the Third Week after Easter
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Dictionaries
Cup
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or CUP (ποτήριον, in general significance corresponding to the Heb. כּוֹם and so used in the LXX Septuagint; Vulgate equivalent is calix).
1. Literal.—A few references to the cup as a vessel in common use occur in the Gospels: Mark 7:3-4, Matthew 10:42 (= Mark 9:41) Matthew 23:25-26 (= Luke 11:39). The first of these passages is plainly an explanatory parenthesis furnished by the Evangelist for the information of readers unacquainted with Jewish customs. ποτήρια, he says, are amongst the things subject to ‘washings’ (βαπτισμοί)—which washings I were not such as simple cleanliness required, but were prescribed by the decrees ‘intended to separate the Jew from all contact with the Gentiles.’ The Talmudic tractate Kelim names seven kinds of things requiring such ceremonial purification, and amongst them are earthenware vessels and vessels of bone, metal, and wood. Resting on such Levitical prescriptions as are to be found in Leviticus 11 and Numbers 31, the purification of vessels was carried to the furthest extreme of stringent requirement by ‘the tradition of the elders.’ Vessels that had in any way come into contact with the common people (’am hâ’ârez) were on that account to be cleansed. (Maimonides, Yad. Mishkab and Moshab, 11. 11, 12, 18).
The words of Jesus in Matthew 23:25-26 are simply an instance of the use of a homely figure to express hypocrisy.
2. Figurative.—Our Lord uses the familiar Heb. figure of a ‘cup’ to denote the experience of sorrow and anguish in two instances: (1) in His challenge to James and John, checking their ambition (Mark 10:36; Mark 10:39 = Matthew 20:22-23, ‘Are ye able to drink the cup which I drink?’); and (2) in connexion with His Passion, both in His cry of agony (Mark 14:36 || in Mt. and Lk. ‘this cup’), and in His calm rebuke of Peter’s hasty attempt to defend Him against His captors (John 18:11 ‘The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’). In each case there is the same reference to His singular experience of bitter sorrow which was no mere ‘bitterness of death.’
It is noticeable that in the Gospels the use of this figure occurs only in connexion with trouble and suffering. In the OT the use is much wider. Experiences of joy, blessing, and comfort are thus expressed (e.g. Psalms 16:5; Psalms 23:5; Psalms 116:13, Jeremiah 16:7), as well as those of trembling, desolation, and the wrath of God (Isaiah 51:17 ff., Jeremiah 25:15 ff., Ezekiel 23:32 ff., Zechariah 12:2). Rabbinic writers exhibit the figurative use of ‘cup’ for trouble and anguish (Gesen. Thes. s.v. כום). The kindred expression, ‘taste the taste of death,’ is also to be met with (Buxtorf, . s.v. טעם). The conception of death as a hitter cup for men to drink underlies it. (Note the Magnum gives ποτὴριον … σημαίνει καὶ τὸν θανατον). Instances of this phraseology in the Gospels are (in the words of Jesus) Mark 9:1 (= Matthew 16:28) and (in the words of the Jews) John 8:52. Cf. also Hebrews 2:9.
3. In the institution of the Lord’s Supper.—There are strong inducements to see in the cup in the Last Supper one of the cups which had a place in the later ceremonial of the Paschal feast. But was the supper the usual Passover? This is a much-debated question; but on the whole the weightier considerations seem to support the view presented in the Fourth Gospel, the account in which may be intended, as some suggest, to correct the impression given by the Synoptics. That is to say, the supper was not the Passover proper, and it took place on the day previous to that on which the Passover was eaten. It might still be held that it was an anticipatory Passover. St. Paul, it is true, speaks of the Eucharistic cup as ‘the cup of blessing’ (1 Corinthians 10:16), and one is inclined to make a direct connexion with the third cup at the Paschal celebration, which was known as the Cup of Benediction (כּוֹס הַבְּרָבָה), and is often referred to in the Talmudic tractates (.g. , 51). If St. Luke’s account of the Last Supper were to be received without question, it would be tempting to trace three out of the four Paschal cups, viz. the one mentioned in Luke 22:17, the one common to the Synoptics—the cup of blessing, and the fourth, or Hallel cup, suggested by ὑμνήσαντες (Mark 14:26 = Matthew 26:30), taking the hymn referred to as none other than the second part of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118), with which the Passover was usually closed. Luke 22:19 b, Luke 22:20, however, is not above suspicion: and on other grounds we cannot definitely connect the cup of the institution with the ceremonial of the Paschal feast.
