Truth Magazine

By Ronny Wade

The Affirmative Refuses To Let Us Know Where He Stands

In my last negative article I begged our brother to tell us in which Lord’s supper passage the word cup meant a literal container. He refused to answer. Brother Moore, the readers want to know why you are withholding this information. If I have falsely charged you by saying that you “believe the container is never under consideration when the cup is used in the Lord’s supper accounts” then why not tell us where the word is so used? Again, in the 1-2-86 issue of Guardian Of Truth our brother stated his belief that the church of the first century used a plurality of cups in the Lord’s supper. I have repeatedly asked how he knew this. What has been his answer? Silence! Nothing but silence. Now you know why I charge him with subterfuge (a stratagem used in order to conceal, escape, or evade). If he has the answers then why, oh why, has he kept them concealed for three affirmative articles? The very information he claims to have, which could have settled this whole disagreement, he chooses to keep hidden and concealed.

You Decide Where He Stands And What He Believes

“I do not mean that I can read verbatim about a plurality of drinking vessels being used in distributing the fruit of the vine. If I could do this it would not be a debatable proposition” (Moore, First Aff.). Yet when I accused him of admitting that a “plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference” he replied, “I have admitted no such thing” (Third Aff.). In other words he must believe that a plurality of cups is taught either by example, or command, or necessary inference. When do we believe him, the first article or the third?

Again, I said, “We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference.” He replied, “This is a glaring misrepresentation! I never admitted any such thing” (Third Aff.). Now, come on brother Moore, do you or do you not? Are cups taught by example, command, or necessary inference? If so, where? Why didn’t you tell us? If they are not taught by command, example, or necessary inference, then why be afraid to admit it? I tell you, I don’t know where the man stands.

Demanded-Justified-Taught-Mentioned

The affirmative seems greatly agitated by the fact that I demanded an example of his cups. If he would use greater care in what he writes and pay more attention to what I write, his problems wouldn’t be nearly as great as they are at the present. First of all, he made it clear that a plurality of cups was not taught explicitly and that he could not read about them verbatim. In other words there was no example of their use in the New Testament. Then he proceeded to inform us that a plurality of cups was taught implicitly i.e. “capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed.” Now it doesn’t take a Solomon to see that if cups are taught (justified) by something unexpressed there is no example, command, or necessary inference that teaches (justifies) their use. If this is reckless, he has no one to blame but himself. If I have misrepresented him by stating “we know by his own ad mission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference,” why didn’t he cite the passage that “teaches” their use instead of crying misrepresentation? And he wonders why I charge him with circumlocution (talking around or in circles).

It Gets Worse

Notice the following: “He takes his ridiculous concept of how a matter is authorized, then charges me with a consequence of it” (Third Aff.). Later in the same paragraph he quotes me, “‘We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference.’ I have admitted no such thing. I emphatically stated, ‘Every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine, is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels.”‘ Yes brother I know you emphatically stated that, but you didn’t prove it. Stating a thing is a far cry from proving it. You see it is impossible for any passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine to authorize a plurality of drinking vessels when every such passage commands those present to “drink of the cup,” i.e. “out of” or “from” the cup. You just cannot drink “out of” the cup and drink from cups.

Who Will Meet The Issue Head-On?

Brother Moore has not addressed the issue. He has repeatedly refused us the advantage of information he claims to have. But now, he has the audacity to write d6we insist that the negative tell us where there is the command, example, or necessary inference for the following: (1) a plate for the bread in the Lord’s supper; (2) a song leader; (3) a song book; (4) the use of radio or television for preaching the gospel; (5) a plate or basket for the contribution; or (6) a baptistry?” First of all, it is the obligation of the negative to examine the proof or evidence advanced by the affirmative. I am affirming nothing in this discussion. I am denying. Secondly, we are not debating song books or plates, we are debating cups. I am not surprised, however, at our brother’s actions. Every digressive who ever debated has taken this road. The instrumental music man wants to know about tuning forks and song books. The institutional (Herald of Truth, Orphan Home) brethren want to know about individual cups and classes. (Remember the Cogdill- Woods Debate?) Why? Simply because neither can read or justify his practice by the Scriptures. Now, our brother takes the same road traveled by all innovators. He wants to know if these things he mentions are authorized. And if so, how? I am neither ashamed nor afraid to address his argument. Yes, I believe they are authorized. How? By generic authority. Why? Because they are subordinate elements included within the purview of the precept given by Divine inspiration. Do cups fall into this same category? I answer emphatically no. Why? Because the precept (Mt. 26:27; Mk. 14:23) specifies that “He took the cup” (not cups). He commanded them – to “all drink of it” (not them). They understood and “all drank of (out of) it” (Mk. 14:23). Subordinate elements under cup are such things as size of the cup, color or material out of which it is made, whether or not it has a handle, etc. Coordinate elements, i.e. elements from the same sphere (where we have no choice) are such things as individual cups, drinking from an eye dropper, or lapping it off the floor. This is why he has no parallel between cups and the things he mentions. I submit that our brother’s cause would have been better served had he dealt as forth-rightly with the readers of this exchange as I have instead of withholding valuable information he claims to have, but refuses to share.

