Worship That is Acceptable to God

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Arguments Against One Loaf and One Cup in the Lord's Supper

Arguments Used To "Prove" Individual Cups Those who advocate individual communion and who reject the spiritual significance of the cup, always build their doctrine on the "sand" of humanly devised arguments. While not every argument will be considered, the major individual-cup arguments will be stated, examine , and refuted

(1) 3000 ON PENTECOST
The argument states that 3000 met in one assembly and observed the Lord's Supper on the day of Pentecost. Since it is impossible to serve 3000 with one cup, individual cups are permitted by this situation.

The error of this argument is the one the Sadducees were guilty of in their argument against the resurrection (Mark 12:18-27). The Sadducees assumed that marriage is valid after death. Since this would result in eternal bigamy, there can be no resurrection, they argued. Jesus destroyed their argument by exposing their human assumption. In the resurrection there will be neither male, female, nor marriage. No proof, whether in a court of civil law or in the Church, can be built upon human assumptions.

It is an assumption that 3000 met in one assembly on Pentecost and a second assumption that they observed the Lord's Supper in that supposed assembly. It is interesting that this so-called proof would not be admissible evidence in a court of law and yet people are willing to rest the salvation of their souls on such an argument. The people in the world are indeed often wiser than Christians! (Luke 16:8). This argument is also discussed on page 15??.

(2) THE DROPPED CUP
This argument is based upon the age old fallacy of the accidental. The argument states that if the cup were dropped and broken, another cup would have to be used to finish serving the congregation. The conclusion is: it is permissible to use individual cups.

The error of this argument is obvious: the accidental never governs the ordinary. To illustrate, if one accidentally kills someone, is this a license to become a murderer? If someone unintentionally forgets to pay for something, does this justify shoplifting? Yet some will argue that baptism is not essential to salvation because someone could die on the way to the river, or women may speak in the Church because a woman could yell "fire" in an emergency, or that the spiritual significance of one cup is destroyed by an accident.

Consider the Passover lamb. Suppose that a family's lamb were stolen after it had been prepared. The family would have had to obtain a second lamb. Would this situation have negated and nullified God's command, "a lamb for a household"? It is clear that accidents do not govern the ordinary and are not superior to God's commandments. Accidents cannot be used to change the Bible. Where is the Scriptural evidence that says we can?

(3) THE DRUNKENNESS OF THE CORINTHIANS
Jim Dearman said, "Now, question: How were they getting drunk with one cup?.. .But the point is, it was designed to be the Lord's Supper, therefore the elements or the utensils that were present were obviously there for use in what? the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Supper".25

The argument states that since the Corinthians were getting drunk when observing the Lord's Supper, each person had his own individual cup. Therefore, it is scriptural to use the individual communion set.

Paul told the Corinthians that they had so violated the Pattern, they were no longer partaking of the Lord's Supper. As one translation says, "When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat" (I Corinthians 11:20). These Corinthians were not eating the Lord's Supper, and it is completely invalid to use their example as an approved example in determining God's Pattern for the Communion. Their example is one of doctrinal error, gluttony, sin, and disobedience to God's Pattern. Their example is not one to be followed but one to be avoided! It is important to point out that this argument can be used to "prove" gluttony and drunkenness in the same way it "proves" "individual communion." The fact is that it does not prove anything! It does not prove gluttony, and it does not prove individual communion cups. Neither the way they ate, the amount they ate, not the utensils with which they ate have any Divine approval.

Consider the following thought. If the Corinthians had followed the Lord's Pattern and used one loaf and one cup containing the fruit of the vine, they could never have committed the sins they did. They left God's Pattern and, thereby, turned the Communion into a shameful, sinful mockery. Following the example of sinners does lead to heaven.

(4) DIVIDE IT AMONG YOURSELVES
The argument was used by Grover Stevens26 and also by Jim Dearman. The argument is based upon Luke 22:17, "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves". Regarding this cup, Bro. Dearman said, "Now here we have Luke's account, 'He took the cup'; now here we have the Passover, okay; here we have the Passover". Bro. Stevens also makes the same admission. He then quotes from five different sources which describe the traditional27 way the Passover was observed.

The purpose for the quotations is to show that each person had his own individual cup at the Passover meal. The argument assumes that each disciple divided the Passover cup by pouring some into his own cup. Bro. Stevens argues that Christ instituted the Lord's Supper with each disciple using his own cup, containing the fruit of the vine which had come from this Passover cup. This argument is completely invalid because it is composed of human assumptions and illegitimate logic. In the following paragraphs, the human assumptions will be exposed and the logic shown to be incorrect.

ASSUMPTION NO. 1 Each disciple had his own cup, therefore, individual cups were used in the Lord's Supper. There is neither logical nor scriptural basis for this assumption. Even if each person had a cup, one is not forced to conclude that these cups were used in the Communion. There were also other food elements in the Passover, for example, a sort of "gravy" (Matthew 26:23). It would not, however, be valid to argue that each Christian should dip his piece of bread into gravy when observing the Communion. The presence of gravy proves nothing; and in the same way, the supposed presence of several cups at the Passover proves nothing about the spiritual significance of using one cup in the Lord's Supper.

ASSUMPTION NO. 2 The disciples divided the cup by pouring some into each person 's individual cup. First, it is important to note that Luke 22:17 refers to a cup in the Passover. It was not the cup that Jesus used in the Lord's Supper. Matthew and Mark plainly state that in the Lord's Supper, Jesus took the loaf first and the cup second. What was done with this Passover cup is irrelevant.

It is false and invalid to state that "divide" means to and only to pour into each person's cup. Bro. Stevens argues, "Now, folks, 'divide' does not mean 'drink', and 'drink' does not mean 'divide' In the same way Stevens is using words, one can say, "divide" does not mean "pour", and "pour" does not mean "divide" . Neither the word "pour" nor the word "drink" is a synonym of the word "divide".

Divide is a general word and is not a synonym of the dozens of specific words used to describe the process which allows several people to jointly partake of a particular thing. The point is simply this, a drinking vessel containing a liquid may be divided either by pouring or by drinking. It is false to argue, therefore, that the only way to divide a cup is for each person to pour some into his own drinking vessel.

ASSUMPTION NO. 3 Luke's account is the one to be followed in partaking of the cup. It has already been shown that the cup of Luke 22:17 is a cup used during the Passover and is not the cup of the Lord's Supper. Therefore, Luke 22:17 is irrelevant to the Pattern for the Communion. By contrast, Mark reveals clearly how or in what manner the disciples partook of the cup in the Lord's Supper. "And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it." (Mark 14:23). Many other translations say, "they all drank from it". The preposition is the Greek word "ek" which is defined as "of, from, out of, or from out of". Ek is used in conjunction with a large variety of nouns and the precise meaning varies accordingly. When used with poterion (drinking vessel) it means "from or out of". It is very clear, therefore, from Mark's account that each disciple drank from or out of the Communion Cup. This is how they divided the Communion Cup.

(5) MANY COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
This argument was made by Jim Dearman when he said, "How many New Testaments are there? How many New Testaments were ratified by the blood of Christ? One. How many New Testaments do we have here tonight? Ooh, too many. We had better get rid of all the New Testaments except one".

The argument says, there are many copies of the New Testament. If the cup does indeed represent the New Testament, it is scriptural to use many cups just as it is scriptural to have many copies of the New Testament.

The fallacy of this argument is that the New Covenant and the New Testament Scriptures are equated. Clearly, the New Covenant and the New Testament Scriptures are very much inner-related, but it is a fact that they are two different things. This fact is easily demonstrated. On the day of Pentecost, those who were baptized into Christ were fully in Covenant relationship with God. The New Covenant or New Agreement was complete on that day, but not one word of the New Testament Scriptures had yet been written.

The cup does not represent the New Testament Scriptures. It is not an emblem of the collection of 27 books; but, instead, it is an emblem of the New Covenant (or New Testament). Jesus said, "This cup is the New Covenant" (Luke 22:20 & I Corinthians 11:25 ASV). The Greek word is "diathaka" which is defined as a disposition, arrangement, agreement, testament, or covenant. The blood of Christ purchased and ratified the New Covenant or New Agreement. The N.T. Scriptures tell us about the stipulations of the New Covenant along with many other things. There are many copies of the New Testament Scriptures yet one and only one New Covenant.

(6) THE CUP IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CONTENTS
Jim Dearman said, "Now the one cuppers actually make the vessel more important than that which it contains...They are at least guilty of making the vessel as important as that which it contains."

Without any hesitation it can be said that the accusation that those who advocate one cup believe that the cup is more important than the contents is a false accusation. It is a bigoted accusation made without any basis whatsoever. This type of emotional, radical statement has no place in a discussion of God's Pattern and only serves to create blind prejudice and animosity. It is interesting to note that Bro. Dearman "tones down" his accusation by saying, "They are at least guilty of making the vessel as important as that which it contains".

The accusation is similar to "The Church of Christ believes in water salvation". This false accusation made by the denominations proves nothing and accomplishes nothing that is constructive. "Finding that strait and narrow way" requires a sincere and honest heart coupled with an open mind. Such bigotry leads to a closed mind and intellectual blindness.

(7) The Cup And the Fruit Of The Vine Are Synonyms
Jim Dearman said, "Do you remember we talked about the Church and we talked about Matthew 16:18 & 19? Remember where Jesus said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it'. And then He said, 'I will give unto thee the keys' to the what? Kingdom of Heaven. The point was the Church and the Kingdom are the same thing. Right, why? Because Jesus used the terms interchangeably, didn't He? Now you look at this passage and see if He does not do exactly the same thing with the cup and the fruit of the vine.. .How has He used cup and fruit of the vine? How has He used them? In the very same way as He used Church and Kingdom."

Synonyms are defined as words with an identical meaning, or different names for the same thing. For example, "car" and "automobile" are synonyms, as are "baby" and "infant". Certainly the terms "Church" and "Kingdom" are synonymous since they refer to precisely the same great institution which is the Lord's Body. It can be firmly stated, though, that "Church" and "Kingdom" are not in any way related by the figure of speech, metonymy.

Bro. Dearman spends a good deal of time in his sermon on the figure of speech "metonymy". He then says that it is by the figure of speech, metonymy, that the fruit of the vine may be called the "cup" . He then contradicts himself by comparing the relationship between "cup" and "fruit of the vine" to that of the two synonyms, "Church" and "Kingdom". The argument then, is self contradicting, invalid, and a violation of logic and of grammar.

The argument is a frank admission of the situation as it truly is with those who practice individual communion. Grammatically, they are forced to say that the fruit of the vine is called "cup" by metonymy. In faith and in practice, however, these terms are equated and treated as synonyms.

* * * * * * METONYMY IS NOT SYNONYMY * * * * * * Metonymy was discussed in detail on page 19?? and the reader is encouraged to review that material. Metonymy has several types, but the type which has application to the Lord's Supper is the "container is named to refer to the contents". Let it be clear that the container does not become the contents and the contents does not become the container. Metonymy is not synonymy. The metonymy used in the passages pertaining to the Lord's Supper is ordinary metonymy; not synonymy not idiom, and not metaphor. In ordinary metonymy, several things are very clear and indisputable.

I looked under my car, and there on the ground was a hot, steaming pool of radiator

In the factory, we saw a 500 gallon vat full of freshly squeezed cup

Pour me a cup of hot kettle

When the child stepped on the grapes, the purple cup ran out and stained the carpet

My car needs a new radiator

radiator

Hand me the kettle

The kettle is boiling on the stove

Take the kettle

off the stove after it

starts to boil

The baby drank his bottle

and then threw it

on the floor

The radiator

keeps boiling over. Can these new aluminum radiators

be repaired?

And she brake the box

and poured it

on his head

(8) CUP ALWAYS MEANS FRUIT OF THE VINE
Jim Dearman said, "And then look at verse 26, 'For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup'. is that literal? Drink this what? This fruit of the vine. Just as the Lord used it in Matthew 26, interchangeably. You can't drink a cup literally. You can't do it, you can't do it. So in every reference it is obvious that cup is made to stand for that which the cup contains".

The argument says that since cup is used metonymically in some instances, it is used metonymically in every instance. The argument is invalid for 3 reasons:

(1)

(2)

THIS ARGUMENT CREATES
A BIBLE CONTRADICTION
According to this argument, Matt 26:28 & Mark 14:24 say:
"This fruit of the vine is my blood"
while Luke 22:20 and
I Corinthians 11:25 say:
"This fruit of the vine is the New Covenant"

This is a clear contradiction. Two writers are understood to say "the fruit of the vine represents Christ's blood" while the other two say "the fruit of the vine represents the New Covenant". Any doctrine which creates a Bible contradiction is false and must be rejected. This argument is invalid because it not only creates a Bible contradiction but it also desecrates the Spiritual Significance of the Cup.

