Why only one cup?
Many have written about the Lord's Supper. Obviously, there are
various points of controversy or disagreement among religious groups.
However, it is alarming to know that one point of disagreement among our
brethren in Christ is the one that titles this study: Why only one
cup?
I say that it is alarming because there is no controversy over what the
Holy Scriptures say on the subject, but rather over the necessity to
practice what is said. When we think that this could be a problem
among brethren, who claim "to speak where the Bible speaks, and to be
silent where the Bible is silent," it is incredible.
However, since this is the case, and because true Christians are to
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give
the reason for the hope that you have," (1 Peter 3:15), we find
ourselves needing to answer the question: Why only one cup?
First we need to establish what the cup is. If we were dealing with
children or unbiased adults, we could skip this step. A child knows
that a cup is a cup. However, there are some adults, mature in the faith,
very intelligent, and well trained, who find this point difficult. For them
we need to define the cup.
Definition
The cup is the utensil that Jesus Christ used, when He instituted His
supper, to contain the fruit of the vine. "Cup" is the
translation of potérion (Greek). For the definition of potérion,
we read what some Bible dictionaries say.
W. E. Vine says:
POTÉRION, a diminutive of potér, denotes, primarily, a drinking vessel;
hence, a cup (a) literal, as... The cup of blessing, I Cor. 10:16... (b)
figurative, ...in the N. T. it is used most frequently of the sufferings of
Christ, Matt. 20:22, 23; 26:39; Mark 10:38, 39; 14:36; Luke 22:42; John
18:11; also of the evil deeds of Babylon, Rev. 14:10....
Joseph H. Thayer, says:
POTÉRION ...a cup, a drinking vessel...
So a cup is simply a cup, a drinking vessel. Sometimes it is used
literally and sometimes it is used figuratively. How do we know
which?
Literal or Figure of Speech?
E. W. Bullinger says:
It may be asked, " How are we to know, then, when words are to be
taken in their simple, original form (i.e., literally), and when they are
to be taken in some other and peculiar form (i.e., as a Figure)?" The
answer is that, whenever and wherever it is possible, the words of
Scripture are to be understood literally, but when a statement appears to
be contrary to our experience, or to known fact, or revealed truth; or
seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then
we may reasonably expect that some figure is employed. (Figures of Speech
Used in the Bible, p. XV)
And:
No one is at liberty to exercise any arbitrary power in their use.
All that art can do is to ascertain the laws to which nature has subjected
them. There is no room for private opinion, neither can speculation
concerning them have any authority.
It is not open to any one to say of this or that word or sentence,
"This is a figure," according to his own fancy, or to suit his
own purpose. We are dealing with a science whose laws and their
workings are known. If a word or words be a figure, then that figure
can be named, and described. It is used for a definite purpose and
with a specific object. (Ibid. p. XI)
D. R. Dungan says:
Sec. 50. Rules by which the meaning of words shall be ascertained.
Rule 1. All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless
the evident meaning of the context forbids.
Rule 2. Commands generally, and ordinances always are to be
understood in a literal sense. (Hermeneutics, p. 184)
Sec. 51. How can we know figurative language? (Ibid. p. 195)
Rule 8. It must be remembered that figures are not always used with
the same meaning. (Ibid. p. 216)
First then, we should accept the words of the Bible in a literal sense.
Before we decide that a word or a passage is figurative, we should make
sure that the context demands it, or that the context prohibits a literal
interpretation.
Definition of three figures of speech
In the Word of God, the Lord used three figures of speech when He
instituted His supper. They are metaphor, metonymy, and
synecdoche. In his book Claves De Interpretación (Keys to Bible
Interpretation), Tomás de la Fuente gives the following simple definitions
of these figures of speech. (The translation to English is mine - R.T.)
He says:
Metaphor
This figure indicates the similarity between two very different things,
declaring that one of them is the other. (p. 86)
Metonymy
Metonymy is the use of a word in the place of another, suggested by the
first one. When the writer puts the effect of an action for its
cause, or uses the symbol or sign for the actual thing, he uses metonymy.
