“This Cup Is the New Testament”

(Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25)
by Wayne Fussell
Preacher’s Study Notes 1990 I. Introduction

A. Question: How many cups should be used on the Lord’s Table?
1. We reply, “One.” Others say, “The cup has no significance.”
2. Is this so? Are there only two elements in the Lord’s Supper with any significance? What did Jesus mean then when He said, “This cup is the New Testament?” (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).
B. I suggest to you that Jesus gave significance to the cup. He called it the “New Testament.” This is one reason we believe in using only one cup in communion. There is only one covenant between God and His people, represented by that cup.

II. The Parallel Passages

A. Matthew 26:26-29 Note: Matthew mentions the loaf, cup and fruit of the vine. He give significance only to the loaf and fruit of the vine.
B. Mark 14:22-25
Note: Again, only the loaf and fruit of vine are given meaning.
C. Luke 22: 17-20
Note: This time significance is given to the cup.
D. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
Note: As in Luke, meaning is given to the cup.
E. We must take all the passages on any subject to learn truth. Example: the Great Commission (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24).
F. Notice the parallel statements concerning elements in the communion:
“This (bread) is my body which is given for you.” (Luke 22:19)
“This (fruit of the vine) is my blood of the New Testament” (Mark 14:24)
“This cup is the new testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20)
“This cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25)
Notice some things that are parallel (cf. The Divine Pattern, by Alfred Newberry).
1. The three statements are contextual, analogical, syntactical and grammatical parallels in their essential particulars.
2. Each has a subject and a predicate joined by the copula “is.”
3. Each embraces a metaphor which is a figure of comparison and which is suggested by “is”; in which usage “is” carries with it the idea of “represents.” In other words, just as the bread represents the body and the fruit of the vine the blood, so the cup represents the New Testament.
4. Each also embraces a prolepsis --- “is given,” “is shed”; anticipatory language, in which a future event is spoken of as an accomplished fact.
5. The subject of each is a literal something. If the bread is literal and the fruit of the vine is literal, then “the cup is literal.”
6. If after Christ made these statements, the bread was still literal bread but with a spiritual significance, and the fruit of the vine was still literal fruit of the vine but with a spiritual significance, then the cup was still a literal cup but with a spiritual significance.
7. If when Christ said of the bread, “This is my body which is given for you,” the bread and the body of Christ were two different things but with a spiritual relationship; and if when Christ said of the fruit of the vine, “This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many,” the fruit of the vine and the shed blood were two different things but with a spiritual relationship; then, when Christ said, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” the cup and the New Testament were two different things but with a spiritual relationship.
8. If the bread Christ took was literal bread before, when and after He took it; and if the fruit of the vine He took was literal fruit of the vine before, when and after He took it; then, the cup He took was a literal cup before, when and after He took it.
9. Jesus was no more defining “cup” than He was defining “bread” and “fruit of the vine.” Bread was still bread, fruit of the vine was still fruit of the vine, and cup was still cup.
a. Therefore, these passages in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians are parallel statements. When they are taken together, we see that just as the loaf represents the body and the fruit of the vine represents the blood, the cup represents the New Testament.
b. The cup has meaning. It is the picture of the New Testament or New Covenant.
G. Definition of Cup (Greek, poteerion):
Young: “A drinking vessel”
Berry: “A drinking cup”
Liddell & Scott: “A drinking-cup, wine-cup”
Bagster: “A vessel for drinking”
Robinson: “a drinking vessel, a cup”
Bullinger: “a drinking cup”
Thayer: “a drinking vessel”
Therefore, Jesus took a drinking vessel, a literal cup with literal contents.
H. Some Translations:
Moffatt: “This cup means the new covenant ratified by my blood.”
Williams: “This cup is the new covenant ratified by my blood.”
TCNT: “This cup is the new covenant made by my blood.”
Goodspeed: “This cup is the new agreement ratified by my blood.”
“He took the wine cup and gave thanks and gave it to them and they all drank from it And he said to them, 'This is my blood which ratifies the agreement, I tell you, I will never drink the product of the vine again till the day when I shall drink the new wine in the Kingdom of God” (Mark 14:23-25, Goodspeed).

From his translation, Goodspeed confirms that the fruit of the vine is the blood that ratified the New Testament, while the cup is the New Testament which was ratified by the blood.
I. Figure of Speech: Metaphor

1. In the clause, “This cup is the New Testament,” a metaphor is used.
2. Figure often used:
a. Jesus said, “I am the door” - “the vine” - “shepherd”
b. Definition: “A metaphor is a trope, by which a word is diverted from its proper and genuine signification to another meaning, for the sake of comparison, or because there is some analogy between the similitude and the thing signified.” (Home’s Introduction, p. 134)
c. The cup, or drinking vessel, represents metaphorically the New Testament The copula estin, “is,” suggests a metaphor.


This is called by grammarians the copula of symbolic being. Otherwise, they say, the identity of the subject and predicate would form a conception equally impossible to both speakers and hearers (D. C. Troxel, professor of Greek In Transylvania University, from The Cup of the Lord by J. D. Phillips).

“This cup is the New Covenant.” Not it itself, surely; for the two things are distinct. Its contents, then, cannot be the blood itself. One fact shows this. Just after saying, ‘This is my blood,’ He calls the contents ‘this fruit of the vine.’ The substance, then, in the cup, remained unchanged. The esti, “is” therefore, can only be the copula of symbolic relation. The cup symbolizes, and is a seal of the new covenant. “The fruit of the vine,” then, must symbolize the blood of that covenant, and be the medium through which it is received. (The Holy Supper, H. M. Paynter, p. 182, quoted in The Cup of the Lord by J. D. Phillips).

The phrase is not, “This is the cup,” but, “This cup is the new covenant.” “This” qualifies “cup.” Nor is the cup put for its contents. It is not “the contents,” but the “cup,” including its contents, that is the “new testament” (ibid, p. 163).

J. A Troubling Phrase: “Which is shed for you”
Some have problem with this phrase and suggest that it grammatically refers back to cup. Since a cup cannot be shed, some say that it is a metonymy of the container for the contained and therefore the fruit of the vine represents the New Testament as well as the blood. Authorities have been quoted and a case made for this view.

Sometimes we must just use common sense in interpreting the Word. We understand that a cup cannot be shed, but we also know that fruit of the vine cannot be shed. It was Jesus’ blood that was shed. The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that “which is shed” refers to Jesus’ blood. Ordinary folks do not have a problem with it because we can look beyond the verbage and come to a reasonable understanding of what our Lord was saying. The simple fact is that Jesus said the cup was the New Testament, and we must accept this.

For further study of this passage, I refer you to the explanations offered by Jerry Cutter and Ellis Lindsey some years ago. (J. D. Phillips used the figure of speech “hypallage” to answer this argument. You can find his reasoning in The Cup of the Lord.)

They believe that the antecedent of which, or which is shed for you, is cup, agreeing with the lexicons, thus making the cup the fruit of the vine, rather than the literal cup. Passing quickly over this at the moment, they have found themselves in the unhappy position of having Jesus shedding fruit of the vine rather than his blood (“The Digressive View,” Jerry Cutter, quoted from notes passed out at an annual study).