(9) WE MUST USE THE ORIGINAL CUP
"He didn't authorize one cup in every community. He said, 'This cup' and that if it is this cup, if there was significance to that particular cup, then we'd have to have the same cup that Jesus used in order to be able to partake of the Lord's Supper. Because He said whosoever takes of this cup. Whosoever, meaning whoever in whatever time that follows, partakes of this cup. Now if that is literal then we'd better find that cup!" (Jim Dearman)

Normally, the argument is simply stated in this way, "If we have to use one cup, then we have to use the same cup Jesus used". This "argument" is not really an argument at a but a "wild" statement made without proof and without any, scriptural basis whatsoever. The same sort of statement could be made by those who believe in using elements other than bread and fruit of the vine. Those who believe in using Coca-cola and hamburgers (this has actually been practiced in the USA) could argue, 'If we have to use bread and grape juice, then we have to use the same bread and same grape juice Jesus used". The "Original Cup" argument is obviously absurd.

Now that the more common form of the argument has been refuted, Bro. Dearman's enhanced version will be examined.

I Corinthians 11:27

(10) THE CUP IS LIKE A SONG BOOK
Jim Dearman, "Just like the song book is incidental to the command to sing, the number of containers is incidental to the command to partake of the Lord's Supper".

This argument proves nothing because it fails to prove that the cup is an incidental. All agree that the song book is an incidental because it neither possesses any spiritual significance nor is it excluded by the Pattern. On the other hand, it has been shown that the cup is a spiritually significant part of the Divine Pattern in that it represents the New Covenant.

A "sister argument" is the so-called "Plate Argument". Since many congregations use a plate with which to transport the loaf, some will argue it is just as scriptural to use individual cups as it is to use a plate. The answer is the same as previously given. The plate is an incidental. It is scriptural to use one, and it is scriptural to refrain from using one, as is the case with song books. To illustrate this point further, it would be perfectly legitimate to use a platter upon which to transport the cup if that were judged to be expedient.

It might be pointed out that the song book argument is used by those who advocate instrumental music. They argue that the instrument is an incidental just like the song book. They say that just as a song book aids in singing so the instrument aids in singing. A study of history will show that in the late 1800's the "Song Book Argument" was being used by members of the Church to "justify" instrumental music. Then in the early 1900's, the argument was used to "justify" the individual communion set. This demonstrates that the instrument and individual cups have a common nature in that both are human innovations.

(11) THE LARGE ASSEMBLY ARGUMENT
"What would happen, though, if the congregation grew to the size, half the size, of the church at Jerusalem? Or ,what happens again to that church in Nashville, Tennessee or in some places in Texas and other places where the congregations are large? What happens when a congregation grows to that point? The Lord said his desire, if you will recall, was that we come together into one place to partake of the Lord's Supper. Well, how can we do that and at the same time have only one cup when a congregation grows to a size where one cup is an absolute impossibility? You see what we're going to have to do, we're going to have to divide the assembly.... We've got to divide the assembly so that we can have one cup for each assembly" (Jim Dearman).

This argument was shown to be invalid on page 1??. It is important to point out that the Bible says nothing about a large congregation in Jerusalem. It only says there were several thousand members in the city. The idea of a large Jerusalem congregation is a human assumption which is illogical. There were no facilities for such a large congregation. Some argue that they met in the Jewish temple, which is absurd. It is as illogical to assume that several thousand Christians could conduct regular worship in the Grand Mosque in Mecca, as it is to assume that the Christians met in a temple controlled by the Jews.

Regarding the Passover, the Lord said, "And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls" (Exodus 12:4). The Lord told the Jews to make the house fit the Pattern, which was "one lamb for each house". They were not to make the Pattern fit the house. Likewise, today, the congregation must be made to fit the Pattern. Bro. Dearman conveniently ignores the fact that it is scriptural to have as many congregations as are needed. It is scriptural to have 1, 100, or 1000 congregations in a city. Yet men violate God's Pattern for the Communion in order to have "mega churches" where "talents are buried", people are strangers, and elders haven't a chance of keeping watch over members' souls.

BRO. DEARMAN CONTRADICTS HIMSELF
Jim Dearman said, "There's a church in Nashville, Tennessee with, I think, over 5000 members; it may be 3000 or so, I'm not sure, but I think it's about 5000. Now they have two services at least, I think, just to accommodate the people. But, the point is there are at least 1000 people meeting together in one place. Now either the number of cups is an incidental to those brethren being able to partake of the Lord's Supper or they've got to have one cup, and I don't want to be the one to have to carry that thing".

In his previous argument, Bro. Dearman says that it is unscriptural to divide the assembly, and, therefore, it is permissible to use individual cups to avoid this situation. He now uses the congregation in Nashville as an example and admits that they divide their assembly in order to worship. It is self-contradicting to use an admittedly unscriptural congregation as a basis for argumentation. The "mega-church" in Nashville violates the Pattern for the common assembly and the Pattern for the Communion. Both violations are scripturally avoided by establishing several congregations of a reasonable size.

(12) THE "ONE SUBSTANCE ASSERTION" OR THE "CATEGORY ASSERTION"
Jim Dearman argued, "We are still partakers of the one cup, aren't we; that is, the one substance. It's still the one cup and it's still the one bread, isn't it, because it is still the same significance to all of us as Christians".

The argument says that "one" when applied to the elements of the Lord's Supper means "one type" or "one kind". The conclusion is that "one cup" means "one type of liquid", which is fruit of the vine; and "one bread" means one type of bread, which is unleavened bread. This is not an "argument" but is actually an assertion offered without basis and without proof. A proof consists of joining together facts which demand a singular or unique conclusion, that is, one and only one conclusion. The "One Substance Argument" is actually the "One Substance Assertion".

The "One Substance Assertion" is invalid because it is stated without proof and because it is incorrect and false. As has been noted before, simply stating an assertion does not make it true, regardless of who makes the statement. Paul wrote, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21). Christians not only have the right to reject unproven assertions, they are obligated to reject them.

The primary function of an integer30 is to designate a specific number of whole units. Only when it is clearly indicated by the text can an integer be understood to be indicating a specific number of types categories, or species. It is clear that this principle is strictly observed in everyday business and, likewise, must be adhered to when studying the Bible. For example, when a customer says, "I want to buy 3 pencils", it is invalid to understand him to mean 3 types or kinds of pencils. He wants 3 units, not 3 categories. Consider the following contradictions to the Truth which can be created by the "category assertion".

"JESUS DIDN'T PERFORM A MIRACLE
WHEN FEEDING THE 5000"
In Matthew 14:15-21 the Bible says that Jesus fed 5000 men in addition to women and children with 5 loaves and 2 fish. By the "category assertion", it can be claimed that this was not a miracle because 2 fish does not mean two individual fish, but 2 species of fish; and 5 loaves are really 5 breads, which means 5 kinds of bread. The assertion is that Jesus had many fish of each species and many loaves of each of the 5 kinds of bread. Conclusion: Jesus didn't perform a miracle.

Obviously this is ridiculous, but it does illustrate the invalidity of the "category assertion". One cannot arbitrarily apply integers to categories. Integers indicate units unless one is forced to understand that categories are designated.

"ONE PASSOVER LAMB WAS NOT
REQUIRED FOR EACH HOUSE"
In Exodus 12 the instructions for the observation of the Passover are given in detail. In verses 3 and 4, the Israelites were commanded to use one and only one lamb for each house. By the "category assertion" it can be claimed that this does not mean one animal per house, but one type of lamb, which is a "male of the first year without any defects". Conclusion: It was scriptural to use any number of lambs per house as long as all the Israelites partook of that one type of lamb, that is, a nondefective, first year male. Had some embraced the "one category logic" they could have argued that they were true "one lamb people" because they all ate one kind of lamb regardless of whether they used half a lamb, 1 lamb, or 3 lambs per house.

To further illustrate the point, Bro. Dearman's words are applied to the Paschal lamb. "We are still partakers of the one lamb, aren't we; that is, the one substance. It's still the one lamb, isn't it, because it is still the same significance to all of us as Jews". It is very clear that this is erroneous and unscriptural. The "one category assertion" does not prove that the Jews could have observed the Passover with anything other than one lamb per house, and it does not prove that the Church may use the individual communion set. Rather, the assertion violates the fundamental principles of the interpretation of numerical adjectives.

(13) THE EPHESUS-CORINTH ARGUMENT
"Writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus now he says, 'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ' The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?' The cup and bread you see. What does that have reference to? The Lord's Supper, doesn't it? The fruit of the vine and the bread. Now is he talking about one cup there? If so, he would have to be saying that here at Ephesus and there at Corinth the cup that we all bless is the same cup. That's tough. It's tough to get that cup from Ephesus to Corinth in time for services so that they can all partake of one cup. And yet, you see, if Jesus' language is literal language, that's exactly what you have to contend for." (Jim Dearman)

This argument was answered on page 17?? and is actually an extension of the "One Category Assertion". The argument states that Paul was in Ephesus when writing to Corinth. Since he used the expressions "we bless", "we break", and "we partake" in I Corinthians 10:16 &17 with regard to the Communion, the congregation at Ephesus and the one at Corinth were using the "same cup" and the "same bread". The conclusion is that the cup means not a drinking vessel, but "one kind or type of liquid", which is the fruit of the vine; and one bread does not mean one loaf, but "one kind or type of bread", which is unleavened bread.

Sophistry is defined as false and invalid reasoning which sounds plausible and believable. An example is the argument against baptism based upon Paul's statement, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (I Corinthians 1:17). Both this and the Ephesus-Corinth Argument may sound plausible to the novice, but they are equally invalid. This is the result of wresting the passages from their proper contexts and ignoring key elements of each respective issue. The errors of the Ephesus-Corinth Sophistry are demonstrated by the following facts.

A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE PRONOUN "WE"
Paul wrote, "For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit" (Colossians 2:5). For example, he said, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (I Thessalonians 4:17). Clearly, the pronoun "we" must be understood in light of Colossains 2:5, both in I Thessalonians 4:17 and in I Corinthians 10:16&17. The pronoun we "proves" that Paul is alive today just as much as it "proves" that Corinth and Ephesus were using the same cup and loaf. The fact is, the argument does not prove anything. It is an artificial interpretation of "we."

THE LORD'S SUPPER EXISTS ONLY
ON A CONGREGATIONAL LEVEL
According to the Bible Pattern, the Lord's Supper is observed on and only on a congregational level. Every passage regarding this issue must be interpreted only on a congregational level. The Ephesus-Corinth Sophism violates this principle and attempts to interpret the passage on the level of the Church universal.

THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE
The Ephesus-Corinth argument ignores the context of I Corinthians. The congregation at Corinth had fractured into several groups, and Paul sharply rebuked this sinful practice in chapter 1. In chapter 10v17, he again deals with the issue, showing that congregational unity is essential and is signified by the use of one loaf in the Lord's Supper. The pronoun "we" used in verses 16 & 17 has no "extra-congregational" significance. Verse 17 is not dealing with a problem between Ephesus and Corinth but, rather, with the problem of fracturing within the Corinthian congregation.

A COMMON ACTION MAY BE
SPOKEN OF AS A JOINT ACTION
Regarding the Paschal lamb Exodus 12:6 says, "the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening". Does this mean that the over one million Israelites killed the same lamb? The answer is obvious. This language is not difficult to understand because a common action may he spoken of as a joint action. The Ephesus-Corinth argument denies this principle, and this results in a false conclusion. It would have been perfectly legitimate for Paul to have spoken of the Lord's Supper, a common action which all congregations observe, as a joint action. When Bro. Dearman's words are applied to the Passover, the sophistry is exposed.

"Now is the Lord talking about one lamb here? If so he would have to be saying that over one million people all killed the same lamb. That's tough. It's tough for over a million people to all kill one lamb. And yet, you see, if, if the Lord's language is literal language, that s exactly what you have to contend for."

(14) THE UNIT OF COMMUNION
Grover Stevens argued: COMMUNION--SHARING IN THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST'S DEATH. THE UNIT IS THE CHRISTIAN AND CHRIST--I Corinthians 11: "But let A MAN examine HIMSELF and so let HIM eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, For HE that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to HIMSELF, not discerning the Lord's body."-- (I Corinthians 11:28-29).31

The fallacy of bro. Stevens' argument stems from the misapplication of the instructions for self-examination, a misdefinition of the significance of the Communion of the Lord's Supper, and a circumvention of relevant scriptures.

The only level upon which introspection is possible is upon the individual level. A congregation cannot determine if a member is remembering and discerning the Lord s body, only the individual can do that for himself. This passage defines the basis for introspection but does not define the basis for Communion. The word, Communion, is neither mentioned nor referred to in verses 28&29.

