# The Common Cup and 1 Cor. 10:16,17



## Travis Fentiman (Aug 29, 2014)

Using a Common Cup for the Lord's Supper was common in the reformation age. Many derived this teaching in part from 1 Cor. 10:16-17.


1 Cor. 10:16 speaks of the cup in the Lord’s Supper as singular. Is there a spiritual principle that this passage is prescribing? Yes. 

The following verse (v. 17) can be translated as: “Because [it is] one loaf, we many are one body: for we are all partakers of that one loaf.” This teaches that the numerical one-ness of the common loaf (and hence common cup as the loaf denotes the whole supper), symbolizes our unity together as the one body of Christ as we partake of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross. 

This sense of the verses is that of Martin Luther’s 1545 German Bible, the 1602 Spanish Bible, the 1637 Dutch Bible, the 1707 French Bible. Today it is translation of the 1995 NASB and 2011 ESV Bibles. 

Commentators that have interpreted 1 Cor. 10:17 as speaking of a common loaf, and by implication a common cup, include: John Calvin, The Genevan Bible Notes (1560), Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, John Gill and others.


For a fuller exposition of this passage see Bobby Phillip's paper here:


The Common Cup | Reformed Books Online


----------



## yeutter (Aug 29, 2014)

Thanks for the link.
I have long believed that the proper administration of the Lord's Supper requires the use of the common cup.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 29, 2014)

The verse seems to point to the 2nd element in the Supper as a whole (commonly called the cup, in distinction from the bread) rather than pointing to the singularity of the cup of which we partake of that is used to hold the wine. 

The verse that causes me to be hesitant about requiring a common cup (1 cup to be partaken of; passed around) is the fact that at the last supper, they divided it among themselves and partook together.

Lk 22:17 - And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves."

If there be any clear symbolism in the passage as to singularity of what one is partaking of, it would be in the one bread, showing forth the one body (Church) 1 Cor. 10:17.



Also the website you provide quotes a Nick Batzig article. I know Nick and saw the article, I asked him if that article is espousing the common cup. He replied to me, "No."


----------



## Cymro (Aug 29, 2014)

A few years ago the Free Church had a discussion as to the hygienic use of the one
cup in the light of the transmission of modern viruses. It was left I believe for each 
man (church) to do that which is right in his own eyes. I would hold that the pictorial 
element is important. The expression of oneness is demonstrated by the one cup. The
oneness of the blood of Christ, the oneness of the cup of salvation, and the oneness
of the bread and body of our Lord. By the individualising of the tiny wine glasses to
the congregation it conveys the idea that the blood of the Lamb is separately apportioned,
rather than communally partaken.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 29, 2014)

It should be a common loaf, too, not tiny croutons - ideally:


> 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? (I Corinthians 10:16)


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Aug 30, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> The verse that causes me to be hesitant about requiring a common cup (1 cup to be partaken of; passed around) is the fact that at the last supper, they divided it among themselves and partook together.
> 
> Lk 22:17 - And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves."
> 
> If there be any clear symbolism in the passage as to singularity of what one is partaking of, it would be in the one bread, showing forth the one body (Church) 1 Cor. 10:17.





Andrew,

Regarding dividing the contents of the cup, Bobby Phillips posted this on Facebook, which may be helpful:


"...the language of Luke's gospel teaches that dividing the Element is participatory, not passive. 

This was the subject of a large controversy between the Presbyterians and the Independents at the Westminster Assembly. Because the Independents rejected presbyterian church polity, they believed it was necessary for the entire local congregation to commune in one sitting. To accommodate such a large number at once, they had the pastor come around with the one cup and give to each communicant individually. The Presbyterians objected that Luke's gospel clearly teaches that Jesus handed the cup to the disciples and told THEM to divide the cup. Jesus in no way, shape, or form divided the cup for them, whether by use of multiple cups or by coming 'round to each disciple. If we wish to follow the example adjoined to the words of institution, "do THIS in remembrance of me," proper administration MUST include the communicants rather than the minister dividing the Element between them."


Also, here is *Gillespie *on dividing the cup:


*A Dispute Against The English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded On The Church of Scotland, pp. 431-2*

“And He took the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves…”

Luke 22:17

“_t is not indifferent for a minister to give the sacramental elements of bread and wine out of his own hand to every communicant; forasmuch as our Lord commanded his apostles to divide the cup among them, that is, to reach it one to another (Luke 22:17). Some of the interpreters are of [the—RPNA] opinion, that the cup spoken of by the Evangelist in that place is not the same whereof he speaks after (v. 20); but they are greatly mistaken; for if it were as they think, then Christ did again drink before his death of that fruit of the vine whereof we read, v. 18, which is manifestly repugnant to his own words. Wherefore, as Maldonat observes out of Augustine and Euthimius, there was but one cup; whereof Luke speaks, first, by anticipation, and, afterward, in its own proper place…. So that, to divide anything among men, is not to take it, but to give it. And who did ever confound parting and partaking, dividing a cup and drinking a cup, which differ as much as giving and receiving. Thus we conclude, that when Christ commanded the apostles to divide the cup among them, the meaning of the words can be no other than this, that they should give the cup one to another; which is so plain that a Jesuit also makes it to follow upon this command, that Christ did reach the cup not to each one, but to the one, who would give it to his neighbor, the neighbor to the next one, and so on.” 



*Works, “Miscellany Questions, pp. 96-7*

“Neither can they be said to divide the cup amongst themselves (which by the institution they ought to do, in testimony of their communion) when they are not within reach, yea, oftentimes not within sight of one another…. If there were such a symbol of communion in the paschal cup, that the receivers were to divide it amongst themselves, sure this ought to have place much more in the Eucharistical cup, for the Lord’s supper doth more clearly and fully set forth the communion of saints than the passover did.” 



Regarding your argument that v. 17 only refers to Bread, yet the Bread stands for the whole supper, and implictly speaks the same for the cup which is prescribed as singular both before and after that verse in verses 16 and 21, showing continuity with verse 17, that it derives from the same princples._


----------

