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
Getting the Record Straight
A Reply to Homer A. Gay's "Keeping the Record Straight"
Old Paths Advocate Volume 5 Number 7
Well Homer you will have to get the record straight before you can keep it straight, and at present you are a long ways off.
When Brother Gay promised an account of the debate, I, knowing that he does not tell the truth, suggested that Phillips and Hayhurst give their own arguments. I felt that this was fair to all parties and would insure a correct report of the debate. However, both Gay and Phillips refused this but agreed that they would be glad to publish my report. So here it comes. We shall see how eager they are to publish it.
Before beginning the report proper I must notice Gay’s misrepresentations of it.
Gay says that after the first session some of Hayhurst’s brethren showed an ugly spirit, etc. Yes Homer, they were my brethren, but they were on your side of the question! One of them came threatening to expose me. Had his representative done a satisfactory job of exposing me, this little episode had not occurred. Again, one of my brethren got up and harangued me before the crowd, and when I offered to shake hands with him he refused before the audience. This is but a sample of what happened there, but it is enough to indicate the cup of which they had been drinking. And too, it shows who manifested an ugly spirit, and who tried to help their man.
Among those whom I was told argued their side were Homer Gay and Ira Grantham, and Gay is still at it putting things in his paper that never happened!
In one article, short article, I find misrepresentations. His first statement that H. O. Freeman started the church at Eola is more false than true, for Perry Johnson had as much to do with it as did Freeman, and other members had a hand. His last statement (to date) that Phillips made about two arguments to Hayhurst’s one is as false as any ever made in Eden or out.
Gay’s report of the preachers is, untrue. He gives as one of the preachers present W. H. Gill. Is brother Gill a preacher? Ask the people of Eola. But F. R. Keele is a preacher of considerable note, one who has held meetings with such men as D. D. Rose, one of the most outstanding brethren of this part of the country, and he was at the debate but Gay leaves his name off of the list. Does somebody say he overlooked brother Keele? Well, if he cannot see a fact as big as a man, how can he be expected to see an argument?
Gay tells his readers that Hayhurst said it would take a loaf 20 feet square to wait on 3000 people. This is one of Gay’s big windys; Hayhurst said nothing of the Kind. And that Barrel of wine is one of Gay’s inventions trying to help Phillips out. Neither did Hayhurst leave Jerusalem. The first time I meet Homer on this subject (Homer doesn’t meet us in debate; he is a “Gouger” working on the side) I shall meet him in Jerusalem. And he will have to admit that the Jerusalem congregation had a plurality of drinking cups, or he will have them drinking out of that barrel that, he has told you about. If he admits a plurality of cups for the Jerusalem church, he has admitted a plurality for all other large churches, and lost his plea for the unity of the one cup.
Since Homer is making a test of fellowship of this matter, we are forced to debate it, and if he ever gets up courage enough to meet us, any of us, he will find us camped in Jerusalem, and with the Bible as proof.
L. W. Hayhurst
Reply to L. W. Hayhurst
It is against the policy of this paper to publish such harsh, ugly statements as brother Hayhurst’s article contains; but, that the readers of the O. P. A. may see the spirit upon which the cups advocates thrive, we have published Bro. Hayhurst’s article just as it came from his hand and heart.
Hayhurst “knows that Gay does not tell the truth.” I am sure our readers appreciate that information from Hayhurst. Bro. Hayhurst CAN tell the truth, for in his entire article I manage to find ONE true statement, and I shall not overlook that one.
He did not realize what a blotch he was making out of the debate until he began to see it in print, and you can see by his article that he is suffering.
Bro. Hayhurst. and everyone who were present knows that he did NOT suggest that he and Phillips. should report their arguments. But Hayhurst. would have it that Phillips and I would not allow Phillips to report but would be glad for Hayhurst to report - you were “seeing things” weren’t you, Ikey? The truth of the matter is Phillips challenged you to repeat the debate with him in writing, but you laid down under his challenge, and you know it, and that challenge is still hanging over your head.