Communion means joint participation, that is, something in which two or more individuals jointly engage. Bro. Stevens asserts (without proof) that Communion, as it pertains to the Lord's Supper, is "sharing in the benefits of Christ s death"; but this is incorrect and without Biblical basis. I Corinthians 10:16 says, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" This defines Communion. Communion is the physical act of jointly partaking of the loaf and the cup containing the fruit of the vine, and 61 jointly remembering the Lord's death. Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me". The expression "This do" is a command for Christians to physically partake of the bread and the cup. The modifying prepositional phrase "in remembrance of me" directs that the physical action of partaking of the elements is to be coupled with a mental recollection of the crucifixion.

There are a number of types of communion or joint participation in the Church. There are certainly many ways in which Christians jointly participate in the "benefits of Christ's death". However, the Communion of the Lord's Supper is the joint or common action of physically partaking of one loaf and one cup, coupled with the joint remembering of the Lord's Crucifixion.

I Corinthians 11:33, "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another" (ASV). The context indicates that "eat" refers to the Lord's Supper, for verse 34 commands that ordinary eating take place "at home". Christians are commanded to wait for one another because they are to observe the Lord's Supper together: jointly, not separately. The Lord's Supper cannot be observed individually, for it is to be a common or joint action. This defines the meaning of Communion as it pertains to the Lord's Supper. The "Unit of Communion" is the congregation, not the individual as Stevens asserts.

I Corinthians 10:17, "Because there is one loaf, we, the many, are one body; for we are all partakers of that one loaf" (Alexander Campbell's translation). As has been shown, the pronoun "we" does not include the members of both the Ephesian and Corinthian congregations. That assertion is a perversion of the Scriptures. "We" means "we the assembled" . Paul says that the unity of the congregational body is signified when the members jointly partake of one loaf in the Lord's Supper. This defines the congregation as the unit of Communion, not the individual.

(15) THE DESIGN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
Elmore Moore said, "The Lord's Supper is a memorial... Whatever is essential to the keeping of this memorial must have some specific bearing on the design or purpose of that memorial ... 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." 32

Bro. Moore's argument is actually an enhanced version of the "Upper Room" and "Plate" arguments. The argument says that only those things which directly relate to a remembrance of Christ s Body can be regarded as essential to the Communion. He then asserts that the Cup is an incidental like the upper room, plate, and table, so it is not essential to the observation of the Lord's Supper.

The New Covenant is inseparably linked to the Crucifixion for it was by the Lord' s death that the New Covenant came into being. The New Covenant was purchased by the shedding of Christ's blood. Without the New Covenant the Crucifixion becomes a metaphorical "price tag" separated from its respective item of merchandise. For all practical purposes, a detached price tag has no meaning or significance. Likewise, the Crucifixion would have no significance to mankind if it had not or the fact that His death purchased the New Covenant. The reason the Lord's Crucifixion is not regarded as just another human tragedy is because Christians are perpetually cognizant of the New Covenant.

A cognizance of the New Covenant has every "bearing on the design or purpose of that memorial". When Christians remember Christ's death, they remember not just that He died but also why He died. A good illustration of this is the widespread practice of an observance of a national Memorial Day. A Memorial Day is a holiday set aside to remember members of the armed forces killed in war. Those who observe this day, not only remember their dead but also remember the purpose and circumstances of their deaths. Likewise, the Lord's Supper points back to the purpose of Christ's death, the ratification of the Covenant.

The major fallacy of Moore's argument is the unproven assertion that the cup is a meaningless incidental, like the upper room and plate. The Cup is spiritually significant in that the Lord said it represents the New Covenant! Certainly a remembering of the purchase of the New Covenant is relevant in every way to the design and purpose of the Communion. The use of one cup is essential to the keeping of this memorial because it has a specific bearing on the design an d purpose of the memorial.

(16) THE ORDER OF RECORD IS NOT NECESSARILY THE ORDER OF OCCURRENCE
Elmore Moore argued, "To further show this I call attention to Romans 10:9-10. One verse records confession before belief while the other records belief first. Are they teaching two different concepts? Matthew and Mark record the statement in one order while Luke and Paul reverse that order. The negative knows that the order of record is not necessarily the order of occurrence... Obviously, then, in whatever sense the 'cup' is the New Testament it is the contents and not the container."33

Bro. Moore asserts that the two statements:
This (Fruit of the Vine) is My blood of the New Covenant (Matt & Mark)
This cup is the New Covenant in My blood (Luke & Paul)
are the equivalent statements worded in opposite order. In other words, Luke and Paul's statement is a reversed version of Matthew and Mark's statement but the meaning or message is the same. The fallacy of the argument stems from a failure to recognize that the contribution a word makes to the meaning of a statement is dependent upon the grammatical function of that word. The argument is also invalid because it contradicts itself and creates a Bible contradiction.

The two statements are of identical grammatical and syntactical structure but are of completely different grammatical content. The subjects, predicate nominatives, and modifying prepositional phrases are all different. The statements are not a simple reversal of each other and in no way are analogous to Romans 10:9 & 10.

It is apparent that the dependent clauses, consisting of the predicate nominatives coupled with the modifying prepositional phrases, are reversed from each other. When standing alone, the clause "blood of the New Covenant" is a reversal of the clause "New Covenant in my blood". This is the basis of bro. Moore's argument.

The error of the argument is a failure to recognize that these clauses do not stand alone but are respective parts of two distinct statements. As a result, the expressions "blood" and "New Covenant" have a completely different grammatical function in each statement. In Matthew and Mark's statement, "blood" is the predicate nominative and is coupled with the subject, while "New Covenant" is the object of the preposition and modifies the predicate. In Luke and Paul's statement, just the opposite is true. "New Covenant" is the predicate nominative coupled to the subject, while "blood" is the object of the preposition which modifies the predicate. This is even more obvious when these clauses are examined in Greek which reflects the grammatical function by inflection (word spelling).

Bro. Moore's argument attempts to divert attention away from the true heart of each statement, the subject and predicate nominative. This pair coupled by the verb "is" defines the spiritual significance of the respective elements of the Communion .The verb "is" conveys the idea of representation or symbolism. Matthew and Mark say something represents Christ's blood while Luke and Paul say something represents the New Covenant. Obviously, one is not a simple reversal of the other.

Bro. Moore contradicts himself when he states, with no small degree of hesitation, that "whatever sense the 'cup' represents the New Testament it is the contents". Bro. Moore knows how the loaf represents Christ's body and how the fruit of the vine represents Christ's blood but doesn't know how the cup represents the New Covenant, although he admits somehow it does. Moore contradicts himself because on one hand he argues that the two statements are reversed in record but equivalent in meaning, but then he admits that the meanings are actually different. He acknowledges that in Matthew and Mark, Jesus says, "This (fruit of the vine) is my blood"34 but then he admits that Luke and Paul's statement indicates that somehow the "'cup' is the New Testament".

As is explained in detail on pages 21 & 22??, the assertion that the two statements are equivalent in meaning creates a Bible contradiction. The assertion says that Matthew and Mark say "The fruit of the vine represents Christ's blood" while Luke and Paul say "The fruit of the vine represents the New Covenant". Any assertion which creates a Biblical contradiction is erroneous.

(17) THE CUP OF SUFFERING
The argument is based upon Matthew 26:39 where Jesus said, "0 my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me". The argument states that Jesus certainly was not referring to a literal cup or container in this statement, and, likewise, there is no literal cup referred to in the Lord's Supper.

It is clear that Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane has no bearing on the Pattern for the observation of the Lord's Supper. Regardless of what the word "cup" means as Jesus used it in Matthew 26:39, it has neither a direct nor indirect connection to the cup in the Communion.

The word "cup" in Matthew 26:39 is a metaphorical expression referring to pain, suffering, and death. Apparently, the basis for the metaphor was the "cup of poison" used in antiquity for capital punishment. In many cases, the poison caused a slow, excruciating death. In the metaphorical usage of the word cup there is neither a literal container nor literal contents. If the argument proved anything , it would prove that neither the cup nor the fruit of the vine are a significant part of the Lord's Supper. The fact is, the argument proves nothing.

Jesus said, "can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" (Mark 10:38). In this passage, the Lord uses the word cup as a metaphor of suffering just as he did in Matthew 26:39. In the same way, He uses baptism metaphorically to describe suffering. Clearly in this usage of the word "baptism" there is no literal water and no literal immersion. If the argument being discussed were valid, it would also prove that baptism into Christ does not require literal water nor literal immersion. The argument proves nothing about either the Lord's Supper or baptism. In reality, the argument is not an argument at all. It is a "wild" and foolish assertion unworthy of members of the Church.

(18) BLUEPRINT FOR THE CUP
The argument states that if the cup were a spiritually significant part of the Lord's Supper, the Lord would have given us a blueprint for the cup specifying shape, size, number of handles, and material. Since no blueprint was given, the cup has no significance.

This is not an argument but another ridiculous assertion offered without any proof or basis. The foolishness of the assertion becomes apparent when the same line of reasoning is applied to the loaf. The Lord did not give a recipe specifying the ingredients and proper proportions to be used in making the unleavened bread. By the same assertion, it can be said, therefore, that the loaf is not a spiritually significant part of the Lord's Supper.

These ridiculous "arguments" demonstrate that some have failed to study the Lord's supper objectively and rationally. Instead, like proverbial "drowning men" , they have grasped for foolish, absurd unlearned, and obtuse "straws" of humanly devised argumentation with which to support the false and unscriptural practice of individual communion. The defense of the truth is not found in absurdity.

(19) SYLLOGISMS OR "SILLY-GISMS"?
In the Dec 17, 1976 issue of the Gaprock church Bulletin, Grover Stevens lists six so-called syllogisms designed to prove that the "cup is the fruit of the vine" and the "container is not the cup". These sophistic (something which sounds correct but is actually fallacious) "syllogisms" are all deceptively built upon a mixing of figurative and literal language. As will be shown, most consist of a figurative premise combined with a literal premise to yield a literal conclusion. The absurdity of such foolish "reasoning" is easily demonstrated by the following illegitimate "syllogisms".

CEMETERY PREACHING
MAJOR PREMISE: The rich man's brothers were to hear Moses and the Prophets (Luke 16:29).
MINOR PREMISE: Moses and the prophets were dead and buried in the cemeteries.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the brothers were to go to the cemeteries to hear the prophets preach.

The fallacy of this "syllogism" is that the major premise incorporates the figure of speech, metonymy of author named to refer to his writings. The conclusion is absurd because a figurative premise combined with a literal premise cannot yield a literal conclusion.

KING HEROD HAD A LONG TAIL
MAJOR PREMISE: All foxes have long, bushy tails.
MINOR PREMISE: King Herod was a fox (Luke 13:32).
CONCLUSION: Therefore, King Herod had a long, bushy tail.

This absurd "syllogism" is another example of mixing literal and figurative statements. The minor premise is metaphorical. Herod was not a literal fox but possessed a fox-like personality.

BABYLON WAS A DRINKING VESSEL
MAJOR PREMISE: Babylon was a golden cup (Jerimiah 51:7).
MINOR PREMISE: A cup is a drinking vessel (Thayer's p. 533).
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Babylon was a golden drinking vessel.

This "syllogism" is obviously illegitimate because the major premise is metaphorical while the conclusion is literal.

THE KETTLE IS WATER
MAJOR PREMISE: The kettle is boiling.
MINOR PREMISE: The water is boiling.
CONCLUSION:Therefore, the kettle is the water.

This reasoning is foolish because it mixes metonymy of the container for the contained in the major premise with the literal minor premise. The conclusion is, therefore, farcical.

BRO. STEVENS' "SILLY-GISMS"
Listed below are the six "syllogisms" bro. Stevens has formulated to "prove" that the cup is the fruit of the vine and the container is not the cup. Each is followed with an explanation which reveals the errors contained therein. It is obvious that bro. Stevens' arguments are not syllogisms but, rather, "silly-gisms".

(1) The Disciples were to drink the CUP - I Corinthians 11:26
(2) The Disciples drank the fruit of the vine.
(3) Therefore, the "cup" is the FRUIT OF THE VINE.

The statement "drink the cup" is not a literal but a figurative one. By metonymy, the container, cup, is named to refer to the contents. Just as a "kettle boils" when its contents boil, so one "drinks a cup" by drinking its contents. This "silly-gism" is as foolish as the example, ''Kettle Is Water."

B.

(1) The Disciples divided a cup - Luke 22:17
(2) But the Disciples divided the FRUIT OF THE VINE
(3) THEREFORE, the "cup" is the FRUIT OF THE VINE.

By metonymy, a cup is "divided" when the content is divided. The container is named to refer to the contents. As in the previous "syllogism", a metonymical premise is mixed with a literal premise to yield a false conclusion.
C.

(1) The cup is the BLOOD of Christ - Matthew 26:28
(2) But the Blood is the FRUIT OF THE VINE - v. 29
(3) THEREFORE, the "cup" is the FRUIT OF THE VINE.

The first premise is a metonymical statement. The literal version is "The fruit of the vine is the blood of Christ" The second premise is a false statement. The fruit of the vine is (metaphorically) the blood, but the blood is not the Fruit of the Vine. To illustrate, Herod was a metaphorical fox but a fox was not a metaphorical Herod. The Fruit of the Vine symbolizes the blood but the blood of Christ does not symbolize the Fruit of the Vine. Any so-called syllogism containing a false premise is invalid and the conclusion false.

