Things That Should Be Said
One can take the American Standard Revised Version, the New Testament in Modern Speech and Smith’s Bible Dictionary, and prove to any rational mind that it is unscriptural to use more than one container when observing the supper of the Lord. One can also take the Authorized Version of the Bible and prove beyond question that we may use a hundred containers if we want to.
J. A. Bradbury
In the Apostolic Way,
October 1, 1921
By “containers” I suppose our brother means cups, for the bugbear “container” is now used in that sense to dodge what Paul says about “the cup (Greek: POTERION, a cup, a drinking vessel) of blessing” (1 Corinthians 10:16). I am glad to know that he admits that the American Standard Version (perhaps the best, from the standpoint of scholarship, there is) and the Modern Speech New Testament are against the use of cups in the communion. But how our brother can fail to see that “the cup” of the King James Version cannot mean “two or more cups” is beyond me.
But Bro. Bradbury thinks “the cup” is authority for “two or more cups”. But he knows that “a cup” in the revisions excludes the use of “two or more” cups.
“The cup” in the King James Version is translation of TO POTERION in the Stephens Text, and the translation is correct. But that TO (the) is an interpolation has long since been proved by the weight of hundreds of ancient MSS., among which is Codex Vaticanus. They simply have the word POTERION, which, according to all lexicographers, means “a cup”, the absence of the article “the” and the grammatical form of POTERION requiring the addition of the indefinite article “a”, to make the full sense of the Greek Text. So, after all, Bro. Bradbury has no authority for the use of cups!
J. D. Phillips
We have just recently learned that Bro. G. C. Brewer is attempting a review of Bro. J. D. Phillips’ booklet, “Cup of The Lord”, through the columns of the “Gospel Advocate”. In the very near future Bro. Phillips will begin a reply to his sophistry in his desperate effort to cover up the truth. Rest assured that Doug is able to take care of the matter. This will appear in the columns of the Old Paths Advocate, beginning we think in the next issue. Do not miss it!
H. L. K.
Keeping the Record Straight
(Phillips - Hayhurst Debate Number 3)
On the “dividing it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17), Bro. Hayhurst contended when the one who waits upon the table, divides the contents of the cup after thanks are given, that all take part in the dividing for all agree to it.
Bro. Phillips showed that this is not true, as we are to divide - share - it among ourselves.
Again, Hayhurst went to “metonymy” to find relief, giving as an example, “The kettle boils,” and tried to show that the water only is under consideration. Hence tried to show that the same is true of “drink the cup.”
Phillips showed that in the metonymy, “The kettle boils,” the water had to be in the kettle, before one could say by metonymy, “The kettle boils.” Thus, it takes both the vessel with its contents to make this kind of metonymy. He further showed that if the water were in a bucket we would say, “The bucket boils,” or if we should take a part of the water from the kettle and put into another, or others, it would be, “The kettles boil.” Even so with the cup, the wine must be in a cup, before we can correctly refer to it by metonymy and call it a cup. If in a bottle, we would call it a bottle by metonymy. But if we take a portion of the wine out of the cup and put it into another, we should have cups by the same use of language. Hence, in each case it takes both the vessel with its contents to constitute this kind of metonymy. Therefore, it takes both a cup (drinking vessel) and its contents (fruit of the vine) to constitute the “cup of the Lord.”
Hayhurst continued to misquote Luke 22:20 thus, “This cup is my blood,” and argued that the “fruit of the vine” alone was the “cup.” He said he did not agree that “we drink the cup by drinking what is in the cup.”
Phillips showed that Hayhurst misquoted Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, and Matthew 26:28. He showed that the Bible says, “This is my blood,” and "This cup is the New Testament,” and that various translations read, “This cup containing wine, etc.” Hence, according to Hayhurst, - it would have to be, “This wine containing wine, etc.”, which would make nonsense.
Hayhurst contended that when you break off a piece of the bread and eat it, that the piece is separated from the whole before you eat it, and yet you eat of it, trying to make this parallel to cups.
Phillips showed that this proves, too much for Hayhurst, as this would bring in, or give authority for, the individual cups, which Hayhurst says is wrong.
Hayhurst ridiculed the idea of the cup representing the New Testament, when we have the Testament right with us.
Phillips showed that we have the covenant that God made with man, that He would never destroy the earth by water, right with us, and yet we have the rainbow to represent it Genesis 7:13.
Phillips showed that there were many factions among the cups advocates; some for one cup until after thanks, then two or more; some for a pitcher until after thanks, as at Eldorado, Texas; some for three bottles until after thanks, as at Norton, Texas; and some for individual cups.
Hayhurst complained about Phillips using Thayer, saying that millions never saw Thayer.
Phillips replied, “Millions never saw the King James version of the Bible,” and showed that the Czech Bible on Mark 14:23, reads, “He took a drinking cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank out of it.” How are they to know any better?
Phillips proved that one cup (drinking vessel) is essential in order to obey the command - could not obey without it, but that we do not have to have more than one. Hence, we are not divided over the essentials (one cup), but over the non-essentials (two or more cups). Therefore, the use of two or more cups is the cause of the division. He further showed that all will agree that one cup is safe, right and scriptural. Hence, one cup is the common ground of unity.
The reason I have given more arguments by Phillips is because he made about two to one. Others present will confirm this.
Homer A. Gay
Resolved: That the scriptures teach that the Church of Christ, or Kingdom of God’s dear Son, was set up and established on the Day of Pentecost of Acts 2:1. Beginning December the 1st at 7:00 o’clock p. m., and continuing over the 3rd at the Court House, in Madison, West Virginia.
C. W. Holley