Question #87
Must we use just one cup in the Lord's Supper?
How do you defend the use of multiple “cups” during the Lord’s Supper against “One cupper’s” stand that all references in the NT refer to “the cup” as a pattern?
The Answer:
The question involved in this issue is, “What did Jesus mean by “cup” when he instituted the Lord’s Supper?” Matthew’s record of the event reads: “And 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. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 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 26:26-29.
One of the rules of logic is that that which proves too much proves nothing. If the “cup” to which Jesus refers is the container, and if it is a pattern for the use of only one container, the question arises, “How is it possible for all of the congregations in the world to use only one container? To respond that it is permissible to use one container per congregation is to give up the argument for one container. It is to argue for multiple containers and then to limit the multiple containers to one per congregation. No such limitation is found in Matthew’s account. To argue for one container and then to permit a container for each congregation, thus having multiple containers, is not only to be inconsistent, it is to permit an exception that is not found in scripture if Matthew’s record is a pattern permitting only one container.
The error made by those who contend for one container is in their (mis)understanding of the word “cup” as it is used in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. In the account, Jesus gives his own definition: “27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 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.” Note that Jesus took the cup, gave thanks for the cup, and instructed the disciples to drink of the cup. Obviously, Jesus did not tell his disciples to drink the container and he did not give thanks for the container. He gave thanks for and bade the disciples drink of the contents of the literal container – the fruit of the vine. Thus, by metonymy (using the container for the thing contained), Jesus used the cup to signify that which it contained – the fruit of the vine. That this is so is demonstrated by Jesus’ final words. Of that which he took, blessed, and bade the disciples drink, he said: “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.” Thus, the “cup” of v. 27 was the “fruit of the vine” in v. 29. The Lord clearly indicated that the “cup” was the “fruit of the vine”; those who contend for “one cup” clearly believe that the “cup” to which Jesus referred was the container. They are in hopeless conflict with the Lord on the matter. When we use the “fruit of the vine,” it is clear that we have one “cup,” regardless of how many containers we may use.
For a follow up to this question, please see Question 105.