(p. 86)
Note: E. W. Bullinger classifies the metonymy used in the Lord's Supper as:
"The container for the contents. (P.539 & 577)
Synecdoche
Synecdoche occurs when the writer points out a part for the whole, or the
whole for a part. (p. 86)
It is interesting what Tomás de la Fuente says with regards to the use of
a word in different ways or different figures of speech. He says:
(Translation - R.T.)
There are synecdoches in 1 Corinthians 11:27 and Luke 2:1. But in
these same texts there are metonymies also. These texts are examples
of the problem of classifying literary figures.
In 1 Corinthians 11:27 Paul says, "Whosoever shall eat this bread or
drink this cup..." The full cup is used here for the small amount that
the communicant drinks; this is the synecdoche. But the cup is put
here for its contents, the wine. This is the metonymy. (p. 87)
This completely harmonizes with what D. R. Dungan said in rule 8, of
section 51: "It must be remembered that figures are not always used
with the same meaning."
Now, we can examine the use of the word "cup" in the texts
concerning the Lord's Supper, and apply these rules in order to understand
exactly what the Lord meant.
Analyzing The Texts
Key to abbreviations of the versions used: King James Version (KJV), New
King James Version (NKJV), New International Version (NIV), Goodspeed (G),
The New English Bible (NEB), Williams (W), Confraternity Version [From the
Latin Vulgate] (CV).
First phrase:
Matthew
And he took the cup (KJV)
Then He took the cup (NKJV)
Then he took the cup (NIV)
And he took the wine-cup (G)
The he took a cup (NEB)
He also took the cup of wine (W)
And taking a cup (CV)
Mark
And he took the cup (KJV)
Then He took the cup (NKJV)
Then he took the cup (NIV)
And he took the wine cup (G)
Then he took a cup (NEB)
He also took the cup of wine (W)
And taking a cup (CV)
Luke
And he took the cup (KJV)
Then He took the cup (NKJV)
After taking the cup (NIV)
And when he was handed a cup (G)
Then he took a cup (NEB)
Then He received a cup of wine (W)
And having taken a cup (CV)
1 Corinthians
Also (he took) the cup (KJV)
(He) also (took) the cup (NKJV)
He took the cup (NIV)
He took the cup (G)
He took the cup (NEB)
He took the cup of wine (W)
Also the cup (CV)
We should ask ourselves if there is a reason not to accept "cup"
here as a literal cup. Is it possible to take a literal cup in one's
hands? Certainly it is.
Is a part placed for the whole? Yes. By the
context, we know that it was not an empty cup, but that it contained the
fruit of the vine. So then the figure would be synecdoche.
Jesus took in his hands a cup (a literal, drinking vessel) that contained
literal fruit of the vine.
Second Phrase:
Matthew
Gave thanks, and gave (it) to them (KJV)
Gave thanks and gave (it) to them (NKJV)
Gave thanks and offered it to them (NIV)
Gave thanks and gave it to them (G)
Having offered thanks to God he gave it to them (NEB)
Gave thanks; then He gave it to them (W)
He gave thanks and gave it to them (CV)
Mark
When he had given thanks, he gave (it) to them (KJV)
When He had given thanks He gave (it) to them (NKJV)
Gave thanks and offered it to them (NIV)
Gave thanks and gave it to them (G)
Having offered thanks to God he gave it to them (NEB)
Gave thanks and gave it to them (W)
And giving thanks, he gave it to them (CV)
Luke
Gave thanks, and said, take this (KJV)
Gave thanks, and said, Take this (NKJV)
Gave thanks and said, Take this (NIV)
He thanked God, and said, Take this (G)
After giving thanks he said, Take this (NEB)
Gave thanks, and said, Take this (W)
He gave thanks and said, Take this (CV)
1 Corinthians Omitted
This does not constitute any impossibility if taken literally. Jesus
gave his disciples that which he had taken in his hands, a cup containing
fruit of the vine.
"This" refers to that which he had taken in his hands, a literal
cup, which contained literal fruit of the vine. Matthew and Mark say
that he gave it to them, Luke gives the Lord's command to receive it.
