Posts
OPPOSING ARGUMENTS
(1) "How are all the churches of Christ across the world to use only one cup, anyway? It's impossible!" This argument is quite popular among the multi-cups masses because of its simplicity. It goes like this: in one-cup churches, there is only one cup in the Communion per congregation. But there are many one-cup congregations in the "universal," or worldwide Church. This means there are actually many cups in the universal Church. Now, since there are many cups in the universal Church, how can it be wrong to have many cups within a single local church? In fact, they argue, one-cup Communion is hence impossible, because that cup would have to be enormous - a "jumbo cup." Since this is a ridiculous conclusion, then one, literal cup is impossible for the entire Church.
Furthermore, since it's impossible for the universal Church to have one literal cup, then (because all references to "cup" are singular) any time the word "cup" is used in Communion, it must be taken figuratively, not literally. Yes, they say, it's still one cup; but it's a figurative "jumbo cup" rather than a literal "jumbo cup."
Needless to say, this argument fails in that it does not sincerely attempt to harmonize the glaring fact that God intended Christians to have one literal cup per congregation, rather than one literal cup per universal Church (a ridiculous suggestion). One literal cup per congregation is what Paul had, what the Corinthians had, and what all the Biblical churches were commanded to have - it's also what post-Apostolic churches of Christ had.
The major downfall of this approach is that it conveniently ignores the important scriptural distinctions between universal Church activity and local church activity. This is because it assumes that if something is permissible in the universal Church, it is also permissible in the local church. Because, they say, even though one cup is specified for the local church, since in the universal Church many cups may be in use simultaneously, then many cups may also be scripturally allowed in the local church. Clearly, if this absurdity is carried to its logical conclusion, it can be used to prove that practically anything is permissible in the local church assembly, not just multiple cups.
For example, Paul expressly forbade prophets to speak simultaneously in the assembly (I Corinthians 14:31). Such would have caused confusion. But was Paul issuing an impossible command? After all, even if there were only one prophet speaking in one congregation, since there were many congregations, would there not be many prophets speaking at the same time? Are "multi-speaking" prophets now permissible for the assembly?
What about women speaking in the church? After all, if many Christian women are speaking in their homes while an assembly of the church is meeting elsewhere, even though all the women in that assembly remain silent (as commanded per I Corinthians 14:34), because many Christian women across the world are speaking while this assembly is in progress, then don't we have women speaking in the church? If we are going to say that what is permissible in the universal Church is also permissible in the local church, then why not? Was Paul once again issuing an impossible command for women to remain silent in the churches?
Yes, such reasoning can be used to prove that practically any act can be authorized in worship - including the use of instrumental music, the conducting of secular business, and even the performing of many other acts too embarrassing to mention. Why? Because all these activities and many others may well be scripturally occurring in the universal Church while a local church somewhere else is assembled to worship God.
Consider also the Passover. Recall that the Scriptures were making pronounced comparisons between Christ's sacrifice and the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb, described in Exodus 12:1-12 (Jesus, in I Corinthians 5:7, is called our Passover lamb; recall too that it was just after the Passover Supper when He instituted the Lord's Supper). Of course, the Jews were strictly commanded to have one and only one lamb per household (Exodus 12:3). Was this an impossible command for the Israelites to literally keep? After all, even if you had only one lamb in one household, since there are many lambs in Israel in the many households, you therefore have many lambs, don't you? Furthermore, they would argue, it's not a literal lamb here, it's a figurative one - because if all the Israelis in the household of Israel were to eat of one lamb, this would be one gargantuan lamb indeed! A "jumbo lamb." Thus, some might argue, it's got to be a figurative lamb, not a literal lamb. And since it is impossible to have one literal lamb for all the "household of Israel," then multiple lambs in each Israeli household are scripturally permissible. Sound familiar?
Incidentally, if an Israelite family was too large, did this mean multiple lambs per household were permissible for expediency? Of course not. They could split into multiple households or they could combine households, but one thing was certain - no more than one lamb per household was allowed. The parallels to Communion are obvious.
