The third provocative article in the July, 2016 issue of The Christian Chronicle is in the “Dialogue” section.
The question is posed thus in black above the title:
DOES THE NUMBER OF CUPS in the Lord’s Supper matter? A minister for one-cup congregations shares his perspective [all of which is one line across the top of the page 15]. Underneath it in much larger red letters is the answer:
No such thing as ‘individual communion’
What does the minister mean? With one loaf and one cup, communion is individual. Congregants can hardly do it at the same time. Be that as it may, the interview is with Brett Hickey, who began working with the Denton County Church of Christ, in Lewisville, Texas, last year. He is apparently popular, speaking on a television program and holding a number of gospel meetings each year. He is probably, therefore, a fair representative and speaks for most of this group.
When asked why this group insists on using only one cup, Brett answered that it was to preserve the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper “just as it was delivered,” as stated in 1 Corinthians 11:2. Well, yes, all members desire to deliver the traditions just as they were delivered; however, in 2,000 years there have been changes in customs and advancement in various areas that do not affect the nature of the commands.
Singing, for example, was not done in 4-part harmony in the first century, but when we sing in that manner, we are still just singing. It only changes if we add musical instruments to the singing—or humming or handclapping or footstomping. It changes if some of the congregation is excluded when we are to be speaking to one another (Eph. 5:19). The Lord’s Supper consists of the bread and the fruit of the vine. What container it comes in does not change the fact that it is the body and blood of Christ. To insist on one cup is to add a third element to the Lord’s Supper.
A second reason for one cup, Hickey asserted, is that there is just as much authority for it as there is for meeting on the first day of the week. Hickey avers that the commands concerning the Lord’s Supper are even more emphatic because Jesus said, “Do this.” He cites Mark 14:23, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. Matthew and Mark do not record the words, “Do this.” In Luke 22:19, when Jesus broke the bread, He said: “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-25). What were they required to do? Remember His physical body, represented by the bread. Did Jesus admonish, “Be sure you only have one loaf”? How would that work in a congregation of 500 people? In the early church they had ten times that many, according to Acts 4:4. What oven would have baked that loaf?
The same is true of the cup. Jesus passed around one cup containing the fruit of the vine, and all the disciples drank of it (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23). But there were only 13 present—Jesus and the twelve. What would Jesus have done if there had been 70 present? He would have had to prepare a lot larger cup, or He would have had to refill it as it went around. Now imagine a cup large enough to handle 3,000 on Pentecost and 5,000 shortly thereafter. It is doubtful that anyone made a cup that large; so it would have had to be refilled numerous times—or, more likely, several cups would have been used. God did not see fit to tell us the way they distributed the Lord’s Supper among so many people. We do not know how many loaves or cups were used or how the bread and the fruit of the vine was distributed to each worshipper. All we know is that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread…” (Acts 2:42), a synecdoche, where a part (the bread) stands for the whole (the Lord’s Supper) (cf. Acts 20:7).
The main point is this. The use of the word cup, scholars agree, is another figure of speech—a metonymy, in which the container stands for the contents. We use this terminology all the time, as seen below. A. Lowell Altizer gave this illustration when he spoke on Luke 22 for Studies in Luke, the 14th Annual Lectureship of the East Tennessee School of Preaching and Missions. In a dispute over this very issue of whether one cup was all that was permissible to be used in the Lord’s Supper, his father
walked to the cupboard and therefrom took an empty tea-cup, handed it to the brother and asked him to drink thereof. The man responded, “There’s nothing therein to drink, this cup contains nothing!” He was then told that the “cup” of which we drink must be the contained and not the container (267).
This is only logical, but do not expect one-cuppers to see it. It is sad that people can be so insistent (even to the point of withdrawing fellowship) because of their failure to grasp an obvious figure of speech. When Jesus took the cup and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17), did they chop the cup in pieces and each take a portion, or did they divide the contents? To ask the question is to answer it.
Hickey cites sources saying that members drinking out of the same cup carries little risk and that they don’t get sick more than others do. The studies he cites may be valid (15), and they do answer a concern that many people have, but they do not have a Scriptural bearing on whether or not someone has the right to demand that everyone drink from one cup. A more pertinent question is: “Do one-cup congregations consider themselves to be in fellowship with other churches of Christ?” And the answer is, “NO!” Hickey reasons:
We see this departure from the New Testament in the same light as many multi-cup congregations view those who have introduced instrumental music into their worship services and so do not consider themselves to be in fellowship with us (15-16).
