No July Issue
Preachers and church leaders, we are delighted to receive your good reports and articles for publication in the O. P. A., but we wonder if you really work for subs, and donations for the O. P. A. while in these good meetings. Do you realize that your hearty cooperation is needed now, possibly, more than at any time since we began the publication? You must show an interest in the welfare of the paper before you will impress others with its importance, and if you expect to secure, subs., you must talk the paper. Is the paper worth anything to you and the cause you espouse? If so, show your appreciation by soliciting subs for it. If all will really work, we shall not be compelled to miss another issue. Brethren, may I count on you? Let us press the work! We were very sorry we had to miss the July number, but you just failed to send in sufficient funds to pay the printers.
There was no July issue in 1933 due to insufficient funds to have the paper printed. The numbering for this year was also a little off, so we have corrected them here in the archives. Below is an excerpt from the August issue of that year offering an explanation.
No July Issue
Preachers and church leaders, we are delighted to receive your good reports and articles for publication in the O. P. A., but we wonder if you really work for subs, and donations for the O. P. A. while in these good meetings. Do you realize that your hearty cooperation is needed now, possibly, more than at any time since we began the publication? You must show an interest in the welfare of the paper before you will impress others with its importance, and if you expect to secure, subs., you must talk the paper. Is the paper worth anything to you and the cause you espouse? If so, show your appreciation by soliciting subs for it. If all will really work we shall not be compelled to miss another issue. Brethren, may I count on you? Let us press the work! We were very sorry we had to miss the July number, but you just failed to send in sufficient funds to pay the printers.
G. C. Brewer’s Review of “The Cup of The Lord”
Answered by J. D. Phillips - Number 5
“6. One Loaf and One Cup. - The author of the tract says that in using one loaf and one cup we show the unity of Christ’s body. Christ’s body is one, of course, and Paul says that “we being many are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.” Phillips says: “‘A loaf’ (Matthew 26:26) is explained by Paul (1 Corinthians 10:17) to be ‘one loaf’ (heis arton). ‘A cup’ (Matthew 26:27) is explained by Ignatius to be ‘one cup’.” (Page 24.)”
Yes, “one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:17) is a symbol of the church’s unity. “Because there is one loaf,” says Paul, “we ought to consider the whole congregation as one body.” So reads the Living Oracles New Testament One “cup” shows forth “the unity” of Christ’s blood. So taught Ignatius in the first and second centuries.
“It is a pity to disillusion anyone who has made such exhaustive research, but the truth of all this lies on the surface in the language of Paul and of Ignatius. A few questions will enable all to see it.”
If you can “disillusion” me with the truth, go to it, brother, for the truth is what I want. “The truth shall make you free,” says Christ.
“When Paul said, “we being many are one bread, one body,” did he mean the disciples at Corinth composed this one bread, one body, or did he mean that all Christians compose this one bread, one body? Were the disciples at Rome, at Ephesus, at Troas, at Philippi, etc., also a part of this one bread, one body?”
Yes, Paul meant to teach that each assembly in Corinth (if there were more than one assembly there) should have “a loaf” and “a cup,” for that is the way our Lord delivered it to him, and the way he delivered it to Corinth. See Matthew 26:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-28. Rome, Ephesus, Troas and Philippi each had “a loaf” and “a cup,” and to each assembly the loaf and the cup symbolized unity.
“Well, when Paul said in the next clause, “for we all partake of the one bread” - one loaf - did he mean that only the disciples at Corinth partook of the one bread - one loaf - or did he mean that all Christians partook of the one bread - one loaf? Did the children of God at Corinth partake of one bread, and the children of God at Rome partake of another bread, and the children of God at Philippi partake of still another bread; or loaf? Was the loaf that they ate at the different places a different loaf? Certainly not; they all - all God’s children then and now - partook and partake of the one bread - one loaf - and drink of the one cup. But any sane person knows that the brethren at Corinth and at Rome did not eat from the same literal loaf - same piece of bread - or drink out of the same literal vessel on the first day of the week. They had a loaf and a cup at Corinth, and a loaf and a cup at Rome, and yet they all ate the one loaf and drank the one cup. The number of literal loaves and literal cups used had nothing at all to do with it. It is now one loaf and one cup with the disciples of Christ all over the world. They may be in ten thousand different places and may use a million different literal pieces of bread and literal cups, but they all partake of one bread and drink of one cup.”