His Problem

As we pointed out in our last article, the affirmative is laboring under a terrible burden, by defending a practice that was introduced into churches of Christ around 1913-15. By his own admission “Efforts to introduce multiple containers met with much opposition” (Guardian Of Truth, 1-2-86). That opposition continues today by brethren interested in maintaining purity of worship. The charge that the recent origin of multiple cups has nothing to do with their scripturalness “unless the negative believes that tradition is a valid means of determining scriptural authority” seems strange in view of the approach used by brother Moore and his brethren to the institutional question. In fact when they argue that issue, you would think they had taken a page right out of my debate notes. I have already shown that Cogdill demanded an example of Woods for his practice. That’s o.k., but I shouldn’t demand an example of cups. In the Gospel Guardian (10-28-85) Hoyt Houchen wrote, “We remind these brethren that the church was here a long time before these human institutions and it fared all right without them.” It’s o. k. for them to make the antiquity argument, but when I use it, it proves nothing. Oh consistency, thou art a jewel. Brother Moore then charges that I misrepresented, Alford, and Jamieson, Faucett and Brown on 1 Corinthians 10:16.” In what way? How did I misrepresent them? Does he expect us to accept his allegation without any proof? What is the matter with this man?

Out Of It

In his frenzy brother Moore is getting careless. First of all he fails to see how my reference to Thayer on the use of the genitive is of any help to my position. Well sir, it helps because the genitives in Matthew 26:27 and 1 Corinthians 9:7 are different. In the former it is “a gen. of the vessel out of which one drinks,” and in the latter it is “a gen. denoting the drink of which as a supply one drinks.” So you don’t have a parallel and your argument falls. Secondly, he says, “You would think, by his argument that Thayer lists 1 Corinthians 9:7 under the statement, ‘with the genitive denoting the drink of which as a supply one drinks.'” Well, my friend that’s exactly what Thayer does under ek on p. 191 under #9 supply, he lists 1 Corinthians 9:7. Our brother needs to be more careful. And then to cap it all off he implies that because I refer to Thayer I am saying that “the English translations are not sufficient and what you Bible says may mislead you.” Brother Moore is that why you referred to Dungan and Bullinger in your first affirmative? I thought better of you than this.

The Foolishness of His Position

I asked our brother “in the sentence He picked up the cup and drank it and sighed gustily saying, this is good coffee, is the cup the coffee?” His reply: “metaphorically yes.” There you have it friends. In order to sustain a dying cause this man has taken the illogical position that when a man picks up a cup and drinks it, and then says “this is good coffee” the cup he picked up is metaphorically the coffee. Who can believe it? How sad, how tragic. May God give us the courage to stand for truth regardless of the consequences.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 151-152
March 5, 1987

By Elmer Moore

RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that a congregation may use a plurality of containers in the distribution of the fruit of the vine in partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

First Affirmative

(Editor’s Note: We are pleased to publish this debate on multiple containers for the Lord’s Supper between Elmer Moore and Ronny Wade. Both men are representative men, recognized as well-qualified by those brethren believing both points of view. Each man presses his points, as is understandable; I am confident that our readers will learn from reading this discussion. This debate is published with a view of learning the truth on a subject over which brethren are divided. Believing the truth shines in the crucible of controversy, this debate was arranged and is published.)