III. What Is the New Testament?

A. “Testament” (or “covenant”) denotes an agreement between two or more persons.
1. The cup is the symbol of that agreement made by God with Jesus concerning us. We benefit from that covenant when we enter into a covenant relationship with God.
Covenant, from “con,” “together,” and “venio,” “I come,” signifies an agreement, contract, or compact, between two parties, by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on certain conditions and penalties (Adam Clark).
2. The Greeks had two words for covenant viz., suntheke and diatheke. The former was used to denote a solemn agreement made between equals; and the latter, to denote any arrangement made by a superior for the acceptance and observance of an inferior. And hence it is, that all of God’s covenants are expressed in Greek by diatheke. The suntheke is not found in the New Testament; but diatheke occurs in it thirty-three times; and b’reeth is used 267 times in the Old Testament. Three things are implied in every covenant, viz., the covenantor, the covenantee and the various stipulations which are made and entered into by the parties (Robert Milligin, p. 77).
3. The word originally “was an agreement between two clans or tribes represented by their leaders, and also between individuals for themselves ...” The main object of such early agreements was the promotion of peace and safety, since the natural condition of primitive man was that of warfare: (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia).
4. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “In essence a covenant is an agreement, but an agreement of a solemn and binding force.”
5. All covenants have certain common characteristics. James Hastings (A Bible Dictionary) points out four:
· Every covenant implies two parties.
· A covenant benefits at least one of the parties.
· A covenant creates a new relation between the parties
· A covenant creates a right for each party.
6. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia adds four other features of a covenant:
• A statement of the terms agreed upon.
• An oath by each party to observe the terms.
• A curse invoked if the terms are not observed.
• The formal ratification of the covenant by a solemn act.
7. We can see each of these characteristics exemplified in the biblical covenants.

B. Major covenants between God and men had signs or symbols:
· Covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:12-17) --- Rainbow
· Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14) --- Circumcision
· Covenant with Israel (Leviticus 12:3) --- Circumcision
· Covenant of Salt (Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5) --- Salt
· New Covenant - (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) --- Cup

IV. Covenants and Blood
(“the New Testament in my blood,” “blood of the New Testament”)

A. J. D. Phillips told us in a study many years ago about the custom of making covenants in ancient Oriental countries. The people making the covenant would sit around a table. Each would draw blood from his body into a cup and then the cup would be passed around. Each person would take a sip of the mingled blood. This sealed the covenant or agreement between those individuals. J. D. suggested that this practice would have been well-known by those who were present for the institution of the Lord’s Supper. While they could not drink blood, they could drink a symbol of blood. All ancient societies have blood covenants.
B. Blood has always been associated with God’s covenants from beginning.
1. Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15)
God promised Canaan to Abraham. He told him to bring a young bull, goat, ram, dove and pigeons and kill them. These constitute the representative categories of sacrificial birds and animals. Abraham killed all of these and split the animals in two, lay each half over against the other, leaving a passageway between. In Jeremiah 34:18 we are informed that this was a solemn way of ratifying a covenant The parties to the covenant killed an animal, dividing the carcass lengthwise. They placed the pieces opposite each other and walked between them to meet in the middle, where they took the ritual oath.

Abraham did as God required, and at sunset he heard God speaking and saw a smoking furnace and burning lamp pass between pieces of animals, symbolizing that God was entering into a covenant. “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.” (Genesis 15:18). The point is, blood was shed in sealing this all-important covenant.
2. The Old Covenant (Exodus 24:4-8)

a. Note: The “book of the covenant” was one thing --- the “blood of the covenant” was another (2 Kings 23:2; 2 Chronicles 34:30; Hebrews 10:29).
b. Both the blood and the covenant were visible. On the Lord’s Table, both the cup and its contents are visible. Just as the people could see the covenant and the blood which ratified it, we can see a symbol of the covenant and a symbol of the blood which ratified that covenant.
3. The New Covenant (Hebrews 9:11-20)
a. Hebrews shows how the ratifying of the Old Covenant was typical of the ratifying of the New. The blood of animals was sprinkled on the “book of the covenant” then. The blood of Christ ratifies (makes effective) the New.
b. Take note: The blood of the Old Testament was not the testament. And the blood of the New Testament is not the testament. The blood ratified the testament.
c. Matthew and Mark call the fruit of the vine “the blood of the New Testament.” Luke and Paul call the cup “the new testament in the blood”—Two vastly different statements. Matthew and Mark give significance to the grape juice. Luke and Paul gives significance to the cup. Matthew and Mark emphasize the blood, while Luke and Paul emphasize the New Covenant. Is that a contradiction? No more than the differences between the accounts of the Great Commission given by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Is baptism less important or unnecessary because it is not mentioned by Luke? Is repentance unnecessary because it is not mentioned by Matthew and Mark? Is belief unimportant because it is not imposed by the accounts of Matthew and Luke? The answers are self-evident.

C. Thayer says: “1 Corinthians 11:25; Luke 22:20 .. . (In both which the meaning is, ‘This cup containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by the shedding of my blood an emblem of the new covenant’” (p. 15).
D. James D. Bales writes in the Firm Foundation, July 17,1973:
“What is the New Covenant? .. . His blood is the blood of the covenant, His blood made the covenant operative, but the Covenant is not the blood itself, although the cup whose contents symbolized His blood was said to be the new Covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20). However, Christ is the mediator of the Covenant (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). He is not the mediator of his blood. His blood dedicated the Covenant and made it operative (Hebrews 9:15-26). His blood is the blood of the everlasting covenant, but it is not the blood of the everlasting blood --- as it would have to be if the blood and the covenant are the same thing (Hebrews 13:20).”

Even this scholarly brother who believes that it is all right to use individual cups, sees the difference in the blood and the covenant. We would wish that he could see the need to have only one cup to represent the covenant on the Lord’s Table.

V. The Cup Is a Sign of the New Covenant

A. Genesis 9: 16-17 reads, “And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”
B. God made a covenant, an agreement to never destroy the earth again by water. The rainbow was a token, sign or symbol of that agreement.
In like manner, the cup is a sign or token of the New Testament or new agreement. When we see the cup in communion, we are reminded of the agreement God made with Christ concerning our salvation.
C. Someone might argue, “We do not need a token of the New Testament. We have the New Testament itself.”
But remember: The cup is a symbol of the covenant --- not a symbol of a book of New Testament writings. The New Covenant is not a book. In your copy of the sacred Scriptures, the title page probably bears this statement “The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments.” This statement is correct, but not in the sense it is intended. There are not thirty-nine books in the “Old Testament.” There are not twenty-seven books in the “New Testament.”

The New Testament Scriptures explain the agreement and its terms. It was written to a covenant people --- those who had entered into a covenant relationship with God. Also, the New Testament was written when Jesus said, “This cup is the new testament.”

VI. Remembrance of the Covenant

A. In the communion we remember Jesus. When we remember Him, we should remember the covenant He instituted. The Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal.
B. Illustration: In eastern countries, the act of eating with someone is very meaningful. It suggested that those who ate together bound themselves to care for and protect one another.
1. The same is true among Indians. Eating a common meal equals promise never to hurt one another or be unfaithful. So, a covenant is suggested by the very act.
2. When Jesus invites us to His table, something very similar is implied. In a sense, we renew our covenant with Him each time we take the cup. We promise to be faithful to the covenant.

a. On the table we have a reminder of that covenant.
b. Judas was unfaithful: Psalm 41:9 reads, “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.”
c. In literal meaning, “sacrament” has a good purpose. It is from the Latin, “sacramentus”, which alluded to the oath Roman soldiers used when they swore to be faithful to the Emperor. We promise to be faithful to the Lord. We are reminded of that covenant each Lord’s Day in a very special sense.

ConclusionA. We have discussed a very important, yet little realized, symbol in the Lord’s Supper.
B. Let us realize that the blood and the covenant are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. The blood seals the covenant; the covenant makes the benefits of the blood available.

This is beautifully portrayed in the communion. The cup, which represents the New Testament, and the fruit of the vine, which represents the blood, are also inseparable. Just as the New Covenant conveys the benefits of the blood, the cup conveys the representative of that blood. And the presence of the fruit of the vine in the cup is that which makes the cup significant. There is no covenant without blood. The cup does not represent the testament without the emblem of blood.
C. There is only one New Covenant. There must of necessity be but one cup to symbolize it.