All Christians in an assembly should, and, in apostolic times, did, “partake of that one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:17). Macknight pointed out the fact, a century ago, that when arton has a numeral before it should be rendered “loaf,” not bread. Thus, we read “five loaves,” not five breads; three loaves, not three breads; “a (one) loaf” (Matthew 26:26), not a bread. From the very nature of a loaf, two or more congregations, a hundred miles apart, cannot partake of the same loaf. They can, and do, partake of the same kind of a loaf, but not the same loaf.
“The language of Ignatius quoted in the tract shows that this is his meaning also. (See. pages 24-29.) He says: “Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to (show forth) the unity of His blood,” etc. And as quoted on page 29: “For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His blood which He shed for us is one. One loaf is broken for all, and one cup is distributed among them all.” And again: “Wherefore let it be your endeavor to partake all of the same holy Eucharist. For there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of His blood.””
Ignatius speaks of “one Eucharist.” Paul describes it as “that which the Lord delivered unto” him. 1 Corinthians 11. Bro. Brewer’s “eucharist” is another, and different thing.
“Notice here that Ignatius speaks of one Eucharist each time, which means one Lord’s Supper. He did not want those to whom he wrote to have a different, a corrupted or divided, Lord’s Supper. All the disciples to whom he wrote ate of one bread and drank of one cup even though they were in different congregations thousands of miles apart. Notice also that he speaks of “distributing” the cup. Did they distribute a literal cup? How? By grinding it to powder?”
The context in which Ignatius’ language occurs indicates that he means that all in an assembly were to eat at the same table, each drinking of the one cup, and eating of the one loaf. To use loaves and cups in each assembly is the very token of division. Bro. Brewer’s interpretation destroys the literalness of the symbolism, as indicated in both the New Testament and Ignatius, and substitutes a mystical idea that leads to a nullification of all symbolism, and the necessity therefor. If a plurality of loaves and cups symbolize the “one Eucharist” and “one loaf” and “one cup,” then away with our opposition to triune immersion, and the advocacy of “one baptism.”
Yes, each church had “a loaf” and “a cup.” The word “church” is used in the local sense to denote a single congregation; it is used in the general sense to denote the entire body of Christ, composed of all Christians. The record does not say nor imply that all “churches of Christ” partook of the same loaf and the same cup. The Bible provides for “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16), and it provides for “a loaf” and “a cup” for each; but it does not provide for loaves and cups, for each. This is what Paul meant, and what Ignatius meant.
“Regarding Ignatius, Phillips tells us that he was ordained Bishop - a capital B - Bishop - by the apostle Peter. Ordained Bishop of what, please? Was he simply one of the bishops of a local congregation - the only kind of bishop the Bible knows anything about - or did Pope Peter ordain him Bishop of a province or a metropolis? There is very little known of Ignatius, and this Peter ordaining him Big-B Bishop is a Roman Catholic fiction. But Phillips is willing to swallow the hierarchy in order to appear to sustain his hobby. What do men care for a monstrous ecclesiasticism or the usurpations and corruptions of papery when they are wedded to a silly hobby? All Pharisees in all ages will strain out gnats and swallow camels.”
Of course, “bishop”, when applied to Ignatius, should begin with a small “b”. This mistake was made by a copyist, who made several copies of the manuscript of the tract before it was finally printed. The printers followed one of her copies, and thus they used the big “B” when it should have been the little “b.” Bro. Brewer ought to thank my copyist for making this mistake, for about the only point he has made in his review is based on her mistype.
But his remarks about the big “B” proves nothing against his being an elder, bishop, or overseer. Whether it was Peter that ordained him (as history says), or someone else, amounts to but little so far as the argument is concerned. It is enough to know that he was an elder while several of the apostles were living.
The “Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,” p. 434, says, “Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers, martyred early in the second century (A. D. 107, to be exact J. D. P.), at Rome. He was bishop of Antioch for forty years.” 40 from 107 leaves 67, and hence, if he was bishop at the time of his death, he must have been ordained about the year 67. Continuing, the same work says, “He prefaced his quotations with ‘it is written’,” thus showing his love for the truth. Again, “The central idea of the Epistles of Ignatius may be expressed in the words ‘One Faith’.” Again, “The Eucharist is with him the center of Christian worship.”