D.

(1) The cup is the fruit of the vine - Matthew 26:28-29
(2) The fruit of the vine is NOT the container.
(3) THEREFORE, the container is not the cup.

Matthew 26:28 & 29 does not state nor infer that the cup is the fruit of the vine. A cup is a drinking vessel and the Fruit of the Vine is the juice of grapes. The cup can be named to refer to its contents, just as a kettle can be named to refer to its contents; but the Cup is not the Fruit of the Vine, just as the kettle is not the water. By metonymy, an author can be named to refer to his writings, as Moses was named to refer to the Pentateuch (Luke 16:29). It is as foolish to say the cup is the Fruit of the Vine as it is to say Moses is the books of Genesis or Exodus or Leviticus. The error of the first premise renders this "syllogism" meaningless.

E.

(1) The cup is the BLOOD of Christ - Matthew 26:28
(2) The CONTAINER does not signify the BLOOD.
(3) THEREFORE, the container is not the cup.

As has been previously discussed, the first premise is metonymical. The second premise is literal. The conclusion is an absurdity.

F.

(1) The disciples drank the cup - I Corinthians 11:26
(2) They did not drink the container.
(3) Therefore, the container is not the cup.

This is a negative version of the first "syllogism". It is the mixing of a figurative premise and a literal premise. The conclusion is, therefore, ridiculous

THE BENEFITS OF SINGING

The Benefits of Singing

By Don French

I. What Is Singing.

Ephesians 5:19 “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;”

When God, in the New Testament, talks about singing, he does not talk about the requirement for sounding beautiful, but rather the emphasis is always on the heart, or thinking about the words that are being sung and meaning the words that you are singing. As we notice here in Ephesians, Paul, speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, does not even use the Greek word for singing, but rather he uses the Greek word, laleoo, which is translated in the King James Version as Speaking. According to Thayer, the word laleoo means to utter a sound. In Psalms the writer uses the phrase, “a joyful noise” stressing again the fact that God is not concerned about how the words sound to the ears as men do, but rather God is concerned about how the words proceed forth from the heart.

In Ephesians 5:19, all three Greek words that are used to describe the songs being commanded, refer to songs that are sung acappella, or only using the voice. The Greek word translated here Psalms when used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament used in Jesus day and time, does include songs that are sung with the accompaniment of instruments, but by Jesus day and time, the word, psalloo, Strong’s number 5568, had changed in meaning and according to Greek Scholar’s meant songs that were not accompanied by instruments only. There were Greek words in general use at the time that meant songs that were accompanied by the use of instruments. God did not see fit to use them, rather he chose words that indicated songs that were not accompanied by instruments.

Therefore when I use the term, singing, in this book, I am always referring to songs that are sung without the use of mechanical instruments of any type. But it is not enough to sing only without instruments of music in order to be pleasing to God, but the song has to be sung also with the spirit and understanding also. Every song that is sung, must be sung with words that the user understands and they must come from the heart.

Matthew 15:18-20"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

The words that come forth from the lips come forth from the heart. Therefore, God is not pleased with a Christian just mouthing words that they have memorized. Do you want to please God or man? If we want a choir accompanied by instruments of music, we are concentrating on what is pleasing to men. Songs sung by trained singers with natural talent accompanied by various instruments of music are pleasing to men, but are they pleasing to God? No where does the Bible even hint that instruments of music are pleasing to God.

II. Why We Sing
When we understand how much we have received from God and we begin to appreciate the love that God has for us, then in natural response to that we begin to feel thankful which in turn leads to gratitude. A natural outcome of gratitude is a joy that is expressed through singing. Therefore any time we realize how great God is, how great a love He has shown for us, we will want to burst forth in songs which express our feeling.

Singing is one of the many ways that we as human beings have of showing our thanksgiving, our love, or feelings and emotions. If we want our singing to be pleasing to God, we need to know what is pleasing to God. So that is our purpose in this chapter, to see what the Bible, the word of God, says about singing, to please God.

Psalms 13:6 “I will sing unto the LORD, because he hath dealt bountifully with me.”

A natural outgrowth of receiving blessings from God is that we should be thankful to him and a natural way of human expression of thanks is singing. When we recognize how much we have received from God, we sing and this pleases God. Singing is one way we show appreciation to God and God wants us to recognize what He has done for us and He wants us to appreciate the sacrifices that his son made for us and he is pleased when the human heart cannot be quiet, but must burst out in praise and thanksgiving to our heavenly Father.

I Chronicles 16:9 “Sing unto Him, sing psalms unto him, talk ye of all His wondrous works.”

The realization of the many works the Lord has done for us, causes us to want to sing. The more we realize how much we depend upon God, the more we desire to sing praises about God and his spectacular works. This is a natural response if we appreciate all that God has done for us, but only if we truly appreciate the love that God manifested towards us.

Exodus 15:1-2 “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for He hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. The LORD is my strength and song, and He is become my salvation: He is my God, and I will prepare Him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt Him.”

Here is a perfect example of how appreciation for what God has done causes people to sing. If you remember God has just delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, the children of Israel were trapped with the Egyptian behind them and the Red Sea before them and miraculously they were delivered. The Egyptian army, which was coming to take them back, had just been drowned in the Red Sea.

Moses and the Israelites make up a new song and go about camp singing and thanking God. “I will sing unto the Lord, the horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea. The Lord is my strength and song, He is become my salvation.” Only when someone truly understands what God has saved them from, will they want to sing it out and tell others.

Romans 15:9-10 “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name."

Another reason we sing is so that outsiders would know about God and sing praises unto His name also. We sing because we understand what God has done for us and so that others will know the mercy of God and will glorify God because of the greatness of His mercy.

Acts 16:23-25 “And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.”

Here Paul and Silas, even after they have been beaten, are singing praises unto God. Singing praises to God, helps fill us with the Holy Spirit and helps see us through trying times. Singing praises to God also teaches outsiders about God and differentiates Christians from non-Christians.

III. How We Sing

Psalms 92:1-2 “It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High: To shew forth thy lovingkindness in the morning, and thy faithfulness every night.”

Our songs should show forth thanksgiving to God for what he has done for us. Which means that we should be thinking about all that God has done for us, we should be remembering how Christ suffered and died in our place then we should have no trouble singing, knowing that our songs should be showing forth praise to God, telling others how we feel about God. Our songs should and do show unto others what we think about God, so we need to stop and think before we start singing and examine ourselves as to where our hearts are.

1 Corinthians 14:15 “What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.”

Our songs should spring forth from the heart and should express our feelings for God. We should also understand the words we sing and think about what the words mean as we sing. So to sing with the spirit and understanding basically is saying to sing words that we understand and they should be thought about, so that we mean what we are singing. While singing with the spirit does not mean just singing with emotion, one cannot sing with the spirit without having emotions involved.

Ephesians 5:18-19 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;”

Here being filled with the Spirit of God is being contrasted with being drunk. A person who is drunk has their inhibitions lowered so that basically they react emotionally without control, where being filled with the Holy Spirit while our emotions are involved, does not take away our will at all. A person who is filled with the Spirit of God, will be willing to express that feeling, but they have control over their thoughts and emotions. Here in Ephesians, God does not just tell us to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but he goes on and tells us how to do this, the first thing he says is “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;” So we see that being filled with the Spirit of God is something that we as Christians have control over. Do you want to be filled with the Spirit of God? Then stop and start counting your blessing and as you realize how much God has done for you, just burst out singing praises to God, tell God in song how much he means to you, thinking about the words as you sing, make sure they are coming from your heart, make sure that you are “plucking the strings of your heart”, that you are putting your feelings into your heart. If we do our part, God will do his part, because he always keeps his promises. You will be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Just remember that there is more involved in being filled with the Spirit than just singing, Paul, through the inspiration of God, goes onto say “ Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” So we see that we always are in control of our spirits, as the Bible says, “The Spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.”

But if you want to be a Christian who is filled with the Holy Spirit, you need to be a person who first of all is in submission to God. Then secondly, you need to be a person who is in the habit of going about singing praises to God from the heart, understanding the words that you are singing, meditating on them. You need to be a person, who takes time to count their blessings and who takes the time to go to God in prayer, thanking him for the many blessings that you have received from him. You need also to be a servant to others, helping them to grow as Christians, and helping them in whatever things they have need of.

To sum it up, a Christian who is filled with the Holy Spirit is a baptized believer, who is a singing, appreciative servant to God and to his or her fellow Christians. We should be teaching each other and the visitors to our assembly how we feel about God, Jesus Christ, and one another through our songs.

IV. The Blessings We Receive From Singing Properly

Colossians 3:16 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

When we sing in the proper way, we grow in spiritual wisdom. When we sing in the scriptural manner, we are taught about spiritual things. When we sing as God would have us, we are admonished and encouraged. But for all of this to happen, we must sing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, or to put it simply, we need to be singing in such a way that our songs rise up before God as a sweet incense, as our gift back to God to show our appreciation for all that he has done for us.

Ephesians 5:18-21 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

We, as Christians, are told not to be drunk with wine, wherein is excess, rather, we are told to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Bible then goes on to tell us how to be filled with the Holy Spirit: by speaking to ourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, by teaching each other by the way we sing and with our singing, by teaching visitors about the love we have for each other, by being a prayerful, appreciative people, and by being submissive first to God and then because we are in submission to God, we are submissive to each other. These things, if done properly, cause us to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 2:11-12 “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.”

If we sing in the scriptural manner, we declare unto everyone that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. If we sing in the scriptural way, we declare the name of Christ to everyone in attendance, especial our fellow Christians and if exalt the name of Christ, He exalts us.

1 Chronicles 16:23 “Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; shew forth from day to day His salvation.”

When we sing unto God in the way that he has instructed, we show that we are saved. When we sing unto God in the way we are commanded, on a daily basis, His salvation grows in us and is shown through us.

Exodus 15:2 “The LORD is my strength and song, and He is become my salvation: He is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt Him.”

When we sing unto the Lord God in the scriptural manner, we are preparing our hearts as a habitation for God. When we sing in the way God has intended, we lift up the name of God and we exalt Him. When we sing in the proper way, we show forth the salvation of God and we declare him to be God.

Isaiah 35:10 “And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.”

When the ransomed of the Lord return to the house of God and sing spiritual songs with joy in our hearts, we obtain joy and gladness, all sorrows and sadness will vanish away When you are sad and depressed, sing unto the Lord as if you were happy and you will become happy and joyful.

V. How The World Has Changed The Singing Service
The world has changed and corrupted the singing service of the worship service probably more than any other part of the worship service. From the year 666, when the Catholic Church introduced the organ into their services until now, the changes that have been made to the singing service has proven once again the wisdom and truthfulness of God when He revealed to us through the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15-16 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul tells us to study in order that God will approve of the things that we do and so we can correctly understand the scriptures.

Paul continues in verse 26 and warns us to avoid profane and vain babblings for they are ungodly and once we start down that path, they will increase unto more ungodliness. Profane simply means anything not found in the Bible and vain babblings are talking about human wisdom or as the religious world loves to say, theology. Theology is simply trying to understand and comprehend about God and spiritual things from human reasoning which we know from many places in the Bible is impossible. In the Old Testament in Numbers 24:13 “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the LORD, to do either good or bad of mine own mind; but what the LORD saith, that will I speak?”, the prophet Balaam lets us know how God looks at mankind’s additions. Even if I think that I have a good idea, I am not to be adding to what God commands.

The first major change was the addition of musical instruments under the guise of convenience and improvement. As if mankind can improve on anything that God has given. The next, as far as I can tell, is the addition of the choir. Both of these are supposedly justified by how they are an aid and not an addition, but I have visited at churches who have both and every time what I see tells me different. Every church that I have seen that has musical instruments has at times during their services played their instruments with no singing, but I have never seen them even for a moment have singing with no instruments playing, the same being true for a choir, I have never seen the congregation singing but always the congregation sits and listens while the choir sings. Which is more important to them? Clearly their instrumental music and choir has become their entertainment and is more important than the beauty and simplicity that the Bible pictures in the word of God. Otherwise if as they claim, these things are just conveniences, they would be having congregational singing by itself and the instruments of music and the choirs would be silent.

The religious world has gone so far astray that you can not in many cases tell the difference between the concerts that you can go to in the world and the abominations that the religious world refers to as their worship service. So far the only difference that I see is that I have not seen the insanity referred to as "The Mosh Pit” yet being justified as worshipping God, but I would not be surprised anymore by anything that people do and the extremes that they will go to in order to justify the things that they do. Anything that people do that works them up into a frenzy has become what the denominational world refers to as “worshipping God.”

