For nineteen centuries after Jesus uttered these words, this is exactly what the faithful did. They all drank from a common cup and thus communed on Christ’s blood in the very same way that the disciples first responded to Christ’s command.
During those centuries of Church practice, there were numerous times when people wanted to alter Christ’s words and distribute the Sacrament in a different way. Some wanted to dip the host (bread) into the cup and give both kinds together. Others wanted to skip giving the cup altogether and still others tried to substitute water, milk or grape juice for wine in the cup. Each and every one of these attempted alterations to Christ’s words were vigorously opposed by the orthodox Church throughout the centuries—both before and after the Lutheran Reformation—all the way to modern times. Each was rejected for the very same reason, namely, it was not what was received from the Lord and handed down to His Church through the Holy Scriptures (1 Corinthians 11:23).
Ancient Fathers
The ancient Church consistently followed this reasoning. Two examples of their writing might be helpful here. When Cyprian of Carthage (253ad) found out that some were using water in place of wine, he wrote:
Christ alone ought to be heard as the Father also testifies from heaven, saying, “This is my well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him.” Therefore, if Christ alone must be heard, we ought not to give heed to what another before us may have thought was to be done, but what Christ, who is before all, first did.
Similarly, Julius I (340ad) wrote against the practice of intinction (dipping the host in the cup) saying: “[it] is not received from the gospel witness, [for] when he gave the apostles his body and blood, it is recorded that He gave the bread and the chalice separately.”
Lutheran Confessions
The Lutheran Church has continued to follow this way of thinking. The examples of Cyprian and Julius were well-known to Luther and the founding fathers. They were cited often in the controvery with Rome over the way the Lord’s Supper ought to be given. Following their example, our Lutheran Confessions insist on giving both bread and cup in the Sacrament for the single reason that Jesus instituted it that way.
Among us both kinds of the sacrament are given to the laity for the following reason. There is a clear order and command of Christ in Matthew 26: “Drink from it, all of you” (Augsburg Confession XXII.1).
When the Roman church countered by offering reasons why the chalice did not give anything more than the host already gave, our Confessions again insisted that, whether this is true or not, we ought follow the institution of Christ to the letter.
Even if it were true that there is as much under one kind as under both, one kind is still not the complete order and institution as established and commanded by Christ (Smalcald Articles III.vi.3).
Human reason and argumentation has no authority against the plainly spoken words of Jesus. Our Large Catechism teaches this quite plainly and rests our doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper entirely upon Christ’s Words of Institution. “For upon these words rest our whole argument, our protection and defense against all errors and deceptions that have ever arisen or may yet rise (Large Catechism V.19).
Modern Lutherans
Down to the present day, we follow this same line of thinking. Intinction is still rejected by the L.C.M.S. because “while distributing the bread, the Savior said, ‘Take, eat!’ Matt. 26:25; Mark 14:22; and while giving the wine, He said, ‘Drink ye all of it!’ Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23.” Likewise, the use of grape juice for wine is rejected, “since Christ used and sanctified no other element for this Sacrament.”
Even in something as seemingly insignificant as the order of distribution we have insisted that the host should be given first and the cup second—just as Jesus instituted:
We consider that the proper Sacrament can be given to the parish only so long as such a Holy Sacrament is distributed, not only in the material and substantial parts, but the form, that is, the mode and arrangement, in which Christ has distributed it and that we, too, should and must administer it.
The expressed words and actions of Jesus are the only authority that shapes how we are to “do this in remembrance.” This is true about every single aspect of the Sacrament whether we think that aspect is important or not. What Jesus teaches about the cup, then, must determine our use of it as well; and His teaching is clear. From Jesus’ words and actions we know that:
each of the apostles had a cup before him on the table, or at least that there were more cups than one. But now, when Christ gives a new, special drink of his blood, he commands them all to drink out of this single cup. (Luther)
This is the very same command that we hear every Sunday morning when Jesus says to us again, “Drink out of it, all of you.”
Why would Jesus say that?
To this point we have discussed only what Jesus’ words teach and have not talked at all about why He might have taught this. This was a deliberate choice. Our obedience to Christ’s words must never be conditioned on whether or not we understand his reasons. We see this in numerous examples of the biblical saints. Abraham was willing to offer his only son even without understanding why God would require such an awful thing (Gen. 22). The children of Israel were punished when they decided that God’s command to destroy all the plunder in Jerico would be a waste of good money (Josh. 6-7). Obedience to God’s Word is never the subject of debate for our little minds (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Still, we are conscious of the fact that God has a Fatherly heart and loves us dearly. With this in mind, we might profit from asking the reason for Jesus’ use of the chalice—not so that we can decide whether or not to obey Him, but to learn what blessing He wants to give us by it.
