had carefully demonstrated to His disciples proper observance of the Communion - they were still not at liberty "to do things their own way." Changes were not permissible.

But because of the problems the Corinthians were having with this simple memorial, Paul reminded them why it was important to keep it unaltered - because of the symbolism involved. He repeated that the bread represented the Body of Christ, and that the cup was "the new covenant in my blood." The cup literally stood for, or represented, the New Covenant of forgiveness between God and Mankind; a covenant ratified by Christ's blood (symbolized by the fruit of the vine within the cup).

Notice also that Christ commanded His disciples to "Do this" (v 24,25). This is a direct command to do exactly what Christ had done! Christ did not command the Corinthians to "do something else" but to "do this", that is to say, to do exactly what He had done in this simple memorial. Any change was precariously unauthorized.

Then, to remind them of the importance of the Lord's Supper, Paul went on in verse 26 to explain: "as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." The Lord's Supper was God's way of perpetually keeping the greatest sacrifice ever made before the human race.

Finally, in verse 27, Paul reminded them of the dangers of improperly observing this important memorial. He said: "...whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." A chilling statement indeed!

The Corinthians were observing the Lord's Supper "every first day of the week." It's very apparent that the Corinthians, under Paul's direction and instruction, were not observing this unprecedented memorial every Easter, nor were they practicing it just whenever they acquired a pious urge; rather, the Corinthians were attending to Communion every single first day of the week. (Notice that they weren't communing every "Sunday" but every "first day of the week" - a day which was understood by early Christians to be the first day following the Jewish Sabbath, i.e., a day which started at dusk on Saturday and ended at dusk on Sunday).

How do we know they communed every first day of the week? Because in I Corinthians 11:18-22 we find that the Corinthians were communing "when they came together." Later on, in I Corinthians 16:1-2, we discover exactly when the Corinthians "came together": "every first day of the week" - a time when they also made financial contributions to the Church, among other things. Therefore if they were coming together "every first day of the week," and if when they came together they were communing (I Corinthians 11:18), then obviously the Corinthians were partaking of the Lord's Supper every first day of the week. Acts 20:7, along with numerous historical references, provides further supporting evidence.

I Corinthians 10:16-17. As you can see, the Bible is incredibly harmonious and uncomplicated when it comes to Communion. And I Corinthians 10:16-17 is no exception:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

Notice that when the Corinthians drank of the one cup together, they were "sharing" in the blood of Christ (thus, the Lord's Supper is also called "Communion," which means "sharing," or "joint participation"). The point is, they were to share the one cup rather than drink from individual cups.”

With the bread it was the same. They were to share it as well, rather than have individual fragments of pre-broken bread. Paul explains this better in the next verse:

“17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.”

Paul makes it plain that all the Corinthians were partaking of "one bread." Why were they doing this? Why the inconvenience, why - as some would hysterically suggest - this needless exposure to germs? Because, according to Paul, the "oneness" of the bread represented unity in the body of Christ, or Church of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23). If one bread represents one body (or one unified Church), what do you think many individual loaves must represent to God? Would it not represent the division caused by the introduction of these innovations to worship?

There's no question that God considers division to be a great sin(I Corinthians 1:10). Soon we're going to show that it was not until almost 1900 that the concept of multiple cups and multiple loaves was sizably advanced among Christian churches - and it predictably led to immediate and major division.

When symbols are changed, meanings also change. As a final review, let's briefly inspect each item of the Communion containing symbolism:

1) The Bread symbolized the literal body of Christ, as well as the spiritual body of Christ, the Church.
2) The Cup symbolized the New Testament, or New Covenant, that God made with mankind.
3) The oneness of the loaf represented the unity of Christ's Church.
4) And the oneness of the cup represented the one and final New Testament, or Covenant, we have with God.

Obviously, if any of these symbolic items are changed, the symbolism changes too. And, the same reasoning used to justify one modification may also be used to justify any other modification.