“But there is yet another angle to this one-bread and one- cup symbolism. The tract says that the one loaf - one literal piece of bread - and one cup - one literal drinking vessel - show the unity of Christ’s body. But Phillips and his misguided cooperants - do they break the one loaf into different pieces and put the pieces upon separate plates before they are passed to the audience? If so, does that destroy the symbol of unity? If not, why would it destroy the symbol of unity to pour the fruit of the vine into different cups before it is passed to the audience? Why? If it is necessary for all the members to sip the wine from the rim of a single cup, why is it not necessary for all the members to pinch or bite from the edge of a single piece of bread? There is one loaf, you know. If you can divide the loaf into two or more portions and still have one loaf, why can you not divide the cup into two or more portions and still have one cup? Why?”
The tract speaks of “one loaf,” but “one loaf” does not mean “one literal piece of bread,” as you claim. No, we do not break the loaf into sections and put each on a separate plate. This is more of your digressive foolishness. This would be the very token of division. The New Testament requires each to break the loaf. Hence, the disciples of Troas “came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7), not to watch someone else break it! “The loaf which we break” (1 Corinthians 10:16). Your idea that Jesus broke the loaf into halves, or that He broke it into individual pieces, is out of harmony with both reason and revelation. We follow the Scriptures on this, as on other matters.
“Here is another thought that should have great weight with the author of the tract; it is exactly on his plane. When our Lord gave thanks for the loaf, He broke it. Paul says we break the loaf. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17.) And according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24 in the King James and some other translations, our Lord said, “This is my body, which is broken for you”; hence, the breaking of the loaf before it is given to the disciples is symbolical of the breaking of Christ's body. (No bone of his body was broken, but the skin was broken, and the flesh lacerated and mutilated, and in that way the body was certainly broken.) Now, when Christ gave them the cup, He said: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” This… which is poured out. If we break the loaf to indicate the breaking of His body, why should we not pour out the wine in order to indicate the pouring out of His blood? In fact, did not Christ pour it out to them as he uttered that sentence? Why not assume that He did and then contend for the assumption?”
Yes, our Lord broke the loaf, and “the breaking of bread,” like our “taking tea,” is used, by idiom, of eating. And the leading linguist of Harvard University says, “He broke” means that He ‘broke and ate,’ of the loaf. It is a form of the Hebrew idiom, paras lechem, and this from the Aramaic perith lechem, and this from the older Aramaic basac, each of which means ‘to break, and eat.’
A learned Jewish Rabbi, of Kansas City, told me that the Orientals, from time immemorial, have considered that to eat the same, loaf together and to drink from the same cup, in a social or religious service, signified an agreement, a compact, or covenant, and united them as one body. Christ evidently alludes to this idea in Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25. Paul, perhaps, alludes to it in 1 Corinthians 10:17.
It is true that the King James Version and a few Greek manuscripts (but not the best ones) read, “this is my body which is broken for you” (1 Corinthians 11:24), but the meaning is ‘This loaf signifies (Greek: esti) my body which is broken for you.”
The fact that the disciples “came together to break bread” (Acts 20:7), shows that it was not already broken into fragments, and that more than one leader “broke the loaf.” By breaking the loaf as commanded, the breaking of Christ’s body is sufficiently symbolized, and by passing it all together, to those present, the unity of His body, and of the church, is symbolized, and yet “the disciples break” it for themselves. Thus, the word of God is satisfied, by doing “that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
The wine in the cup signifies His blood “which is shed” - “is poured out” - and this is all the symbolism that is necessary. If the Book said to pour it out of one vessel into another, we would do it. If it said He poured it into other vessels as He said, “This my blood which is poured out,” we would do that. But this is another one of my brother’s assumptions - an assumption that lacks Scriptural support.
J. D. Phillips
G. C. Brewer’s Review of “The Cup of The Lord”
Answered by J. D. Phillips - Number 4
“Continuing our review of the Phillips tract, we observe:
5. “Drink Ye All of (ek, out of) It.” Last week it was shown that the New Testament does not say that Christ gave it - the cup - to the disciples, but that He gave to them that which they were to drink. It was also shown that no one can say just how each individual received his portion - whether he took it into his mouth from a common cup or whether he first received it into his own separate cup. Even if they did all drink out of the same vessel, it no more makes that binding upon us than that fact that they reclined at the table makes it necessary for us to recline at the table when we partake of the emblems. But the author of the tract says that they all drank from, out of, the same vessel, and he bases an argument upon the preposition “of,” which is “ek” in the Greek. He says that “ek” means “out of,” and therefore they all drank out of one cup.”