The proposition is indeed a simple one and needs very little definition. However, I will give a brief explanation of what I mean by it. There are at least two words in the proposition that need to be clarified. First, the word teach: by “teach,” I do not mean that I can read verbatim about a plurality of drinking vessels being used in distributing the fruit of the vine. If I could do this it would not be a debatable proposition. I do not believe that such is necessary for a practice to be scriptural. The Bible teaches us “explicitly,” i.e., clearly developed with all its elements apparent,” and also “implicitly,” i.e., “capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed. ” Secondly, the word may: this word suggests the right or liberty to do a thing. Hence, our proposition simply stated is: The Scriptures give Christians the right or liberty to use a plurality of drinking vessels in serving the fruit of the vine. To this end I obligate myself. If our brother should want further clarification, I will be glad to oblige.

Passages That Discuss The Lord’s Supper

(Matt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:17-21; Acts 2:42; 20:7-11; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23-24)

Because of limited space I will not write out these passages. However, I urge the reader to note them where the particular point of issue will be considered.

The Real Issue

Many times side issues cloud the real issue in a discussion. I hope to avoid this by stating what I believe to be the real issue. The issue actually involves two basic questions. First, is the number of drinking vessels significant or is the number essential or merely incidental? Secondly, does the drinking vessel signify anything pertaining to the design or purpose of the Lord’s Supper?

The Design or Purpose of the Lord’s Supper

The New Testament declares that the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is that of a memorial. Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). The Lord’s Supper is a memorial, a remembrance of the death of our Lord till He comes again. Allow me to state what I believe is a fundamental principle that I don’t believe my brother will deny. Whatever is essential to the keeping of this memorial must have some specific bearing on the design or purpose of that memorial. Thus the “bread” which is a fair representation of the body of our Lord, and the “cup -the fruit of the vine” which is a fair representation of the blood of the Lord, have a definite bearing on the design of that memorial, and are thus essential. However, the drinking vessel has no significance whatever to the death of our Lord any more than the “table” upon which the elements were placed and the plate used to serve the bread.

Further Arguments on the Design or Purpose of the Supper

Let’s look more closely at the purpose of the supper and its relationship to the drinking vessels. Remember that Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). W. E. Vine, in his word studies (p. 956), states, “not in ‘memory of’ but in an affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind.” Hence, those things that are essential to the proper eating of the Lord’s Supper must accomplish this design or purpose. I can readily see how the bread, representing His body, and the fruit of the vine, representing His blood, do in fact accomplish the “affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind.” But, ladies and gentlemen, I fail to see how a drinking vessel can in any way accomplish “an affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind.” The drinking vessel no more does this than does the “table,” the “plate,” or the “place” where the supper was instituted.

How Many Elements of Significance?

The Bible indicates that there are only two elements of significance in the Lord’s Supper. The record declares, “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:26-29). First allow me to give a brief explanation of this statement. Jesus declared that the bread was a fair representation of His body, and the-cup, which He identified as the fruit of the vine (v. 29), was a fair representation of His blood that served to ratify the New Testament.

Our Lord used metaphorical language, declaring that “one thing is another” (see Dungan’s Hermeneutics, p. 253, and Bullinger’s Figures of Speech, pp. 738-741). Note the language; He took bread and said, “Take eat; this (bread) is my body.” He took a cup and said take and drink, for “this (cup) is my blood of the covenant” represented by the fruit of the vine. Friends, if you can see that the word “this” in v. 26 refers back to “bread” in the same passage, why do you have difficulty in seeing that the word “this” in v. 28 refers back to “cup” in v. 27? Note also how Jesus explained His own metaphor by declaring what the “cup” was. He said, “I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine (my emp.). . . ” (v. 29). Our Lord identified the cup. He said it was the fruit of the vine, and that it was a fair representation of His blood. Please note the following chart:

He took and said eat – This bread is my body.

He took and said drink – This cup is my blood.

Friends, read the passage! Jesus, in this and parallel passages in Mark and Luke, identifies two elements of emphasis: One, the bread which He declares is a fair representation of His body; and two, the cup (the fruit of the vine), which He declares was a fair representation of His blood. In I Corinthians 10: 16 the writer declares, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?” Dear reader how many elements do you see emphasized in this passage? You see the “cup of blessing” which is “a communion of the blood of Christ” and the “bread” which is “a communion of the body of Christ.” The rhetorical expression “is it not” in the text is the equivalent of saying that it is! Hence, the inspired writer identifies two elements of significance, which are the bread which represents His body and the cup, the fruit of the vine, which represents His blood.