6126 Land 0’ Trees, Shreveport, LA 71119

Read more!

The Benefits Of Partaking Of The Communion

by Don French

WHAT IS THE COMMUNION
The Bible uses several different terms to describe the communion service. Each of these terms emphasizes a different aspect of the communion. To begin our study of this part of the worship, let us look at each term, the Bible uses to describe this part of the worship service.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
( 1 Corinthians 10:16)

First, we want to notice that the term communion is used in the Bible to refer to the item of worship specifically dedicated to the remembrance of Jesus. The word communion literally means a common sharing, a partnership, a fellowship. This term is used to emphasize the fact that this item of worship was instituted by Jesus Christ on the night in which he was betrayed. It was designed by God to always be done jointly with our brothers and sisters in Christ in a local congregation. We jointly share each of the three emblems which are part of this item of worship with all of our assembled brothers and sisters as well as with Jesus Christ. The Bread which we all jointly partake of, is it not the communion (common sharing) of the body of Christ. The Cup which contains the fruit of the vine (grape juice), is designed by God for all of the assembled Christians to jointly drink from the one cup.

In partaking from one cup, we are showing that we are all bound together by the one covenant which we have with God. Because the one Cup which represents the one covenant (contract) that we jointly have with God, contains the fruit of the vine which is to us as Christians the common sharing of the blood of Jesus Christ, we are all acknowledging that it was the blood of Jesus Christ, which ratified the New Testament and cleans us from all unrighteousness.

“Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.”
(1 Corinthians 10:21)

Here the term used to refer to the Communion is “the Lord’s Table”. The term “the Lord's Table” emphasizes the fact that this is something that we do that is ordained by the Lord. This term is emphasizing that the Lord is the one who determines what is to be set on this table and how. The Lord Jesus Christ is in charge. He instituted the Communion Service and he determines what is to be used on His table. If I say, “This is my wife's table”, this phrase shows that my wife is the one who determines what will be served, that she is the one in charge.

“When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.”
(1 Corinthians 11:20)

The term “The Lord's Supper” emphasizes the fact that we are partaking of a spiritual meal. But this term gives emphasis to what is to be eaten rather than who determines what items are in the Communion service. The term, the Lord’s Supper seems to place the emphasis on the emblems themselves being consumed rather than the table itself. The thoughts are centered around the emblems, the eating of these items, and the benefits that are available if we partake properly.

We have looked at three scriptural terms for the same part of the worship service, the Communion, the Lord’s Table, and the Lord’s Supper. Each of these terms brings out different aspects of this item of worship.

II. WHY WE PARTAKE OF THE COMMUNION
“Then Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.’ ” (John 6:53-57)

These verses in John are in dispute among various preachers and scholars as to their meaning. Some believe that Jesus is talking about simply following him, while others among whom is the author, believe that Jesus is prophetically talking about partaking of the communion. I believe that he is talking about partaking of the communion for several reasons;

1. Because the wording fits perfectly with what Jesus says later when He institutes the Lord’s Supper.
2. Because if you read the entire chapter of John 6, the listeners thought that Jesus was talking literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
3. Nowhere else in writings before Jesus time, during Jesus ministry or since Jesus ministry have I found someone else talking about eating their flesh and drinking of their blood and meaning they wanted someone to follow them.
4. If Jesus is using common terminology then why did most of Jesus’ followers and disciples become confused and quit following Him? In verses 66 and 67, we see that even the twelve apostles did not understand, but they stay because they know that Jesus is the Messiah, and He was the only one who had the words of life. But also I do not think it matters, since even if He was not talking about the communion, He was talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood which everyone admits that we do when we partake of the Lord’s Supper. So either way, I believe that the things written in John 6 apply.

One reason why we as Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper is because one who does not partake of the communion properly has no life in them. We as Christians must place a high priority on partaking of this spiritual meal so that we can live spiritually. We partake because one who partakes properly hath eternal life and having eternal life is what Christianity is all about. We partake in order to dwell in Christ. For human beings to rise above their frailties, we must partake of the flesh and blood of Christ. We partake because of the importance of the communion in our spiritual lives.

“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” (1 Corinthians 11:28-30)

We partake thoughtfully and carefully because of the responsibility that the Bible places on each of us to examine themselves and then to partake of the body and blood of the Lord. We partake thoughtfully because we can partake in an unworthy manner with disastrous consequences. We also want to show the greatest reverence and respect to our Lord. We can see that the attitude that we have when we partake is just as important as partaking on a consistent basis.

“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”
(1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

Paul in writing to the Corinthian brethren is correcting a number of things they were doing wrong. Apparently they had changed the entire worship service to God, because Paul in the remaining chapters of I Corinthians, covers the rules and guidelines for every part of the worship service. Here, he tells them because they had changed the communion service, they were no longer partaking of the Lord’s Supper. They had turned the communion into a common meal and they were eating that common physical meal during the worship service of the Church and calling it the Lord’s Supper. He goes on to tell the Corinthian brothers that no matter what they thought, no matter what excuses they made, what they were doing was wrong. They were bringing shame upon the Church and their brothers and sisters in Christ.

We are to stop and study carefully and make sure that what we are doing is what the Lord has commanded. If we want to partake of the Lord’s Supper, we need to make sure that we are partaking thoughtfully. Since it is possible to observe the communion improperly, we need to study in order to insure that we are partaking in a worthy manner. We also need to make sure that what we are doing is within the bounds of both the letter of the commands of God as well as its spirit.

We need to partake thoughtfully because heresies and false teachings are involved every time the communion is changed. We are to partake carefully at studying because there is no praise or no good involved in changing the communion. We partake thoughtfully so that we partake of the communion properly. We need to partake thoughtfully because the attitude that we have when we partake is what makes the difference between being saved or being lost.

III. HOW WE ARE TO PARTAKE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
The first element of the Communion is the bread. The Greek word translated bread in the New Testament is transliterated “ARTOS” which literally means “a loaf of bread”. This word is singular in nature and is defined by Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words in the following manner: artos NT:740, "bread", signifies (a) "a small loaf or cake," composed of flour and water, and baked, in shape either oblong or round, and about as thick as the thumb; Every translator or commentator that I have read uses a singular “a” or “the” when either translating or commenting on this word.

“And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.’ ”
(Luke 22:19)

To a Christian, the bread is the body of Jesus. While we know and understand that the bread physically always remains bread, to a Christian, it does not matter, we are to have the same respect and reverence as we would have if it literally became the body of Christ. This means that we need to be thinking about what Christ did for us. How he gave up his home in glory, came down to this low-land of sin and sorrow. He took the sins of the world on himself and paid the price for them by dying on the cross at Calvary, all for you and for me. We need to keep in mind the seriousness, the somberness and at the same time the tremendous joy of the occasion. We are to realize that we are to partake in remembrance of Jesus. We are to remember that Christ died on the cross in our place.

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, ‘Take, eat: this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.’ ”
(1 Corinthians 11:23-24)

The church at Corinth had changed the communion and in doing so, it meant that when they came together, they were no longer partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In correcting their sin Paul takes them back to the night in which Jesus was crucified and relates how the communion was instituted and how it should be done. Further more he reminds them that this knowledge had not been passed on through human beings to the Apostle Paul. Rather Paul makes it clear that he had received this information directly from God. He goes on to say that the bread represents the body of Christ, but only after it was blessed (prayed over). Prayer is an essential part of sanctification. The word sanctify means to set apart for a particular purpose, it is prayer that sets the bread aside for the purpose of representing the Body of Christ. We are reminded that we are to partake in remembrance of Jesus, our minds need to be centered on Christ during the communion.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

The Bible using the phrase, “The bread which we break,” referring to the fact that each Christian breaks off a piece of the bread and eats it. The Bible goes on to tell us that the partaking of the bread is the communion, the common sharing, of the body of Christ. It is because we jointly participate, or because the assembled Christians partake of one loaf that we are a congregation, a local body of believers with each of the members being part of one another.