For example, if I change the oneness of the cup (i.e., have multiple cups in Communion), why can't I change the contents to water, or coke? If I change the loaf to crackers, why not change it to a hamburger? In fact, why do I need to drink or eat anything during Communion? Isn't this a spiritual observance, anyway? Can't I just "think it?" After all, isn't remembering Christ the main idea? One of the inconsistencies in the logic of those who oppose Biblical Communion is that these same people would greatly object if someone decided to use water instead of grape juice or a hamburger instead of unleavened bread - and well they should.
It is also important to realize that while some items involved in the Communion were symbolic, some "items" were not. The things symbolic cannot be changed without destroying the intended symbolism. The things that are not symbolic are not important, and may be scripturally changed. They are "incidentals."

For example, Christ also commemorated the memorial at night, in an upper room, in Jerusalem, with 12 other men. Does this mean we all have to commune in Jerusalem, at night, in an upper room, with exactly 12 other men? Certainly, if Christ had given symbolism to any of these things then we would be required to copy His actions. However, because He did not, we don’t. In fact, it would be just as wrong to give symbolism to something that lacked it as it would be to take away symbolism from something that did not.

HOW DID THE JEWS OBSERVE
THE PASSOVER?

"Why is it important to know how the Jews observed the Passover?" someone might ask. As we have just seen, Christ chose to originate Communion just after the Passover Feast had ended. He did this for profound spiritual reasons. Paul referred to Christ as "our Passover Lamb" who was sacrificed for us (I Corinthians 5:7). Clearly, Paul was making a connection between Christ's crucifixion and the killing of the Passover lamb. Jesus was also called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:35). Therefore the fact that Christ chose to originate the Lord's Supper right after the Passover dinner and during the Passover feast itself was no accident. What this means is that understanding more about the Passover will only serve to help us better understand the Lord's Supper and how Christ expected us to observe it.

The Passover was an annual Jewish celebration of their freedom from Egyptian bondage under the leadership of Moses around 1500 B. C. The celebration, or "feast," lasted 7 days. The word "Passover" was derived from the 10th plague God sent on Egypt (when all the firstborn sons in Egypt were to be killed by the destroying angel - Exodus 12:3-40); the angel "passed over" the houses of the Israelites. The feast is also sometimes called "the Feast of Unleavened Bread" because the Israelites hastily baked unleavened bread before departing Egypt, thus the Jews were commanded to observe the Passover using only unleavened bread. During the Passover the Jews also developed customs over time that involved drinking "fruit of the vine" from various cups - a custom we will now notice in more detail.

Although we will not go into great detail about the Passover, let's briefly examine what historians and scholars have said regarding some of the Passover's mechanics. The following quotations we owe to the work of George Hogland in his tract "The Cup of the Lord, Is it the Fruit of the Vine Only?" Underlines have been added for emphasis:

Eadies Biblical Cyclopedia, by John Eadie
Comments on I Corinthians 10:16

The master of the feast took a cup of wine in his hand and solemnly blessed God for it and for all the mercies which were then acknowledged. It was now passed to all the guests, each of whom drank of it in turn.”

Greek New Testament with English Notes, by J.A. Spencer
Comments on Mark 14:23
At the Passover the guests all drank out of the same cup.”

Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament
Vol 2, pages 326-7
A cup of red wine, mixed with water was poured out for each guest...at the Passover Supper each participant had his own cup to drink from...”

Lenski's the Interpretation of Matthew
Page 1027
Whether a different cup was used for each of the four or five times of drinking in connection with the Passover, or whether only one cup was used and this was refilled as needed is not certain and quite immaterial. The point is that Jesus instituted the sacrament with the use of one cup and that He bade all the disciples to drink out of this one cup.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary
Page 164
In common practice each person had his own cup in the celebration of the Passover. But here all the disciples drink from Jesus' cup. While realizing that some of these men were attaching their own opinions and comments, they seem to basically agree that each participant in the Passover had a cup of his own, although it was also common for the master of the Passover feast to have a common cup from which all the participants drank. It's therefore readily apparent that these historical/ scholarly accounts fit flawlessly with the Biblical description of how Jesus observed Communion. He took His cup, blessed it, and passed it to each of His disciples. Although they had their own cups and easily could have used them, Jesus insisted that they all drink from His.”

HOW DID THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH
OBSERVE COMMUNION?