Third Phrase:
Matthew
Drink ye all of it (KJV)
Drink from it, all of you (NKJV)
Drink from it, all of you (NIV)
You must all drink from it (G)
Drink from it all of you (NEB)
All of you drink some of it (W)
All of you drink of this (CV)
Mark
They all drank from it (KJV)
They all drank from it (NKJV)
They all drank from it (NIV)
They all drank from it (G)
They all drank from it (NEB)
And they all drank some of it (W)
They all drank of it (CV)
Luke
Divide (it) among yourselves (KJV)
Divide (it) among yourselves (NKJV)
Divide it among you (NIV)
Share it among you (G)
Share it among yourselves (NEB)
Share it among you (W)
And share it among you (CV)
1 Corinthians Omitted
In the same way, this constitutes no impossibility; therefore it is
literal. Jesus commanded them to drink from the cup, which he had
taken in his hands and given to them, a cup that contained fruit of the
vine.
Luke is the same as Matthew and Mark with the exception of the use of the
word "divide" or "share," which is not as specific as
"drink." However, we know that they divided or shared the cup by
drinking from it, according to Mark. Matthew and Luke give the
command, Mark shows that they obeyed.
Fourth Phrase:
Matthew
This is my blood of the new testament (KJV)
This is My blood of the new covenant (NKJV)
This is my blood of the covenant (NIV)
This is my blood which ratifies the agreement (G)
This is my blood, the blood of the covenant (NEB)
This is my blood which ratifies the covenant (W)
This is my blood of the new covenant (CV)
Mark
This is my blood of the new covenant (KJV)
This is My blood of the new covenant (NKJV)
This is my blood of the covenant (NIV)
This is my blood which ratifies the agreement (G)
This is my blood of the covenant (NEB)
This is my blood which ratifies the covenant (W)
This is my blood of the new covenant (CV)
Luke
This cup (is) the new testament in my blood (KJV)
This cup (is) the new covenant in My blood (NKJV)
This cup is the new covenant in my blood (NIV)
This cup of wine is the new covenant to be ratified by my blood (W)
This cup is the new covenant in my blood (CV)
1 Corinthians
This cup is the new testament in my blood (KJV)
This cup is the new covenant in My blood (NKJV)
This cup is the new covenant in by blood (NIV)
This cup is the new agreement ratified by my blood (G)
This cup is the new covenant sealed by my blood (NEB)
This cup is the new covenant ratified by my blood (W)
This cup is the new covenant in my blood (CV)
(Marginal note) "The new covenant: Sacrificial blood sealed the old
covenant; cf. Ex. 24,8. This is the sacrificial blood that makes
effective the new order established by God." (CV)
We know that what he had in his hands was not his literal blood. In
the same way, we know that a cup is not literally a testament.
Therefore, we are forced to accept this as a figure of speech.
The figure is a metaphor. "This," (of Matthew and Mark)
refers to all that he had taken in his hands, a literal cup that contained
literal fruit of the vine, two physical inseparable things that represent
two inseparable spiritual things (the blood and the testament).
Matthew and Mark give the picture from the point of the blood that
confirmed the New Testament. Luke and Paul give the picture from the
point of the New Testament that was confirmed by the blood of Christ.
The cup, when it contains the fruit of the vine in the Lord's supper,
represents the New Testament confirmed by the blood of Christ. The
fruit of the vine, when contained in the cup in the Lord's supper
represents the blood of Christ that confirmed the New Testament. Two
literal things (the cup and the fruit of the vine) represent two spiritual
things (the blood of Christ and the New Testament).
Fifth Phrase:
Matthew, Mark, & Luke Omitted
1 Corinthians
Drink (it); drink this cup; drink (this) cup; drink of (that) cup (KJV)
Drink (it); drink this cup; drink of the cup (NKJV)
Drink this cup; drinks the cup; drinks of the cup (NIV)
Drink it; drink from the cup; drinks from the Lord's cup (G)
Drink it; drink the cup; drinks the cup; drinking from the cup (NEB)
Drink it; drink from this cup; drinks from the Lord's cup (W)
Drink it; drink the cup; drinks the cup; drink of the cup (CV)
We know that it is impossible to literally drink a cup, therefore,
"Drink it" has to be a figure of speech. The figure is
metonymy, "the container named referring to the contents." How
does one drink a cup? By drinking that which is contained in a cup.