But the cup was an important feature in other Jewish festivals and solemn seasons besides the Passover. And even though the institution took place at the close of an ordinary meal, the bread and the cup were accompanied with the due Jewish graces (Matthew 26:26 f., Mark 14:22 f., Luke 22:17; Luke 22:19), and in the after-view the cup thus used, and with such significance, might well stand out as par excellence the Cup of Blessing.
The words of Jesus regarding the cup are given with some noticeable variation. Mk. gives τοῦτο ἐστιν το αἷμά μον τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ τολλῶν (Mark 14:24); and Mt. reproduces this with but slight changes, possibly of a liturgical character (Matthew 26:28). The wording in Luke 22:17 makes no reference to the ‘blood,’ whilst Luke 22:20 (referred to above) appears to be but an interpolation, clumsily (ἐν τῷ αἵματι … το … ἐκχυννομενον) combining the form in St. Paul with that in St. Mark. The solemn expression, ‘my blood of the covenant,’ or ‘my covenantblood,’ can be explained only by reference to Exodus 24:6-8. St. Paul’s phrase, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη … ἐν τῶ ἐμῶ αἴματι (1 Corinthians 11:25), introduces an important difference of meaning as compared with the Markan formula. To lay stress on the idea of a ‘new covenant’ is all in keeping with the Pauline standpoint. One other point as regards the words of the institution alone remains to be mentioned. As with the bread eo with the cup, St. Paul alone represents our Lord as saying τοῦτο τοιεῖτε εἰς την ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (1 Corinthians 11:24-25). Is it possible, then, that no permanent sacramental rite was contemplated by Jesus in doing what He did at the Last Supper? Is the conception of a memorial celebration due rather to St. Paul as a prime factor in the development of Christianity? Obviously this is not the place to deal with this important question, and the attitude of historical criticism respecting it. We have assumed that what took place at the Last Supper was an ‘institution.’ See artt. Covenant, Lord’s Supper.
4. In the Eucharist.—(1) From the first the common usage in administration no doubt gave the cup after the bread, in accordance with the order observed in Mark, Matthew, and Paul. St. Luke in his shorter (and better supported) account (Luke 22:17-19) exhibits a noticeable divergence in placing the cup first in order. This may be due, as Wright suggests (Synopsis of the Gospels, p. 140), to some ‘local Eucharistic use.’ The Didache (ch. 9) also puts the cup first; but the fact as to the general established usage remains unaffected.
(2) As to the cup used in the communion there would at first be no difference between it and such vessels as were in ordinary use, and the materials of which the Eucharistic vessels were made were by no means of one kind. Zephyrinus of Rome, a contemporary of Tertullian, speaks of ‘patens of glass,’ and Jerome (circa (about) 398 a.d.) speaks of ‘a wicker basket’ and ‘a glass’ as in use for communion purposes. Cups of wood and of horn also appear to have been used in some cases. We find certain provincial councils in the 8th and 9th cents, prohibiting the use of such, and also of leaden vessels. Cups were sometimes made of pewter; and bronze, again, was commonly used by the Irish monks, St. Gall preferring vessels of this material to those of silver. At the same time the natural tendency to differentiate in regard to vessels devoted to such a special service must have begun soon to manifest itself. Where it was possible, at an early period the cup was made of rich materials, such as gold and silver. Similarly as regards form and ornamentation. Tertullian (de Pudicitia, 10) speaks of the cup as being adorned with the figure of the Good Shepherd. In the course of time we get chalices of great price and wonderful workmanship, corresponding to the rare and costly Passover and other festal cups which Jews similarly cherish as art treasures.
It is needless to mention particularly the several kinds of chalices which came to be distinguished as the Eucharistic rites were made more elaborate. Our own times, again, it may just be noticed, have given us the ‘individual communion cup,’ which, on hygienic grounds, finds favour in some quarters. Though in some respects a modern institution, perhaps it may claim a precedent in the most primitive usage. The use of separate cups might be inferred from 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Nor is the hygienic objection to the common chalice wholly new. The difficulty was felt in mediaeval times when the plague was so rife. In the 14th cent, special ‘pest-chalices’ were in use for sick cases.
(3) The custom of mixing water with the wine in the chalice, to which Justin Martyr makes a well-known reference (Apol. i. 67), accords with Jewish precedent. Speaking of the Jewish use, Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. on Matthew 26:27) says, ‘Hence in the rubric of the feasts, when mention is made of the wine they always use the word mizgu, they mix for him the cup.’ Maimonides (Hamez umaz. 7, 8) assumes the use of water. If the cup our Lord gave to His disciples were one of the ceremonial Paschal cups, we may take it that it contained a mixture of water and wine. And if it were not, nothing is more likely than that the Apostles, in observing the rite, would follow the Jewish custom of mixture. A passage in the Talmud (Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Berakhoth, 50, 2) suggests that water was thus added to the wine for the sake of wholesomeness and in the interests of sobriety.