One clue to Jesus’ reasons can be found in the only other place in all of Scripture where sharing a cup is explicitly mentioned. In 2 Samuel 12, Nathan tells David a parable about a little lamb that was so dear to her owner that she was like part of the family. As Nathan describes the love and intimacy that the lamb and her owner shared, he offers as evidence that she “drank out of his own cup” (v. 3).
Here, in these tender words, the song that we learned as children takes on a profound meaning. Each and every time we are given to drink out of the very same cup as our Lord in the Sacrament, Jesus is reminding us that we are as dear to Him and loved by Him as the master loved the lamb in Nathan’s parable. The sharing of the cup cries out, “I am Jesus’ little lamb.”
Is it healthy?
If it weren’t for health considerations, individual cups would not even be an issue. They did not arise from someone’s interpretion of the Scriptures but were invented by a Reformed congregation in the late 1800s in response to the scientific discovery of baccilli (germs). As George Drach put it in a 1907 article:
Individual communion cups are usually introduced in the following manner: ‘Bacilli! Bacilli!’ cries a terror-stricken mortal. Thereupon the congregation responds, ‘Individual communion cups.’
We have seen that this is not the way the Church ever has–or should–determine the practice of the Lord’s Supper. Still, there is a Christian answer to this fear of germs.
Although we could cite both medical and scientific studies which indicate that the risk of infection is higher for individual cups that touch infected hands than for a common cup which does not, such a mode of reasoning is unbecoming in the Church of God. Rather than putting Jesus’ teachings and practice to the test of science, we ought rather trust Him who both created germs and bestows life.
He who created all things in heaven and on earth was surely not ignorant of germs on the night in which He was betrayed—even if we first saw them only a century ago. If it took nearly nineteen centuries to learn what Jesus already knew when He said, “Drink out of it,” shall these feeble minds now accuse Jesus of ignorance or of being careless with the health of his disciples?
Certainly not! Rather, you can most certainly trust that He who is the Great Physician will not give you something that is harmful—either to your body or your soul. As we sing in the hymn,
What God ordains is always good
His loving thought attends me;
No poison can be in the cup
That my Physician sends me. (LW 422.3)
Although there has never been a case of infectious disease which has been traced back to the person’s reception of the common cup, we do not trust in such scientific studies. Rather, our confidence and security is this: that no matter what my Physician gives me, it can never, ever be poison. You can believe this because the Scriptures say so whether or not science ever catches up. Nothing that God gives you will be harmful for you.
Who should choose?
Because many have never really thought through these matters before, often the use of the individual communion cups is seen as simply a matter of personal choice. “I use them because I choose to and because I feel more comfortable that way.” From this perspective, any talk about moving to the common cup alone is seen as someone else (like a pastor or a church) foisting their choice upon me.
If Jesus had not spoken on the matter, this might be a fair critique. But, when you read through the Bible about the Lord’s Supper, it becomes clear that Jesus has already made a choice and has not left it to his church or to individual Christians to choose.
On the night Jesus was betrayed, there were already individual cups on the table. He could have chosen to use them but He did not. Instead, He chose to use His single cup as the vessel for giving His blood to His disciples. This was against the custom of the day! He was not forced into this choice by circumstances; nor should we think that it was an arbitrary, unthinking choice. Jesus clearly wanted to institute the supper in that way.
God’s choice is also evident by the very words that the Holy Spirit inspired in the Scriptures. In numerous references to the Lord’s Supper, the second element of the Sacrament is always referred to as the “cup.” Although there are any number of ways that it could be designated (like wine, or drink etc.), the Holy Ghost always chooses the word “cup.” It would be unfair to Him if we were simply to assume that He never thought about what this word-selection might communicate to us who read it.
Rather, we should rejoice that when Jesus deliberately chose to use a common cup, the Holy Scriptures do not anywhere confuse us with mixed signals. Confusion comes not from the Scriptures but from human reason and scientific considerations. Once we are freed from this confusion by a return to the simple Word of God, our course of action becomes as clear as Jesus’ words: “Drink out of it, all of you.”
For further reading you may access a paper that I wrote on this subject in the summer of 2001. "Drink Out of It All of You"