VI. SUMMARY
1. Christians sing to show their appreciation and thankfulness for what God has done for us.
2. Christians sing to tell others about what God has done for us.
3. Christians sing to tell others about the Greatness of God.
4. Christians sing to tell God what they feel about him.
5. Christians sing to tell others about the Mercy of God.
6. Christians sing to tell others about the salvation enjoyed by Christians.
7. Christians sing to show our joy because of God's Grace.
8. Christians should sing from our hearts with feelings.
9. Christians should show forth the love of God when we sing.
10. Christians should understand the words they sing.
11. Christians should mean the words they sing.
12. Christians should sing and make melody in our hearts to God.
13. Christians should sing in such a way that we teach and admonish one another about:
13a. The love we have for God.
13b. The love we have for each other.
13c. The Greatness of God.
13d. The Mercy of God.
13e. The Glory of God.
13f. The Existence of God.
14. When we sing in the proper manner, for the right reasons, we receive:
14a. Spiritual Wisdom.
14b. We are filled with the Holy Spirit.
14c. We are taught and admonished by our fellow Christians.
14d. We are exalted by Christ.
14e. We grow in salvation.
14f. Our sorrows and sadness turns to Joy and Gladness.

Sanitation in Communion

<big><big>Sanitation in Communion</big>

Second Edition (scanned --- not edited for errors!) by James D. Orten Knoxville, Tennessee and Alton B. Bailey La Grange, Georgia An Informer Publication
909 Truitt Ave.
LaGrange, Georgia 30240

December 1993

Table of Contents

Part I: CONTROVERSY OVER A SYMBOL OF UNITY

Part II: HOW DID JESUS SET UP HIS SUPPER?

Part III: SCIENCE AND SANITATION IN COMMUNION

Part I
CONTROVERSY OVER A SYMBOL OF Unity Great Bible scholars have described the observance of the Lord's Supper as man's highest act of worship, the place where "the deepest draughts of spiritual life" are drawn? That description is appropriate. It honors the world's greatest sacrifice, the death of the Son of God on the cross of Calvary. The lofty purpose of that sacrifice was reconciliation and unification—reconciliation of God and man from the alienation caused by human sins and unification of men with each other through the love of God and Christ. The meaning of the word communion signifies this sublime purpose. Synonyms are fellowship, association, joint participation, and intimacy.2

The context in which the Lord's Supper was established was noble and solemn. It was during the Last Passover that Jesus ate on earth, one He said He had looked forward to with great desire (Luke 22:15). As they ate, the Lord explained how the Son of Man would be crucified as it was prophesied of Him. He described how He would be betrayed by one of His own disciples. In this rare atmosphere, Jesus symbolized the end of the Old Testament order and the beginning of the New Testament age by establishing His memorial at the end of that Passover celebration. Even the disciples' description of the scene is simple and elegant

"As they were eating. Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. 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, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28).

How sad that this sacred symbol of love and unity should have become a source of contention and division among members of the body of Christ. Although there are differences over more than one aspect of the Lord's Supper, the widest division and the most acrimonious debate has been ova how many cups should be used in distributing the fruit of the vine. Until early in the Twentieth Century, no church of Christ used individual communion cups. All churches practiced some form of sharing of the communion cup. and many were committed to the use of one. This practice fits the example of Jesus as "He took a cup and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying, Drink of it, all of you" (RSV, Matthew 26:27-28).

Members of the body of Christ, for good reasons, are usually adamant against making changes in patterns the Lord has given. Why the change of attitude on this integral pan of the worship? To answer that question, one must understand the times in the Inner part of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. Medical science was just beginning to discover the role of microorganisms in human health and illness. 'The state of their knowledge did not allow them to know that many bacteria are beneficial and some essential to human life. They had only sketchy knowledge about how microorganisms are transmitted and how the body handles them.

A real germ hysteria developed. Many people became frightened of drinking after each other in using a single cup for the congregation. In some denominations, extreme measures were taken. Dr. J. 0. Thomas, a physician and Presbyterian minister, is reported to have had members of his church bring their own cups to worship, spraying them with carbolic acid and examining them under a microscope to make sure all organisms were killed) Such measures sound foolish and they were, but they show the state of fear at the time.

There were, to be sure, wise heads who spoke out to calm the fear and oppose the changes being proposed because of it. These men, such as G. A. Trott, a pioneer preacher and medical doctor, pointed out that no one had ever been known to be hurt by participating in the Lord's Supper.' That statement is still true. Out of their faith, they argued that God would not inaugurate a practice that endangered His followers. Nevertheless, for many persons, fear carried the day and in 1915 the first congregation of the church of Christ broke ranks with her sister churches around the world and followed the denominations by installing the newly-invented individual communion set

• One would think that a controversy that began when medical science was young and crude could be settled by the space-age technology now available. It has been, as far as the general medical community is concerned, as we shall see later. But oddly, some Christians are still frightened. And, in the debate that flares occasionally, some of the most derogatory terms are used toward those who hold to the original pattern. For example, the practice is called filthy, and their intelligence is even questioned.

Since the controversy was unsettled during years when diseases were not headline matters, we think it is likely to get worse with the advent of illnesses, such as AIDS, and the alarmist publicity that has attended them. It is vitally important that Christians examine the evidence and decide once and for all whether their health is at risk in following the Lord's directions in communion and other matters.

What Does It Say About Christ? Christians may not realize the statements they are making about Christ when they argue that their health is endangered by observing the communion as Jesus instituted it. If one risks a disease by following the Master's example, then a) Jesus did not know about diseases, or b) He did not care about His disciples. Neither of these conclusions is worthy of Christians.

Let us examine each assumption more closely. First, is there Biblical evidence that Jesus knew, at the time He lived on earth, about the causes of diseases and the ways they are transmitted? The evidence is sufficient to convince the most demanding inquirer if it is received and evaluated objectively. For example. Paul said of Jesus, "By Him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible..." (Colossians 1:16). Visible things in earth would include elephants, and invisible things would include viruses and bacteria.. Is it reasonable to think the Lord had knowledge and power to create these organisms but lacked understanding of how they work?

Not only did Christ know how diseases develop. He had power to cure them. "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people" (Matthew 9:35). Notice that the Master did not heal just some mild illnesses, but every type of disease. Leprosy baffled medical scientists for centuries, but Jesus healed it with a word. "There came a leper and worshiped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying. I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed" (Matthew 8:2-3). In describing the same case, Luke (5:12) indicates the man's disease was in an advanced stage. Terminal cases of deadly diseases were no more difficult for the Lord than early forms of easily curable diseases.

Jesus gave His disciples power over diseases and evil spirits (Matthew 10:1) and they amazed both the people and themselves (Luke 10:17). The power over diseases that Jesus demonstrated so convincingly should not surprise us, for the Lord had power over everything. "All power is given unto rue in heaven and in earth" (Matthew 28:18). Is it a great thing that the one who could stop storms, raise the dead, and open blind eyes also had power over diseases?

Centuries before Jesus cured lepers in Palestine, His Father demonstrated the same type of power with the Egyptians. With God's power, Moses brought diseases upon the Egyptians and their cattle while the Israelites and their animals were spared (Exodus 9:1-1l). Later God reminded the Jews that He had this power and promised to use it for their benefit. "If thou wilt diligently hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God ... and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee" (Exodus l5:26; see also Deuteronomy 7:15).

The promise of God to protect the Hebrews in their obedience was repeated by Solomon. "Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones" (Proverbs 3:7-8). The navel and bone marrow were considered centers of sustenance and health as, indeed, they are. The navel is the site of nourishment for the unborn and bone marrow makes a strong contribution to health throughout life.

Although there have been special and miraculous cases, the protection God promises conies primarily through the general laws that govern the universe and the moral and religious laws given to His followers. The book of Leviticus, often called the Public Health Manual of the Bible, contains wonderful illustrations of religious laws that serve physical and spiritual purposes. Such requirements as isolating the sick, washing in miming water, and cleansing houses after sicknesses and death have clear health benefits. These practices also indicate God's knowledge of how diseases are transmitted.

The Israelites may not have known why they were not allowed to eat animals that were killed by wild beasts or that died of themselves, but we know that seven] diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans. Even the eighth day for circumcisng male children was not a random choice. We cannot read what was in God's mind when he made the choice. But we do know that vitamin K, which facilitates blood clotting, is produced by bacteria in human intestines, and this process is not fully developed until a few days after birth. Can there be any doubt that God, who made the human body, knows what is beneficial for its health?

Does Jesus Care? If we accept that Jesus knows what is good for human health, does He also love enough to cause Him to use that infinite knowledge in our behalf? The question itself may sound blasphemous to the truly devout. John said, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). It does seem strange, does it not, that humans would question God's goodwill when He has already made the supreme sacrifice in our behalf by giving His son for our sun

One facet of the meaning of the word "loved" in John 3:16 is to be full of goodwill and to exhibit it with actions.5 That definition is profoundly fitting in view of what God did for mankind. The complex little word "so," that precedes love, is used as an adverb of degree. It suggests that without some action to illustrate it, humans would not be able to understand the depth of God's love. Having loved in this way, would He then allow practices to be set in motion that put His children at risk?

God, who created man in His own image, respects the human body more than most humans do. Paul said "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (I Corinthians 6:19-20).

These statements were made in the context of teaching Christians to stay away from sexual sins. Paul said that the person who commits fornication "sins against his own body." Dr. MacKnight interprets this phrase to mean pollution of the body with diseases.' The world became worried about sexually transmitted diseases several decades ago, and worry has become open fear in the last few years. But God was concerned about these diseases for man when the Sacred Word was given. Is it logical that He would give such instructions and then organize His worship in a way that would put us in danger of catching those diseases?

Paul laid down a principle that Christians should observe with utmost care, i.e. that God's people are never hurt and always helped, in this life and the next, by obedience to Him. "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and that which is to come" (1 Timothy 4:8). The word godliness here means reverence toward God; it includes the attitudes one holds and the acts one performs in obedience to God.

Paul is not promising that God will suspend the natural operation of the universe where Christians are concerned. Instead, it is assurance that the order was made with them in mind. It is not a commitment that disciples will never catch a cold or have an accident. We are aware that Job, Paul, and others were allowed, for distinct purposes, to suffer for their faith, These special circumstances do not suggest that God would jeopardize all Christendom by injecting danger into the worship itself. The promise that obedience to God benefits us here and hereafter is unequivocal.

The preceding facts should convince honest hearts that God has dealt with humans from a position of absolute knowledge and from an infinite concern for our physical and spiritual welfare. This being a fact, our only real concern should be to discover how the Lord ordained His Supper. On that issue, we are fortunate because the record is exceptionally clear, as we shall see in the next section.

"Behold, I an the Lord, the God of all flesh:
is there anything too hard for me?"
(Jeremiah 32:27)

Part II

HOW DID JESUS SET UP HIS SUPPER? If we believe that one is always blessed by obedience to the Lord, our first order of business should be to find out exactly how Jesus instituted His Supper. On that score, we are fortunate, for there are several descriptions of that sacred event, and they are remarkably clear.

Matthew 26:26 says "As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body." The word bread here means a loaf, as many translations of the New Testament render it. Thayer describes how the loaf was made, i.e. flour mixed with water and baked into a thin flat cake.' He adds that these loaves were broken for eating, not cut. The phrase "as they were eating" referred to the fact that the institution took place while they were eating the Jewish Passover Supper. Ellicott comments on this verse:

Again we must represent to ourselves an interval of silence, broken by the act or words that followed. The usual "grace" or blessing had been spoken at the beginning of the feast Now, taking one of the cakes of unleavened bread, He again utters a solemn formula of blessing, and gives it to them with the words, "Take, eat, this is my body."'

The account is simple and straightforward. Jesus took a loaf of bread, He gave thanks for it, He broke of it Himself, and He passed it to His disciples with instructions for them to break and eat. He explained, in the symbolic language to which the disciples had become accustomed, "This is my body."

After the bread had been passed around, "He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of It" Thayer, and every Greek dictionary we have seen, says the word cup means simply a cup or drinking vessel[DC1][DC2].9 Although the word can be used symbolically, Thayer rightly indicates that its use here is in the ordinary sense. Paul said, "After the same manner also he took the cup,.." (I Corinthians 11:25), explaining that as the bread was passed among the disciples for their eating, the cup was now passed for their drinking. The phrase, "Drink ye all of it," demands this view. It is a command that means "all of you drink from It." Since the "it" is the drinking vessel Jesus had given them, it means all of them were to drink of the cup.

Ellicott states that by choosing a cup, solemnly consecrating it through prayer, and passing it around to the disciples, Jesus made it into a "symbol of diviner truth than had yet been revealed to the listening and wondering disciples."

The Supper, as Jesus instituted it, is a simple and elegant ceremony. It consists of a loaf of unleavened bread that is consecrated through prayer to represent the Lord's body. The loaf is passed among the disciples for each to break and eat a piece of it in memory of His death. Then a cup of the fruit of the vine is blessed and, in the same manner, is passed around to the disciples; and each partakes in memory of the Lord's blood that was (to be) shed for them. There is little room for doubt about what took place on that fateful night so long ago.