The Drinking Vessel Signifies Nothing

That a vessel or container is necessary to contain liquid is not denied. However, the number is immaterial. The drinking vessel has no greater significance than does “the table” (Lk. 22:21) upon which the elements were placed, or the upper room where the supper was instituted and later observed (Lk. 22:12; Acts 20:8). We must exercise caution that we do not emphasize a matter that the Lord does not emphasize. This is just as bad as failing to make a matter important that the Lord had made important! Brethren, we must realize that it is as bad to bind where the Lord has not bound as it is to loose where He has not loosed. Either extreme is wrong, and the one as bad as the other.

Bible Authority for A Plurality of Drinking Vessels

In establishing authority for a plurality of drinking vessels in serving the fruit of the vine, let me preface my argument by suggesting a fundamental principle recognized by Bible students, that: when the Lord authorizes an act to be performed, whatever is necessary to carry out that direction, and whatever is expedient, is contained in the authorized action, unless what we do violates other principles of Bible teaching. The Lord does not detail every incidental in carrying out His directions. Let me illustrate what I mean. The Lord authorizes us to sing praises. In order to do this there is the necessity of using words. However, whether these words are in a book or memorized by those singing is a matter of judgment. I don’t know of any place in the New Testament where the Lord has mentioned a song book; however I believe such is authorized. In exactly the same way, then, the Lord directed that we drink the fruit of the vine and eat the bread. Since fruit of the vine is a liquid, we must have some kind of container for it. However, the particular kind or number of container(s) is a matter of judgment. The drinking vessel is implicit in the command to drink. The number is incidental. Hence, every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine is a passage that authorizes a plurality of drinking vessels (Lk. 22:19).

Essentials and Incidentals

Brethren, we must avoid making an incidental into an essential. God’s people must exercise caution not to bind where the Lord has not bound or loose where He has not loosed. Concerning incidentals, I call attention to Matthew 28:18-20, where the Lord authorizes us to baptize. There are certain things that are essential to scriptural baptism that my brother will not fault; hence, there must be a proper subject, action, element, and purpose. However, it is incidental whether we baptize in running water or a baptistry. In the same way that a baptistry is included in baptism, a plurality of drinking vessels is included in the command to drink the fruit of the vine.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 141-142
March 5, 1987

By Joyner Wiley Adams

I believe there are some valuable lessons to be learned in reviewing the life of a faithful child of God. On this premise 1, therefore justify the comments I shall make about the life of my earthly father, Joyner Wilson Adams. It is a eulogy, to be sure, but my purpose is for it to be more than a eulogy. I want it to serve as a form of instruction to those who read it. I trust it will accomplish this two-fold purpose.

He was born September 25, 1902 to David Bonnie and Mary Adeline (Allen) Adams in a remote rural section of eastern North Carolina known simply as Pike Road. He departed this life December 9, 1986 at his home in Chesterfield County, Virginia near Hopewell. He was 84 years old. Had he lived until December 23, he and his wife, Nollie, would have been married sixty-three years.

My daddy was the oldest of six children. Life was hard in those days. His mother died in child-birth when he was twelve years old. He dropped out of school to help his father make a living in the “log-woods.” The lumber company hired on the basis of a man and a team. So, he had to become a man out of necessity sooner than he should have.

With reference to social life he used to speak of candy parties, box suppers, and buggy rides. He spoke of “union meetings” on the church yard with dinner on the ground. Sometimes such occasions were more social than religious.

He met and courted Nollie Matilda Stotesberry who lived in the same community but over on the “Stotesberry Road.” When her widowed mother moved her family to Hopewell, Virginia (a textile town at that time) to make a living running a boarding house, it did not take my daddy long to decide to leave the farm and move up there, too. He got a job in the silk mill and their marriage took place December 23, 1923.

