one cup – La Vista Church of Christ

How Many Containers in the Lord’s Supper Cup?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 02 May 2026 20:22:55 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Some divisions have plagued churches over the meaning and use of the word “cup” when Jesus spoke of taking “this cup” as He instituted the Lord’s Supper from the old Passover meal. Was Jesus telling His disciples to use only one container among them, and that even when they suddenly grew into 3000 and more disciples in Jerusalem on Pentecost, they were to all make sure that they all shared drinking the fruit of the vine from a single container? Was Jesus talking about the container or the content of the fruit of the vine?

One Content or One Container?

First, Paul mentioned “this cup” and “drink it” (I Corinthians 11:25). Was he saying to drink the content or drink the container? We never drink a container. I don’t believe it can be done. When we drink “it”, we are drinking the fruit of the vine. That fruit of the vine may be divided into several containers, but it is still one cup.

Secondly, Paul said, “Drink this cup” (I Corinthians 11:26). He wrote this in Ephesus to the Corinthian church. Were they to get the container Paul was using in Ephesus and bring it to Corinth so they could drink from it? He said drink this cup, not that cup you have in Corinth. Obviously, the church at Ephesus and the church at Corinth were drinking from the SAME cup (the fruit of the vine), but not from the same container.

Third, Matthew records that Jesus “took the cup…and gave it to them” (Matthew 26:27). Was the cup a reference to the container or the content (fruit of the vine)? From Luke’s account, “He took the cup….and said, ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17). Were they to divide a container? Break a container into pieces and give each disciple a piece? No! They had their own containers from the Passover feast, and Jesus told them to divide the fruit of the vine among themselves by pouring it into their various containers. So, “cup” is used by metonymy to mean the content, namely, the fruit of the vine.

Insisting on a single container is not what Jesus was doing. Insisting on the common drink of the fruit of the vine, as the cup is clearly what Jesus was calling for, is what Jesus was calling for, and that is how Paul could be drinking the same cup in Ephesus as the Corinthians were drinking in Corinth.

Several Cups versus One Cup

When we consider what several cups would look like in the context of the Lord’s Supper, it would look more like this. Several different cups would be: water, cola, milk, coffee, tea, grape juice, apple juice, tomato juice, etc. That would be several different cups. If we divide these among ourselves, we do not partake of the same cup. However, in the context of the Lord’s Supper, we do use one cup, namely, only the fruit of the vine. We can divide this among ourselves, and it is always one cup. We can have brethren in Ephesus and Corinth and even across centuries to different locations, still dividing among all that one cup, and it remains one cup, no matter how many containers are used to divide it out. It is a poorly thought-out argument to insist that Jesus made the container a third essential element of the Lord’s Supper. The container is only an expediency in holding the fruit of the vine. There is no symbolism in the container, and there is no evidence that the disciples divided the container among themselves. They had their own individual containers and divided out the contents of the fruit of the vine into their individual containers.

If “the cup” means the container:

We must divide that one container among ourselves. Our one-cup brethren never do that.
We must insist that people take a chunk of wood out of “the Table” in order to “partake of the Lord’s table” (I Corinthians 10:21).

If not, why not? Why would “the cup” be literal, but partaking of the table would not be literal? In all my years of dealing with this issue, I have never gotten a straight answer from the brethren who insist on using one container in the Lord’s Supper. The fruit of the vine is the one cup that is shared by brethren all over the world, and there was never any significance attached to the containers used by the various disciples. We do not allow someone to insist on one container, just one common content, the fruit of the vine.

Do not be deceived!

Must We Use One Loaf and One Cup?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 23:41:14 +0000

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.

Who is supposed to guide local congregations?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:23:06 +0000

Question:

I am from a church of Christ that is normally referred to as one cup, no Sunday school, no divorce and remarriage, etc.

My question is this: If there are no positions of pastors nowadays, who is supposed to guide the local congregation? Who can we go to in the time of struggle, problems, issues, questions, if no man steps up to be an elder or whatever the positions should be called?

I know to pray. I know to ask my husband, but he knows nothing about the Scriptures except what he had heard. Certainly, nothing he has studied on his own. He doesn't do that.

I respectfully submit that even married women need someone to ask questions of, get help from in a time of need. I would carefully consider the counseling of a married elder and would not consent to counsel without his wife present. I know the implications of that and it just shouldn't be done.

Who then shepherds the congregation? We have some men in the local body who preach sometimes. We have visiting preachers. But help! I do not want to lead myself astray and continue to study by myself. I don't stand a chance!

Please offer me some guidance. Thank you.

Answer:

"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:11-16).

Regarding elders and their duties, see Vacant Chairs. Every congregation doesn't have men qualified to be elders but no congregation with qualified men should be avoiding having men serve as elders.