It was not “shown” “last week” that “the New Testament does not say that Christ gave it - the cup - to the disciples.” You ignored the Greek idiom which requires an “it” after “He gave,” in Matthew 26:27, and you assumed that He did not give them the cup, but that He “gave to them that which they were to drink” - “the fruit of the vine.” Of course, He gave them “the fruit of the vine,” but He gave it to them in what the N. T. calls poteerion, and this word means “a cup, a drinking vessel.”
Neither was “it shown that no one can say just how each individual received his portion.” Christ gave the cup to them, saying, “You must all drink out of (ek) it” (Matthew 26:27); and “they all drank out of (ek) it” (Mark 14:23). “Ek with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks” (Thayer), “the vessel out of which one drinks” being poteerion, “a cup, a drinking vessel,” as he points out. Paul says so in so many words - “Let him drink (pino) out of (ek) the cup (poteerion)” (1 Corinthians 11:28).
When you prove that they “reclined at the table,” it will then be time for you to try to make an argument from it in favor of your cups law! They reclined at another supper.
“A sufficient answer to this is the fact that they all drank of that which came out of the same vessel which the Lord took up when He gave thanks. At some hotels a thousand persons each day drink soup or coffee out of the same boiler or pot, but they all use different cups in drinking.”
Yes, each disciple drank a part “of that which came out of the vessel (cup) which the Lord took up when He gave thanks.” But how did they do it? “Let him drink out of the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28). This is part of what Paul “received from the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:23). Here is what he received from the Lord”: “You must all drink out of it” (Matthew 26:27); and “they all drank out of it” (Mark 14:23) - “drink out of the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28).
The “boiler or pot” from which soup or coffee is taken and poured into a bowl or cup is not “the vessel out of which one drinks” as is “poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel.” Your “answer” is not an answer and is not “sufficient” for your cause.
“At this writing I am away from home and do not have access to any of my Greek lexicons, but, fortunately, I have a Greek Testament with me, and I can illustrate the uses of “ek.” Of course, “ek” does mean out of, from, etc., but, like all other words, it has different uses with these meanings as a basic idea. It not only signifies out of, as from the interior of a place, but it has to do with origin, cause, source, supply, etc. To eat of (ek) the bread certainly does not mean to eat out of the bread. Take the following references where the word “of” is from “ek” in the Greek and try substituting the phrase “out of” in each place, and see what nonsense you get: “I shall not drink henceforth of (ek, out of) this fruit of the vine,” etc. “But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of (ek, out of) the bread, and drink of (ek, out of) the cup.” (1 Corinthians 11: 28.)”
Thayer answers his blundering on ek, citing the very Scriptures Bro. Brewer uses. He says, “of the supply out of (from) which a thing is taken, given, eaten, drunk, etc.” Under this he cites eating ek the loaf and drinking ek the well, etc. It is only in this sense that you and your guests drank coffee or water from the same pot or pitch.
Yes, ek may denote “from the inside to the outside,” i.e., “out of.” It may also denote source, origin, supply, etc. Hence, we eat of the loaf (ek, with supply, Thayer, p. 191), not “out of” as an ignoramus might say. And the disciples drank ek, out of, the cup (Mark 14:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:28), it being “the vessel out of which one drinks” (Thayer, p. 510).
He admits that poteerion does mean “a cup, a drinking vessel.” A “pot”, a “pitcher,” or a “boiler,” does not mean “a drinking vessel,” and hence he is throwing dust when he seeks to confuse his readers by using them. He betrays his ignorance of language, that’s all. It must make Calhoun, Baxter, Hardeman, Boles, et al, smile (or frown) to read his review. Better put him in the Grammar School.
“Suppose we take the title of our author’s tract and put “out of” for “of”: “The cup of the Lord” - “the cup out of the Lord.” Does the quibble on “ek” need any further attention?”