THE CUP (Poterion; A Drinking Vessel, With or Without A Handle, With or Without A Stem)

The second element or item on the Lord’s table is the cup. The word Cup is translated from the Greek word poterion which according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament words means whenever this word is used the cup being spoken of is a literal cup.

“After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.”(1 Corinthians 11:25)

Paul is explaining what Jesus had revealed unto him says that the cup (singular) is the New Testament that Jesus brought into effect by his death. Every time we partake of the one cup, we need to remember that we are in a covenant relationship with God. We have a contract with God that was ratified with the blood of Christ. We should be thinking about the agreement that we made with God when we were baptized, we need to examine ourselves comparing the life that we have lead in the past week to the Bible and if we have sinned, we need to make it right then and there with God, rededicate our lives to his service and go forth sinless in the sight of God. Just as there is one contract between God and man, there is one cup on the Lord’s table. If we each have separate cups, it would indicate that we each have a separate contract with God, it would mean that there was more than one faith. Because there is one New Testament, Jesus took one cup and we are to partake just as Jesus did, from one cup.

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:20)

We have a plain declaration that the one cup represents the New Testament which was ratified by the blood of Christ. Just as you cannot pass around a liquid, such as the fruit of the vine without a container, you can not separate the blood of Jesus from the New Testament. The New Testament was brought into effect by the shedding of Christ's blood and we need to be thinking about that as we drink from the one cup.

FRUIT OF THE VINE (GRAPE JUICE)
The third element or item in the communion service, the Lord’s Supper, is the contents of the cup, the fruit of the vine. When used in this sense according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, it is being used as a figure of speech called a metonymy, in which the container is being referenced to imply the contents. This is shown clearly in the following verse where cup and fruit of the vine are used interchangeably.

“And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” (Luke 22:17-18)

The cup Jesus took contained the fruit of the vine. The assembled Disciples were told to divide it among themselves and we see this was to be done by drinking of the contents. Prayer is what dedicates the fruit of the vine as the blood of Christ and the cup as the New Testament. Until the prayer is said in the worship service to set aside the cup and its contents for their sanctified purpose, they are just a cup and fruit of the vine, but when the prayer (blessing) is said, to a Christian they become the New Testament and the blood of Christ.

“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. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.’ ” (Matthew 26:27-29)

Jesus took one cup containing the Fruit of the Vine. The contents of the cup after it was prayed for represents the blood of Jesus Christ The disciples were told to divide the contents of the cup by drinking it. There are only two ways this could happen, All drink from the cup, or drink all of the contents of the cup, by the last one drinking the last drop of grape juice from the cup. We are to remember that Jesus shed his blood for our sins. Jesus drank from the cup and communes with us in the Kingdom, the church

“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)

We see that Jesus took only one cup. Remember in the previous verses we looked at in Matthew, Jesus commanded them to divide the contents of the cup by drinking all of it. How did the disciples fulfill this command? They clearly understood what they were being asked to do because each one of the assembled disciples drank from of the one cup.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)

The cup here is said to contain a blessing. The phrase, “Which we bless” simply means that we dedicate it with prayer. This is the communion or the common sharing of the blood of Christ because we share the one cup by all drinking from it.

“Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.” (Isaiah 65:8)

The unfermented juice, the new wine, that comes from the cluster of grapes has a blessing in it. We know that the contents of the cup is unfermented grape juice and not just any juice from a vine. The fruit of the vine that grows in clusters is grapes and new wine is always unfermented when it is squeezed from the grapes. The term “Cup of Blessing” refers to the fact that God said through Isaiah that the liquid, the new wine, the grape juice, when it was squeezed from the grapes, contained a blessing. The communion cup contains a blessing because that blessing is in the new wine squeezed from a cluster of grapes.

IV. THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNION
The communion, the Lord’s Table, or the Lord’s Supper were instituted by God for various purposes. Let us investigate and see what the Bible says that some of those purposes are.

A Memorial Service“And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me.” (1 Corinthians 11:24)

We are to partake in remembrance of Jesus Christ. We should be thinking about what Jesus did for us, how He died for our sins. We should be respectful while the communion is going on. This is not a time to be balancing the checkbook, worrying about what we are cooking, or planning what we will be doing the rest of the day. We need to concentrate on what we are doing. We need also to remember the manner in which we partake can bring damnation on us.

An Outward Showing of Christ's Death“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till He come.” (1 Corinthians 11:26)

When we partake of the communion we are showing to others what Christ's death means to us. What does the manner that you partake of the communion show to the world, to your fellow Christians, and to Jesus who is in our midst, say about how you feel about Jesus and his death. The world has chosen to remember Christ's death at Easter, God intends for us to remember it weekly.

An Inward Examination“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.”
(1 Corinthians 11:28-29)

Each of us is to honestly examine ourselves before we partake. We are to compare our lives to the New Testament, see how we have done, repent and rededicate ourselves, then to partake of the communion. If partaken of properly, the congregation after the communion is made up of sinless, rededicated Christians. The communion is intended for Christians and Christians only, not for children or outsiders. But God leaves it up to each person to examine themselves and determine if they should partake.

Looking Forward to Christ's Return“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.”
(1 Corinthians 11:29)

We are to examine ourselves and partake remembering the judgment at Christ's return. If Christ returned at the end of the service, what would your destination be. Most of us have children or loved ones who have gone to be with Jesus, if Christ returned today, would you spend eternity with them or separated from them.

strong>When We are to Partake of the Communion“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7)

The disciples assemble on the first day of the week and partake of the communion Every first day of the week, we should plan ahead to worship God.

The Blessings That Come To Us From Properly Partaking Of The Communion
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” (1 Corinthians 11:26-31)

One of the blessings that we receive is that we remember weekly the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord. Another blessing that we receive is that weekly we reexamine and rededicate ourselves to God. If taken of properly another blessing we receive is that we grow in strength and to not fall away. Another blessing that we receive is that when we honestly judge ourselves, others do not have to judge us. The church sometimes must take action because individuals do not judge themselves. The laws of the land sometimes must judge Christians because they did not

“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

Another blessing that we receive is that as Israel ate a spiritual meal, so do we in the communion and are strengthened. Another blessing that we receive is that we feed our spiritual body, if we partake properly. The communion is one of only two places I find in the Bible where it says, If you do this properly, you will go to heaven and if you don't you are lost. The other is in II Peter, where we are told to add to our faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity and if we do this we shall never fall.

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.” (John 6:53-57)

One of the blessings that we receive when we partake of the communion properly is eternal spiritual life. Another blessing that we receive when we partake properly is that we partake of a spiritual meal.

“And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me.’ ”
(Luke 22:19)

Another blessing that we receive is that on a weekly basis we are reminded of what Christ did for us. Thus we are less likely to take him for granted. Human beings tend to easily forget the things that are done for them. I consider the fact that if I partake of the communion properly, that I will be less likely to take Jesus for granted and forget about what he did for me a tremendously important blessing.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
(1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

Another blessing that we receive if we partake in the proper manner is that on a weekly basis we come in contact with the blood of Christ. It is contact with the blood of Christ that takes away sin. If we partake properly, every week we are brought in contact with the blood of Christ and are rededicated to God. Another blessing that we receive if we partake properly is that we become members one of another. Another blessing that we receive if we partake properly is that we acknowledge that we are members of the body of Christ and as such we acknowledge the responsibility that we have for our brothers and sisters in Christ.