It is unique that the marriage took place in a class-room between “Sunday School” and “church.” The preacher was named John Tate of Richmond, VA. He was the Secretary of the Virginia Christian Missionary Society, an affiliate of the United Christian Missionary Society of Cincinnati. My folks were among the large group of “tar heels” who came to Hopewell for employment and they had rented a building and started a congregation of what we would today refer to as a conservative Christian church. It was in this building that the marriage ceremony took place. The first thing my parents did after they were married was to worship God. The ceremony was announced to the assembly at the close of the services.

To this union three children were born. Joyner Wiley, Connie Wilson (after his father and Connie Mack of baseball fame), and Glenda Mae. All were born at home attended by a local doctor and my grandmother who was the best mid-wife around.

Daddy moved us from Hopewell to Chesterfield County in the early days of the depression to share a 100-acre farm and house with Uncle Mac and Aunt Ida. It was called the “Vaughn” farm after its owners but is today the Bermuda Golf Course. This place was haven for many since all the food we could use and give away could be raised or grown. It stands out in my memory as a wonderful place.

So many things could be said but we must be selective. Overshadowing everything was the depression, hard times, yet strong family ties and always love. Unemployment colored the scene for a long time. Later on Daddy bought a piece of land closer to Hopewell and he and Mama worked and labored tirelessly to build a four-room house by cutting logs from the land and hauling them to the nearby sawmill to change into lumber. I learned about the crosscut saw but was never able to come close to my father in the use of an axe or saw.

With Mama’s help Daddy was able to pay for his place mostly by raising chickens. We used a brooder and bought several hundred day-old chicks from the hatchery each time we were ready for another batch. They knew how to work together and make it count. I am sure it is because they loved each other so very much. Real love can do great things.

Our home was always shared with others who needed help. There were days of religious unrest and increasing dissatisfaction with the Christian Church. Our family, along with several others, left the digressives in the summer of 1942. We started a true church patterned according to Bible authority. He served as an elder in the church in Hopewell and later in the Rivermont church across the river (Appomattox River).

He and Mama had some lonely days as their children married and moved away to preach the gospel. They took in many foster children over the next few years all of whom called them Grandma and Grandpa. Several of these often return for visits with them. Then there were trips to see all their children and grandchildren. Time took its toll and his health was on the decline. There were periods of hospitalization. He became bedfast for the last two years of his life. During all this he received the tender care of both his wife and his sister (called affectionately by the family, Buby). There were anxious days. Children and grandchildren were frustrated by distance in trying to help. Neighbors, friends and relations were wonderful and especially the church members. Then came that quiet moment with no struggle at all when he just went to sleep in Christ. We sorrow but not as those who have no hope.

The day of the funeral was cloudy but mercifully the rain held back. The funeral home chapel was overflowing with friends, neighbors, brethren. A group of singers under the leadership of Allen Malone, preacher for the West End Church in Richmond, sang Amazing Grace, How Beautiful Heaven Must Be, and Above the Bright Blue. It was beautiful and uplifting. The singers were from Rivermont and Richmond.

John Nosker, an elder from West End in Richmond and a long time family friend, delivered the principal address. Being acquainted with the family his comments were most appropriate ending with an appeal to the lost in the audience to consider the salvation of their souls through obedience to the gospel. Ronny Milliner, also a family friend and the preacher for the Rivermont church made some appreciated remarks relating to his association with the family. Later on at the grave side, Roy Diestelkamp a former preacher for Rivermont and a family friend made the final remarks closing with a prayer. He now preaches for a church in Ontario, Canada. The service contributed to a feeling of sweet sadness for all of us. It was wonderful.

Over 40 cars comprised the procession to the cemetery at Sunset Memorial Park in Chesterfield County. As we rode along memories and thoughts crowded into my mind. I am the first-born . . . I bear Daddy’s first name and middle initial, . . . My brother bears his middle name . . . The torch is passed to us who are left behind . . . We are a large family . . . Will the circle be unbroken by and by? . . . Seven of us preach . . . Will there be others? . . . What a strong heritage is ours and what a legacy to uphold. . . Not just for the family’s sake but for the Lord’s sake.

After the grave side services and most had returned to the cars, I stood quietly by as the dark blue casket was lowered into the vault, I just could not tear myself away. It is so hard to let go even when they are faithful to the Lord. That’s because we are human, I guess. As the lid was sealed and the grave filled in and the floral arrangements adorned the site, my youngest son stood at my side comforting me. The others, too, stood nearby. Then we left the earthly remains of Joyner Wilson Adams in quiet repose to await the resurrection morning. Farewell, sweet Daddy . . . for now!