(2) "When Jesus said 'Drink this cup' He was not telling His disciples to drink the solid container - that's impossible. He was using a figure of speech called a metonymy. He was talking about drinking the fruit of the vine inside the container, not the literal container itself! Thus, whenever Jesus said 'cup' He really meant 'fruit of the vine.' As an example, the 'cup' in Matthew 26:27 becomes 'the fruit of the vine' in verse 29. Thus, whenever 'cup' is used it really means 'fruit of the vine,' and the container is an unimportant incidental, needed merely to dispense the grape juice." There are several serious problems with this line of reasoning:
(a) Jesus commanded His disciples to practice one-cup Communion
(I Corinthians 11:24-25). It was not merely suggested, it was not merely hinted at, nor was it simply assumed - it was commanded: "Do this!" A simple, direct command for the disciples to practice one-cup, one-loaf Communion just as Christ had delivered it.
Therefore, practicing one-cup Communion is not merely following a modifiable example - it's a command. And regardless of whether or not one considers the cup figurative or literal becomes a mute point so far as the mechanics of Communion are concerned.
(b) As has already been noticed - if the cup was merely an insignificant incidental, possessing zero symbolic value - "just a container to dispense grape juice" - then why didn't Christ simply have each of his disciples drink from their own cups at the Passover, as has already been noticed? Why did He inconvenience Himself by letting all 12 disciples try out His cup when they all had their own? After all, would it not have been more sanitary and convenient for Christ to have sipped from His own cup and for the disciples to have sipped from theirs?
(c) Another dilemma for this argument is the simple, declarative statement made by Jesus in I Corinthians 11:25: "This cup is the New Testament..." Clearly, the cup does represent something after all, rather than being the insignificant, meaningless drinking vessel needed only for dispensing juice. Paul undeniably articulates that the cup represents the New Testament (or New Covenant). Yes, just as the bread is symbolic of Christ's body and the fruit of the vine is symbolic of His blood, so is the cup symbolic of the New Testament.
(d) Finally, there are serious grammatical problems surrounding the "metonymy argument." The technical use of grammar is how this argument was born and it is how it also dies.
It's true, when Paul said: "Drink the cup", He was referring to the cup in a figurative sense. It's true - He was using a figure of speech called a "metonymy" (a "metonymy" is defined as a "figure of speech that employs an associated or closely connected word rather than the word itself, as 'the crown prefers' for 'the king prefers.'").
But one of the most glaring grammatical quandaries with the metonymy argument is that it is impossible to say "drink this cup" without having a literal cup involved. For example, I can't say "the kettle is boiling" (also a metonymy) without a literal kettle involved. I can't say "the radiator is boiling" (a metonymy) without the literal radiator existing. Likewise, it can't be said "drink this cup", without having a literal cup involved, even though Christ was clearly talking about drinking the fruit of the vine, not the literal cup itself. Although the cup is used "metonymically", it's still used in the singular sense - in other words, not only is there a literal cup but there is only one literal cup.
For example, if I say "the kettle is boiling", although I'm referring to the water inside the kettle boiling, and although there has to be a literal kettle involved for me to say "the kettle is boiling" - there also has to be only one literal kettle involved if this grammatical structure is correctly used. On the other hand, if I were to say: "the kettles are boiling", although I'm still referring to the contents of the kettles, and although the kettles in this case are referenced figuratively - nevertheless, because I used the plural "kettles" this means there were multiple literal kettles involved. All of this the human mind instantaneously understands when these phrases are heard, whether a person has ever heard the big word "metonymy" or not.
Similarly, when Paul said "drink the cup" (I Corinthians 11:26) he didn't say "drink these cups", thus, even though he was referring to drinking the fruit of the vine rather than the solid container, he was still obviously referring to drinking the fruit of the vine from one literal cup, not multiple cups.
Greek lexicographers such as Thayer, Harper, Feyerabend, Knoch, Berry, Young, Bullinger, Greenfield, Liddell & Scott, Robinson, Pickering, Parkhurst, and probably others point out the elementary fact that in every single case in Christ's Communion the cup is "literal and singular," not "figurative and/or plural."
But this is not the only grammatical problem with the "metonymy argument." That's because if one actually reaches the dubious conclusion that the cup used by Christ really wasn't literal, then one is also forced to admit that a figurative cup represents the figurative blood of Christ (since the multi-cups position holds that "the cup is the blood"). This means a figure represents a figure. It would be difficult to find another such strange use like this in Scripture. Moreover, this argument proves inconsistent in that a figurative cup ends up representing the figurative blood of Christ, while maintaining that a literal loaf represents the figurative body of Christ. So we've got a figure (the cup) representing a figure (the blood of Christ), and a literal (the loaf) representing a figure (the body of Christ). Hardly parallel.