How The World Has Changed The Communion
The world has taken the simplicity and beauty of the communion and in the name of convenience has changed it into something that no longer paints the beautiful picture that is the Lord’s Supper. It has been changed within many of the congregations of the Lord’s Church into a bastardized version. The beauty of the one loaf of unleavened bread which is the one sinless body with Christ as its head has been changed into multiple loaves, which if it symbolizes anything it would be the denominational world which claims to follow Jesus as its head, but in reality has clearly taken the stand that the commands of Jesus mean much less than the thoughts of man. The beauty of the unleavened bread representing a sinless body has been changed into crackers that can no longer be said to represent the one sinless body, since each person having their own cracker has destroyed the image that God has portrayed of a body with many members and changed it into an image that could only be representing the fact that each person today feels that the body, the church is no longer important. The only picture that could be even attempted to be drawn is a grotesque image of a head being attached to each organ of its many bodies which have no connection let alone an interdependence on each other.

The beauty of the one cup which is the New Testament which shows that we share a common salvation, a common agreement with God has been changed to multiple cups which could only symbolize a concept that each Christian has worked out their own salvation with God since each one is separate from the other. The extent that many of our brothers and sisters in Christ will go to in order to justify their convenience and fear of germs is astounding to me. It just proves that what Paul wrote Timothy about profane and vain babbling being ungodly and increasing unto more ungodliness is as true as it ever was.

The beauty of the fruit of the vine, grape juice, being the blood of Christ is such a beautiful picture because it shows the image of how the blood of Christ is inseparable from the New Testament in the same way that the fruit of the vine or any liquid is inseparable from the container as it is passed from one member to another. It is contact with the blood of Christ that takes away sins and as the cup passes from one hand to the next, if each person is partaking in the way that they should, the image is presented each week of sinless members of the body of Christ being united by one covenant and being one body. This image is distorted and outright destroyed by many congregations and churches because of the use of fermentation in wine. The unleavened or unfermented wine, the fruit of the vine symbolizes purity as opposed to leavening which is used in the Bible to represent sin. The use of fermented wine to supposedly symbolize the pure sinless blood of Christ is an abomination which destroys the very concept the fruit of the vine shows. Truly the religious world has no concept of the simple beauty that Jesus showed in his instituting of the Lord’s Supper.

SUMMARY 1. The scriptural terms for this item of worship is The Communion, The Lord's Table, The Lord's Supper.
2. We partake of the Communion thoughtfully because to do so brings spiritual life.
3. We partake of the Lord's Supper in the way that the Lord delivered it, because that is the command of God. We partake of the Lord's Table in the way that He delivered it, because we can partake of it in an improper manner and we know that the way the Lord did it is right.
4. We partake upon every first day of the week, because that is the example laid down for us.
5. The Unleavened Bread is to Christians the common sharing of the body of Christ.
6. The Cup is to Christians the New Testament, that Contract that we have with God.
7. The Fruit of the Vine (Grape Juice) is to us as Christians the blood of Christ.
8. When we partake properly, our sins are taken away and we are rededicated to God.
9. When we partake properly, we are reminded of what Jesus did for us.
10. When we partake properly, we are made members one of another and we are made one congregation.
11. When we partake properly, we are promised by God that we will grow stronger and not fall away.

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!

When Should the Lord's Supper Be Observed?

by Calvin Warpula
Jesus instituted a memorial meal in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26), but we have no record that He told His disciples when to observe the meal.

Since the 1820s, the universal practice of the churches of Christ is to partake of the Lord's Supper every Sunday and only on Sunday. Some people are now questioning this practice and partaking of communion during special events on other days. Although it is true that there is no specific command to partake of communion on the first day of the week, the practice is substantiated by important biblical, historical and doctrinal considerations that cannot be ignored. People devoted to the restoration of New Testament Christianity ­ its doctrine, its ordinances, its fruits ­ will want to follow apostolic precedence and the singular practice of the church for the first 200 years of its existence.

During his third missionary journey, Paul was in such a hurry to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost that he did not have time to make a trip inland to Ephesus (Acts 20:16). However, he waited seven days in Troas for a first-day-of-the-week meeting when the disciples met "to break bread" (Acts 20:6-7).

Because a loaf of bread was served at each Jewish meal after the thanksgiving to God (Luke 24:30, 35), the action of breaking bread was the first act of any meal. This action was performed by Jesus during the Last Supper when He instituted the memorial bread and cup (Matthew 26:26-30).

The expression "to break bread" refers to eating a meal in Acts 2:46 and 27:35 because of the mention of food and hunger in context and the participation by unbelievers in the latter passage. "To break bread" became a specially coined expression to refer to the memorial bread and cup because the breaking of the bread was the opening action of the communion. This appears to be the meaning in Acts 2:42 where the breaking of bread is connected with three other aspects of Christian worship: teaching the apostles' doctrine, prayers and fellowship. This is probably the meaning in Acts 20:7 where the communion supper was the focus of the Christian assembly.

Because the first day of the week is specified, and every week has only one first day, then it appears that the first day of every week was the regular meeting time for these disciples. The church was scattered throughout the region, and without means of modern communication, with work and other obligations of the members, it was not possible to gather the congregation together for an unscheduled assembly. Because the next meeting would be the first time that Paul could visit with the church, he waited seven days for their next assembly.

When the first day of the week arrived, the congregation did not come together to hear Paul preach. They had planned to come together on that day regardless of Paul's presence. If 2,000 years from now, people found a piece of archaeological evidence that said, "And on the Fourth of July when the Americans came together to celebrate independence, the president spoke to them," they would understand that the Fourth of July had special significance to Americans and on that particular Fourth of July the president spoke. Similarly, we understand that the disciples were coming together on the first day of the week, and on this particular one, Paul addressed them.

Specifying the first day of the week implies a weekly meeting. If the brethren met at other times, the text might have read as follows: And at evening when we met to break bread ­ signifying daily meetings; And on the 15th day of the month when we met to break bread ­ monthly; and on the first day of the quarter when we met to break bread ­ quarterly; and on the 14th day of the seventh month when the disciples met together to break bread ­ annually; or and when we decided to meet, we broke bread together ­ an irregular meeting.

Jewish believers were in the established habit of meeting on the weekly Sabbath festival. It would be natural for them to celebrate the Resurrection, the greatest event in the Christian faith, by remembering it weekly in an assembly in honor of Jesus Christ.

Adolph Deissman encourages Christians to be careful not to infer too much from Acts 20:7. He wrote, "The passage furnishes no conclusive proof that the first day of the week was the regular day for celebrating the Lord's Supper, or that a universal Christian custom is here referred to. We may venture to conclude, however, with a fair measure of probability, that the first day of the week was, at the time, the day on which the Lord's Supper was observed at Troas." He added, "This passage being from the pen of an eyewitness, we are justified in regarding it as affording the first faint, yet unmistakable trace of a setting apart of the first day of the week for purposes of public worship by Christians" ("Lord's Day," Encyclopedia Biblica, pp. 2813-14).

This text is the only one that specifically ties together the first day of the week and disciples coming together to break bread. The disciples did not meet on the Sabbath as had been the custom of the Jews for hundreds of years. Why did they meet on the first day of the week? The only significance given to the first day of the week in the New Testament is as the day that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

No organization, including the church, can exist if it does not meet. The church is a family, and like a family, it needs time for communication, sharing ideas, teaching, helping one another, and celebrating events and traditions. All these occurred in the assembly when the church gathered (1 Corinthians 14:5, 12, 26). In these assemblies, letters from the apostles might be read (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27) and church discipline practiced (1 Corinthians 5). During the assembly, when the Christians came together, the church partook of the bread and cup in remembrance of Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:17-18, 20, 33-34). Christians are commanded not to miss the assembly (Hebrews 10:25).