This is the worst blunder I have ever seen from any one. And it came from a big man - from G. C. Brewer! You better read that Greek Testament of yours. There is no ek in “The cup of the Lord.” Here is a transliteration of the Greek: poteerion Kuriou - “the cup of the Lord.” No ek there, my brother! You make more antics on ek than any sectarian ever made on eis (ice). And down you go!
When we drive the sprinkler from his hiding place and expose his every effort to sustain it by the Bible, he throws up his hands and exclaims, “Oh, it is a non-essential, anyway: baptism never saves anybody!” But I expected better things of my brother. He has “thrown up the sponge,” for he says, “Even if they did all drink out of the same vessel, it no more makes that binding upon us than the fact that they reclined at the table makes it necessary for us” to do so.
The brethren are on the job with their substituting, just like the Catholics did. Bro. Boles says in the Gospel Advocate of September 15, that the fact that the disciples used “unleavened bread” does not bind us to the same practice. Some say blackberry juice or watermelon juice will answer the purpose of “the fruit of the (grape) vine.” And it may not be “many moons” until meeting “on the first day of the week to break bread” (Acts 20:7) will be only an “incidental.” Some of the music brethren have already reached this conclusion. The Romanist says we can commune in one element - the loaf, only. And a pedo-Baptist excuses his sprinkling, thus: “As to the giving of the bread only to the laity, they may think that, in what is merely ritual, deviations from the primitive mode may be admitted on the ground of convenience, and I think they are as well warranted to make this alteration as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the ancient baptism.” Extremes meet. Will “many cups” finally lead the brethren to no cup, as is the case with the Catholic laity? Brethren, whither are we tending?
J. D. Phillips
A Written Discussion
Copied from the March 1, 1933 Volume 6 Number 3 issue of the Old Paths Advocate
In the April issue of this paper we expect to publish a discussion on the wine question by Brethren H. C. Harper and A. J. Trail. All or about all of one issue will be given to the discussion. These good brethren have agreed to pay for this that you may get it all together, and too, it will get it out of the way for other important matters. We have much copy in the office for publication, and we ask all the writers to be patient, leaving it to us to select the time to use your articles.
H. L. K.
G. C. Brewer’s Review of “The Cup of the Lord”
Answered by J. D. Phillips - Number 3
“4. How Did Our Lord Give the Fruit of the Vine to the Disciples? Did our Lord hand the literal vessel to each disciple and tell him to take a drink out of this vessel, or did he pour a portion of the contents of that vessel into each disciple's individual cup and tell him to drink? Of course, the “one-cup” brother just thinks he knows that Jesus passed the same literal cup to each disciple and told him to drink out of it. But he does not know any; such thing. The one-cup hobbyist just assumes that it was done that way and then affirms with all the assurance and vengeance of his capacity that we must do the same thing in the same way now! It is a pity to ruin his cock-sureness, but he has run out of bounds by making his assumption a law and by attempting to force all to obey it. He must be brought down.”
The Inspired Record says He gave them “poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel,” and told them to drink out of it. The professor of Greek in De Paw University, located at Greencastle, Indiana, says Piete ek autou pantes, of Matthew 26:27, which reads “Drink ye all of it” in the King James Version, should read, “You must all drink out of it.” The Emphatic Diaglott reads, “Drink all of you out of it.”
He did not “pour a portion of the contents of that vessel into each disciple’s individual cup,” as Bro. Brewer suggests might have been the case. We know that one vessel was there and that it was a drinking vessel - “poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel” (Thayer). The idea that more than one vessel was there is an assumption - nothing more. And those who use more than one cup have nothing but this assumption as a foundation, and thus they “become wise above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6) - a thing that is fearfully condemned. And when you make your “assumption a law” as the cups advocates have been doing, you certainly “run out of bounds with your assumption.” If I “must be brought down,” as you say; why do you not put up a little proof of your cups contention, and thus bring me “down”? Yes, why? Is it because you know there is no such proof? Yes. Like the Irishman’s flea: “When you go to ketch ’im he ain’t thar.”
“The New Testament does not say how this cup was distributed among the disciples. We know that they all drank of the contents of one cup, or vessel, but that they all drank out of this one vessel is an assumption that is baseless. The guests at my table drank water from the same pitcher and coffee from the same pot today. “Pitcher” and “pot” are both singular; There was one pitcher and one pot. Now, will the reader assume that each guest drank out of the same vessel? That would be just as logical, just as sane, as to assume that all the disciples drank out of the same literal vessel from which Christ gave them the fruit of the vine. Our hostess gave us each of the pitcher to drink. She poured some of the contents into a separate glass for each individual. There is not a man living who can prove that Christ did not do the same thing at the Passover and at the Lord’s Supper. There is more evidence that He did than that He did not.”
