what is meant in 1 Cor. 10:21 and 1 Cor. 11:27, where "the cup of the Lord is mentioned"? And is this the same thing in 1 Cor. 10:16, where "the cup of blessing" is mentioned? How does "metonomy of the subject" apply with regard to "cup", Gk. "poterion"?
There is a new publication which analyzes these matters, using sources like Campbell, Lipscomb, Brewer, and McGarvey. Of particular interest is the history of the ordinance as observed among churches of Christ. It is available in PDF format at LettheBiblespeak.com. Also by email: unityseeker@hotmail.com and by mail Let The Bible Speak, PO Box 68, Mountain Home, AR 72654
I will disagree with mountravlr here... and would suggest two articles to read: http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...e-lords-supper and http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...-multiple-cups
1 Peter 5:6-7: Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. -ESV
I agree that all available sources should be read, with the spirit of Rom. 4:3. I was particularly interested with the type/anti-type observation of Exodus 12, "a lamb for a house", cf. Heb.9:17-20 and 1 Cor. 5:7. Also Exodus 24:7-8, "the covenant", "the blood" and "the people", as discrete in existence.
Metonymically speaking in the spirit of Rom. 4:3... I don't know about you guys, but I think it would be hard to drink and/or swallow a cup. Of course we could divide the cup, but to make it happen during worship service, the cup would need to be some sort of material that could be easily divided... as well as it might be helpful for it to be digestible.
I am in no way making light of God's Word, but instead ourselves and the way that we either take Scripture literally or we don't, it seems as though we pick and choose based on reasoning with other Scripture and what makes the most sense.
I have read strong cases for both sides, and I feel confident I could come up with a list of well known and well respected Christians who have and/or still do advocate one or the other.
While we currently only use one cup, from what I have studied thus far, I would not believe we would be in error if we decided to divide the fruit of the vine into multiple cups. When we visit a congregation, we do not refrain from partaking of the Lord's Supper when multiple cups are used (which is every congregation we have ever visited), and it means no less to us one way or the other. For us it is not the cup that we are focused on, it is what is represented in the cup and what Jesus did for us.
In Christ,
broSonnie
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'
With reference to the new publication by Brett Hickey, we notice that the reasoning for the "new hermeneutic" dating from about 1911 is not dissimilar to the observation by members of the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ, that instrumental music is equally justified by similar thinking. Messrs. Brewer, Smith, and Holt are well documented on this point. It's been 100 years since the innovation came into being. Perhaps the matter of "emphasis" is too overworked, in light of Luke 22:19-20, where no emphasis at all is suggested in favor of the container or of the contained. The harmony, blending and integration by the figure "metonomy of the subject" allows one emblem to incorporate both the "covenant" and its "ratifier", hence the "spirit" and the "truth", c.f. Ex. 24:7-8. Never in the NT is an empty "drinking vessel" in consideration. The question is asked, "What would the Lord have had to say to refer to any empty "poterion"? Brett Hickey has done a great service in his publication from "Let The Bible Speak", even if only viewed from an historical perspective.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