Among those who manifested a bad spirit just after the first session were two of Ikey’s main standbys and I can name them. I know nothing of any one “threatening to expose Ikey,” however there is plenty of “exposing” that could be done besides on the cup question. Yes, one of my brethren “harangued” you after you had slanderously accused a good brother of being withdrawn from, and then tried to keep him from making his defense, and that brother of mine tried to borrow your Bible, and you would not let him have it. Then you offered to shake hands with him but would not say on what you wished to shake.
“I was told that Gay and Grantham argued the Cup question” - You KNEW that we argued the question without being told. We have both argued it for years.
“I was told” seems to be a star witness with Ikey. “I was told” that Bro. Hayhurst looked like a country kid in the second grade as compared to Phillips. “I was told” by W. S. Boyett, (a Sunday School and cups preacher), and a number of others that the debate was too one-sided to be interesting; that Phillips made any way two arguments to Hayhurst’s one.
You could have saved those “nine misrepresentations” if you had just had the “courage” to meet Doug in a written debate. It is much easier to say some things than it is to prove them. Why didn’t you give some proof?
Everybody around Eola (except the members of the church of Christ who are withdrawn from) will tell you that H. O. Freeman started the church in Eola.
And, now, here is his ONE true statement: “F. R. Keele is a preacher, and I left out his name when I named the preachers present.” By some means I or the printer left out Bro. Keele and also Van Bonneau. But Bro. Keele is A one cup man and told me at the close of the debate that he was well pleased with the defense Phillips. had made.
As to Bro. Gill being a preacher I am willing for the people of Eola or anywhere Bro. Gill has lived for the past 40 years to say whether he is a preacher. Although Ikey hates Bro. Gill worse than he does a rattle snake; yet he does not hate him half as bad as he DREADS him.
Now notice his statement - “Gay tells his readers that Hayhurst said it would take a loaf 20 feet square to wait on three thousand people.” This is a fair sample of Hayhurst’s truthfulness and correctness (?). Phillips showed that Hayhurst’s Jerusalem crowd was too big for him. They had 3000, then 5000 more; and that history states there were at one time 30,000 Christians in Jerusalem. And Hayhurst. contended they all met together to “break bread.” Now get your November issue of the O.P.A. and look with me on page 6. “Phillips showed that the Bible says they “broke bread from house to house’” (Acts 2:46) - He further showed that Hayhurst’s Jerusalem assembly would have to have a 30 gallon cup to contain the wine while thanks are given and a loaf about ten feet square.”
“Does somebody say he over-looked this?” Well, if he cannot see the difference between a loaf “ten feet square” and a loaf “twenty feet square,” “how can he be expected to see an argument.” Now talk about somebody’s “big windy,” will you? Everybody knows they had a big crowd at Jerusalem, but did they ever all meet in one body to “break bread?” And if they did, did they use more than one cup? Give us the Bible before you ask us to believe it. The Bible says they “broke bread from house to house,” (Acts 2:46).
He has much to say about “Homer doesn’t meet us in debate,” and “if I ever get to meet Homer,” etc., etc. Now, that comes with bad grace from a man who admitted publicly at Eola that he had been running from Doug Phillips for two years.
Bro. Hayhurst, Dad used to tell me there was no use to feed old Grey as long as she had plenty of corn in her trough. Now, you still have “plenty of corn” with Phillips’ challenge hanging over your head. Take care of Phillips and then ask for someone else. But, if you are willing to admit that Phillips is just too much for you and you want somebody nearer your size, I’m your buddy, and you will not have to chase me to Jerusalem to catch me either. You will find me camped at Eola, Concho Co. Tex. U.S.A., and the Bible will still read, “they broke bread from house to house,” and “they all drank of it.”
Now, Bro. Hayhurst, we have given space for your “big windy” article, and if you want the folks to have some more of your “twenty feet square’s” etc., just open up the columns of the Apostolic Way or the Church Messenger, and the O.P.A. guarantees you equal space.
This is but a sample of what happened at the debate, but it is enough to indicate the cup of which Hayhurst has been drinking.
Yours for the whole truth,
Homer A. Gay
A Written Discussion
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.