Paul does not designate the day of the assembly in 1 Corinthians 10:17-18; 11:17-34. The only frequency reference is in verse 26: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (NKJV). How often was this? The best indication we have is where Paul teaches, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him and store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come" (16:1-2 asv). Some people think that these collections may have been in the assembly, but the words "each one of you lay by him and store" may indicate that each person collected the money at his own home. Whether the words refer to one common treasury or to individual, home treasuries, the day specified is the important point.

Wilfred Stott comments, "While the laying aside was at home, the day's connection with Christian worship would make it easy to remember this duty. This suggests that the first day was the regular day of worship" (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:412). Werner Foerster suggests this same possibility, "Perhaps Paul takes the day when the congregation was assembling and when its thought would thus be occupied with church affairs" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3:1096).

The indications are present that the church did assemble every Lord's Day. Why else would Paul name "the first day of every week," Greek kata specifying "every"? The first day of the week had no religious meaning to Jews other than the fact that it was the first day of the Creation.

Among the Gentiles, "there is no evidence of a Sunday celebration in paganism" (Everett Ferguson, "Sunday," Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p. 873). The conjecture that the first day of the week was the weekly payday for the poor is unlikely. Gentile astrologers began the week with Saturday, not Sunday. The fact that Paul referred to the day by the number first and not by its pagan name Sunday indicates that Paul was following Jewish time. Facts that would make the first day of the week significant were the Resurrection of Jesus on that day and the establishment of the church on the first day.

This first day of the week offering was much larger in Corinth. Paul had directed the Galatian churches to do the same (16:1). This day already had special significance to Christians because of Jesus' resurrection, so it was a convenient and appropriate time to remember help for the poor.

There is a basis, rooted in the gospel, for the choice of the first day. All the Gospels emphasize that the first day of the week is the day Christ rose from the dead (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-2, 9; Luke 24:1-2; John 20:1-2). Jesus also appeared to His disciples on the first day of the week. All the post-resurrection appearances of Christ, except the Ascension, could have been on the first day of the week because that is the only time reference given (John 20:19, 26). For it to be mentioned again and again in the resurrection narratives indicates that the day is doctrinally important in the Christian faith because the Old Testament is silent about any significance of the first day of the week, and the Jews attached no significance to that day. (NOT! Penecost came upon the “First day of the week”! pdc)

Stott comments, "The strong emphasis on the first day of the week, as the day on which Christ rose from the dead in all four Gospels, suggests that the theological reason for the change from the seventh to the first day was the resurrection of our Lord" (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:412).

Pentecost, which means 50, was always 50 days after the Sabbath after Passover (Leviticus 23:15-16). Jesus was crucified during Passover week and in the tomb on the Passover Sabbath. The day following the seventh Sabbath, later the Feast of Weeks, was called Pentecost in the New Testament. In the first century, the Sadducees controlled the temple calendar, and Pentecost was always celebrated on the first day of the week (F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans, 1984; p. 53, n.3). This is the day the Holy Spirit was poured out, the gospel was preached as historical fact, and 3,000 people were baptized (Acts 2:1-41). On this day, which Peter later referred to as "the beginning" (Acts 11:15), the four expressions of worship began: "the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers" (2:42)

The expression, the "Lord's Day," is when John says he was in the Spirit (Revelation 1:10). We presume that the seven churches of Asia and probably many other churches must have clearly understood to what day John was referring.

The adjective "Lord's," kuriaka, appears only one other time in Scripture in the expression "Lord's supper" (1 Corinthians 11:20). This unique, possessive adjective means, "of, or relating to, the Lord." It is a different form from the biblical, genitival expression "day of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 2:2). In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the "day of the Lord" is always translated as a genitive, never as the unique adjective found in the New Testament relating to the day and the Supper.

In the second and third centuries, church fathers unanimously used the expression "the Lord's day" to refer to the first day of the week. It was not used to refer to any ambiguous time or to the Sabbath day. Stott comments, "While it has been claimed that it refers to the last day, or even to Easter, it seems certain that the expression is the name which had come to be given to the first day of the week. From Ignatius (Mag. 9:1) onwards this is its meaning in patristic writers" (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:412).

Why would John, in A.D. 95, use the expression in reference to a day that had first been used by Paul 40 years earlier in 1 Corinthians in reference to a supper? It appears the only connection between the two is: 1. The first day of the week became uniquely Jesus' day because it was the day of His resurrection; and 2. It was the day that was uniquely tied to the observance of the Lord's Supper. It appears that the two are linked together so that there should be no Lord's Day without the Lord's Supper and no Lord's Supper without the Lord's Day.

Even today, the common designation of Sunday as the Lord's Day is the name that continues in Greek and the romance languages of southern Europe. The church in the centuries immediately following the apostolic age unanimously partook of the Lord's Supper on the first day of each week. It would be logical that this post-apostolic practice originated in apostolic times because it is so close to the times of the apostles.

About A.D. 112, Governor Pliny of Asia Minor wrote to the emperor Trajan about the Christians in his district. He said their practice was to meet "on a fixed day" for worship (Epistle X.96.7). He does not name the day, but Sunday is "certainly probable" (Deissman, "Lord's Day," Encyclopedia Biblica, 2814).

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, thought to date back to Syria about 115, says, "On the Lord's Day assemble and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure" (14:1).

The anonymous document known as the Epistle of Barnabas, usually dated 132-135, speaks about Christians worshiping on Sunday: "Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens" (15:8). Sunday was referred to as "the eighth day" because it followed the seventh day, the Sabbath, and, as the day of the Resurrection, was the beginning of a new era.

Everett Ferguson quotes patristic sources that associate the number eight with immortality and the world to come ("Sunday," Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p. 873). The expression may go back to the description of the second Sunday of Jesus' resurrection as "eight days later" (kjv) or translated as "a week later" (nrsv, niv) in John 20:26.

By the early second century, the Lord's Day had become a technical term for Sunday. Toward the end of the reign of Trajan (c. 98-117), Ignatius of Antioch, en route to Rome for martyrdom, wrote seven letters. In the epistle to the church at Magnesia, he spoke about the Lord's Day: "Those, then, who lived by ancient practices arrived at a new hope. They ceased to keep the Sabbath and lived by the Lord's Day, on which our life as well as theirs shone forth, thanks to him and his death." (9:1).

According to Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (c. 325), Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170) wrote eight letters. The letters are no longer extant, but Eusebius quotes Dionysius' letter to Rome: "Today we have passed the Lord's holy Day, in which we have read your epistle" (3:23). Eusebius also refers to Melito of Sardis (the last third of the second century) who he says wrote a discourse titled On the Lord's Day (3.26).

Justin Martyr of Rome (c. 150-165) wrote, "And on the day which is called the day of the sun there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or in the country. ... We hold our common assembly on the day of the sun, because it is the first day, on which God put to flight darkness and chaos and made the world, and on the same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead" (Apology I.67). In this same context, Justin describes the congregation's assembly on this day and their partaking of the memorial bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus.

Clement of Alexandria (160-215) applied Psalm 118:24, "This is the day the Lord has made," to the first day of the week (Stromata 6.16).