However, in order to say that one "drank a cup," with reference
to the contents, it could only have been the contents of a cup, and not the
contents of anything else (such as a pitcher, thermos, or barrel, or even
"cups"). "Cup" is the container named. It
is not the contents, not even when it refers to the contents.
The Bible teaches in the following ways:
1. Direct command.
When God told Noah to build an ark out "gopher wood" (Genesis
6:14), Noah understood, that in order to do the Lord's will, he had to
build the ark out of gopher wood. Why did he understand it that way?
God had given him a direct command. In the same way, the New
Testament contains direct commands for us today.
2. Necessary inference.
When Philip preached the gospel of Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch, the
eunuch asked him, "What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts
8:35-40). This question necessarily infers that baptism is a part of
the gospel.
3. Approved examples.
The Bible tells us what we should do in order to please God, giving us
certain approved examples of things that pleased Him before, under the same
law of Christ. For example, the church in the first century, under
the direction of the apostles of Jesus, came together on the first day of
the week, Sunday, in order to break bread. If we follow this example
of an action approved by the apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit, we will also
please God.
Our motto to follow as we study the Bible should be, Let us speak where the
Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent (1 Peter 4:11).
We can only obey and teach as doctrine that which the Bible authorizes by
way of direct command, necessary inference and approved example.
Does the Bible teach "one cup?"
Yes ...the Bible teaches only one cup,
as we will show by the following.
1. Direct command.
a. "Drink from it, all of
you" (Matthew 26:27).
b. "This do . . .in memory of me"
(1 Corinthians 11:25).
This last verse tells us what we are to do, and how we are to do it: (1) do
what he did (2) and do it in his memory.
How many cups did Jesus take in his hands? How many did he give to
the disciples, saying, "Drink from it, all of you?" If we obey
the command "This do," how many cups will we use?
2. Necessary inference.
"This cup is the new testament in my blood" (1 Corinthians
11:25).
Since there is only one New Testament, it is necessary to infer that there
should be only one cup, which represents it.
3. Approved example.
Matthew, Mark and Luke give us the historical account of the institution of
the Lord's supper. Paul not only gives us certain commands concerning
the supper, but also gives us an approved example of the way the first
Christians carried out those commands. He prefaced his teaching
about the supper, saying, "For I received from the Lord what I also
passed on to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23). This makes clear that
his example was not simply one way of many to observe the supper, but that
it was an inspired example. Sometimes, it is debatable whether an
example is to be followed, or if the Scriptures are simply relating the
succession of events, but it is not that way when the Scriptures clearly
state that it was received from the Lord. Paul also said, "Be
imitators of me, as I also imitate Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1).
Other points to consider
Paul emphasized the importance of following his
examples.
1. 1 Corinthians 11:1 - "Follow my example, as I follow
the example of Christ" (NIV).
2. 2 Timothy 2:2 - "And the things you have heard me say
in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be
qualified to teach others" (NIV).
3. Philippians 4:9 - "Whatever you have learned or
received or heard from me, or seen in me -- put it into practice. And
the God of peace will be with you" (NIV).
4. Galatians 1:8-9 - "But even if we or an angel from
heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let
him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again:
If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let
him be eternally condemned!" (NIV)
5. 1 Corinthians 4:6 - "Now, brothers, I have applied
these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn
from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is
written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against
another" (NIV).
The Lord emphasized the importance of following God's
Word.
1. Jesus Christ commanded his apostles: Matthew 28:20 -
"and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (NIV)
Paul said that he had, in Acts 20:26-27 - "Therefore, I declare to you
today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have
not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God" (NIV).
2. The Lord revealed this principle to the apostle John.
Revelation 22:18-19 - "I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him
the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words
away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in
the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this
book" (NIV).
3. Christ explained to the Samaritan woman, in John 4:23-24 -
"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will
worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers
the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in
spirit and in truth." (NIV)
4. The Lord made clear that God simply will not accept worship
that does not conform to His Word. He warned, in Matthew 15:8-9 -
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by
men.'" (NIV)
Some objections
1. "The cup is the fruit of the
vine."