Clearly, Christ had a literal, singular cup, out of which He asked His disciples to drink: "Drink from it, all of you." One literal cup. And many partakers of that one literal cup.
Not surprisingly, complex arguments such as this were unheard of until questions of sanitation surfaced.
(3) "In I Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul was in Ephesus writing to Corinth, and he referred to a single cup from which they both communed. If the cup is to be taken literally, Paul would have been referring to a jumbo cup that spanned the Aegean Sea! Since it's impossible to have a cup this huge, he must have meant the cup in a figurative sense. And since it's therefore a figurative cup, the number of cups one has in Communion is not important."
This "jumbo cup" argument is basically the same as the "many churches therefore many cups" considered in Argument #1 above. That argument suggested that if only one cup served the entire Church, it would have to be one massive cup spanning the world. Since this can't be true, the cup should be considered figuratively. For the fallacies of this argumentation we refer you to Argument #1 above.
But not only does the "jumbo cup" argument fail to justify multi-cups Communion, I Corinthians 10:16-17 - the passage it comes from - actually serves to seriously refute it: "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread."
First of all, the language is too clear and unmistakable to be misunderstood. Paul spoke of "one bread" from which all the Corinthians partook in Communion. One bread, many partakers.
Some have become perplexed over Paul's use of the pronoun "we" in the statement "the bread which we break", and, "we all partake of the one bread." It has been suggested that because Paul was in Ephesus while his readers lodged at Corinth, by saying "we," Paul was referring to the same identical cup. And since it would be a physical impossibility to have a jumbo cup so massive that they both sipped it during the same Communion, then it had to be a figurative cup.
This assumption is problematic for several reasons. First, such a conclusion would not have been the simplest and most obvious interpretation of this passage. Remember, the Corinthians used one literal cup/one loaf in Communion, as we've shown repeatedly. Therefore when Paul spoke of a cup and a loaf, wouldn't it have been more natural for them to conclude he was speaking of the literal cup and the literal loaf with which they routinely communed?
And Paul's use of "we" shouldn't have confused this interpretation either, since he was clearly referring to the times he had communed personally with them, partaking of the very same cup and loaf in the Lord's Supper. Not only that, but Paul certainly intended to return to Corinth to commune with them again
(2 Corinthians 1:15). Thus, the phrases "the cup which we bless" and "the bread which we break" would have been most naturally and simply understood to mean the literal cup and loaf they had all partaken of together in past Communions and the literal cup/loaf from which they all intended to collectively partake in the future. The language should not have been confusing for them. Nor was it, for history records that practically all early churches observed one-cup Communion.
If Paul was indeed worshipping with one cup/loaf in Ephesus while they were doing the same in Corinth, his wording in I Corinthians 10:16-17 was exactly what would be expected. How else could he have said it to have been accurate? If he had said: "the loaf which you break," then someone would doubtlessly argue that preachers and/or Apostles could be excluded from Communion. But by saying "the loaf which we break" he implied that not only the Corinthians, but also Paul was involved in Communion. And since this epistle to the Corinthians was written to all churches of the saints (I Corinthians 1:2), obviously all churches were to practice one-cup Communion as well.
Another problem with this reasoning: if the cup is figurative, so must be the bread. Why? Because they are both used in the same manner grammatically. Therefore if one is figurative, they both must be. This poses a major syntactical dilemma for multi-cups proponents since they consider the bread literal, as well as the fruit of the vine. But this argument forces them to confess that if the cup is figurative, so must be the bread. Unfortunately, this means they now have literal fruit of the vine in a figurative cup - an interesting phenomenon to behold indeed!
The final place for them to logically retreat is to the assumption that Paul was referring to everything figuratively: the cup, grape-juice, and bread; but this poses yet more difficulties, because if Paul and the Corinthians weren't literally partaking of a cup, if they weren't literally drinking fruit of the vine and if they weren't literally eating bread - then what in the name of common sense were they doing - just meditating? I wonder how many multi-cups proponents are ready to accept this dubious conclusion?
Finally, Paul explains in I Corinthians 10 that the oneness of the loaf during Communion represents the unity of the Church, as has already been pointed out. Since one cup represents unity, this means multiple cups/loaves clearly represent the very division created by their introduction.
(4) "The Scriptures refer to one book (Luke 4:17) when really there are many copies of it, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), although it is performed many times. So too, the cup is observed in many containers."
