How many cups?

[RefrusRevlis]

I thought I would post my first thread about an issue raised in another thread and in particular, related to the following quote:

One-cuppers use the same logic to justify their believe, and demonize the use of individual cups

The congregation of which I am a member uses one cup in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. We do it because that is what we believe Jesus did when he established the supper. I have never met anyone from another RM congregation and discussed this issue ( I live in the most isolated capital city in the world), so I would be interested to hear what other people do and why. It would be great to hear from people who use one cup as well as many.
Regards
Refrus

 

[jmacvols]

I thought I would post my first thread about an issue raised in another thread and in particular, related to the following quote:

The congregation of which I am a member uses one cup in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. We do it because that is what we believe Jesus did when he established the supper. I have never met anyone from another RM congregation and discussed this issue ( I live in the most isolated capital city in the world), so I would be interested to hear what other people do and why. It would be great to hear from people who use one cup as well as many.
Regards
Refrus

Jesus was using a figure of speech where the word "cup" stands for the contents. Much like if I gave you a glass of water to drink. Later I ask you "did you drink the water?" You respond by saying "yes, I drank the whole glass." Here you use the word 'glass' for the content (water), obviously you did not drink the glass but the content in the glass. So 'glass' here stands for water.

A more detailed explanation:

http:www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/do_the_scriptures_authorize_multiple_cups

 

[crawfish]

I'm sorry I brought this up.

Our fighting over minutia such as this continues to distract from our focus of saving the lost.

I have no problem with either method. Use one cup, use many, it doesn't matter. Just do it with the right heart.

 

[Apollos1]

1 Corinthians 11:

23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.

“Cup” is used (first) both metaphorically and (second) by metonymy in this passage.

Metaphorically “the cup” is the new covenant – that which makes the new covenant possible and a reality.
By metonymy “the cup” (the container) is put forth for the contents it contains. It is the contents, not the container that is important.

In Matthew 26:27 the disciples were instructed to drink, that is, all were commanded to drink some of the contents of “a cup” – not necessarily out of the same container – but some of the contents. Again, it is the contents, not the container that is of importance. But, is this a binding example for us to follow?

I believe that the container is but only a means of accomplishing that which has been commanded – drinking some of the contents. But I believe the following will be more compelling as to whether one or multiple “containers” can be used in the “Supper”.

1 Corinthians 11:21 – “…for in your eating each one takes before other his own supper…”

Some of the Corinthians were bringing their own “supper” (a metonymy used for the bread and the fruit of the vine). In all of the abuse of the Lord’s supper at Corinth, Paul never condemns or remarks in reference to each having their own “supper”, but rather Paul addresses the abuses of excess, disorder, and lack of discerning of the purpose for which the supper was given – verse 26.

Admonitions begin in verse 27. The solution to each having his own “supper” is given in verse 33 – “Wait for each other…”
But individuals “suppers” appear to be permissible.

A single “container” is authorized. Multiple “containers” are authorized as expedients to accomplish that which has been commanded - "drink" of "the cup". To demand one or the other would be to bind where God has not bound!

The contents and proper self examination while partaking is everything.

(I will take up WHY things such as this ARE important at another time.)

 

[sidekick]

"The cup" means its contents. Here is why I believe:

1. It can be drunk.
2. It represents the blood of Christ. Matt 26:28
3. It was divided among themselves, referring to its contents, not the container. Luke 22:17
4. It is a communion of the blood of Christ. 1 Cor 10:16
The "one cup" which we all partake is the fruit of the vine, like the Israelites who drank from that one Rock. 1 Cor 10:4.

 

[annie1speed]

I agree with Crawfish. We may be almost straining at gnats and swallowing camels whole here.

 

[RefrusRevlis]

Thanks for all your responses. It seems to be that the general feeling in the replies is that the cup has no symbolism attached to it and thus unimportant (forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouths).
However, Apollos1 said

Metaphorically “the cup” is the new covenant – that which makes the new covenant possible and a reality.

This seems to indicate that the cup is important. If it is symbolic of the NT (New Covenant).