This argument was already answered earlier in this article. The container(s) do not change the nature of the bread or the fruit of the vine. Instrumental music alters singing. To add mechanical instruments to the singing God commanded would be like adding peanut butter to the bread or vodka to the fruit of the vine. Unaltered, the unleavened bread still represents the body of Christ, and the juice of the grape His blood. The one-cup group would need to show that something about multiple cups changes the nature of the fruit of the vine in order to have a case.
Since they cannot demonstrate that a change in the worship has occurred, they are wrong to require that others conform to their preference. This attitude is exactly that possessed by the Judaizing teachers in the first century when they attempted to bind the Law of Moses upon Christians—even Gentile Christians who were never under the Law. Jesus, the Head of the church, has given no one the right to legislate in His stead. He does instruct His followers to withdraw fellowship if they have changed the nature of worship, behaved immorally, or have introduced a doctrine contrary to what has been taught in the New Testament. No one has authority to withdraw over an opinion.
While it is true that unity must be based on truth, unity cannot exist based on the personal preference of a few. Likewise, if one group of brethren prefers not to have a kitchen in their church building, that is their prerogative, but they do not have a right to condemn others who choose to include one when it is a matter of opinion and judgment. Some have opposed drinking fountains, restrooms, air conditioning, and pew cushions, yet none of these changes the nature of worship. Neither do containers or kitchens.
Hickey cites J.W. McGarvey a true scholar of the highest order, but when he argued on this matter, he used human wisdom rather than the Scriptures, saying that the Lord wanted the twelve to drink from the same cup; otherwise He could have done it another way. But how does he know that Jesus did not simply use the most expedient method under the circumstances? Again, what would He have done if the 70 had been present? McGarvey concluded that “we shall be far more likely to please him [sic] by doing what he [sic] did than by doing what he [sic] avoided.” Yet no evidence proves that Jesus avoided anything. McGarvey has not shown that the container was of any real importance. The Lord surely knew what would happen on Pentecost, and yet He gave no instructions that they should continue to use one cup when conditions were vastly different from those in an upper room.
Hickey quotes from G. C. Brewer as one who said he thought he was the one who introduced individual communion cups to the churches of Christ. Whether he did or not is irrelevant. It is Hickey’s comment that is significant: “Any change in a teaching that was practiced for almost 20 centuries after the time of Jesus is at least questionable and at the most unacceptable” (16).
This statement is false. Any change in teaching is wrong whether it occurs in the first century or the twentieth century. No one is authorized to change the doctrine of Jesus or His apostles. However, Hickey does not refer to a teaching—but to a practice or custom. For nearly three centuries, brethren did not meet in church buildings. Was it wrong when they began to build them? Did they violate a teaching of Jesus? Could members of the church have argued, as McGarvey did, that we were far more likely to please Him by avoiding erecting such structures, as Jesus did?
When were Bibles mass produced, and when were songbooks added? When was air conditioning added to buildings? Wasn’t it nearly twenty centuries later? And when did radio and television programs come into being? How about the Internet? The point is that none of these change the nature of the work we do, nor do they alter the worship that we offer God. We can remember Jesus no matter how large or small the loaf is and regardless of the container holding the fruit of the vine.
When asked if any other differences existed between the one-cuppers and multiple-cup churches, Hickey replied that they found no Biblical authority for “segregated Bible classes.” In other words, they think that two-year-olds will learn as effectively in an adult Bible class as they would in one on their own level—or that no classes should exist in the first place, which is ludicrous. Not all teaching in the New Testament was public. Nicodemus came to Jesus by night; Jesus discussed salvation with the woman at the well. Two disciples spent an evening with the Lord (John 1:39). Jesus taught two on the road to Emmaeus (Luke 24:18-27). Paul taught daily for two years in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9-10).
Certainly, children can and should be taught at home, but why deny them the opportunity to learn in a Bible class with other children? Bible classes do not take the place of home instruction; they supplement it. Should Acts 2:42 read, “And the disciples continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine—but only on the first day of the week—and certainly not in a class situation”? This idea that Bible classes are somehow unauthorized or evil is particularly obnoxious; it robs children and adults of valuable learning opportunities. God expects Christians to grow; classes are one means of aiding in that growth. So are publications and the Internet. When women teach children, they are not teaching in the assembly. These quibbles result from sloppy logic. And why is the Christian Chronicle providing a voice for these errors?