Thrust statement: The blood of Christ represents the new covenant, which was made possible by the pouring out of His blood upon Calvary.

Scripture reading: Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-20; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

            This essay, unlike the previous essay on the Passover, will describe and explore in greater detail the historical setting of the Last Supper in order to establish a greater comprehension of the Eucharistic^[1] sayings in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. An understanding of the Passover traditions in the first century should enhance one’s ability to interpret the Synoptic writings as well as the Pauline Epistle of First Corinthians in which the Last Supper is portrayed. Some scholars do not believe that the Last Supper occurred during the Passover meal. But this mindset is not just limited to just several Biblical scholars. Today, some Christians also maintain that the Lord’s Supper did not take place during the annual celebration of their exodus from Egypt. Yet, the evidence derived from the New Testament and outside sources confirm that the Last Supper did indeed happen during this sacred meal.^[2]

            When Christians fail to understand the traditions of the Passover in the first-century, this lack of perception can result in some rather bizarre interpretations of the Eucharistic sayings, chiefly among some believers associated with the one-cup and nonSunday school fellowships/churches. The positive evidence that this meal was a Passover meal is that this particular gathering occurred in the city, not in the suburbs of Jerusalem. Also, this meal transpired at night, not in the late afternoon. Another part of positive evidence is that a hymn was sung at the end of the meal, which was true of the Passover observance in the first-century. Another piece of evidence is that during the Passover in the first century, individuals reclined rather than sat around a table (Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:14). Additionally, the Passover lamb, the bitter herbs, and so on, also lends credence to the Passover festivity. Last, but not least, four ritualistic cups were employed during the Passover: (1) The Cup of Consecration, (2) The Cup of Proclamation, (3) The Cup of Blessing, and (4) The Cup of Hallel [praise].^[3]

            One of the four ritualistic cups stands out in this meal, namely, The Cup of Blessing, the cup “after supper” (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:25). Luke also identifies this particular cup with the phrase “after supper” [μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, meta to deipnhsai] (Luke 22:20), which simply means after the meal proper. Prior to the eating of the Passover meal, two other cups were drunk—The Cup of Consecration and The Cup of Proclamation. Neither Matthew nor Mark identifies the particular cup; the phrase “after supper” is absent from their accounts. Paul is the only one of the writers who identifies the name of the cup utilized—“The Cup of Blessing.” On the other hand, Luke is the only one who mentions two of the four cups (Luke 22:7-23)—second and third cups.

            What does the name “The Cup of Blessing” (τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, to pothrion eulogias)^[4] signify? For the Jews, this cup symbolized their thanksgiving to God for His deliverance from Egyptian bondage, which was a blessing. Today, this third cup is the cup that signifies redemption from the kingdom of Satan and transference to God’s kingdom. In other words, this Cup of Blessing reminds each believer of God’s atonement for the redemption of humanity, namely, Jesus. Paul adds an additional saying of Jesus: “do this in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24, 25). Of this cup, Jesus says, “This is my blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:28). In other word, this third cup represented His covenant blood. This expression—“blood of the Covenant”—is confusing to many Christians. Gustaf Dalman writes: “This leads to the translation ‘This is my covenant-blood’. The interpreting words would in this case mean: ‘The wine of the cup which I offer to you, signifies to you a covenant-blood, which, moreover, will soon be contained in my blood’”.^[5] This Cup of Blessing is the most appropriate cup to represent redemption from the bondage of sin. Many Christians within the one-cup and nonSunday school movement misunderstand this expression about the “blood of the Covenant”. In fact, many of these Christians identify the literal drinking vessel as representing the new covenant, not the blood.  In a debate between E. H. Miller and M. L. Lemley (80 years old at the time of the written debate), Miller states:

Brother Lemley may say, “The cup” is the “blood—which ratifies the covenant.” But Jesus will differ with him; for Jesus said as just quoted, “This cup, he said, is the new covenant ratified by my blood which is to be poured out on your behalf.” So the cup is the covenant ratified by the blood, but is not the blood that ratified the covenant. If Lemley says, “Notice it says, ‘which is shed for you,’ or as Weymouth’s translations says, ‘which is poured out on your behalf,’ and that which ‘is shed’ or ‘poured out’ refers to ‘the cup,” I will have to differ with him, for Jesus did not shed a cup. Alford’s Greek New Testament with English notes says, “These words can not be of TO POTERION (Greek for “the cup” E.H. M.), which is not poured out.” ^[6]