We've already shown how Christ observed the Communion; and we've shown how Paul instructed the early Church to follow the same original pattern. We've seen that historical accounts of the Passover also harmonize seamlessly with the Biblical account. But what about early Church history? How did the Church observe the Communion after the death of the Apostles? How was it done in the 2nd Century and beyond?

While baptism, Church government, worship, and many other original patterns of worship were rapidly revised after the passing of the Apostles - one-cup Communion, by contrast, was such a simple fact of plain Biblical interpretation that it remained intact for almost 1900 years.

Naturally, it's greatly inadvisable to pattern today's Church after any historical church excepting the one described in the Bible, for one can cite all sorts of godless acts performed officially by "churches of Christendom" down through the ages. However, history is valuable in that it reveals important information concerning how the vast majority of Christian churches observed Communion before they became too steeped in the Apostatizing influences of the Roman Catholic Church.

So, let's look at some historical quotes of the early Church regarding Communion. We owe thanks for most of these to J. D. Phillips' tract: "The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness Being a Treatise to Restore the Scriptural Observance of the Lord's Supper":

Ante-Nicene Fathers
Vol. 1, page 81
Quote of Ignatius, bishop in the Church at Antioch, martyred in 107
There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of His blood...”

Vol. 1, page 185
Justin Martyr (Christian leader martyred in 165)
There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine. The sacrifice which we offer in His name, according to the commandment of Jesus Christ, i.e., in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Cup, and which are offered by Christians in all places throughout the world.”

Against Heresies
By Irenaeus
(130-202?), bishop of Lyons
“...the bread and the mingled cup...the cup of the Eucharist, the communion of His blood...When the mingled cup and the...bread received the Word of God, the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers to 325 A.D.
Vol VII, Page 554 [quote taken from about 200 A.D.]
The priest...says a prayer...then breaks the bread, and holds the half in his right hand, and the half in his left...And when he gives a single piece to each chalice, he says...”

Ad Caecilium Dominici Calicis, Ep 63, 62, 16
Cyprian, Christian martyred in 258 A.D.
Since Christ says: "I am the true vine," the blood of Christ is not, therefore, water, but wine; nor can His blood appear to be in the cup by which we have been redeemed and made alive, when the wine is absent from the chalice by which the blood of Christ is shown forth...Seeing that they drink the cup of Christ's blood..."

Ambrose (340-397), bishop at Milan
Theodorst Hist. Eccl.
Vol 17
We, receiving of one loaf and one cup are receivers and partakers of the body of the Lord...With what rashness dost thou [the Emperor Theodosius] take with thy mouth the cup of precious blood, when by the fury of thy words innocent blood has been spilt.”

Ambrose (340-397), bishop at Milan
Book on the Sacraments
L. IV, Ch. 4
Wine is put into the cup...”

Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Antioch
Chrysostom (347-407), bishop at Constantinople
One body is now available for all, and one cup...”

Ad Neophytos, I
Augustine (354-430), early Christian writer
Receive in the cup that which was shed from Christ's side...”

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
Second Series, Vol 14, Page 138-9
The others [deacons] bring and set upon the altar the breads and chalices prepared for the sacred banquet...then taking his inspiration from the last words...and declaring that it is in order to observe this memorial...this eucharistic bread and wine...”

What history seems to be saying is that, while a few isolated cases of multi-cup Communion started emerging by 200 A.D., and while other innovations to Communion were also surfacing (wine in Communion, transubstantiation, etc) the vast majority of early "Christian" churches worshipped as Christ and the Apostles had done - with one cup and one loaf. It was apparently not until almost 200 years after Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper that any case of individual cups in Communion could be found whatsoever. In fact, even with the many false teachers about whom Christ and the apostles had warned the Church repeatedly, it was not until almost 1900 that multiple cups/loaves in Communion became widespread in any Christian church of any sort.

While infant baptism, superstitions, and various blatant doctrinal errors flooded Christian churches almost immediately - one-cup Communion remained constant for practically 1900 years. And this shouldn't come as a big surprise considering the utter plainness and simplicity of the Bible on this topic.

WHEN DID SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OCCUR
IN THE COMMUNION, AND WHY?