Regarding limiting the Lord's Supper to one physical container, see Shouldn’t the Lord’s Supper only use one cup?

Regarding Bible classes, see Is there authority for Bible classes segregated by ages?

I doubt you will convince the congregation you are attending to get closer to what the Bible actually teaches. Thus, you'll have to consider attending a different congregation. See Congregations of the Churches of Christ.

The Lord’s Supper with a Twenty-Gallon Cup — How Long Did You Say that Would Take?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:18:46 +0000

by Jeff Smelser

I do not look down on congregations in which saints share one cup in partaking of the Lord’s Supper. When I have occasion to assemble with brethren whose practice is such, I happily share in the one cup. However, there are points to be made from Luke 22, Matthew 26, I Corinthians 10, and I Corinthians 11 showing that God did not intend to put special emphasis on the number of containers, that being “one.” In addition to these points usually brought to bear on the subject, I’d like to offer a practical consideration that tells me the earliest disciples did not use one container when partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

In Acts 2:46, we read that the disciples were meeting “with one accord in the temple.” In Acts 5:12 we find them “all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.” I take it that when they ate the Lord’s Supper, they would have done so all together in the environs of the Temple. Acts 4:4 tells us their number had come to be about 5,000, just counting the men. So let’s assume there were about 10,000 disciples at the time. There were at least 2 or 3 areas that could have accommodated 10,000 people gathered in the courts facing the length of Solomon’s portico.

But imagine the logistics of 10,000 people partaking of the Lord’s Supper together (note the emphasis on “together” in Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 11:33 ― that’s the manner in which the supper is to be eaten), using only one cup. If we allow 5 seconds per person, it would take almost 14 hours for 10,000 people to drink from one cup. And that doesn’t include time for the bread!

Now maybe you think 5 seconds per person is more than generous. I think you’ll change your mind once you consider the size of that cup. If each person sipped only one-quarter of an ounce, for 10,000 people the cup would have to contain 19 ½ gallons, and would weigh more than 150 lbs). Imagine wielding a cup containing nearly twenty gallons (more like a trash can), and doing so deftly enough so as to avoid dumping a gallon or two on yourself, doing so deftly enough to sip no more than a quarter ounce, and then lowering it and passing it on to the next person, all within 5 seconds. Well, someone may suppose that, surely, rather than passing it around, they would have had four men tipping it as each disciple came to the place where the cup was stationed. But try doing that in less than 5 seconds per person. I think our 5 seconds per person assumption is on the speedy side.

If we are willing to believe they had a 20 gallon cup and that they were content to spend 18 hours to accomplish the drinking of the cup, and some time more for the bread (and all remain there for the duration so as to be doing this “together”), then, yes, we can believe they used one cup.

The Lord’s Supper: Two or Three Symbols?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:09:00 +0000

by Jefferson David Tant

From time to time, brethren have discussions about the Lord’s Supper with respect to the “one cup” view as opposed to the practice of serving the fruit of the vine in multiple cups. I have had discussions with those of the “one cup” view through the years, and have studied the matter to the following conclusions.

One of the arguments proposed by those who maintain the whole congregation must use only one cup, one container, for the fruit of the vine, is that Christ actually taught there were three elements in the Lord’s Supper, i.e., the bread (Christ’s body), the fruit of the vine (Christ’s blood), and the cup or container (the new covenant). Therefore, there can be only one container, since there is only one covenant. This argument, though made with all sincerity, is made with a lack of understanding of common grammar. I do not say one needs a Ph.D. in English before one can understand the Bible, but God’s word is written in a language, and it does employ correct grammatical constructions, whether in the original Greek or in subsequent translations. Thus in teaching a Baptist the truth about Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38, we rightly stress the fact that “and” is a coordinate conjunction that couples words of equal rank.

Our “one cup” brethren, I believe, misunderstand or misapply the scriptures because the various accounts of the Lord’s Supper are not word-for-word the same. This is not a problem to them with respect to the varying accounts of the inscriptions on the cross, but it does present a problem when it comes to the Lord’s Supper. Note Matthew and Mark compared with Luke and Paul:

(Matthew and Mark) “this is My blood of the covenant”
(Luke and Paul) “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” — “This cup is the new covenant in My blood”

It is the contention of the “one cup” brethren that these readings are not the same, for the passages give three symbols, not two. In other words, they believe that Matthew says, “this (contents of the cup) is my blood…,” while Luke is saying “this cup (literally container) is the new covenant…” (Matthew 26:28 and Luke 22:20).