THE IMPLIED READER VERSUS THE REAL READER

Since this essay seeks to unfold the context of the various Eucharistic sayings, it is necessary to call attention to the original readers and the readers of today. Many twenty-first century readers still read “the cup” or “a cup” and automatically assume that this indicates one container for the distribution (divide among yourselves—Luke 22:17) of the fruit of the vine. This is not just a phenomenon among the one-cup fellowship, but it is also widespread among many scholars. Contrary to the views of many Christians concerning the meaning of “cup” as a literal drinking vessel, this author states emphatically that “The Cup of Blessing” did not refer to a single drinking vessel, but rather to the ritualistic cup—name given to a particular filling of their cups. In other words, there were “four formal drinkings of the cup at the Passover service.”^[7] In the Passover, each participant had his or her own cup.^[8] During this ceremony, the participants filled their cups four different times; each filling was referred to as “the cup.” This essay analyzes this unique expression—“The Cup of Blessing”—in light of the historical background of the Passover. The answer to this confusing problem does not lie in the use of Lexicons (Greek dictionaries), but rather in the historical background to the Passover in the first-century, which the implied reader understood.^[9]

            Since God’s revelation is given in story form to His people, this arrangement of communication enables them to arrive at a more precise identification in seeking answers to complex problems that divide many Christians. Literary criticism is one means of gaining a greater insight to the author’s meaning(s). Literary criticism, for example, controls the looseness that is frequently employed in the investigation of a solitary phrase.^[10] Literary criticism recognizes that a single text or multiple texts are a part of a larger whole. Hayes and Holladay have correctly stated: “In attempting to understand a particular text, the exegete should seek to see the text within the structure of the major context as well as within the structure of the sub-units.^[11] When the reader poses questions about the literary placement of certain passages, he or she is able to arrive at certain conclusions that might otherwise be missed. Literary analysis of a text helps one to focus more closely upon the individual texts. This form of interpretation assists one in grasping more fully the intent of the author.

            This philosophy of interpretation dealing with the complete text is thoroughly worked out by Mark Allen Powell in his study guide on narrative criticism.^[12] He points out justly: “Literary criticism focuses on the finished form of the text.”^[13] Again, Powell states the matter even more firmly, “Literary analysis does not dissect the text but discerns the connecting threads that hold it together.”^[14] Dissecting the text from its context contributes often times to an improper application of the text. The goal of literary criticism is to read the text as the implied reader^[15] read the text.

            The implied reader may know things that are not in the text. But, on the other hand, the real reader frequently consults outside reading in order to understand the text more fully. A classic example of this concept of distinguishing between the implied reader and the real reader is found in my study on “The Passover Traditions in the First Century.  Seymour Chatman in drawing attention to the meaning of the implied reader puts it this way: “The counterpart of the implied author is the implied reader—not the flesh-and-bones you or I sitting in our living rooms reading the book, but the audience presupposed by the narrative itself.”^[16]  Narrative criticism helps to narrow the gap between the real reader and the implied reader.^[17]

SCHOLARS DISAGREE

Scholars are divided over whether the Lord’s Supper occurred before the Passover (Kiddush meal) or during the Passover.^[18] Joachim Jeremias advances the belief that the Last Supper occurred during the Passover, but, at the same time, he cites the conviction, according to some scholars, that the Supper did not occur during the Passover since Matthew and Mark indicate that only one cup was used in the Last Supper; therefore, it could not have been the Passover since, in the time of Jesus, each one had his or her own cup.^[19] This failure to grasp the significance of the words of Mathew and Mark has led some to deny that the Lord’s Super occurred during the Passover—remember, cups were employed in the Passover. G. H. Box makes his arguments against the Last Supper as a Passover meal since both Matthew and Mark mention only one cup (container). Box, as well as many other scholars, is mistaken in this view; nevertheless, he writes with conviction that the Last Supper did not occur during the Passover:

In all the accounts it is noticeable that one Cup only is mentioned which was partaken of by all; whereas at the Passover a special point is made of each man having his own Cup to drink from. This is a point which is often overlooked, and to which it will be necessary to return.^[20]