– By Joyner Wiley Adams in fond memory.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 136-137
March 5, 1987

By Ronny Wade

The second affirmative article, which you have just read, is a masterpiece in subterfuge and circumlocution. Seldom will you see someone try so hard to evade clear responsibility and duty. In his first article our brother made two basic arguments, i.e. (1) the cup is the fruit of the vine; hence the container is not under consideration when the word cup is used in the Lord’s supper accounts; and (2) the container has no significance; therefore the number used is incidental. I spent the greater part of my first negative showing why both of these assumptions were false. I will leave it to the reader’s determination as to whether or not I “tried” to answer the arguments.

“The Real Issue”

It doesn’t surprise me at all that our brother is disturbed when I demand that he find an example, command, or necessary inference for his practice. Did you ever see a “liberal” that didn’t get upset when such demands were made? It’s all right for him, and those who agree with him, to demand specific authorization for the sponsoring church concept as Cogdill did of Woods (“There isn’t an example of any church in the New Testament raising its money by going out and begging other churches for it. You find that” – Cogdill- Woods Debate, p. 303, emp. mine R. W.) but if I do it, it “reflects a basic mistake” in my reasoning. Looks to me like what’s sauce for the goose ought at least to be applesauce for the gander. He’s already admitted that there is no New Testament example of a plurality of cups being used in the observance of the Lord’s supper. Now he admits that there is neither command nor necessary inference justifying their use. If this be the case, then how does he know the church of the first century used them as he claimed in the January 2, ’86 issue of Guardian of Truth? Did you notice how quiet he was on this? Wonder why?

Oh! but you misunderstand says, our brother, the proposition states may. Cups may be used. But wait a minute, what the proposition says is: “The scriptures teach a plurality of cups may be used.” What we want to know is how do the Scriptures teach a plurality may be used? We know by his own admission, that a plurality of cups is not taught by example, command, or necessary inference. If not in one of these three ways, then in what way do the Scriptures teach a plurality of cups? Well, says the affirmative, they are implied. But I ask, where? Where do the Scriptures imply the use of a plurality of cups in the Lord’s supper? I’ve never read a single account of that event, that implies a plurality of cups were used. What the affirmative really believes is that cups are taught implicitly (i.e. “capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed”). There you have it, my friend. Even though we have no example, no command, no necessary inference, we understand from something else (heaven only knows what it is) that cups may be used, even though it is unexpressed. Shades of logic! Wouldn’t the liberals love to have that kind of freedom in proving church support of non-saints? Such argumentation is unworthy of church of Christ people.

The Strawman

He says I falsely charge him with believing that the container is never under consideration when the cup is used in the Lord’s supper accounts. “I have never denied that a container is necessary to contain liquid.” “The negative is fighting a strawman.” Well, let’s see. Notice the two statements: (1) “The container is never under consideration when the word cup is used in the Lord’s supper accounts.” (2) “Container is necessary to contain liquid” (his belief). Are the statements the same? Of course not and it doesn’t take a Solomon to see the difference. If they are the same, as our brother implies, let him answer the following: in Matthew 26:27, “And he took the cup. . .,” does cup mean a container? I Corinthians 10: 16, “. . the cup of blessing . . . ” is cup a container here? If not in either of these passages, let him tell us in which Lord’s supper passage the word cup means a literal container. Then we’ll see who is fighting a straw man. Come on, brother, this is the issue, face it squarely, and let the readers know where you stand.

Ek – “Out Of”

In his agitated state he then proceeds to accuse me of “taking the liberty of changing the Lord’s statement” with reference to the Greek preposition ek. Well, I did no such thing. I merely gave the definition of ek which is “from” or “out of.” In every place where the Lord commands His disciples to drink of the cup, “of” is translated from ek. Thayer says under pino ek (drink of), “with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks, ek tou poterion i.e. drink out of the cup” (p. 510). That is exactly what Jesus commanded the disciples to do. And it is just wishful thinking on the affirmative’s part to claim otherwise. He wants me to try my hand on I Corinthians 9:7, Le. “of” the flock. “Of” is from ek, but Thayer says “with a genitive denoting the drink of which as a supply one drinks” (p. 5 10). There is a difference in drinking from a vessel that one hands another (which is what happened in Mt. 26:27) and drinking from the supply of milk given by a flock. Thayer says the genitives are different, let our brother deny it.