Answer: The cup is not the fruit of the vine. Sometimes the cup is
named with reference to the fruit of the vine, but the cup never becomes
the fruit of the vine. Anyone who thinks so should try asking
for fruit of the vine that way when they need to buy it. "Do you
have small bottles of cup?" The cup is not the fruit of the vine.
Not only this, but "cup" can only be named with reference to the
fruit of the vine when that fruit of the vine is contained in a cup.
If it were contained in a bottle, a bottle would have to be named. If
it were in a pitcher, a pitcher would have to be named, etc. The
reason is that the container is named, with reference to the contents.
Remembered that, according to the rules of hermeneutics (the science of
interpretation) it is an error to say that because a word was used
figuratively once, it is always used that way.
2. "It would have been impossible to use
only one cup in Jerusalem." (Or, huge congregations)
Answer: It would not have been impossible in Jerusalem. There is no
reason to think that all Christians in that city made up only one
congregation. Although they met daily in the temple, we know that
they did not celebrate the Lord's supper there. The Jews would
never have permitted that! If they did not observe the supper there, then
where? In their homes (Acts 2:46).
If we find ourselves in a situation that makes obedience to a command of
God impossible, we must change the situation, not God's command!
3. "Jesus used two cups." (Or
"divide it" in Luke's account)
Answer: It is debatable whether the cup of Luke 22:17 has anything to do
with the Lord's supper. Many commentaries say that it pertains to the
Passover instead of the supper. Even if it refers to the Lord's
supper, the contents of the cup can be divided by all drinking from the
cup. "Divide" is the only word in Luke's account that
can correspond to the word "drink" in Matthew and Mark's
accounts. Therefore, we must conclude that "divide" means
"drink" in Luke's account.
4. "The Bible does not say that we
"must" use only one cup." (Or, making laws--see chart1)
Answer: Neither does the Bible say that we "must" celebrate the
Lord's supper "every" first day of the week, nor that we
"must" use only unleavened bread, nor that we "must"
use only fruit of the vine. However, the Bible does teach these
things (see the study on how the Bible teaches).
If these things can be understood and accepted as truths, without thinking
someone is making laws, then why can't we understand the cup in the same
way? They are parallels.
5. "The cup is insignificant or
incidental." (As song books, lights, buildings, upper rooms, benches,
etc.)
Answer: This is the same argument that some brethren use to defend their
instruments of music in their worship services. For brethren that
refuse the instrument but accept the use of cups, this is an "empty
argument" when used to defend musical instruments. However, when
they try to defend their cups, it becomes a "powerful argument."
According to the Bible, the cup represents the New Covenant. If that
is true, (and it is) then one can not truthfully say that it is
insignificant.
6. "The cup is physical, not
spiritual."
Answer: This is interesting. The bread and the fruit of the
vine are also "physical, not spiritual." They represent something
spiritual. It is the same way with the cup. The "physical
cup" represents the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25).
7. "You are worshipping the cup."
Answer: Nonsense! The Bible places as much emphasis on the cup as on the
bread and on the fruit of the vine. For that reason, so do we.
However, giving due emphasis to a thing is not equivalent to worshipping
that thing. If it were, we would be worshipping the bread and the
fruit of the vine, also. The three stand or fall together.
8. "It is not sanitary to drink after
others." (Or, the danger of contagious diseases)
Answer: It is not known with any certainty, that there is any danger in
participating in the Lord's supper with only one cup. According to
the experiences of all preachers and leaders around the world that use only
one cup, there is not one case of anyone that has become sick from a
disease they contacted by participating in the Lord's supper.
Furthermore, it was the "Great Physician" and creator of
"all things" who instituted the "Lord's Supper." If
Christ created the diseases, and He is the best "Physician," if
it were "dangerous" He would have known it. He still
chose to institute His supper with only one cup. We should follow His
command to "Do this" just like He instituted it, with only one
cup.
9. "The fruit of the vine is the most
important."
Answer: Which is more important, the blood or the New Covenant? They
are equal. Neither, alone, would retain its value (Hebrews
9:22; Galatians 2:21). If this is accepted, then it must also be
accepted that the fruit of the vine (which represents the blood) and the
cup (which represents the New Covenant) are also equal in importance.
10. "Then we must use the same cup that
Jesus used."