Since Box misunderstood the phraseology in Matthew and Mark concerning the “cup” saying, he then drew conclusion that denied an original witness’ testimony (Matthew) concerning the time frame of the Lord’s Supper—the Passover. Box states his reasons for denying the Lord’s Supper occurred during the Passover since both Matthew and Mark mention, according to his interpretation, only one cup. Jeremias, a contributor to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes concerning this dispute:

On the other hand, it is claimed that by the time of Jesus individual cups were used at the Passover meal; since, according to Mark 14.23 par., all the people present at the Last Supper drank from the same cup, supposedly this is evidence for the fact that the Last Supper could not have been a Passover meal.^[21]

            Box, and many other scholars, read Mark 14:23, not with the eyes of the implied reader, but with the eyes of the real reader, that is to say with the eyes of the twentieth or twenty-first century—falling into subjective dreamland. Unfortunately, the reading and interpretation of the Eucharistic sayings often flows from a fertile imagination, not the text itself. G. H. Box’s reasoning is a classic example of one who fails to read the text in the eyes of the original readers, and, as a result of this failure, he denies that the Last Supper occurred during the Passover meal. Yet, the Synoptics specifically state that the Last Supper took place during the Passover. Box writes with boldness concerning his denial of the Last Supper as having occurred during a Passover meal. Since, in his understanding, both Matthew and Mark mention only one cup, he concludes that this meal was a Kiddush (קִדּוּשּׁ, q!DDWv, “sanctification”) meal, not a Passover meal since only one cup was employed.^[22] In 1928, F. Gavin also denied that the Eucharist occurred during the Passover:

The Berakha par excellence was for the early Christians the Eucharist, which term may well have been the attempt to render the Hebrew noun into Greek. For the explanation of the origin of the Christian Eucharist, we must look rather to the Fellowship Supper of the Eve (the Kiddush) than to the Passover, and, in order to explain its significance and unique character, to the early evaluation of our Lord.^[23]

What is the answer to the dilemma that scholars face in trying to determine the historical background to the Lord’s Supper? The answer lies in understanding the practice of the Passover in the time of Christ. Not only do some Christians fail to understand the traditions in the first century, but they also turn to Greek dictionaries (lexicons) to determine the meaning of the word cup. Dictionaries are extremely helpful, but the definition of a word does not necessarily define the word in its context.  Prior to an examination of the Eucharistic sayings in the Synoptics and Paul, a few words about Greek lexicons are in order. Not all Greek lexicons or scholars so define the word cup as a drinking vessel in the various Eucharistic versions.

UTILIZATION OF LEXICONS

Thayer’s Greek—Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

            Among the one-cup movement, many preachers and teachers rely heavily upon the use of lexicons to establish credence for their interpretation of the Eucharistic texts, especially Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon.^[24] As one seeks to determine the meaning of a word in a given context, one should be conscious that a lexicon does not always tell the whole story. Even though dictionaries are important, one must also consult the context before assigning a particular meaning to a particular word. Since a lexicographer often employs his own understanding of the text, one must make sure that he or she is giving a definition that the author intended to convey in the telling of his or her story. One’s definition should be the meaning assigned by the author of the first-century, not the twenty-first century. To illustrate this point more clearly, this author wishes to cite the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a Greek lexicographer. He was conscious of the dangers that lexicographers encounter when they seek to define a word or words. As a result of this awareness, he issues a warning in the use of lexicons:

The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context or discussion:—or  to state the same truth from another point of view, the lexicographer often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition of the passage in which the reference occurs. In such a case he is compelled to assume, at least to some extent, the functions of the exegete, although he can and should refrain from rehearsing the general arguments which support the interpretation adopted, as well as from arraying the objections to opposing interpretations.^[25]

            The lexicographers generally define the word cup (ποτήριον, pothrion) as a “drinking vessel.” If the lexicographer fails to grasp the context of the author, as Box and Gavin, he or she may fail in giving the correct definition of the word in context. Thayer, as stated above, cautions his readers with these words: “the lexicographer often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition of the passage in which the reference occurs.”  An answer to the dilemma that one faces in trying to arrive at a correct definition is not etymology (word origins or growth of vocabulary). In other words, the growth of vocabulary is not adequate to discover its precise meaning in any given context. Two factors help in determining the meaning of a particular word: (1) context, and (2) historical background surrounding the word. As one seeks to understand the context, one must be conscious that an authentic interpretation is one that relates matters of fact as they really happened. David Allen Black says, “It is important to remember that Greek words (like English ones) have a meaning that is context-determined to a significant degree.”^[26]