Regarding metonymy, doesn't this infer the existence of the part that is put for the whole? By this I mean, Jesus had the fruit of the vine in a cup and put the container for the contained? There was no need for mentioning a container if it was unimportant.
Refrus

 

[RefrusRevlis]

PS. In my last post I forgot to include the statement that metonymy is not synonymy. By this I mean the container does not become the contents. If we had a jug of lemonade, we would not say "Pour me a drink of jug".

Also When Jesus "took a cup", he took a literal cup, he didn't scoop some fruit of the vine from a container with his hands. So what I'm saying is metonymy is not always used when talking of the word cup. You can take up a (literal cup) and drink a (metonymical) cup.

Refrus

 

[ProfessorJ]

I believe that it doesnt matter whether you use one cup or many. Christ Jesus said "do tthis in remembrance of me", and that is what matters. Churches that argue over this are splitting unimportant hairs and are becoming distracted from the true point of Communion.

Now, for my own opinion, I believe the many cups are better, but this is from a health standpoint rather than a Biblical one. scripturally, I believe the difference is a nonissue.

 

[- DRA -]

1 Corinthians 11:

23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.

“Cup” is used (first) both metaphorically and (second) by metonymy in this passage.

Metaphorically “the cup” is the new covenant – that which makes the new covenant possible and a reality.
By metonymy “the cup” (the container) is put forth for the contents it contains. It is the contents, not the container that is important.

In Matthew 26:27 the disciples were instructed to drink, that is, all were commanded to drink some of the contents of “a cup” – not necessarily out of the same container – but some of the contents. Again, it is the contents, not the container that is of importance. But, is this a binding example for us to follow?

I believe that the container is but only a means of accomplishing that which has been commanded – drinking some of the contents. But I believe the following will be more compelling as to whether one or multiple “containers” can be used in the “Supper”.

1 Corinthians 11:21 – “…for in your eating each one takes before other his own supper…”

Some of the Corinthians were bringing their own “supper” (a metonymy used for the bread and the fruit of the vine). In all of the abuse of the Lord’s supper at Corinth, Paul never condemns or remarks in reference to each having their own “supper”, but rather Paul addresses the abuses of excess, disorder, and lack of discerning of the purpose for which the supper was given – verse 26.

Admonitions begin in verse 27. The solution to each having his own “supper” is given in verse 33 – “Wait for each other…”
But individuals “suppers” appear to be permissible.

A single “container” is authorized. Multiple “containers” are authorized as expedients to accomplish that which has been commanded - "drink" of "the cup". To demand one or the other would be to bind where God has not bound!

The contents and proper self examination while partaking is everything.

(I will take up WHY things such as this ARE important at another time.)

In a related matter (in principle), not long after obeying the gospel some 30+ years ago, I met an older man at work who worshipped in a remote area of West Virginia. He asked if the church I attended worshipped according to the pattern in Acts 2? I said, "I beg your pardon," having absolutely no idea whatsoever he was alluding to. He was referring to the things listed in Acts 2:42, and wanted to know if we did those things in the order they were listed in. Seriously!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I thought I would post my first thread about an issue raised in another thread and in particular, related to the following quote:

The congregation of which I am a member uses one cup in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. We do it because that is what we believe Jesus did when he established the supper. I have never met anyone from another RM congregation and discussed this issue ( I live in the most isolated capital city in the world), so I would be interested to hear what other people do and why. It would be great to hear from people who use one cup as well as many.
Regards
Refrus

Well, since Yhwh entrusted the Scriptures to the Jews, and since Scripture says plainly salvation to the rest of the world came through the Jews, and since there are Jews available willing to discuss this with honest seekers of the truth, why not ask the Jews ? (the ones who follow Yeshua, not the dead ones)

 

[Loveaboveall]

and since there are Jews available willing to discuss this with honest seekers of the truth, why not ask the Jews ? (the ones who follow Yeshua, not the dead ones)

All who have taken the Name of Jesus as their own are Jews in God's sight.