This reasoning miserably fails since it does not take into account the context of each passage individually. Responsible textual interpretation recognizes that just because symbolism is used in one Biblical passage in no way implies it is used the same way elsewhere. And we've already shown that scholars are essentially unanimous in saying that the cup of Communion was literal and singular.
(5) "Didn't Christ say 'Divide it [the cup] among yourselves' in Luke 22:17, and doesn't this prove they actually poured the fruit of the vine into their own individual cups?"
Of course, the answer is given clearly in Mark 14:23 where Jesus, referring to the cup, said: "...He gave it to them and they all drank from it." Yes, they divided it among themselves. How? "They all drank from it [Christ's cup]."
We've already shown that it was customary in the Passover for the participants to all drink from one cup, even though they all had their own cups as well. Nevertheless, some have actually attempted to refute this reply with the ridiculous suggestion that "if they divided it by drinking it, then they would all need to hold the fruit of the vine in their mouths until each participant had some, and only then could they all swallow it at the same time." Such arguments prove utterly ludicrous since it's quite clear that each person could have held the fruit of the vine in their stomachs as well as in their mouths!
(6) "What about the "generic argument" - can't it be used to prove multiple cups in the Communion?"
The "generic argument" maintains that since Christ referred to the cup as a metonymy, or a figure of speech, this means the cup is not literal - it's a meaningless incidental (see Argument #2 above). However, even though the cup is used in the singular throughout Scripture, it could actually be considered plural if considered in the generic sense.
To illustrate, consider the scripture: "Go to the ant, O sluggard" (Proverbs 6:6). It's plain that the author intended for us to look at ants in general rather than one ant in particular. But notice that "ant" is singular, although many ants are obviously being spoken of "in general." In the same way, they say, although "cup" is always singular it is actually meant to be understood in the plural.
The only problem with this argument is simply that "cup" is never used generically within the Communion. Parallel language exposes the error; the Bible says: "He took a cup, blessed it, and gave it to them,” etc. If we were to say: "He took an ant, looked at it, and gave it to them," would anyone be confused about how many ants were involved? You be the judge. Another problem for multi-cups proponents: you still have a literal ant.
(7) "If we're going to use one literal cup, wouldn't we have to use the very same cup Christ used?"
Isn't it amazing that the same people who denounce one-cup Communion on the grounds we'd all have to use the exact same cup Christ used, don't feel inclined to use the exact same "multiple cups" they say Christ used, nor are they inclined to drink the exact same "fruit of the vine" He drank, nor are they inclined the eat the exact same bread He ate?
(8) "Doesn't Luke 22:14-23 suggest Christ took 2 cups? If so, the Bible condones the use of multiple cups in Communion!"
Of course, this reasoning does not follow. In the first place, we know 2 cups were not used in the Communion (see Matthew 26, Mark 14, and I Corinthians 10 & 11). Yet a few people - although most avoid this approach - will still try to use Luke's somewhat ambiguous account to justify multi-cups Communion.
Why Luke chose to mention the cup of the Passover (v 17) before mentioning the cup of the Lord's Supper (v 19-20) has baffled many. Perhaps it was to make sure Christ's followers realized the Communion was not a part of the Passover Supper itself, but was after the Passover Supper (v 20). Regardless, some have erroneously determined that Christ first took a cup for the Communion, then, after they all drank from it, He took Bread; and after they all partook of it He once again took a cup from which they all drank.
Most avoid this argument because it fails to prove the use of any more than 2 cups in Communion, even if one wrongly assumes that Christ took 2 separate cups. If this is the case, then 2 cups are still to be individually sipped by all participants separately. In other words, these cups "of Communion" were still common cups out of which all the disciples separately drank. This means, if correct, that 2 cups are required in Communion - not 5, not 10, not 100, not 1000 - but 2. Needless to say, multi-cups proponents are not willing to go quite this far.
(9) "But wasn't the Jerusalem church just too large to employ one cup in the Communion?"
It's a common fact that the church at Jerusalem grew into several thousand people shortly after it's establishment (Acts 4:4). Does this mean they were forced to use multiple cups for purposes of expediency? Clearly not.
Remember, in the Passover there was to be one lamb per house. Scriptural authority existed for multiple households but not multiple lambs. Likewise, in each congregation today there is to be only one cup/loaf per congregation, and although we have scriptural authority for multiple congregations we do not have scriptural authority for multiple cups within a congregation. Additionally, a surprisingly large number of people can actually commune from a common cup.
(10) "But isn't it unsanitary to have everyone drinking out of the same cup?"