            It is in this vein that L. Berkhof writes: A word is never fully understood until it is apprehended as a living word, i.e., as it originated in the soul of the author.”^[27] It is not uncommon for interpreters to interpret the words of Scripture with twenty-first century eyeglasses. In other words, many Christians transfer the authors of the first century to the twenty-first century, and then interpret words with modern day understanding. Berkhof is correct when he writes:

Moreover, he will have to transfer himself mentally into the first century A.D., and into oriental conditions. He must place himself on the standpoint of the author, and seek to enter into his very soul, until he, as it were, lives his life and thinks his thoughts. This means that he will have to guard carefully against the rather common mistake of transferring the author to the present day and making him speak the language of the twentieth century. If he does not avoid this, the danger exists, as McPheerter expresses it, that “the voice he hears (will) be merely the echo of his own ideas” Bible Student, Vol. III, No. II.^[28]

The admonition of Thayer and the counsel of Berkhof should be applied in one’s study of the Eucharistic words of Jesus, especially among Christians who are divided over the use of the number of drinking vessels in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. This author (Dallas Burdette) still has relatives of the one-cup persuasion that refuse fellowship with him. Debates are still conducted over the use of multiple cups in the distribution of the fruit of the vine. The Lord’s Supper represents unity, not division. The Body of Christ is fractured into warring factions over the Last Supper. The Christian community is alienated into militaristic splinter group over the use of individual cups in the Lord’s Supper. Before examining other Lexicographers concerning the meaning of the word cup in the Synoptic accounts and the Pauline account, a note is in order concerning division within the so-called restoration movement of the Churches of Christ.

UNITY OR DIVISION

One Cup

            Unfortunately, the Lord’s Supper has been the cause of division and death down through the centuries, a Meal designed by God to unite His people. Within the Churches of Christ, there is a division, as stated above, over the use of multiple cups versus the use of one common cup for the distribution of the fruit of the vine. Many, not all, one-cup congregations refuse fellowship with those who use individual cups in the Lord’s Supper. The Churches of Christ also divided over the use of wine versus grape juice. Other congregations within the one-cup movement also divided over whether to break the bread or pinch the bread (that is to say, the bread must remain one whole). 

These divisions should never have happened. The one-cup divisions resulted from certain Christians’ failure to look at the Eucharistic sayings in light of each writer of the New Testament. Since this Supper occurred within the context of a Passover meal, one must seek to understand the rituals observed during the time of Christ in order to interpret correctly the Eucharistic sayings in the Synoptics and Pauline writings. In spite of what some advance in the one-cup and non-Sunday school fellowship, there is nothing in the Lord’s Supper sayings in Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor Paul that teaches that Jesus employed one cup (container) from which all drank. The people in that day did not all drink from the same container during a meal anymore that individuals drink from the same glass or cup during a meal today. The traditional interpretation among the one-cup Christians is a forced interpretation of the text—in spite of their sincerity. This essay will briefly analyze some of the texts in order to bring, hopefully, unity among God’s people.

Communion Table: Center or East End of Church?

            Before analyzing the various texts dealing with the Lord’s Supper, another controversy is worthy of note to illustrate how Christians have used the Lord’s Supper to create division, not unity—unity for which Jesus prayed and which the Lord’s Supper conveys. Debate over the Communion has plagued God’s people down through the ages. For instance, a case in point occurred during the reign of Charles I (1625-1649). William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury (1573-1645) sought to enforce cannon law upon the Puritan churches.^[29] One of the grievances that the Established Church had against the Puritans was over the location of the communion table. The Puritans wanted it in the middle of the church building, but the Established Church wanted it in the east end of the house of worship.^[30] Even though the English people had endured the tyranny of the king, nevertheless, the Scotch Covenanters had rebelled. When the soldiers of Charles I invaded Scotland, their sympathies lay with the Scots. They broke into the churches and moved the communion tables into the middle of the building.^[31] Christians, so it seems, have forgotten the central purpose of the Lord’s Supper, as explained above. Emil Brunner, too, explains the sad situation, as early as 1936, in his remarks about the Sacraments:

The sacrament which was to have united Christians has become an apple of discord, rending Christendom up to the present day, and even setting by the ears our own reformers Luther and Zwingli. Hence it becomes necessary for us to ponder anew the meaning of that mysterious rite of the Church, which from ancient times has been described as a sacrament.^[32]

Differences in the Accounts

An examination of the Synoptic accounts and the Pauline account should help many Christians within the one-cup movement to come to a better understanding of what the communion is all about. Just a casual glance at the four accounts—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul—reveals that they all differ in some aspects. Neither Matthew nor Mark employ the phrase “after supper” (μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, meta to deipnhsai [1 Corinthians 11:25; Luke 22:20), a phrase employed by Luke and Paul. This phrase is used to indicate that participation in this cup did not occur until after the Passover meal itself. In Matthew and Mark there is no separation between the bread and cup, but, on the other hand, this eating of the bread and the drinking of the third cup in the Passover is separated by the meal proper, which both Luke and Paul attest. None of the writers of the New Testament give a verbatim record of every detail concerning the observance of the Passover meal, a meal in which Jesus instituted His supper. Listen to Higgins as he explains:

2. In the accounts no mention is made of the paschal lamb and the bitter herbs. The narratives, however, even the most primitive in form, that of Mark, are to be regarded not as verbatim records of every detail of the gathering in the upper room, but primarily as cultic formulae which reflect the liturgical practice of the early Church. That is why emphasis is laid on the bread and wine and the words spoken about them by Jesus, to the exclusion of other details which were of the first importance in any Passover meal, but had no place at all in the Church’s Eucharist.^[33]

Of the four writers, Paul is the only one who gives the name of the cup after supper—“The cup of blessing” (10:16). This is significant since the third cup used during the Passover is called “The Cup of Blessing.” The confusion, among many Christians is the use of the singular word cup. This word cup is then interpreted as having reference to a literal container in the Lord’s Supper.  Another item that grabs one’s attention is the cup sayings in Matthew/Mark versus Luke/Paul.  The following chart illustrates the differences:

Matthew 26:28	Luke 22:20
This is my blood of theb covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.	“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Mark 14:24	1 Corinthians 11:25
“This is my blood of thea covenant, which is poured out for many.”	“This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

 

            Whether one reads “This is my blood of the covenant” or “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,” both statements mean one and the same thing. “Blood” and “cup” are synonymous. Should the word cup be interpreted literally or figuratively? Did the four accounts use the word cup in a literal sense? In spite of Thayer’s comments concerning the meaning of cup in the Eucharistic sayings, there are other scholars—equal in scholarship—who give another meaning—a figurative meaning. For instance, Leonhard Goppelt defines the word cup (ποτήριον, pothrion) as:

Contents: 1. The Usage. 2. The Cup in the literal Sense (Mt.23:25 f. par. Lk. 11:39 f.). 3. The figurative Use: a. The Cup of Wrath; b. The Cup of Suffering. 4. The Cup at the Lord’s Supper: a. The Cup in the Eschatological Saying Lk. 22:17 f.; b. The Cup of the Interpretative Saying; c. The Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Demons (1 C.10).^[34]

 

He does not include the “cup” in the Synoptic sayings as literal. Hermann Patsch also calls attention to the literal use of the word cup in the New Testament writings versus its figurative use. He does not place the literal meaning on the word cup in his essay on ποτήριον (pothrion):
 

The subst. ποτήριον, which corresponds with Heb. Kos, occurs 31 times in the NT, in the literal sense only in Mark 7:4; 9:41 par. Matthew 10.42; Matt 23:25f. par. Luke 11:39. Otherwise it is metaphorical (Gospels, Revelation) or used as a metonym (the eucharist tradition in the Synoptics and Paul). Only Rev 17:4 mentions the material of a drinking vessel; nowhere does its form (see BRL 181, illustration 43) play a role.^[35]
 

            Following these comments about the Greek word ποτήριον, he then gives additional comments about the two cups in Luke. He assigns the first cup as The Cup of Consecration, which he refers to as the kiddush over which the Seder is introduced with a benediction, and the third cup as the consecrated cup. In my judgment, he mistakenly identifies the first cup mentioned by Luke. If one follows the sequence of Luke, one assumes that the first cup mentioned by Luke is the second cup (The Cup of Proclamation, not The Cup of Consecration) and the third cup is The Cup of Blessing. In spite of this confusion, his comments are still worth citing:
 