As has just been noted, although isolated cases of individual cups can be found in history, the vast majority of Christian churches clung quite adamantly to one-cup Communion. As has been mentioned, it was apparently not until almost 1900 that widespread changes were made to the Lord's Supper. Though several men have clamored to take "credit" for the lamentable Church divisions caused by these innovations, it seems the man most deserving was the "Reverend" and Presbyterian preacher J. G. Thomas, MD, who was granted a patent in 1894 for individual cups. His congregation was presumably the first to use patented multiple cups for Communion. Of course, their introduction received bitter opposition in virtually all denominations.

G. C. Brewer, in his book Forty Years on the Firing Line (1948), boasted: "I think I was the first preacher to advocate the use of the individual communion cup and the first church in the State of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching...after a long struggle, I got the individual communion service into [another congregation]. Of course, I was fought both privately and publicly and several brethren took me to task in the religious papers and called me digressive."

The Lutherans were strongly opposed to the introduction of individual cups. Listen to the Lutheran commentator Lenski on Luke 22:20: "...Jesus instituted the sacrament with a common cup that was used for all the disciples. Any change in what Jesus did, which has back of it the idea that he would not do the same thing today for sanitary or esthetic reasons, casts a reflection on Jesus which is too grave to be allowed when He is giving us His sacrificial blood to drink."

Why all the change after 1900 years?

One might wonder why, after so many centuries, Christians suddenly "got the urge" to alter what Jesus, the Apostles, and the vast majority of Christian churches throughout the ages had consistently practiced. The motives behind these changes are rather predictable. After 1900 years of adhering relatively close to the Apostolic pattern - due to 19th century medical research - the world was becoming more and more aware of little, microscopic organisms called "germs."

Due to the discovery of these germs, apparently some religious leaders felt it was time to take decisive action for the safety of the churches. They ostensibly believed that Christ and Paul had either overlooked or totally forgotten about these little organisms when instructing the disciples and early congregations to all drink from a common cup. But doesn't it seem odd that Christ and the Holy Spirit - both directly involved in the universe's creation - somehow unanimously and inexplicably acquired "bacterial amnesia" until primitive 19th century scientists helped them out?

How quickly we forget the words of Paul:
"the foolishness of God is wiser than men"
(I Corinthians 1:25).


Yet, incredibly, after almost 1900 years, "modern man" felt he had discovered something God had overlooked, felt he had a "better idea," an idea that was destined from baseless fears to destroy the simple symbolism intended by Christ in the Communion and divide churches across the world.

Thus, germs were the culprits precipitating the wave of fear in the Church, fear of the unknown. This anxiety immediately compelled some to consider alternatives to the scriptural method of Communion. And it wasn't long before scriptural justifications for such innovations were being carefully crafted. In a moment we will notice some of the complicated and convoluted argumentation invented to confuse this otherwise rudimentary issue and thus win followers - argumentation used by those who had decided first that cups would be necessary for hygienic reasons before finally looking to the Scriptures for divine justification.

It's also worth noting that this new-found logic was unknown before men decided they wanted to use multiple cups in the Communion. Believe it or not, scholars did not read all the plain Bible verses on Communion and then exclaim: "We should have been using multiple cups all along!" It was clearly the other way around. It was first decided - due to the discovery of germs - that individual cups would be necessary; then men looked for Biblical justification.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

You can accept the authority of Christ by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized INTO Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (See Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:20-21), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).

WE WELCOME YOU

Following the instructions of the Scriptures, members of Christ’s body assemble as congregations for worship, encouragement, and Bible study. The congregation in your community welcomes you to investigate the Bible with us. With a spirit of brotherly love we would seek to reconcile any differences by following the Bible ONLY. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired word, the ONLY reliable standard of faith and practice. We desire the unity for which Christ prayed and which the Bible emphasizes in the expression, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Together we seek to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

A friendly welcome awaits you. We do not wish to embarrass you in any way. You will not be asked for contributions. We assemble for Bible study and worship each Sunday morning and we welcome you to meet with us. We would be happy to talk to you about your questions and we want to be of encouragement. Please e-mail me, Dennis Crawford, at BibleTruthsToU@gmail.com for comments or further Bible information, or for the location of a congregation belonging to Jesus Christ near you.

Read more!

Please contact me if you have any Suggestions, Comments, or Questions

How did you find this site?