This argument is worth noticing only because it was what actually caused all the Communion commotion and division in the first place. We owe thanks to some of the research data provided in the James Orten /Alton Bailey tract: "Sanitation in Communion".
As has already been observed, the division over Communion was caused by the "germ scare" introduced by 19th century scientific discoveries pertaining to tiny, microscopic organisms that had the capacity to sicken and even kill people. The "germ scare" argument is still popular today, even though not a single case has ever been documented of a disease having been transmitted due to the sharing of a common cup - regardless of the many people world-wide who practice weekly common-cup Communion.
It has already been repeatedly emphasized that Christ and His Apostles communed with one cup, Paul communed with one cup, the early Church communed with one cup - not to mention practically every Christian church through the ages until about 1900. Thus, "germ scare" proponents are left with the bothersome conclusion that not only have practically all Christians throughout time been unsanitary, but so were the 12 Apostles along with Christ Himself.
It's also quite fascinating to consider that nearly every Apostle but John died a martyr's death, rather than from contracting germs after having sipped a bacteria ridden cup. And although John did not die a martyr, he was virtually 100 years old when deceased. Was it a miracle?
Needless to say, there is much ignorance when it comes to the discussion of bacteria, even among today's "more educated" societies. For example, those who are terrified of soliciting germs from a common cup typically don't realize that deadly airborne viruses are far easier to contract. This is because viruses entering the mouth must pass through the inhospitable environment of the stomach, which contains hydrochloric acid; but airborne viruses enter by a friendlier pathway - the lungs. Thus, one wonders how long it will be before someone decides it's time for "individual cubicles" as well, to keep worshippers from the potentially deadly airborne viruses of fellow worshippers.
It's both amusing and interesting to consider the scientific studies that have actually been conducted at the behest of concerned individuals who feared contamination by common-cup Communion. Studies have been performed calculating the number of bacteria present on the rim of common cups before, during and after "Communion"; they took into account worse case scenarios of people with disgusting sip habits and severe mouth sores; they tested the outcome of wiping the cup before drinking after someone versus not wiping the cup at all; they purposefully placed bacteria in and on cups and examined effects on partakers, etc.
We could talk about parts per millions and milliliters and percentiles and experimental control's and Ringer Solutions. But the bottom line is that results proved the risk for disease transmission by means of the Communion cup to be negligible, mainly because pathogenic bacterial presence on human lips is generally small, and even when ingested in these minuscule numbers is easily processed by the body. Furthermore, studies concluded that more serious diseases were more likely to be transmitted via handshaking (and subsequent hand to mouth, nose, eyes), and that childhood diseases were the most easily transferred (a mute point since children don't commune). Thus the surprising conclusions that the risk of disease transmission via common-cup Communion was probably significantly less than the chances of obtaining infection by other methods in any gathering of people, such as simply sitting in the same room with infected individuals thus exposing oneself to airborne viruses.
Also discovered was that diseases infecting by mouth (i.e., typhoid, dysentery, salmonellosis, etc) are typically obtained by eating/drinking contaminated food/water rather than from other persons, whose oral bacterial concentration levels are typically too minimal to pose serious danger; and, of course HIV could not be transmitted via drinking a common cup.
Thus, the "sanitation argument" - along with all the other multi-cups arguments - also falls. Left standing is the simple, meaningful, and powerful Communion service that Jesus and His Apostles originally observed; a Communion that 1st century Christian churches were forbidden to modify.
Conclusion. In Ephesians 2:20 Paul stated that the Church was "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone." What does Paul mean when he says the Church was "built" on Christ and His Apostles and inspired teachers? Clearly, he means the Church was founded on the teachings, or doctrine of these divinely approved men. Thus, the only way today's Church can be founded on Christ and His Apostles and inspired teachers is for it to carefully follow these same Biblical teachings and examples. To ignore Christ's Biblical examples and teachings regarding Communion or any other aspect of Church organization or worship means building upon the precariously shifting sands of human reasoning rather than upon the unequivocal, immovable solid rock of divine approval. To repeat the prophet of old:
(Numbers 24:13). Revelations 12-12-97,12-4-97,11-29-97,11-11-97,3-1-99
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.
If you have any comments or questions --- or would like the location and contact names of a congregation of the church belonging to Jesus Christ near you, please e-mail me at BibleTruths@hotmail.com or call 253-396-0290. Thanks Dennis Crawford, editor.