The Use of Metonymy

We need to consider what metonymy is. Webster says: “metonymy—use of one word for another that it suggests, as…the container for the things contained…” For example, I may commend my wife’s cooking by saying, “This dish is delicious.” What is delicious? The china? No, the contents — the Italian spaghetti. When one says, “The radiator is boiling,” is the car’s radiator literally boiling? No, but by metonymy, the container represents the water contained. “Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (Hebrews 11:7). Did he actually put his dwelling on the ark? No, for “house” stands for “family.” His dwelling is not even in consideration. And so with “cup” in our texts and in other places.

“For thus says the LORD, "Behold, those who were not sentenced to drink the cup will certainly drink it…” (Jeremiah 49:12). Here is the cup of bitterness with respect to impending judgment. “Thus says the Lord GOD, 'You will drink your sister's cup, which is deep and wide. You will be laughed at and held in derision; it contains much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of horror and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You will drink it and drain it. Then you will gnaw its fragments and tear your breasts; for I have spoken,' declares the Lord GOD” (Ezekiel 23:32-34).

In these two passages, the “cup” is used to stand for the contents — bitterness, pain, and sorrow. In the figurative language Ezekiel uses, after “drinking the cup’s contents,” they would be in so much distress that they would then begin to gnaw at the drinking vessel itself. In these texts, “cup” stands for the thing contained, bitterness and sorrow, and the container itself is not included in the symbolism, it is not the literal cup that was drunk, but rather bitterness and sorrow were what was drunk.

When metonymy is employed, it can have only one symbol. The figure and that for which it stands cannot both be a part of the meaning. In “This dish is delicious,” either the china or the food must be under consideration, not both. One stands for the other, not along with. Thus “cup” in our texts is either the literal crockery, or it is the contents—the fruit of the vine. The same word in the same position in the text cannot refer to both.

A Parallel

Now, let us examine the statements of Matthew and Luke to see if there really is a difference in “this is my blood of the covenant” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Matthew says “this is…” What is “this?” The antecedent of the pronoun is “cup.” There is no violence done in substituting the noun for the pronoun since the pronoun stands in the place of the noun. Therefore, the two passages can be read thusly: “this (cup) is my blood…” (Matthew), and This cup is the new covenant…” (Luke).

Let me give a parallel. Suppose we have a man who has been convicted of some misdemeanor. In lieu of going to jail, the judge suggests the man give a pint of blood to the Red Cross. After giving the blood, the man holds the jar in his hand and remarks, “This is my blood of freedom.” A few moments later, he repeats to another person, “This jar is freedom in my blood.” Has he said the same thing? Certainly so. In the first sentence, he said, “This (the jar in his hand) is my blood of freedom.” The literal jar is not the object, but its contents and its contents represent his freedom, as it is the means by which his freedom is secured. Note that the literal container had nothing to do with his freedom. It was what the container held. In the second sentence, he simply said the same thing in another construction. The “jar” is not his freedom, but by metonymy, its contents represent his freedom. Is there any problem in understanding that? How many symbols are used in his statements—one or two? Are the container and the contents both used to represent two different things? No. “Jar” is used by metonymy for “blood”—which blood is the means by which his freedom is obtained.

Now let us apply this simple parallel:

“This is my blood of freedom” (prisoner)
“This is my blood of the covenant” (Mark)

and

“This jar is freedom in my blood” (prisoner)
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke)

What is the difference? There is none! Jesus said, by one account, “This (cup-contents) is my blood of the covenant.” The fruit of the vine represents his blood which was the means of ratifying the covenant (which, by the way, secured our freedom). By the other account, Jesus is saying, “This cup (contents) is the new covenant in my blood.” The cup is not the literal covenant, but its contents represent what Christ had in mind. In order for the “one cup” view, that there are two symbols, to be true, the text would have to read, “This cup is the new covenant and my blood.” In that figure, there are two cups—the container (covenant) and the contents (blood). Brethren, that figure just isn’t there.

Other Considerations

In Luke 22:17, it is suggested that the fruit of the vine was divided among the disciples before they drank of it in the supper: "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, ‘Take this and share it among yourselves" (Luke 22:17). “Share” is from the Greek “diamerizo,” and is defined: “to partition thoroughly (literally in distribution, figuratively in dissension):--cloven, divide, part.” Various translations use either “share” or “divide.”

Consider: "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17). (Evidently they “shared,” “divided,” or “partitioned” the fruit of the vine), then they partook of the bread: "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me" " (Luke 22:19) and then they drank the fruit of the vine: "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).

What does the context suggest?

Christ took a vessel containing the fruit of the vine and told the disciples to share or divide it among themselves.
He gave thanks for the bread.
He divided the bread and gave each a portion.
Then they drank the fruit of the vine.