3. If, as is probable, one can assume a Passover framework for Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, then the cup in Luke 22:17 is the first (kiddush) cup over which the Seder is introduced with a benediction (m P#s^j. 10:2), the cup of the “interpretation” is the third cup (m P#s^j. 10:7), the consecrated cup” (Heb. Kos v#l B#r*k&, b. B#r 51a; Jos. As. 8:9 [11]: ποτήριον εὐλογίας) after the main meal, over which Jesus gives thanks (Mark 14:23 par. Luke 22:10a/Matt 26:27/1 Cor 11:25a; cf 10:16)—εὐλογέω 3. In the interpretation (made explicit in Luke 22:20b par. 1 Cor 11:25b) the vessel is always a metonym for its contents, the wine.^[36]
 

One observes a great deal of confusion on the part of scholars as they seek to disclose the interpretation of the Eucharist, which is self-evident as one reads after the scholars. Sometimes, one comes away with the idea that Jesus handed His disciples a literal cup and that they all drank from the same cup. Goppelt recognizes that each person present at the Passover had his own cup: “They are all to drink of this cup, or, less probably, to fill their own cups from it. The common drinking united the disciples in table fellowship under the saying uttered with this cup.”^[37] The expression “this cup” does not refer to one literal container for the whole group, but rather to the ‘formal drinking” of the third cup, which is called “The Cup of Blessing.” “This cup” is equivalent to the third filling of their individual cups. Four different times during the Passover, they filled their cups. Each filling was referred to by a particular name—(1) The Cup of Consecration, (2) The Cup of Proclamation, (3) The Cup of Blessing, and (4) The Cup of Hallel. Even though each person had his own cup, this drinking still represented the disciples in united table fellowship. Whether one drinks from the same container or from his own individual cup, one still participates in table fellowship—a fellowship that commemorates the death of Jesus until He comes again.

One observes differences between Matthew/Mark and Paul/Luke, as illustrated in the chart above. For example, Paul and Luke begin with τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἠ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματι, touto to pothrion Jh kainh diaqhkh en tw Jamati, (“This cup is the new testament in my blood,” [1 Corinthians 11:25 and Luke 22:20]). On the other hand, Matthew and Mark begin with τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης, touto gar estin to Jaima mou ths diaqhkhs (“For this is my blood of the covenant” [Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24]). Goppelt writes: “Whether the interpretation begins with τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον (Paul, Lk.) or with τοῦτο (Mk., Mt.), it refers, not to the cup, but to its contents, (red) wine. Nevertheless, the second element in the Lord’s Supper is almost always called the cup rather than the wine in the NT.”^[38] Again, he pens: “In Lk. 22:20b 1 C. 11:25b the cup is used metonym. For what it contains.”^[39] Whether one says, “This is my blood” or “this cup,” one is saying the same thing. The emphasis is upon the red wine as representative of the new covenant, not a literal drinking vessel representative of the covenant.

            The word covenant is a word that is frequently misapplied by many Christians. This author (Dallas Burdette) grew up in the one-cup movement in which the “covenant,” or “new testament” was identified as twenty-seven books called the “New Testament.”  This identification was and is a misunderstanding of the Greek word διαθήκη (diaqhkh), which is equivalent to the Hebrew בְּרִית (B=r!‚‚T), which also means “covenant.”  William Barclay defines a covenant as: “A Covenant is a relationship of friendship into which two people enter, with mutual pledges of fidelity. In the New Testament the covenant is the relationship between God and his people.”^[40] Mark, author of the Gospel of Mark, employs a phrase that is difficult for some to understand—“blood of the covenant” (αἶμά μου τῆς διαθήκης, Jaima mou ths diaqhkhs) [Mark 14:25].