Many other church fathers testify to similar usage. No church father says anything different until Origen (c. 185-251) began to argue that "every day is the Lord's Day" and Cyprian (c. 200-258) approved the celebration of the Eucharist daily. In the third century, some observed the Eucharist on the anniversary of the death of the saints and on other special occasions. However, even then, "these extra occasions did not take away from the central importance of the weekly Sunday assembly in the life of the church" (Everett Ferguson, "Sunday," Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p. 874). Eventually, the daily Eucharist developed in the church, but it was at least 300 years after New Testament times. *

Calvin Warpula is the minister of the Johnson Street Church of Christ, 2200 Johnson St., San Angelo, TX 76904-5499.

Read more!

Questions Regarding the Cup

by Bill Davis
Preacher’s Study Notes 1996
Although the subject now under consideration is not the burning issue that it was a few years ago, we must not assume it is unimportant. Many today relegate it to a secondary position and seldom study the subject or teach on it. We must remember however, that a failure to teach a subject may cause loss of faith in that subject. Faith comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17). If we never hear anything about the cup, the inevitable result will be a loss of faith concerning it. When we lose faith, we lose our motivation and dynamic. This may explain our lack of zeal and fervor for this subject and other basic doctrinal issues as well. Consequently, we must study God’s Word regarding the cup, and teach it continually.

Three Questions Regarding 1 Corinthians 10:16.“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

Is the cup singular or plural?
Obviously the word “cup” is singular. It is not “cups” of blessing. The word “cups” is never used in the Bible with reference to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus began the Supper using a single cup, and it is not difficult to understand the language.

“Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.” (Matthew 26:27, NKJV).

“And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it” (Mark. 14:23).

These verses clearly teach that Jesus took one cup, blessed one cup, commanded His disciples to drink of one cup, and they drank of one cup. If men today would accept that which is simple and obvious, and obey the plain commands about the Lord’s Supper, there would be no problems with it. However, when men wish to change the simple and obvious, they sometimes resort to strange reasoning to do it.

For example, to get around the fact that a single cup was used in the Lord’s Supper, there are those who try to prove that 1 Corinthians 10:16 contains two cups. The argument goes like this: although the singular “cup” is employed, it refers to at least two cups because Paul uses the plural “we” to describe those who blessed it. Paul wrote from Ephesus, and he included both Corinth and Ephesus, when using the phrase “cup of blessing which we bless.” Then the conclusion is reached: if singular “cup” can include two cups, it can include hundreds of them.

There is one basic problem with this reasoning. If the congregation at Ephesus and the one at Corinth both blessed the same cup, they were of necessity worshipping in an inter-congregational capacity. If all congregations of the church bless the same cup, the church is worshipping in a universal capacity. There is no other possible conclusion. There is, however, no scriptural precedent for a universal or inter-congregational function of the church.

In the Bible, each congregation is independent of all others. The church does not act on any level other than the congregational unit. Ephesus blessed a cup and Corinth blessed a cup, but they did it independently of each other. The only way to get two cups from this situation is to have two congregations.

A scriptural parallel to this is the observance of the Passover by the nation of Israel. They were commanded to have a “lamb for an house” (Exodus 12:3). This meant that they were to observe the Passover on a household level. Yet, Exodus 12:5 reads, “your [plural] lamb [singular] shall be without blemish.” They understood this to be one lamb for each household. They did not say as people do today, “the word ‘your’ is plural, and that means there were many households in Israel. If there were many households there were many lambs and that means each house could use several lambs.” The fallacy of this is that the Passover was observed on a household level and not on a national level. Just as each household was to have one lamb, each congregation of the church is to have one cup.

The plural “we” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 refers to the assembled members of each congregation. It is not a reference to congregations forming the universal church. Jamison, Fausset, and Brown identify “we” as “we the many (viz, believers assembled, so the Greek).”1 Alford put it this way, “we (the assembled).”2 These and other scholars recognize that the only level of communion is the congregation. The church functions in no other way.

The Apostle Paul used the pronoun “we” to include himself with the Corinthians in spirit. He often does this in his writings, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 is one such example.

Is the cup one thing and the blessing another?
To answer this, we must find out what the “cup of blessing” means. There are at least three positions about what constitutes the “cup of blessing.”

1. Among Bible commentators, the most popular position, is that it refers to the third or perhaps the fourth cup in the Passover feast. This view is based upon the fact that Jesus had been observing the Passover when He instituted the Supper. It is therefore believed that if He were observing the Passover, He must have used a drinking vessel from that feast.

It is never a good idea to take a view that is contrary to world scholarship. If one does take such a view, it must be with extreme caution. Here however, the stance taken by many scholars is based upon assumption rather than Bible facts. First, it is assumed that the Passover included a drink element. Second, it is assumed that Jesus observed the Passover using a drink element. Third, it is assumed He used a cup from the Passover when founding the Lord’s Supper.

The facts are, there was no drink in the Passover feast. The four or five cups of the Passover were introduced much later in history and were a tradition of men. In view of Jesus’ severe condemnation of these traditions (Matthew 15:9), it is not likely that He followed them in this regard. If Jesus did not follow their traditions, He did not use a cup from the Passover. G. G. Findlay says concerning the view that makes the “cup of blessing” the third or fourth cup of the Passover “such a technical Hebraism would scarcely obvious to the Corinthians.”3 The Corinthians were Gentiles and did not understand Jewish tradition. Paul then surely did not employ Jewish tradition as a means of explaining the communion to the Gentiles. Jewish tradition would make no sense to them.

Someone may wonder, if the cup Jesus used was not from the Passover where did it come from? The answer is, Jesus (or someone) brought it for the express purpose of using it in the Supper. The memorial Supper was not begun suddenly or on a whim. Jesus had planned it and was prepared for it.

Again, someone might ask, what does the cup in Luke 22:17 refer to if not to a Passover cup? It refers to the cup used by Jesus in the Lord’s Supper. The fact that Luke mentioned the cup again (v. 20) does not prove that the first cup mentioned was a Passover cup. This is simply an instance of Luke making a general statement and then a more precise statement about the cup. Both statements are alluding to the same cup, the one in the Lord’s Supper.

2. A second description of the “cup of blessing” is that it is a cup over which a blessing is pronounced. The NIV translates it “a cup of thanksgiving,” implying that it is a cup over which thanks is offered. This position is similar to the above but without the trappings of the Passover. It is much closer, I think, to the truth than the first position. That thanks (or a blessing) was offered for the cup in the Lord’s Supper is true. In this sense, as Thayer says, it is a “consecrated cup.”4 It is a cup set aside for communion by offering thanks for it.

3. There is a third view, and I believe the correct one, which affirms that the “cup of blessing” is a cup, containing or conferring a blessing. Olshausen expresses this view in these words, “. . . if we take the poteerion, not passively, ‘cup, that is blessed’ but actively, ‘cup which confers blessing, the cup of blessing.’" F. L. Godet quotes Heninrici who says of 1 Corinthians 10:16, “the cup which contains the blessing of Christ.”6 G. G. Findley comments that it is “the cup which gives blessing, for which we give blessings to God.”7 Then finally, Joseph Exell says of the cup of blessing, “... it [cup] contains the blessing, the long promised, long looked for blessing. The wine in the cup is impregnated with blessing.”8 The idea of all these scholars is that the contents of the cup represents the blood, and His blood (death) is the source of all spiritual blessings.

It does not matter whether one contends that “the cup of blessing” is a blessed cup or a cup containing a blessing, the cup is one thing and the blessing is another.

Is the cup and the fruit of the vine the same?
Our cups brethren have been trying to prove for years that the cup and the fruit of the vine are the same. This verse (1 Corinthians 10:16) however does not help them. There are three basic views concerning this question.
1. There are those who take a literal view. Thayer, for instance, lists 1 Corinthians 10:16 under the literal use of the word poterion (cup).9 The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia states, “the cup of wine in the Lord’s Supper is called a cup of blessing.”10 These scholars suggest that the “cup of blessing” is a literal cup containing literal grape juice. If the cup of blessing is literal, it is impossible for it to be the same as the fruit of the vine. A cup is a solid and the fruit of the vine is a liquid.