Parallels

In my first article I gave the following parallel: (1) “And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the New Testament. . . . ” (2) He picked up the cup (container) and drank it (contents) and sighed gustily saying, “this is good coffee.” Notice (A) cup is literal in both sentences. (B) This and it both refer back to cup (literal) but the pronouns (this, it) refer by metonymy to the contents of the cup. (C) Cup is still literal and does not become the contents. (D) The fruit of the vine was not the cup. The coffee was not the cup.

Did our brother deny A or B and try to disprove either? No! He merely with one swipe of the hand said that because a metaphor is involved in the expression “this is my blood” there is no parallel. That fact however does not negate the parallel, and it won’t go away, even though he wishes it would. Why didn’t he notice the three points I made regarding these statements? No one denies that the fruit of the vine was the blood or that the coffee was good coffee. The question is: was the cup the coffee?, was the cup the fruit of the vine? That’s the question, let him face it.

Spiritual Significance

Now let’s look at what he had to say about my argument on the significance of the cup. First of all, he charges that I “ignore the fact that Jesus used highly metaphorical language” then opines that a man of my background should never make a mistake like that. Well, I regret to have to correct him again, but his accusation just isn’t true. Please notice my point #3, “Each embraces a metaphor which is a figure of comparison. . . . ” You’d think that at least he would read what I said before making statements that have no foundation and serve only to demonstrate his inability to deal with the issue at hand. Secondly, he says the argument might be impressive from a grammatical standpoint, but proves nothing about the significance of the vessel. Did he take up the argument point by point and show where it was false? No! He didn’t even attempt that. He knew better. He says I literalize everything, thus the argument is all wrong. Now that’s really answering an argument isn’t it? Let me encourage everyone to re-read that entire section. Note each point carefully, compare it with the Bible and see if it isn’t true. He does no better in his effort to explain the two statements (1) “This is my blood of the N.T.” and (2) “This cup is the N.T. in my blood,” claiming they are identical, only that the terms are reversed. This, however, cannot be for at least four reasons:

1. The first statement teaches that the fruit of the vine represents the blood, that ratified or sealed the New Covenant.

2. The second statement teaches that the cup is emblematic of the N.T. that the blood ratified.

3. The blood that sealed the N.T. was not the testament, they were two different things.

4. Since the blood and the New Testament were two different things, Jesus used two different things to represent them (fruit of vine represents the blood; cup represents the New Testament). Let him disprove it.

On And On He Goes

His next failure involves the so-called argument on Bible authority. 1 showed exactly why it wouldn’t work, his assertion to the contrary not withstanding. Every passage that teaches the obligation to drink the fruit of the vine teaches that we are to drink of (“out of”) the cup. When cups are used, the commands of both Paul and Jesus are disobeyed. He has no argument here at all.

In a feeble effort to find at least two cups the affirmative cites 1 Corinthians 10:16, but totally misapplies the passage. “We” refers to the congregation where Paul was – Ephesus. “We the assembled” (Alford, Greek New Testament). “We the many (believers assembled; so the Greek)” (Jamieson, Faucett, Brown). He finds no relief here.

What Does He Really Believe?

So far the affirmative has told us that the cup is the fruit of the vine, that the cup is the blood, that cup is a container, and to cap it all off he says, “in whatever sense that the ‘cup’ is the New Testament, it is not the ‘container,’ but the ‘contents.”‘ I wonder, the contents of what? Tell us brother, the cup is the contents of what? What does the man believe?

His Problem

Our brother is laboring under a terrible burden. He is trying to prove a man-made practice scriptural – a practice introduced into churches of Christ around 1913 by such men as C. E. Holt and G. C. Brewer. In his book Forty Years On The Firing Line, Brewer said, “I think I was the first preacher to advocate the use of individual communion cups and the first church in the state of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching, the Central church of Christ at Chattanboga, Tn.” So there you have it. There is his authority. No wonder the man has problems.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 147-148
March 5, 1987