The confusion results from the phraseology—noun in the genitive case. The Greeks often used the genitive of a noun instead of an adjective.  In English, one is more likely to say, “This is my covenant blood,” rather than “This is my blood of the covenant.” By changing this phrase to “covenant blood,” then the word Covenant is employed as an adjective, not as a noun in the genitive (a noun in the genitive expresses possession^[41]). Not only is the “blood” representative of the covenant, but, at the same time, the blood of Christ also seals this new relationship between God and humanity—a relationship based, not on works, but on the finished work of Christ upon Calvary. This view is the very opposite of the one-cup movement that maintains that the literal cup represents the new covenant and the blood seals the new covenant—two distinct emblems. An example of the literal cup representing the New Testament is found in the writings of E. H. Miller (1909-1989), one of the most outstanding defenders of the one-cup and nonSunday school movement; he puts it this way:
 

“He (Jesus) said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood,’ meaning, the new covenant is sealed, ratified, or sanctioned by His blood.”

Here, you see the cup is not the blood that “the new covenant (new testament) is sealed, ratified, or sanctioned by”. No! this shows “this cup is the new covenant (New Testament ‘sealed, ratified, or sanctioned’) in my blood.” Yes, the cup represents the New covenant or New Testament that was sealed, ratified, or sanctioned in or by Christ’s blood, and the fruit of the vine represents the blood of Christ which the New Covenant or New Testament was sealed, ratified, or sanctioned in, or by.^[42]

            Miller writes about three emblems in the Lord’s Supper: (1) Bread, (2) Cup [literal container], and (3) Fruit of the vine [grape juice]. He fails, in my judgment, to understand the phrase “blood of the covenant” or the phrase “in my blood.” What does “in my blood” mean? William Barclay explains the words this way:
 

What is the meaning of the phrase in my blood? The Hebrew word B=  (the + is pronounced as in the) means at the price of, and it is frequently translated by the Greek word en, the word which is used here in the phrase usually translated in my blood; and it is true that the basic meaning of en is in. David demands Michal to wife, for he has betrothed her at the price of a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. At the price of is in Hebrew B=, and in the Greek of the Septuagint en. I would suggest that the en in the phrase in my blood means at the price of my blood.” The covenant blood is the blood which makes the covenant possible, the price of the relationship.^[43]
 

The red wine represents the covenant and, at the same time, the red wine represents the blood of the covenant, which blood seals the covenant. As one seeks to understand the Eucharistic sayings, one can only gain a true understanding of the richness of that whole when one allows the parts of the various accounts to speak for themselves. One cannot impose a meaning it will not bear. One must never go to the Bible looking for what will superficially meet one’s interpretation.  An honest assessment of the detailed evidence, as found in all the Eucharistic texts, reveals a different conclusion from the one-cup movement. One must accept the full relevance of the historical details as found in the Scriptures, not isolated texts from its context. One can learn from the patient study of trained scholars. It is in this regard that Johannes Behm is called forth to give testimony to help clarify the confusion on the part of many sincere believers. Behm correctly observed:
 

The most important Synoptic passage is the saying of Jesus in relation to the cup at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Mk. 14:24”: τουτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (Ma. 26:28: …τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχ. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) and 1 C. 11:25 in a traditional form: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι (on which is based Lk. 22:20 -- ἐστιν, + τὸ ὑπερ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον). Whatever Aramaic expression Jesus used, if He spoke of the διαθήκη of the last days on the basis of Jer. 31:31 ff., then according to Mk. He described the red wine in the cup as His blood of the διαθήκη (αἷμα I, 174). Or according to the Pauline tradition He described the cup (ποτήριον), i.e., its contents, as the new διαθήκη in virtue of His blood. Age, independence and difficulty suggest that the Pauline form is the older. Mk. has assimilated the saying to that concerning the bread and to Ex. 24:8: ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης. The saying in the Pauline form is to the effect that the blood (or death) of Jesus establishes the new διαθήκη, and that the wine in the Lord’s Supper is thus a representation of the new διαθήκη. Since Jeremiah (with Dt. Is.) was for Jesus the most familiar of all the prophets, we are undoubtedly to relate His saying concerning the new διαθήκη to Jer. 31:31 ff., whose counterpart, the διαθήκη at Sinai after the Exodus was constituted by blood.^[44]
 

            Whether one says, “This is my blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:25; Mark 14:24) or “This cup is the new covenant” (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25), one is saying the same thing. The blood of Christ represents the covenant, and, at the same time, it is the blood of Christ that ratifies, or guarantees, the actualization of the new divine order, that is to say, the new covenant, or new relationship between God and humanity. The violet death of Christ establishes the new divine order promised in Jeremiah 31:31 ff. The use of one literal container in the distribution of the red wine or a plurality of cups to distribute the red wine does not destroy the imagery or symbolism.