2. Some believe the phrase cup of blessing is figurative. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich cite “cup” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 under the literal usage, indicate in their comments that it is "used by metonymy.” Lenski states 1 Corinthians 10:16 is a “figure which names the vessel when its contents are referred to.”12 These quotes show that some Bible students understand the cup of blessing to be a figure of speech called metonymy. The reason some scholars list “cup” under literal usage and then say it refers to the contents, is because metonymy requires a literal cup to suggest its contents.

Metonymy is, “a figure of speech by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation.”13 Three things are involved in this definition of metonymy: 1. the thing named, 2. the thing suggested, 3. the relationship between the two objects.14
By applying the above definitions to 1 Corinthians 10:16, we would have the following conclusions:

1. the thing named (cup of blessing);
2. the thing suggested (fruit of the vine);
3. the relationship between the two (fruit of the vine is in the cup).
In this type of metonymy, both the thing named (cup of blessing) and the thing suggested (fruit of vine) must exist.15 One cannot be literal and the other imaginary. The cup is just as literal as the fruit of vine which it suggests.

Also, the thing named (cup of blessing) and the thing suggested (fruit of the vine) cannot be the same. The “cup of blessing,” which is named is one thing, and the “fruit of vine,” which is suggested, is another. It takes both the cup and the fruit of the vine to make metonymy. If 1 Corinthians 10:16 is metonymy and the “cup of blessing” refers to what is in the cup, then what is in the cup is not the cup.

3. There are a few individuals who think the cup of blessing is used in 1 Corinthians 10:16 as a metaphor. Bullinger is one scholar who takes that position.16 He says of a metaphor, “that one thing is another thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. The two nouns must both be mentioned, and always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense. The figure lies wholly in the verb, or copula, which in English, must always be expressed and never understood ellipsis.” E. W. Bullinger then gives an example of a metaphor, “all flesh is grass.” In this metaphor, flesh is literal and grass is literal. The figure is in the verb “is.”

Bullinger translates 1 Corinthians 10:16, “the cup of blessing is it not [i.e., does it not represent] the communion of the blood of Christ.”17 The point being made by Bullinger is that the “cup of blessing” is literal and that which it represents (joint participation of the blood) is also literal. If the “cup of blessing” is a metaphor, it does not make the cup and the fruit of the vine the same.

By any law of language, the cup and the fruit of the vine cannot be the same.

Three More Questions Regarding the Cup.
“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Do we drink the cup? or the contents?
Clearly, this verse says, “drink this cup.” One of the first rules of language is that words should be understood in their literal sense unless it creates an impossibility.18 Since it is impossible to drink (swallow) a literal cup, the phrase must be understood figuratively. As in 1 Corinthians 10:16, this too is metonymy of the container for the contained. In this metonymy, one thing is named (cup) to suggest something else (fruit of vine) which is closely associated with it (fruit of vine is the contents of the cup).

Thayer comments on 1 Corinthians 11:27 under the definition of the word “drink,” and he says, “this cup” i.e. what is in the cup.19 One can drink what is in “the cup,” only if, it is in a cup. If it is in cups, it would have to be, “drink the cups.” In metonymy of the container for the contained, one can suggest the contents of only as many cups as he names. The plural and singular do not change in metonymy. The reason the fruit of the vine in 1 Corinthians 11:27 is referred to as “this cup,” is because it is in the cup. The fruit of the vine cannot be called a “cup” when it is not in a literal cup.

The answer to the question, “Do we drink the cup? or the contents?” is: we drink the cup by drinking what is in the cup.

Did the church in Jerusalem use one cup for the city?
This question assumes that the city of Jerusalem had only one congregation and that it was too large to use one cup. The argument is then advanced that several cups would have to be employed to accommodate the crowd.

There is no scriptural or historical proof that the early church met in large assemblies. That the church in Jerusalem met in assemblies of thousands is pure supposition. Actually the evidence points in the direction of small home assemblies to observe the Lord’s Supper.

Notice Acts 2:46, "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart” (KJV).

The “breaking bread from house to house” is in contrast to their meeting in the temple. The words “continuing daily” modifies temple not breaking bread house to house. They met daily at the temple, but their home meetings were not necessarily on a daily basis. The NIV guards against the impression that they met daily at home by making two sentences of verse forty two: “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts” (NIV).

There is a solid body of scholarship20 that confirms the early church met in their homes and not in large assemblies.

So, how did the large numbers in Jerusalem meet to partake of the Lord’s Supper? They did it by meeting in small home assemblies. They did not use one cup for the city, but one for each congregation.

What can we scripturally prove and what do we surmise in this regard?
We can prove that the church in Jerusalem met to “break bread house to house.” In Acts 2:42, the phrase, “breaking of bread” has the article “the” before “breaking” as well as before “bread.” It would literally be “the breaking of the bread.” This would indicate that a specific breaking of a specific bread is under consideration, viz, the bread of the Lord’s Supper. The article is not found in verse 46, but it does not have to be because it has already been established that a specific bread is referred to. It is not likely that Luke used the phrase “breaking of bread” in two different ways in the same context. In both verses, the “breaking of bread" is the Lord’s Supper, and they met in homes to observe it.

We can prove there is scriptural authority for more than one congregation in a city, but we cannot prove there is authority for more than one cup. We can prove the early church used one cup and that disproves assemblies too big for one cup. It takes more surmising on the part of the cups advocates to establish large assemblies than to establish one cup in each small assembly. The large assemblies argument is like most arguments used by our cups brethren --- they prove nothing.

In truth, the Bible teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper is not that difficult to understand. We would not have to revert to metonymy, metaphor, syllogism, etc. if men would accept the simple truths concerning the communion.

Endnotes
1. Jameson, Fausset, and Brown., One Volume Commentary (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishing and Authors Inc.), p. 282.
2. Henry Alford, D. D., The Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), vol. 2, p. 558.
3. G. G. Findley, B.A., The Expositors Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll M.A. LL.D. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. reprint 1990), vol. 2, p.863.
4. Joseph Henry Thayer D.D., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), p. 260.
5. Dr. Herman Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1858), vol. 4, p. 315. -
6. F. L. Godet, First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 77.
7. Findley, op. cit., p. 863.
8. Joseph Exell, The Bible Illustrator (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958) vol. 7, p. 32.
9. Thayer, op. cit., p. 533.
10. The Popular and critical Bible Encyclopedia, Edited by R Samuel Fallows A.M., D.D., LL.D., (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1913), vol. 1, p. 484.
11. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), p. 7C
12. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (Minneapolis: Augusbury Publishing House, 1963) p. 408.
13. E. W. Bullinger D.D., Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1968), p. 408.
14. George Battey, Debate Notes Individual Cups, (Jonesboro, GA; Privately Published 1994) p.41.
15. William, Williams, Composition and Rhetoric, (New York; D.C. Heath & Co. 1923), p. 220.
16. Bullinger op. cit., p.741.
17. Bullinger op. cit., p.735.
18. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, (Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Co.,), p. 195.
19. Thayer op. cit., p.510
20. The Expositor’s Greek Testament op. cit., p. 97; Jameson, Fauset, and Brown op. cit., p. 259; Alford op. cit., p. 31. These are but a few. Most Bible scholars recognize that the early church met in homes in the first century.

Read more!

Sanitation in Communion

Second Edition
by James D. Orten
and Alton B. Bailey
Second Edition 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

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 HIS 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.
An Informer Publication
909 Truitt Ave.
LaGrange, Georgia 30240
December 1993
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!