Think about it. They divided the fruit of the vine before they ate the bread. But if the “one cup” idea is true, they drank the fruit of the vine before they ate the bread! That’s because Christ told them to share or divide it among themselves before they took the bread. The only logical interpretation of the passage is that Christ told them to each pour a portion of the fruit of the vine into their own containers so that each could partake after the bread was eaten. One would logically assume that each would have his own drinking vessel when they sat down together to eat the Passover meal.

Consider also, if the cup is literal, when they were told to “divide” or “partition” it among themselves, that would mean that each disciple broke off a piece of the crockery as it came to him. And of course, we know that’s not what happened. But that’s the logical conclusion if we say the “cup” was literal, and it was to be divided among themselves.

Then we must look at I Corinthians 11:25-26: "In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes."

There is a problem with this passage. If the “one cup” idea is true, then we have a literal cup in I Corinthians 11:25, but a figurative cup in I Corinthians 11:26. That is an inconsistent interpretation. There is no rule of interpretation that would allow this change of meaning from one verse to the other while in the same context.

These thoughts are presented for the careful consideration of our readers.

Should the Lord’s Supper be served with one cup?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:39:13 +0000

Question:

The texts in the gospels concerning the Lord's Supper all say "and when he took the cup ... " denoting one cup. Does this bind one cup? Why or why not? Thank you for your help. I met a one cup brother and sister at a gospel meeting and we plan to study it soon.

Answer:

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."" (Matthew 26:26-29).

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."" (Mark 14:22-25).

"When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."" (Luke 22:14-20).

When dealing with examples, such as the establishment of the Lord's Supper, it is important to determine which parts of the example are meant to be followed and which are merely incidental to the situation in which the example occurred. In this particular example, we find the Lord and his disciples sitting down to eat the Passover meal in a rented upper room. After the Passover meal, Jesus established the memorial meal that we commanded to follow.

Some have looked at this example and have argued that the Lord's Supper should be taken around tables and in connection to a common meal. Some argue that the Lord's Supper should only be taken once a year at the time of the Passover. Some could argue that it should only be taken in the evening. And then there are those, as you have noted that argue that only one container should be used for the fruit of the vine. I would argue that each of these items is incidental to the command to partake of the Lord's Supper.

To connect it with a meal is clearly argued against by Paul. "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. ... But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come" (I Corinthians 11:22, 34). To partake only once a year is contradicted by the example of the disciples in Troas who partook every first day of the week. "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight" (Acts 20:7). Given that first day of the week is emphasized and no mention of the time of day is given, we realize that it doesn't matter if the Lord's Supper is taken in the early morning, at midday, or in the late evening, so long as it is partaken of on the first day of the week.

Yet, let us look at whether the number of containers is important or not. In Luke's account, we note "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves..."" (Luke 22:17). 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 is a reference to the Lord's Supper, as Matthew and Mark's accounts clearly show. It could not be a reference to the Passover as that memorial meal ended with the Old Law and is not a part of the kingdom and the New Covenant. Hence, Luke's account gives us an additional detail that Matthew and Mark's account skims over. Jesus first divided the contents of the cup and then instituted the Lord's Supper.

Even if some refuse to accept this clear point, if you continue in Luke's account you will realize that the bread was blessed, broken, and divided among the disciples. Verse 20 of Luke 22 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. Even if you argue that verse 17 was separate from the Lord's Supper, it still establishes the method in which the contents of the cup was 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.

What Luke's account shows us is that the fruit of the vine was divided among the disciples, each into his 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 and 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.

By focusing on the container, those who advocate the use of just one cup have added a third element to the Lord's Supper. The Scriptures tell us that the bread represents the Lord's body and that the fruit of the vine represents His blood, but those arguing that one cup must be used are saying that the container has some significance. I always wondered why the same emphasis is not placed on the container for the bread. It is not the container that is important, but the contents of the container.

The use of the word "cup" is a figure of speech known as a metonymy. A metonymy is where one noun is used in place of another to which the two nouns are in close association. Hence, when we put the kettle on to boil, we are not boiling the kettle, but the water within the kettle. When we give the baby a bottle to drink, the baby is consuming the milk in the bottle and not the bottle itself. Matthew and Mark's accounts tell us that the fruit of the vine represents Christ's shed blood for the new covenant. Hence, we realize that in Luke's account that Jesus' statement, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20), is a metonymy. The container is not representing Christ's blood, but the contents of the cup.

A more subtle argument is made by noting that in Acts 2:41, three thousand souls were baptized and added to the church. These three thousand participated in the partaking of the Lord's Supper (Acts 2:42), and it is emphasized that they did all things together (Acts 2:44). This leads to the question if they used but one cup, how big would it have to be for three thousand worshiping together to drink from one cup? The practical implication is that multiple containers were most likely used.