“The New Testament” does “say how this cup was distributed among the disciples,” your statement to the contrary notwithstanding. It says, “And they all drank of (Greek: ek, out of) it” (Mark 14:23). See The Emphatic Diaglott, by Wilson. See Thayer, articles pino and ek.
And when the Lord commanded them, saying, “You must all drink out of it” (Matthew 26:27), He told them how to “divide” the contents of “the cup.” Thayer says, “the cup” here is “the vessel out of which one drinks,” All the scholars quoted in the tract under review say it is used literally. Robert H. Pfeiffer, curator The Semitic Museum, Harvard University, says, “Ek means ‘out of.’ Matthew 26:27 has a literal meaning (drinking out of a cup).”
“Illustration: In Luke 22:17-18 we read: “And he received a cup (poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel), and when He had given thanks, He said, Take this (this cup, poteerion, drinking vessel), and divide it among yourselves.” This was the Passover cup, to be sure; but the point is: How was the cup divided among them? Did they divide the literal vessel by cutting it into fragments or by grinding it into powder as Moses did the golden calf? Of course, no one, not even J. D. Phillips, will contend that they divided the material cup. But they did divide the cup (poteerion) in some way. They divided the contents, of course. But how did they do this unless each disciple had a cup or glass into which his portion was poured? How did each get his portion when it was divided? They were still at the same table with the same vessels and the same loaf and same fruit of the vine when the sacred supper was instituted. If the content of the Passover cup was given to them in their individual cups, how do we know that the content of the Lord’s Supper cup was not given to them in the same way? We do not know.
Thayer says, “Pino ek with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks, ek (out of) tou (the) poteeriou (cup)” (Lexicon, p. 510), citing 1 Corinthians 11:28, “Let him drink out of the cup,” as an example.
All the scholars quoted in my tract uphold the idea that each disciple present was commanded to drink out of the same cup (Matthew 26:27) and that each did drink out of the same cup (Mark 14:23). Each drank out of the one cup, as commanded; and this is how they “divided” the cup “among themselves.” The Living Oracles N. T. and the Twentieth Century N. T. read: “share it among you.” The lexicons uphold this rendering, the Greek word for “divide” being diamerisate, “share you.”
In the time of our Lord it was the custom of the Jews in any religious gathering to all drink out of the same cup. This can be learned from any Jewish literature of that age that deals with Jewish customs. The Jews, in observing the Passover, used four, and sometimes five, cups, at intervals; but each guest drank from each cup. Our Lord used one cup in the communion, at its institution, and all were commanded to drink out of it, and all drank out of it.
Your whole contention that individual cups, or even two or more cups, may have been used in the institution of the communion, rests on an “if.” We know one cup was used. You do not know that more than one cup was used. And since “We do not know,” as you admit, why do you not accept the way that everyone knows is safe, and thus do your part to heal the wound caused in our Lord’s body, the church, by the introduction of cups? I had rather be the man that pierced Christ’s side, while He was on the Cross, than the one who tears asunder His spiritual body, the church, by his humanisms.
It is not true that 1000 persons drink coffee, or soup, out of the same drinking vessel, and that is what we have agreed that poteerion means.
Yes, they drank “water from the same pitcher, and coffee from the same pot.” But your guests never - not one of them - drank out of the pitcher, nor did any drink out of the pot. “Must one put his lips to a cup to drink out of it?” This was put to the Lexicographer of The New Standard Dictionary. He answered: “Certainly, one must put one’s lips to a cup to drink out of a cup.”
The New Testament does “say how they divided the contents the cup,” as I have shown. The “fruit of the vine” was in a cup when He told them to drink it. And He said, “You must all drink of it” (Matthew 26:27). “Of” here is a translation of ek, which means “out of,” and Thayer says, “ek with a genitive of the vessel out of the cup” (Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, and 1 Corinthians 11:28), as an example.
(In next month’s Old Paths Advocate the preposition, ek, and its grammatical usage will be thoroughly discussed.)
J. D. Phillips