In the course of time various fanciful suggestions came to be made as to a symbolic purpose in connexion with the mixed chalice in the Eucharist, ignoring its simple origin in an earlier Jewish custom. Thus it was variously held that in this way the union of Christ and the faithful was signified; that the water from the rock was represented; that the water and the blood from the pierced side of the Crucified were commemorated. At last it was affirmed that the water was added to the cup ‘solely for significance’: and so the addition of a very small quantity of water (a small spoonful) came to be considered sufficient. ‘One drop is as significant as a thousand’ (Bona, Rer. Liturg. ii. ix. note 3—‘Cum vero aqua mysterii causa apponatur vel minima gutta sufficiens est’).
(4) Was wine from the first invariably used and regarded as obligatory in the Eucharist? Harnack (‘Brod u. Wasser,’ TU [Note: U Texte und Untersuehungen.] vii. [1892]) holds that it was not so up to the 3rd cent., and traces the use of bread and water (but see, in reply, Zahn, ‘Brod u. Wein,’ ib.; Jülicher’s essay in Theol. Abhandlungen; and Grafe, ZThK [Note: ThK Zeitschrift f. Theologie u. Kirche.] v. 2). It would be difficult to maintain that the genius of the sacrament vitally depended on the use of wine; but in its favour we have the great preponderance of custom and sentiment. In modern times there are those who, for one reason and another, feel a difficulty regarding communion wine, and are disposed to use substitutes of some kind. Such might be disposed to welcome a sort of precedent in the use permitted by Jewish regulations in certain cases as regards their festival cups. In northern countries, e.g., where wine was not accessible as a daily beverage for the mass of the Jews, syrup, juice of fruits, beer or mead, etc., are named as instances of allowable substitutes. Such substitutes are curiously included under the common appellation ‘the wine of the country.’ (See Shulhan’Arukh, Orah Hag. 182. 1, 2).
(5) The withholding of the cup from the laity in the Communion, which came into vogue in the Western Church, and is still a Roman Catholic usage, may be briefly referred to. It is admitted by Romish authorities that communion in both kinds was the primitive custom for all communicants. Cardinal Bona, e.g., says: ‘It is certain, indeed, that in ancient times all without distinction, clergy and laity, men and women, received the sacred mysteries in both kinds’ (Rer. Liturg. ii. xviii. 1). The practice of withholding the cup does not come into view before the 12th century. The danger of effusion was offered as a reason for it. Short of this, as an expedient against effusion, we find slender tubes (fistulae) or quills brought into use, the communicants drawing the wine from the chalice by suction. Another intermediate stage towards communion in one kind was the practice of intinction, i.e. administering to the people the bread dipped in the wine. This practice, however, was condemned in the West, but it remains as the custom of the Eastern Church still, the sacred elements in this form being administered to the laity with a spoon (λαβἰς). Ultimately the rule of communion in one kind was ordained in the West by a decree of the Council of Constance in 1415; and the reason assigned for the decree was that it was ‘to avoid certain perils, inconveniences, and scandals.’ This momentous change, however, was not brought about without much demur and opposition. The decree of Constance itself did not immediately and universally take effect; for after this time there were even in Rome cases where the cup was administered. The great Hussite movement in Bohemia, contemporaneous with the Council of Constance itself, offered determined opposition to the withdrawal of the cup; and the kindred Utraquist Communion in that country continued for two centuries their protest as Catholics who claimed the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in both kinds, after the primitive usage. The badge of the Utraquists, a large chalice together with a sword—significant conjunction!—bespoke the sternness of the conflict.
What really lay at the root of this prohibition of the cup was the tremendous dogma of transubstantiation, with all its implicates, together with a hardening of the distinction between the clergy and the people. The growth of this Eucharistic custom proceeded pari passu with the development of the dogma. Naturally, therefore, the restoration of the cup to the people was a necessary part of the Reformation claim. It is also worthy of remembrance that even in the Tridentine Council there were not wanting Romanist advocates of this as well as other reforms; but ‘no compromise’ counsels prevailed, and the rule in its fullest rigidity was reaffirmed.
How strange to look back over the welter of controversy and the many saddening developments connected with but this one point of Eucharistic observance, away to that simple evening—meal which took place ‘in the same night that he was betrayed’!
J. S. Clemens.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Cup'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/c/cup.html. 1906-1918.