Little Disagreement on the Facts Actually, though we sometimes lose sight of the fact, the church has never been divided over how many loaves and cups the Lord used in His Supper. There is rather virtually complete agreement among Bible scholars that He used one loaf and one cup. (The division is over whether we are required to follow the Lord's example.) Notice, for instance, some statements from the Gospel Advocate Commentaries, the first complete set of New Testament reference books written by scholars of the church of Christ. In the beck on Mark, the writer explains Chapter 14, Verses 22 and 23 this way:

He took bread—or a loaf. One of the thin flat loaves of the country, made without leaven of any kind A loaf does not mean two or more loaves, but one. The loaf, which was one, points to the body of Christ Jesus had one body which he offered for the sins of the world and the loaf represents that one body. Two loaves on the Lord's table are out of place and have no divine sanction. One loaf is safe, two are doubtful, to say the least. It is always safe to be on the safe side."

Then in the same commentary we read regarding Mark 14:23, "A cup is one, not two nor a dozen." Brother C.E. Dorris, who wrote those words, worshiped at a church that used individual communion loaves and cups. But when it came to explaining what the Lord did, he was faithful to his scholarship of the sacred text, describing it exactly as it was.

Alexander Campbell preached three quarters of a century before the germ scare brought about a change in the Lord's Supper. Notice what he said in the Millennial Harbinger of December 1830:

On the Lord's table there is of necessity but one loaf. The necessity is not that of a positive law enjoining one loaf and only one, as a ritual of Moses enjoined 12 loaves. But it is a necessity arising from the meaning of the Institution as explained by the Apostles. As there is but one literal body and but one mystical or figurative body having many members; so there must be but one loaf. The Apostle insists upon this, I Cor. (10:) 17. "Because there is but one loaf, we, the many, are one body; for we are all partakers of the one loaf."'12

Religious literature that was written soon after the death of the inspired apostles shows that the church of that day used one loaf and one cup in observing the Lord's Supper Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) stated, in The First Apology, that a loaf of bread and a cup of wine were used in communion by the disciples to remember their crucified Lord.

Must We Follow The Lord's Example? Although the facts concerning the institution of the Lord's Supper are clear, some people argue that we are not required to follow the Master's example. We are told that Christians must commune but that the details of how it is done are unimportant and, therefore, are left up to us. The condition of Christians' hearts as they commune is what is important, the argument goes, not how many cups are used. Is this argument strong enough to risk our eternal salvation upon?

The answer to the preceding question is found in Romans 10:1-3 where Paul condemned that type of thinking. "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." This is a matter of being saved or lost. "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." The word knowledge here means "precise and correct knowledge ... of God, especially of His holy will."14 This type of knowledge implies an objective standard to which one holds and by which his behavior is measured. In this case, the standard is God's revealed Word. "For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." "Righteousness" means the condition of being acceptable to God and the doctrine that tells man how that state may be obtained.15

A conservative paraphrase of these passages is that the way to please God and be saved is not in establishing our ways which we think will please Him but rather in becoming knowledgeable about His will and precisely submitting to its dictates.

Most great divisions in the religious world have resulted from arguments, like the foregoing one, that "details" have been left up to man. For example, those who sprinkle for baptism justify the practice on the same grounds. "It is what is in one's heart that counts," we are told, "and not in the way the ordinance is carried out" Any departure from God's Word that one wishes to make can be justified by this argument.

The ordinances of God were not given to man for his consideration and possible adoption, but for his obedience and safe keeping. Paul said, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (I Corinthians 11:2). The word "as" means "just as"." Paul is praising the Corinthians because "in general" they had kept his instructions about public worship. But it was clear from verse 17 that they had not kept the Lord's Supper "as delivered".17 He said, "In this I praise you not" By praising Christians when they kept the ordinances and condemning them when they did not, Paul takes the strongest possible stand that the Lord's Supper must be kept "just as delivered." He further declared that he delivered it just as Jesus did it on the night He was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23).

Guidelines and Blueprints Some Christians confuse the way God directs the organization and public worship of the church with the means by which He guides our private lives. The former is by blueprint the latter is by guidelines. Guidelines provide a general outline, and details appropriately are left to individuals. On the other hand, a pattern, or blueprint requires strict compliance. Guidelines are often written in negative form, telling one what he cannot do. A blueprint is positive; it names what must be done, and everything that is not named is not allowed.

When God gave Noah the pattern for building the Ark (Genesis 6:14), He told him to make it of gopher wood. He did not name all the types of wood that were not acceptable. By putting the type He wanted in the pattern, He excluded all other types. God instructed Moses (Hebrews 8:5) in the building of the tabernacle to see "that thou make all things according to the pattern." The ark and the tabernacle were Old Testament types of the church. The message is clear that "all things" in the church must be done according to the blueprint. And the pattern regarding the Lord's Supper is also clear.

The Bible teaches in four, and only four, ways:
1) statements of facts,
2) commands to be obeyed,
3) examples to follow, and
4) necessary inferences.

If a practice is not taught by at least one of these ways, it is not authorized at all; and one is going beyond God's Word to use it in the public worship. "Whosoever goeth onward, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (II John 9). The use of a common communion vessel is taught by all of the above methods.

By command: "And he took the cup, and gave dunks, and gave it to them saying, Dunk ye all of it" (Matthew 26:27). That "ye all" is like a southerner's "you all;" it means "all of you." Wilson's translation gives it., "Drink all of you out of It"
By example: "And he took the cup and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it" (Mark 14:23). Again, Wilson's translation says, "they all drank out of it" Weymouth's translation says, "they all drank from it"
By statement: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" (I Corinthians 10:16). This is a statement of fact about what the church at Corinth did. As brother Dorris said, the cup always means one, not two or a dozen.
By Necessary inference: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup" (I Corinthians 11:28). The direct teaching of this verse is about the state of mind in which communion should be done.

As a summary of the discussion regarding whether we must follow the Lord's example in communion, let us notice some highlights of Scriptures and definitions of words:

1. Paul said keep the ordinances "just as" I have delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2).

2. Jesus took a cup, "a drinking vessel" (I Corinthians 11:25).

3. Jesus gave the cup to His disciples and told them to drink of it (Matthew 26:27).

4. The disciples took the cup and drank of it (Mark 14:23). 5. Jesus said "This do ye" (I Corinthians 11:25). Note that I Corinthians was written to all Christians everywhere (1 Corinthians 1:2).

We solemnly ask, where is the statement saying the early Christians used individual communion cups? Where is the Biblical command for their use or an example of it? Where does Biblical language even infer they were used?

The Inventor of Individual Communion Cups Christians are interested in who originates changes in the Lord's church. And we agree with brother David Lipscomb that the motives that prompt a change are important.18 If we find we have drifted away from what the Lord commanded, we should be quick to make changes to get back to the original pattern. King Josiah faced this situation in his people's observance of the Passover—a type of the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 5:7-8). Josiah followed in office evil kings who allowed the nation to dabble in many sinful practices. In reading the book of the law, he found their Passover had not been conducted properly. The king inquired of the Lord and "commanded all the people, saying, Keep the Passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of the covenant" (II Kings 23:21). God spared Josiah's life for tuning the nation around, but the people were punished for leaving God's original pattern.

What a contrast Josiah's story is with the invention of individual cups. Dr. J. G. Thomas, preacher and physician, was mentioned in Part I of this booklet. If you predicted, when you read about him, that the extreme measures Dr. Thomas introduced into his congregation of the Presbyterian Church would not last, you were right But Dr. Thomas worked at refining his ideas, and on March 6, 1894, he was granted a patent on an individual communion set and a machine with which to fill the cups. We have a copy of the patent. It contains many illustrations and 170 lines of description of how it works, In all that detail, the words God, Christ, or the Bible are not mentioned. There is no reference to Scripture. Instead he said, "I, John C. Thomas, a citizen of the United States, residing at Lima, in the county of Allen and State of Ohio, have invented certain new and useful improvements in Communion service..." Indeed!

Incidentally, although D.E. Thomas has been credited for decades with inventing individual communion cups. and he certainly was issued a patent for them which his family still holds, there is evidence that the "honor" really does not belong to him. The Congregational Church of Saco, Maine, used them a year earlier, and by 1894 several denominational churches in Rochester and Philadelphia had adopted the practice.[DC3]19 Apparently those groups were not interested in commercializing the venture and never applied for a patent.

So much for how individual communion cups came into denominational churches. How were they brought into churches of Christ? Brother G. C. Brewer claims that "credit" In the Introduction to his autobiography, Forty Years or, the Firing Line, he said:

"I think I was the first preacher to advocate the individual communion cup 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 Chattanooga, Tennessee, then meeting in the Masonic Temple. My next work was with the church at Columbia, Tennessee, and, after a long struggle, I got the individual communion service into that congregation. About this time brother 0. Dallas Smith began to advocate the individual communion service and he introduced it at Fayetteville, Tennessee; then later at Murfreesboro. Of course, I was fought both privately and publicly and several brethren took me to task in religious papers and called me diessive."20

You might have added, brother Brewer, that "several brethren" around the world still do call your practice digressive. How sad that a sacred memorial instituted by Jesus Christ, in the presence of His apostles, on the night of His betrayal should be changed by a group of men and women meeting in a Masonic Temple in Chattanooga, Tennessee!

Part III
SCIENCE AND SANITATION IN COMMUNION We begin this review of experimental studies and medical opinions regarding the communion cup with considerable ambivalence. Our ambivalence is not related to the evidence, which is strong and positive, but to reporting this type of evidence at all. Our conviction is that Christians should trust in the great physician, who has declared Himself our "Lord that healeth thee" (Ex. 15:26). This physician is never wrong.

Human evidence, by contrast, must always be kept in perspective. Science has created many mundane but useful advancements and about an equal number of brilliant discoveries and stupid blunders. Many of the developments that seemed brilliant, Sir Alexander Flemming's discovery of penicillin for example, actually were done by accident. The blunders are caused by all sorts of human frailties, ignorance, arrogance, prejudice, and outright fraud, just to name a few. The infamous Piltdown Man that was "discovered" in a gravel pit in East Sussex, England, fooled scientists who labeled him a link with our "animal ancestors." In reality "he" was a combination of human and animal bones planted by a dishonest laboratory assistant, This classic blunder occurred because scientists wanted to believe evolution (prejudice), because they over trusted their methods of dating relics (ignorance), and because of one worker's clear dishonesty.

We give these facts about the limitations of science not to say that such evidence is worthless, but as a reminder that it should not be placed on par with inspiration. "Science does not lie." it is said, but the statement is only a play on words because scientists, the men and women who practice science, are human and subject to all weaknesses common to other mortals. We use human evidence in human matters because that is all we have. It seems especially unwise to rely on human evidence when divine evidence is available.

These limitations of science should be kept in mind when making assessments of the value of the evidence from experimental studies on communion. In such situations, it is almost never a simple matter of seeking scientific opinion and accepting it. For one thing, the scientists often disagree. Then it becomes necessary to make judgments about the quality of one study over another. Thus readers must assess the soundness of the methods of study, be alert for signs of bias, observe whether researchers' conclusions arc truly supported by their data, and so forth. Laymen often think that some expert somewhere "knows the truth" on the questions that trouble them. But that is a naive and unwarranted trust in human expertise. In the end, one usually must survey all the evidence and make a decision for himself about whether it generally supports one view or another.

Many Opinions — Little Evidence While there have been hundreds of newspaper reports and articles giving opinions on the safety of common-cup communion, there have been very few actual studies. A computer search of the literature indexes revealed only about half a dozen efforts in the century that this topic has been discussing. Some of those are methodologically so flawed that no competent scholar would credit them with worth. Others are excellent and worthy of all the confidence that is realistic to place in human endeavors. Still others are mixtures of wheat and chaff.

We shall begin our review by discussing those experimental studies that are of highest quality. Then, we will review a study that we consider of poor quality and explain why we see it as we do. Our intentions are to review, or mention and reference, every known study so that interested students may pursue the matter to the fullest and come to solid decisions about what human evidence says. After our own review, we will summarize a comprehensive assessment of many studies that relate directly and indirectly to the topic—an assessment completed by an internationally recognized scholar. We will close this section with comments by several medical authorities and religious leaders.

A British Government Study The most respected scientific experiment to date was done at the Central Public Health Laboratory in London by three researchers named Hobbs, Knowlden, and White (1967).21 The Medical Research Council, an agency of the British government, commissioned the study in response to complaints against the Church of England, which uses the common communion cup. Among medical personnel, this is the single most influential study on the topic, probably because it was unbiased, it was more thorough than usual, and it created real-life conditions in the laboratory.

