Must We Use One Loaf and One Cup?

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

A few brethren contend that the Lord's Supper must be served using one loaf and one cup that everyone shares.

"Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

The one-cup brethren complain that the mention of the cup and the bread is being ignored. Jesus' body was one, and so they contend that the cup and the bread must also be one to reflect the Lord accurately.

The Bread Was Divided

"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body'" (Matthew 26:26).

When Jesus established the Lord's Supper, he first divided some bread between the disciples. "Some" is not directly in the Greek text, but the word for bread doesn't indicate how many loaves were the source of the pieces Christ divided. It is a minor point that we should take note of. However, let's assume that the pieces came from one loaf, even though the text doesn't actually say that they did.

Even though each disciple had his own piece of bread, the symbolism is not destroyed as they partook of the bread together when Christ commanded them to eat their piece. They were all sharing in the bread.

That bread was not the actual body of Christ because he was with them at the time. We understand this is a representation of his body that in the future would be given on behalf of mankind's sins, including their own.

The Fruit of the Vine Was Divided

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes'" (Luke 22:17-18).

A single cup was blessed, but it was distributed by dividing it among the disciples. Some argue that this was done prior to the Lord's Supper and is not how the actual Lord's Supper was done. The flaw in this reasoning is that the latter part of verse 17 says, "... I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." This refers to the Lord's Supper, as the accounts of Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25 clearly show. Just like the bread, each of the disciples had a portion before him. Luke's account provides an additional detail that Matthew and Mark's accounts skim over. Jesus first divided the contents of the cup and then instituted the Lord's Supper.

As you continue in Luke's account, you will realize that the bread was blessed, broken, and divided among the disciples after the cup with the fruit of the vine was divided among the disciples. Luke 22:20 begins, "Likewise He also took the cup after supper ..." The word "likewise" indicates that the same method was used for the cup as was done for the bread. It establishes the method in which the contents of the cup were distributed; it was divided and given to the disciples. Therefore, Luke's account demonstrates that multiple cups were used in the partaking of the fruit of the vine.

The actual drinking of the portions from the cup was not done until after the portion of bread was eaten. "And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood'" (Luke 22:20). All counterarguments made by one-cup believers ignore that the cup was first shared (Luke 22:17-18), then the bread was eaten (Luke 22:19), and then the shared cup was drunk (Luke 22:20).

What Luke's account shows us is that the fruit of the vine was divided among the disciples, each receiving it in their own individual cup. The Lord then blessed the bread, divided it among the disciples, and had them eat it. He then took the cup from which the disciples had taken a portion for each of them, blessed the contents, and told the disciples to drink. One cup was not in use. Each disciple had their own cup to hold the fruit of the vine while they were partaking of the bread.

Just as we pointed out with the bread, the fact that each had their own portion of the fruit of the vine means the symbolism that it represents, Christ's blood, remains the same. That symbolism did not require each disciple to drink from the same container.

The Locations for Partaking of the Lord's Supper Are Numerous

Look back at what Paul is stating in I Corinthians 1:16-17. His point is that as Christians partake of the Lord's Supper, they all share in the body and blood of Jesus. By saying "we" when he is not present with the Corinthians, he is including every Christian. Thus, the Lord’s Supper represents the unity of Christians in Christ (Romans 12:5). Although we are many separate individuals, we are united as one.

Because those in Corinth are not close to Thessalonica, Philippi, Antioch, or Jerusalem, we know that there wasn't a single loaf being shipped between the various congregations in a single day, which would have been physically impossible. Nor was a single cup being used by all the congregations. The fact that each congregation had its own bread and the fruit of the vine doesn't ruin the symbolism that they are sharing this memorial. It is still a united action.

Each congregation partakes of the Lord's Supper together since worship is done jointly (I Corinthians 11:18, 20; 14:23). But once again, that joint participation in each congregation does not depend on a single loaf or a single cup to represent the unity of the believers around the world.

How Could a Large Congregation Partake of the Lord's Supper?

The one-cup brethren will typically argue that if a congregation is too large to have one loaf and one cup, then the congregation must divide into smaller churches. The problem with the argument is that it is without foundation. You won't find a command or example of this being done in the New Testament. The congregation in Jerusalem initially had 3,000 members and continued to grow from there. Yet, it is always referred to as a single congregation.

Logic tells us that the only way the Lord's Supper could be served to such a large group would require multiple loaves and containers for the fruit of the vine.

A Metonymy of Subject

There is a figure of speech called a metonymy of subject. One item is being used to represent all. It isn't an uncommon form of speech:

• "Your men shall fall by the sword, and your mighty in the war" (Isaiah 3:25).
• "For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, from the bent bow, and from the distress of war" (Isaiah 21:15).
• "I will scatter them also among the Gentiles, whom neither they nor their fathers have known. And I will send a sword after them until I have consumed them" (Jeremiah 9:16).

In these examples, God isn't talking about a single sword. He is saying the people will die in a battle where many swords will be used. Why use the singular instead of the plural? Because it emphasizes the fact that it was a battle controlled by one source (God). It emphasizes the unity of action among the many parts.

We can see the metonymy of subject in "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? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread" (I Corinthians 10:16-17). Paul is in Ephesus when he wrote this to the Corinthians, but he speaks of the cup and the bread which he, the Corinthians, and all Christians, for that matter, partake. It is the cup and the bread, which are taken by Christians all over the world. The singular is being used when we know multiple is involved. It makes it stand out and makes us realize that the focus is on unity in the participation of this memorial.