1 Corinthians 11:23-28
Five times in the six verses of this text the word “cup” is used (v. 25 (2x), 26, 27, 28, NASB). In four of these times the word “the” is used with the cup. In the fifth case the word “this” is used in front of the word “cup.” In the Greek language the word “the” is connected with the word “cup” in all five cases. In the records where Jesus instituted the partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we find a little different information. In Matthew and Mark’s accounts one finds “a cup,” both in the Greek and English (Matthew 26:27; Mark 14:23). In Luke’s account one finds, both in the Greek and English, “a cup” (v. 17), “the cup,” and “this cup” (v. 20). In I Corinthians 10:16 one finds, “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?” Because the word “cup” is singular in all of these passages, does that prove, when the Lord’s Supper is served, the fruit of the vine must be drunk from one cup by all people who are partaking?
Those who believe that it is only scriptural to use one cup when serving the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper contend that the bread represents the body, the fruit of the vine represents the blood, and the cup represents the New Testament. But the Bible teaches the bread represents the body and the cup which holds the fruit of the vine, represents the blood of the New Testament. Matthew and Mark record Jesus saying, “My blood of the covenant,” (26:28; 14:24). Luke says, “the new covenant in My blood”(22:20) as does Paul (I Corinthians 11:25). Are these men talking about two different things? No! All are saying the same thing – the fruit of the vine which is in the cup represent the blood that was shed so that the new covenant could be put into effective (Hebrews 9:17-20).
Understanding the Phrase “the Cup”
First, the word “cup” is used metaphorically for what was in the cup. It is a figure of speech called “metonymy” “by which one name or noun is used instead of another” (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated. Bullinger 538). In the Lord’s Supper, the word “cup” is used for the fruit of the vine which is in the cup. People use language like this all the time without thinking of it as being literal. One may say, “My favorite dish is fried chicken.” A “dish” is a plate, but in the previous sentence the speaker means the food on the dish – fried chicken. One may say, “My radiator boiled over.” Actually, the radiator was not boiling, but the water in the radiator.
One can see from terms in the text that the word “cup” does not mean a literal “cup,” but what is in the cup. For example, one finds the following expressions related to “the cup:” (1) “Share it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17). The KJV says, “divide it among yourselves.” If they were to share or divide “the cup,” they would have to break it into pieces. Therefore, Jesus is not speaking about the literal cup, but what was in the cup. (2) “Drink the cup” (I Corinthians 11:25, 26). Surely, no one thinks that one can literally “drink” a literal cup. Clearly, Jesus was speaking about what was in the cup, not the cup itself. (3) The “cup” was “poured out.” How can that object (a cup) be poured out of that object (the cup)? That is an impossibility, but pouring out what is in the cup, is a possibility.
Drink Out of the Cup
Those who believe that only one cup should be used when serving the Lord’s Supper put a lot of emphasis on the Greek word ek which means, “out of” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 189). They believe that because this Greek word is used in Matthew 26:27 and Mark 14:23, 25 to describe what the disciples did, therefore everyone today should do the same – drink from or out of one cup. Does the English or Greek phrase “out of” mean that one can only drink “out of” a container by putting his or her lips on the rim of that container? What if someone drank the fruit of the vine from the cup through a straw? Would he or she not have drunk “out of” the cup, but not put his or her lips on the cup?
Here are two biblical examples to show that the Greek word does not mean that one has to put his or her lips on that which contains the liquid. The Samaritan woman at the well, used the same Greek word to explain to Jesus that Jacob and his children drank “out of” that well (John 4:12). Did Jacob and his children put their lips to the edge of the well? No, they drew buckets of water out of the well in order to drink and to provide water for their animals. Thus, they were using “individual cups” for each to drink, but the text says they drank “out of” the well. Another example where “out of” (ek) is used, but clearly does not mean that each person had to put his or her lips on the source of the liquid can be found In I Corinthians 10:4. “And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” When the Israelites drank out of “that Rock” did they all put their mouths to the “container” which furnished the liquid? No, each person or family drank from the individual containers which were filled with the water that came from the same source. Since that language described individuals drinking out of different containers, which was described as drinking “out of” one big container, could that same principle not be true with individual communion cups being used. Remember, the command is “to drink” and each has obeyed that command.
Symbolism
Those who believe that just one cup should be used, put a lot of emphasis on “the cup” and what it represents. Studying the text, one finds that the cup carries no special meaning, but what is in the cup carries the message. Jesus said that the bread represented His body that was going to be sacrificed (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24). Since it was the bread that represents His body, does it not make sense that it would be another food item which would represent His blood? The fruit of the vine represents His blood, just as the bread represents His body. It would be inconsistent to have a food item for one part of Christ’s sacrifice and an object (a cup) represent another part of His sacrifice. So, the cup is not symbolic of anything connected with the sacrifice of Christ. Notice the language the biblical writers used to convey the sacrifice of His blood: (1) “Drink from it,all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:27-28). Clearly, it was Christ’s blood that was poured out for forgiveness of sin. Likewise, it was not the cup, which was poured out, but the fruit of the vine which symbolizes, the blood of Christ that was poured out. Mark’s account reads, “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, ‘This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God’” (14:23-25). Notice, Jesus did take a cup and gave it to them. He said, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” Was the cup poured out? No, Jesus went on to make the comparison and explanation saying, “I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine.” It was the liquid in the cup that symbolized the “blood of the covenant.” Luke’s account reads similarly, “And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’” (Luke 22:20). “The cup” could not have been poured out. Therefore, He was speaking of the fruit of the vine which was in the cup. The account in I Corinthians 11 reads a little differently but, carries the same message. “In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (vs. 24-26). Again, one cannot drink a physical cup, so Jesus was not speaking of the physical cup, but the fruit of the vine which was in the cup.
The parallel in the account of establishing the Lord’s Supper is that there is a food item, – “bread,” which represents His body, and “the fruit of the vine,” another food item, which represents His blood. If the importance is on the physical cup, there is no parallel. One has a food item compared to an object which would hold a food item
— Wayne Burger