Answer: If that were so, we would also have to use the same bread that He
ate, and the same fruit of the vine that He drank. We know that would
be absurd. Let us obey His command by following His example, without
changing it.
11. "You can't drink a literal cup."
Answer: One drinks a cup by drinking what the cup contains. However,
one can only drink a "cup" by drinking that which is contained in
a cup. The "container" is named with reference to the thing
contained. If cups were used, one would have to say, "Drink the
cups." IT MUST BE REMEMBERED the container (or containers) is (are)
named (specifically) even when referring to the contents.
12. "Then there must be only one cup
for the whole world, not just for each congregation."
Answer: On the world level the church does nothing, including observe the
Lord's supper. Only on the congregational level does the church
assemble, worship and function. If it were not so, there would
be a problem for the teaching. 1 Corinthians 14:31 says, "For
you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and
encouraged." (NIV) On the congregational level we can easily obey this
command. How could we obey it on the universal level?
We could not!
13. "If the cup falls and
breaks..." (or, if someone drinks it all, etc.)
Answer: One would have to begin again so that all could drink from the same
cup. If such an "accident" should constitute the use of
"two" cups in the supper, it must be recognized that neither
"accidents" nor human "traditions" constitute
authorized reasons to change the commandments of God.
The Bible plainly condemns murder. However, if one were to kill
someone in a car accident, would he be guilty of murder? Certainly
there would be the possibility of him being innocent even though he had
killed someone. This most certainly would not void the Bible's
teaching against taking the life of another. One could not say,
therefore, that he could take his gun and kill anyone he wishes, and still
be innocent. An exception or an accident does not change the
rule or commandment.
14. "If the cup is the New
Testament, there are many copies of the New Testament."
Answer: The key word here is "copy." The "copies" of
the New Testament are not the New Testament, nor do they indicate many new
testaments. There is only one New Testament.
Furthermore, the Bible DOES NOT say that the cup is (represents) a
"copy" of the New Testament, but the New Testament itself.
We do not have "various" or "many" testaments.
Only one was confirmed with the blood of Christ. So, the one
cup represents the one New Testament.
15. "The communion is between the
Christian and Christ, not between Christians."
Answer: No. The communion is between brethren and the body and
blood of Christ. We have communion with Christ, but we also have
communion with each other. Notice 1 Corinthians 10:16-17:
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a
participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we
break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one
loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one
loaf." (NIV) "...We, who are many, are one body..." Why?
"...For we all partake of the one loaf."
16. "The cup of suffering."
Answer: The cup (potérion) of suffering has nothing to do with the
"cup of the Lord" in the Lord's supper. There was neither a
literal cup, nor literal contents. The cup of suffering signified all
that was going to happen to him from then until his resurrection.
Jesus used other terms, symbolic of his suffering as well, such as: his
"hour" (Mark 14:35), and "baptism" (Mark 10:38, 39).
In this last passage, both things, "cup" (potérion) and
"baptism" were symbols of his suffering. There was neither
a literal cup, nor a literal content. One could not say, therefore,
that there is not a literal cup (potérion) in the Lord's supper. The
cup of suffering had nothing to do with the Lord's supper. Furthermore, if
the symbolical use in Mark 10:38,39 indicated that there is not a literal
cup in the supper, by the same reasoning, it would indicate that there is
not a literal baptism in the plan of salvation. There is an axiom
that says, "That, which proves too much, proves nothing."
17. "A pattern for the cup"
Answer: No. It is enough to say "cup" (potérion), a
cup, a drinking vessel. A wooden cup, or a glass cup, or a cup made
of another material would not violate the term "cup," but the
term "cups" does violate the term "cup."
The style doesn't matter, whether it has one handle, two handles, or no
handle at all. The important thing is that it is a cup, or a
drinking vessel and that it is only "one," just as the Bible
says.
Conclusion
It would be impossible to mention every objection or argument that one
might face. Each time one argument is answered another one is
invented. I hope that these are sufficient to help prepare the
teacher or leader for defending against such spiritual attacks.
Remember that one argument that you will never have to answer is "The
Bible says cups."
To comment on this page e-mail :
Randy Tidmore
bro_randy@yahoo.com