To answer the general question about the danger of disease transmission, this group sought answers to specific questions, i.e. how many organisms are deposited on the surface of the cup by each communicant, how long do such organisms survive, are these organisms transferred to other communicants, and, if so, arc there ways the number of organisms on the cup can be reduced? These are relevant questions because modest numbers of bacteria arc present everywhere, even on the sun faces of unused cups, and comparing common-cup communion against totally sterile conditions is not realistic.

Researchers had volunteers drink from a silver cup filled with fermented communion wine as used in the Church of England. Average number of communicants was 24. Several trials were done. First, all persons drank from the same place on the cup. Second, the cup was rotated to a different spot after each communicant. Third, all persons drank from the same spot, but the rim of the cup was wiped after each use; and finally. the cup was rotated and wiped after each person drank. In each experiment, swabs were taken after each participant and the recovered material examined microscopically to make counts of organisms. A swab was taken from the rim of the chalice before anyone had drunk for comparison (known as a "control" in experimental studies).

In another set of experiments, saliva was placed directly from the mouths of participants onto the rim of the cup, directly into communion wine, and into Ringer's Solution. (Ringer's is a salt-water compound with a mineral composition that is similar to the fluids in human tissue and blood.) Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli bacteria that had been grown in the laboratory (known as "cultured" bacteria) were placed on the cup, in the wine, and in Ringer's Solution. Examinations were made of the survival rates of these bacteria at intervals ranging from 30 seconds to 30 minutes. These experiments were designed to test the germicidal powers of silver and wine. What follows is a summary of their findings.

The specific number of organisms recovered from the cup after participants drank was low in all cases. For several participants, the number was below 100. The average number recovered was 654, which included normal benign bacteria as well as any unusual organisms. In some cases, the number taken from the unused cup rim exceeded that recovered from droplets left by communicants! Rotating the cup did not reduce the number of organisms; in fact, somewhat more were found than when communicants drank from the same place. Wiping the cup after each user, however, reduced the number of organisms present by about 90 percent.

As a means of comparison for the preceding figures, a single milliliter of blood from a person infected with Hepatitis B may contain more than 100,000,000 —(one hundred million) infected viral particles. If one of the communicants ingested every organism left by the person who preceded him (which would be impossible), the average number gotten would be approximately 1 over 150,000 of this amount. These figures explain why epidemiologists are more concerned about other means of disease transmission, for example, sharing drug needles. Not only is the number of organisms apt to be thousands of times greater, needles put them directly into the blood stream where they are more lethal, rather than into the mouth, where the body can more easily handle them. In samples of the remaining communion wine, no organisms were ever isolated.

The London groups' experiments showed that both silver and wine have an inhibiting effect on bacteria but that the effect is produced too slowly to kill organisms deposited on the cup rim before the next communicant drinks. The germicidal effect of silver appeared to begin at about 3 minutes. The cup is passed from one person to the next in a matter of seconds.

When 100,000 to 200,000 cultured bacteria were placed in small amounts of wine in glass and silver containers, the germicidal effect began to show strongly in about 3 minutes but varied with the type of bacteria and the type of container. The use of a silver container with the wine always quickened the effect.

These researchers give three reasons that the risk of disease transmission by the common cup is small:

This group's conclusion regarding the communion cup is that "the risk of transmission is very small, and probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people."
Dr. G. A. Trott, the pioneer preacher and physician mentioned in Part I of this booklet, said that he would stake his professional reputation on the proposition that Christians who commune from a common cup are exposed to no more germs than those who do so from individual cups.22 He was speaking from his faith. It is too bad that he did not live a half century later so that he could read this study. Dr. Trott would have felt vindicated by the fact that the number of organisms recovered from unused cup rims sometimes exceeded those recovered from the common cup.

The University of Chicago Study William Burrows and Elizabeth Hemmens, from the University of Chicago, studied communion two decades earlier than the London group (1943).23 Burrows and Hemmens made it clear that they had no interest in "the theory of the sacrament" or in "the relative ecclesiastical merits of the various methods of its administration." They were concerned exclusively with the possibility of disease transmission.

The specific issues and methods of the Burrows and Hemmens experiment were similar to the London study. By placing various types of cultured bacteria onto the rim of the cup and into the wine and making counts after various time lapses, they concluded, like the London group, that both silver and wine have a germicidal effect Their findings showed somewhat stronger and quicker effect than those of the British study.

The Chicago study tried to create the worst possible conditions of communion or, conversely, the most favorable conditions for bacterial transmission. They made a "mouthwash" of cultured bacteria and had some participants rinse their mouths with it before drinking from the cup. This allowed them to "trace" the bacteria from the cup rim and even in the saliva of later communicants. They also asked participants not to be "careful" but to deliberately leave more saliva on the cup than would occur m a normal communion service.

Burrows and Hemmens, like the London group, found that wiping the cup rim removed approximately 90 percent of the bacteria. But even when the cup was not wiped and when participants were making conscious efforts to be "sloppy," few organisms were transferred. These researchers concluded, "In these experiments the enumeration indicated that only 0.001% of the bacteria present in the saliva of the first individual may be found in the saliva of the second, and then only when considerable conscious effort was made to transfer as many as possible, and when the cup was not wiped." One can see how they concluded that the possibility of airborne infection makes sitting in the room with infected persons more dangerous than drinking from the communion cup.

Some readers have taken the Burrows and Hemmons figure (0.001%) to mean that one has just one chance in a thousand of catching a disease by communing from the common cup after an infected person. Actually the meaning is more conservative than that. It means that only one one-thousandth of microorganisms are likely to be transferred from one mouth to another. The human body can handle small amounts of bacteria and, based on these findings, the researchers were well within their scientific domain to say the chances of actually contacting a disease by this means is small. But no one can precisely calculate the chances of a specific person's getting a disease. Many factors influence that possibility other than the number of bacteria that are present, However, because the general death rate for persons 35 years old is higher than could be postulated in any communion-cup danger, Burrows and Hemmens concluded that it is more dangerous to live to age 35 than to drink from the communion cup!

Both of the studies reviewed so far have shown that silver, as is true of most heavy metals, has an inhibiting effect on the growth and reproduction of bacteria. That effect does not work fast enough to destroy microorganisms as the cup passes from person to person in the process of communion. But it does appear to work from about three minutes onward. Imagine this Sunday morning scene. In two churches brethren prepare the communion Table. In one, the fruit of the vine is poured from a previously sealed bottle into a silver chalice, placed upon the table, and covered to await the hour of use. In the other congregation, the fruit of the vine is unsealed, poured into a filler, and then into plastic or paper individual cups. The chances are that the chalice, the filler, and the individual cups all acquired minute amounts of dust and bacteria while on the shelves and in the filling process. In one case, the silver cup has from one to two hours to purify itself. In the other, because plastic and paper do not inhibit bacterial reproduction, the cups have the same amount of tine to become more contaminated. Too bad Dr. Trott did not live to review this study.

Canadian Department of Health and Welfare Study Although Jack Konowalchuk and Joan Speirs of the Canadian Bureau of Microbial Hazards were not studying communion, their research is often cited in this regard.24 Earlier studies by these scholars had investigated the power of various fruit extracts to inactivate different types of viruses; the one reviewed here did the same for grapes and wines.25

These researchers prepared two-milliliter bottles of red wines, white wines, commercial grape juice (Welch's), whole fresh grapes homogenized in water, and raisin infusion (water in which raisins had been soaked for 24 hours). Cultured polio, echo, coxsackie, and herpes viruses were deposited in the test bottles in batches of 8,000 plaque-forming units. Counts were taken at periods from one hour through 24 hours. They monitored the effects of the substances over longer blocks of time, rather than in minutes as in the other studies, because they were interested in the effect of the compounds on microorganisms in human digestive systems, not in possible spread of disease in communion. For the same reason, no tests were made on cup rims or with silver or other types of containers.

All of the grape substances had an inhibiting effect on the viruses. The strength and rapidity of the effect varied with the type of virus and the substance. Raisin water and white wines were least effective. Pure grape juice was clearly the most effective. In general, polio and herpes viruses were inactivated more quickly and to larger extent For example, polio virus was reduced to one tenth its former count after 24 hours incubation in pure grape juice.

As far back as the First Century, people believed that wine had purifying properties. Roman soldiers are said to have mixed wine with drinking water in the countries they conquered in the belief that the alcohol in the wine would purify the water. It may have helped, but if so, it was not due to the alcohol. This and other studies have shown that it is the phenols in and near the skins of the fruit that possess this power. The reason red wines are more effective than white is that red wines are made by fermenting the whole fruit, including the skins, whereas white wines are processed from juice only. Apparently the fermentation reduces some of the power of the fruit since pure juice is more effective than red wines.

One value of this study is that it explains certain findings from other studies. For example, when the wine remaining after communion has been tested, it is found to be "practically sterile." This is puzzling because even unused cups and —healthy mouths are not ordinarily sterile. The probable explanation is that unused wine is usually tested from one to several hours after the communion service—long enough to allow the phenols in the wine or grape juice to produce this effect.

Gregory, Carpenter, and Bending A Study
With Methodological Problems Two of the above researchers were from the University of Guelph in Canada and the third was from Loma Linda University in California.26 They state that their work was intended to test whether "good quality" wine and sliver communion cups in would rapidly kill microorganisms. A variety of experiments were conducted. In one test, four types of cultured organisms were placed on a silver cup rim and in wine contained in a silver cup. The rim and the wine were checked intermittently for an hour. The efficacy of wiping the cup rim was tested by placing organisms on a cup, allowing them to dry, wiping with a cloth, and swabbing for viruses. Then, thirty university-student volunteers simulated a communion service, and the cup rim was checked for organisms. The researchers also took saliva from volunteers mouths, inoculated it with cultured organisms, and deposited droplets of it directly into the wine These droplets were later retrieved and tested for growth or decline of the organisms.

Gregory, Carpenter, and Bending concluded that silver had no effect on test organisms, wiping the cup was of very little value in reducing organisms on the cup, and a 'variety' of organisms were found on the cup after the simulated communion. Droplets of the virus-infused saliva recovered from the wine showed an increase in numbers! They did find that wine was strongly antiviral on three of the four test organisms. They concluded that "the common communion cup and its contents could serve effectively as vehicles for rapid transmission of disease organisms."

If one assumes that all researchers were honest, how could these authors achieve such different finding and arrive at far different conclusions from Hobbs, Knowlden and White and from Burrows and Hemmens? It may not be so difficult as it seems. In the first place, although these experiments were described as similar to those of other researchers, they actually were quite different. For example, Burrows and Hemmens wiped the cup right after communicants had drunk, the real-life procedure in churches that use this practice. Gregory et a. placed virus preparations on the cup rim, allowed them to dry, and then wiped. It seems easy to understand why a dry cloth would not be effective in removing dried solutions.

These authors' test of the cup after simulated communion was not the same as in other studies, nor was it a valid research procedure. They say "a variety of bacteria was recovered from the cup surface," but they give no counts of any types of bacteria and they did not test an unused cup as a control. Remember that the London experiment recovered more bacteria from some unused control cups than from cups used by several communicants. This finding could have been announced before the experiment was done. There are bacteria on all surfaces that have not been sterilized and sealed. In the form reported, the findings of this study are worthless.

Gregory et al. exhibit two of the most common failures of scientists: 1) sloppy work, and 2) drawing conclusions beyond their data. Almost every task can be done well or poorly, a fact that is as true of science as of auto repair. For instance, they acknowledged not having read Burrows and Hemmems before conducting their work, even though the former had been a standard reference in the field for 20 years. One of the canons of science is that one becomes familiar with what others have done on the subject before beginning an experiment. The purpose is to build on others strengths and avoid their mistakes. These authors' carelessness is evinced in conclusions that were well beyond their data, some of which now make them appear foolish.

Gregory et al. concluded that the communion wine itself could be an effective vehicle for disease transmission, yet they acknowledged that "we have no evidence as to the entry of saliva droplets into communion wine during actual communion." In fact in their own simulated communion service, they had evidence to the contrary. They tested the remaining wine for amylase activity (enzymes in human saliva) and found none! Why would they conclude as they did in the face of their own evidence and is view of others having tested unused wine and finding it sterile? Perhaps they did not read those studies either.

Another example, that now must be very embarrassing, is Gregory, Carpenter, and Bending's assertion that churches that use pure grape juice, ratter than fermented wine, are at even greater risk. "There can be little doubt, nevertheless, that wine is safer from the epidemiological point of view, than unfermented grape juice would be in a common communion cup." Since they did not test grant juice in comparison to wine, they were going beyond their data to make this conclusion, It was based on the common sense notion that the alcohol in the wine is the effective agent. One hopes that by now they have read Konowalchuk and Speirs. Unless scientists discipline themselves to be good scholars, they are no more immune to prejudice than ordinary folks.

Gill's Review of Studies The most useful and up-to-date information on the danger of disease transmission by the common communion cup is contained in a report by Noel Gill (1987) from the London Public Health Laboratory, the agency that produced the Hobbs, Knowiden, and White study 20 years earlier.27 Gill did not conduct research himself. Instead he reviewed approximately 100 experimental studies and clinical reports on most known transmissible diseases, giving special attention to AIDS. These "state of the art" reviews, when done by competent scholars, are more valuable to laymen than individual original studies. Because much more data is assembled, its quality readily can be assessed, findings can be compared, and conclusions realistically made. Such matters as routes of disease transmission and sites of entry into the body often emerge. Field studies, done in the real world, are especially valuable.

An example of findings from the field relates to transmission of Streptococcus bacteria, Although these organisms are frequently found in human saliva, airborne droplets entering nasal passages, rather than mouth to mouth contact, are believed to be the major route of transmission. This conclusion is supported by the fact that hospital-ward-acquired cases are reduced by placing beds at least eight feet apart.

These studies indicate that a suitable site and means of entry into the body are needed for infection and those vary with the type of organism. For example, diseases that do infect by mouth (i.e. typhoid, dysentery, salmnonellosis and others) are usually gotten from contaminated food or water, in which the concentration of bacteria are very high, not from other persons.

Several follow-up studies of individuals who were exposed to Hepatitis B by direct mouth to mouth contact revealed no cases of transmission. During the infective, pro-clinical phase (i.e. just before "coming down" with the disease), a music teacher shared wind instruments with twelve students. A follow-up of the students showed that none developed the illness, in two separate incidents, students in two-day cardiopulmonary resuscitation courses practiced on the same life-sired dolls with a member of each group who was clinically infected with Hepatitis B. Several students served as mouth to mouth practice partners with the infected persons. None of the 39 participants (18 in one group and 21 in another) developed the disease.

Gill reviewed studies in which direct attempts were made to infect chimpanzees with the HIV virus (AIDS). In one study, concentrations of HIV virus were placed into the chimps' mouths and their teeth and gums brushed to the point of bleeding. No case of HIV infection took place. Experiments like this support the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's statements that AIDS is not transmitted by mouth to mouth contact.

Based on the studies noted above and many similar ones, Gill concluded that the risk of infection via the communion cup is negligible. Noting that "No episode of disease attributable to the shared communion cup has ever been reported," he stated that there is no scientific "support for suggesting that the practice of sharing a communion cup should be abandoned."

The First Fifty Years The preceding studies are the only ones revealed by a computer search of relevant literature indexes that appear worthy of review.28 The earliest of these was Burrows and Hemmens (1943) and, as is incumbent upon good scholars, they carefully assessed all previously published works. Although the communion cup controversy was then a half a century old, Burrows and Hemmens noted that there was "a remarkable scarcity of experimental evidence," This finding is not surprising. The stale of knowledge, methods of study, and equipment were all crude by today's standards. But it should be instructive to observe the basis on which the great controversy came about.

Two vehement warriors in the battle for individual cups were doctors named Charles Forbes and H. S. Anders. Forbes did not publish his work, but he made speeches (i.e. to the Rochester Pathological Society in April, 1894) and was widely quoted in newspapers. The New York Times carried articles on the controversy for a decade. Anders, described as a "passionate advocate" for individual cups, was a prolific writer. Around 1900, he engaged in a debate with a British doctor through the medical journals.29 The emotional and demeaning quality of the exchange made it clear that this was no objective scientifi

c discussion. A few years later a man named C. G. Page entered the fray.30 All three men "studied" communion sanitation and made fearsome "discoveries" about what remained "in the dregs" of communion cups, on the rims, and so forth. Oddly', even then, when they tested the wine remaining after communion, they found it "practically sterile," but this discovery did not deter them. We are not suggesting that these men were dishonest, but their lack of knowledge and their emotions certainly caused them to stack the deck in favor of finding reasons to worry? For example, Page would swab communion cups right after use place the swabs in solutions that foster bacterial growth and then test them five days later. Sometimes he would grow the bacteria and post the materials to a laboratory for testing.

By observing how these men worked and noting the types of bacteria they found, Burrows and Femmens concluded that what they were seeing was the remnants of ordinary house dust.31 They compared the findings to what a first-year bacteriology student might see in his microscope after exposing a clean agar plate to air for several days. Alas! The great Controversy in the religious world and the division in the Lord's church came about over fear of ordinary house dust. House dust—which the average human breathes in hundreds of times a day. What troubles could have been avoided if the religious world had waited in faith for a few short years!

What More Can Be Said? Because there is so much material, we are tempted to go on giving competent medical opinions on this issue. There are Edward Dancewicz's comments from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in the Journal of the American Medical Association.32 Referring to the Hobbs, Knowlden, and White study and acknowledging its quality, Dancewicz agreed with them that there is little cause for alarm. We could call attention to a recent question in a German medical journal about the possibility of AIDS transmission via the common cup. The questioner ask about the worst case scenario, assuming the patient had bleeding mouth sores. Professor Doctor Maas responded that there is "little probability of infection" and cited evidence the disease is not transmitted that way." And we could refer readers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's pamphlets and FAX Service memos that cite studies showing that family members who lived with AIDS patients, shared food utensils, razors, and even toothbrushes did not catch the disease.34 But what benefit would still more evidence give?

There is a point at which additional proof serves no good purpose. Jesus found this situation with the Scribes and Pharisees who kept demanding more and more signs of His divinity. No one can absolutely guarantee a Christian or anyone else that he will not get a disease. There are so many factors, often unknown factors, that influence a human body. But if he does get one, the best evidence is that it will not be from the communion cup. We agree with Dr. 0. Noel Gill, of the British Public Health Service, that the fact that no disease has ever been shown to come from the common cup is strong evidence of its safety.35 If no case of illness has been traced to the communion cup in a 100 years, the chance of being the first victim seems less than that of being hit by a falling meteor.

One of the pioneer researchers said that he was more afraid of the reverence of God for defying His will than of germs. We are, too. And, in addition, we trust the love and power of our God to protect us more than that of physicians, even beloved physicians, like those named in the back of this booklet. God is the great physician. "I am the Lord that healeth thee."

Summary In conclusion, we would like to return to the themes emphasized earlier in this booklet. There is strong Biblical evidence that Jesus understood microorganisms and diseases at the time He lived on earth. His love for mankind was demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The Bible also is clear about how the Master established His Supper—with one loaf of bread and one cup of the fruit of the vine— a fact upon which most knowledgeable Christians agree. The scientific community, after a century of maturation, generally has come to terms with the way the Lord organized the communion, no longer seeing it as a hazard to health. Finally, our carefulness in keeping the Lord's Supper "as delivered" should not obscure its purpose. That grand goal is our spiritual growth through a loving remembrance of the body that was given and the blood that was shed for remission of our sins.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)

Notes and References 1. Ellicott, Charles John. Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. VII (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 334.
2. Thayer, Joseph H. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1977), p. 352.
3. This report of Dr. Thomas' strong fear of the common communion cup is related in several privately published sources. It appears reasonable from his avid work on individual communion cups; but we could find the story reported in no publication that is now generally available.
4. Trott, 6. A. "Those Individual Cups," The Apostolic Way (September 1, 1913).
5. Thayer, ibid., p. 3.
6. MacKnight, James. MacKnight on the Epistles, One-Volume ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984). p. 160.
7. Thayer, ibid., p. 75.
8. Ellicott, ibid., Vol. VI, p. 162.
9. Thayer. ibid., p. 536.
10. Ellicott, ibid., Vol. VI, p. 162.
11. Dorris, C.E.W. Commentary on the Book of Mark (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1950), pp. 328-329.
12. Campbell. Alexander, "The Breaking of the Loaf," Millennial Harbinger, extra No. 2, (December 1830), p. 64.
13. Martyr, Justin. 'The First Apology," in Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids. Ml: Win. B. Eerdmans Co., 1985), pp. 185-186.
14. Thayer, ibid., p.237.
15. Thayer, ibid., p. 149.
16. Thayer, ibid.. p. 314.
17. MacKnight, Ibid., p. 179.
18. Lipscomb, David. "Individual Communion," Gospel Advocate. (May 22,1913).
19. Price, E.G. Pennsylvania Pioneers Against Tuberculosis (New York: National Tuberculosis Association. 1952),pp. 111-114.
20. Brewer, G. C. Forty Years on the Firing Line (Kansas City: Old Paths Book Club. 1948), p. xii.
21. Hobbs, Betty C., Knowlden, Jill £, and White. Anne. "Experiments on the Communion Cup Journal of Hygiene. 65(1967). pp. 37-48.
22. Trott, Ibid.
23. Burrows, William and Hemmens, Elizabeth S. "Survival of Bacteria on the silver Communion Cup,' Journal of Infectious Diseases 73(1943), pp. 180-190.
24. Konowalchuk, Jack and Speirs, Joan I. "Virus Inactivation by Grapes and Wines," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 32(Dec. 1976), pp. 757-763.
25. Konowaichuk, Jack and Speirs, Joan I. "Antiviral Activity of Fruit Extracts," Journal of Food Science, 41(1976), pp. 1013-1017.
26. Gregory, Kenneth F., Carpenter, John H., and Bending, Glen C., "Infection Hazards of the Common Communion Cup," Canadian Journal of Public Health. 58(1967), pp. 305-310.
27. Gill, 0. Noel, 'The Hazard of Infection from the Shared Communion Cup, Journal of Infection. 16(1988), pp. 3-23.
28. Two Kentucky physicians report what they describe as a study of communion in a letter to the editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine. When a work is described in this way, it usually means that the editors would not accept it as having professional merit, and thus relegate it to the place where opinion and comment are given. In any case, a letter to the editor does not qualify as a scientific report. See Furlow, Terrance G. and Dougherty, Mark J. Letter to the Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine. 118(April 1993). p. 572.
29. Anders. H. S., The Progress of the Individual Cup Movement, Especially Among Churches." Journal of the American Medical Association 29(1897), p. 789; and Letter, Journal of the American Medical Association 35(1900), p. 1291.
30. Page, C. O., "The Common Cup," The Churchman (June 27, 1925).
31. Bunows and Hemmens, ibid., p. 186.
32. Dancewicz, Edward R "What is the Risk of Infection from the Common Communion Cup?", Journal of the American Medical Association. 225(July 1973), p. 320.
33. Maas, G., "Fly Transmission by the Communion Chalice," Duetsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 117(June 1992), p. 1004.
34. Centers for Disease Control. "HIV Transmission," FAX Service Document No. 320020, p. 1.
35. Gill, ibid., p. 16.

List of Reviewers
The following preachers of the gospel, physicians, pharmacists, and other professionals reviewed a draft of the manuscript and made helpful suggestions. Some provided materials for our use. We are grateful to all of them for their support and the time they took to help.
Allen Bailey, Evangelist
Irving, Texas

Smith H. Bibens, Evangelist
Buffalo, Missouri

Gary Barrett, Elder
Wichita, Kansas

George F. Battey, Evangelist
Morrow, Georgia

Jerry L. Cutter, Evangelist
Crescent, Oklahoma

Wayne L. Fussell, Evangelist
Shreveport, Louisiana

Joe Hisle, Evangelist
Ada, Oklahoma

Galen W. Hutcheson, M.D.
North Arkansas Family Practice
Harrison Arkansas

Nancy Minter, R.Ph., Pharmacist
Chicago. Illinois

Edwin S. Morris, Evangelist
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Mark Bailey, Evangelist
Arlington, Texas
Irvin Barnes, Evangelist
Springfield, Missouri

Alan Bonifay, Evangelist
Manteca, California

Clovis T. Cook, Evangelist
Springfield, Missouri

Johnny Elmore, Evangelist
Ardrnore, Oklahoma

Jeff Haggard, M.D.
Emergency Medicine
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Gerald Hill, Evangelist
Red Oak, Texas

Keith Minter, Operations Manager
Abbcn Laboratories
Chicago, illinois

J. Wayne McKamie, Evangelist
McGregor, Texas

Kris Morgan, M.D.
Pediatrician
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Rocky Morgan, M.D.,Surgeon
Tulsa, Oklahoma

Lynn R. Nesbitt, M.D.
General Practice of Medicine
Graham, Texas

Billy H. Qrten, Evangelist
Marion, Louisiana

Don R. Pruitt, Evangelist
Ada, Oklahoma

Jimmie C. Smith, Evangelist
Harrison, Arkansas

Paul 0. Nichols, Evangelist
Oakdale, California

Alex C. Orten, M.D.
U.S. Public Health Service
Anchorage, Alaska

Steven S. Orten. M.D.
Demrtment of Otolaryngology/
Head and Neck Surgery
University of Arkansas Medical Center
Little Rock, Arkansas

Ronny F Wade, Evangelist
Springfield, Missouri

Worship That is Acceptable to God

Blog Archive

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Arguments Against One Loaf and One Cup in the Lord's Supper

THE BENEFITS OF SINGING

Sanitation in Communion

Recommended Web-sites

Which do you consider yourself?

Please send me any comments or questions you have.