(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.
1. The contents must be in the container to be referred to by the container's name. The instant the content is removed from the container, it can no longer be named metonymically. The following examples violate this principle:
(8) CUP ALWAYS MEANS FRUIT OF THE VINE
a. "I looked under my car, and there on the ground was a hot, steaming pool of radiator."
b. "In the factory, we saw a 500 gallon vat full of freshly squeezed cup."
c. "Pour me a cup of hot kettle."
d. "When the child stepped on the grapes, the purple cup ran out and stained the carpet."
2. When the container is named, the word is to be understood literally unless the context demands that it be understood metonymically. This is true of all figures in the Bible and is one of the primary rules of Bible interpretation. Consider the following statements:
a. "My car needs a new radiator." The word "radiator" should be understood literally. The person is not saying his car needs new water, but rather a new heat exchanger (a literal radiator).
b. "Hand me the kettle." The word "kettle" must be understood literally because there is no reason to understand it metonymically.
c. "The kettle is boiling on the stove." Beyond dispute, the word "kettle" refers to the water in the kettle because it is impossible to boil a metal or ceramic container on a stove.
3. A word may be used both literally and metonymically in the same context and even in the same sentence. The argument that if it is used metonymically part of the time, it must be metonymical all the time is false. Consider these examples:
a. "Take the kettle (literal) off the stove after it (the pronoun is used metonymically) starts
to boil."
b. "The baby drank his bottle (metonymy for contents) and then threw it (the pronoun is used
literally) on the floor."
c. "The radiator (metonymical) keeps boiling over. Can these new aluminum radiators (literal) be
repaired?"
d. "And she brake the box (literal), and poured it (the pronoun is used metonymically) on his head" (Mark 14:3).
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) it is offered without proof ,
THIS ARGUMENT CREATES
(2) it is grammatically incorrect. (it creates a Bible contradiction, Simply stating an assertion does not make it true, regardless of who says it! It is understood and accepted by all that I Corinthians 11 :26 15 metonymical; but, it has already been shown that even within the same sentence, a noun and its pronouns may be used both literally and metonymically. Each occurrence of the word must be judged independently to determine if it is literal or metonymical. This is clearly demonstrated by Mark 14:3.
A BIBLE CONTRADICTION
According to this argument, Matt 26:28 & Mark 14:24 say:
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.
1. "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."
No one, except those who venerate "holy relics"29, attaches any present day significance to the actual cup Jesus used. Before Jesus blessed the elements, they were an ordinal cup of grape juice and an ordinary loaf of bread. After the Lord's Supper, the cup and the remaining grape juice and bread were all just ordinary elements. None of them took on a permanent significance. Bro. Dearman's argument might well be effective against the idea of Jesus' cup being a "holy relic", but has no application to the use of one cup in the Lord's Supper. When Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me", it is obvious that He did not mean they were to observe this memorial through the years with the same cup, same fruit of the vine, and same bread.
2. "Because He said, whosoever takes of this cup. Whosoever, meaning whoever in whatever time that follows takes of this cup. Now if that is literal, then we'd better find that cup!"
Paul wrote, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord..." (I Corinthians 11:27). Notice that what he said of the cup, he also said of the bread. The fallacies of Bro. Dearman's logic are clearly demonstrated when his argument is applied to the bread:
"Because he said whosoever takes of this bread. Whosoever, meaning whoever in whatever time that follows takes of this bread. Now if that is literal, then we'd better find that bread!" This vividly demonstrates the fallacies of this line of argumentation.
(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".
A.
(1) The Disciples were to drink the CUP - I Corinthians 11:26
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."
(2) The Disciples drank the fruit of the vine.
(3) Therefore, the "cup" is the FRUIT OF THE VINE.
B. (1) The Disciples divided a cup - Luke 22:17
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.
(2) But the Disciples divided the FRUIT OF THE VINE
(3) THEREFORE, the "cup" is the FRUIT OF THE VINE.
C. (1) The cup is the BLOOD of Christ - Matthew 26:28
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.
(2) But the Blood is the FRUIT OF THE VINE - v. 29
(3) THEREFORE, the "cup" is the FRUIT OF THE VINE.
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