The meal is a reminder of the historical fact of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Both the bread and wine are symbols of redemption. In the observance of the Lord’s Supper, this external rite impresses upon the senses of God’s people the wonder of it all, that is to say, salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ upon the Tree. When Christians assemble to partake of the Table of the Lord, this activity is horizontal in nature, that is, it binds the people of God together. There is a sense in which Christians pledge their loyalty to Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father. God frames the new covenant with His own blood. The cup, or red wine, stands for the covenant and, simultaneously, actualizes this new union, or agreement.

            A. J. B. Higgins, too, correctly points out that the blood of Christ is representative of two things. Listen as he captures this line of reasoning: “The cup is the sign and pledge of a share in the new covenant.”^[45] What is the “cup”? Once more Higgins writes: “The blood or death of Jesus founds the new covenant, and so the wine represents the new covenant, the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31 ff.”^[46] Just a perusal of the Eucharistic accounts reveal that the real meaning of the Lord’s Supper is the commemoration of the death of Christ upon the Cross. Scott McCormick’s assessment of the “new covenant” is full of insight:
 

So the hope for a Suffering Servant, again like all Old Testament hope which was projected into the end-time, constituted a hope for a “new” covenant, a fully new and right relationship between God and his people. That would be his doing, same as the announcement itself was his. All of it rested on his initiative and the eternal sureness of his purpose in calling Israel in the first place.^[47]
 

            I. Howard Marshall, too, calls attention to the diversity in the Matthew/Mark and Luke/Paul accounts. His comments about the meaning of the word cup in Paul is worth citing, especially for its clarity concerning the significance of blood and covenant:
 

The saying over the cup takes the form ‘This is my blood of the covenant’ in Mark; this wording appears to echo Exodus 24:8, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.’ In Luke and Paul, however, we have the form ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood’. Here ‘This’ is identified explicitly as the cup, and the cup (or its contents) typifies not the blood which inaugurates the covenant but the covenant which is inaugurated by the blood; the addition of the word ‘new’ produces an allusion to Jeremiah 31:31.^[48]
 

            William Barclay (1907-1978) proposes two questions in seeking to understand the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He asks: “What does it mean to say that the bread is his body and the cup is his blood?”^[49] Back in 1970, this author visited E. H. Miller (his uncle) to share with him some of the things in Barclay’s book on the Lord’s Supper. One of the items concerned Barclay’s translation of the Short Text of the Sinaitic Syriac in Luke 22:20b: “This my blood is the new covenant, which is being poured out for you.”^[50] Miller (1909-1989)^[51] affirmed that no Greek manuscript gives such a rendering. He also declared that Barclay was wrong. At the time, I had no way of proving Barclay’s translation correct, other than I relied upon his scholarship and integrity as a Christian. Sometime later (1973), I purchased a book by Bruce M. Metzger in which he gives the Greek text of this Sinaitic Syriac manuscript. The following is a chart of the Nestle Greek text and the Sinaitic Syriac text:
 

The Nestle Greek Text	Sinaitic Syriac
Luke 22:20b	Luke 22:20b
Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”	Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἶμα μου ἡ διαθήκη ἡ καινή.[52] “This is my blood the new covenant.”

 

From this chart one observes that the Sinaitic Syriac has “blood” rather than “cup” as representative of the new covenant. Once more, the words of I. Howard Marshal are informative: “For Lk. the cup, i.e. its contents (L. Goppelt, TDNT VI, 155, n. 70), symbolizes the new covenant, in the sense that the new covenant is brought into being by what it signifies, namely, the sacrificial death of Jesus.”^[53] In this same vein, Vincent Taylor writes: “Of this life the wine is both the symbol and the means by which it is appropriated, in harmony with the words of Ex. xxiv. 11.”^[54]

Again, his words are to the point: “The ‘covenant’ is that relationship of lordship and obedience which God establishes between Himself and men, and ‘the blood of the covenant’ is the sign of its existence and the means by which it is effected.”^[55] Once more, Vincent is justified in his remarks concerning Paul’s phrase (τοῦτο τό ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι