Does the communion cup emphasize the vessel or the drink?

Question

Paul's account of the institution of the Lord's supper mentions the cup, but not the contents of the cup:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, 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.—1^st Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV)

Parallel accounts in Mark, Matthew, and Luke also mention the vessel, but don't specify what might be in it. There's little doubt in my mind, that the cup contained wine and that the early Christians naturally used wine as part of their celebration. But the text doesn't mention the contents at all except that it symbolizes Jesus' blood.

On the other hand, maybe the passage does emphasize the drink, only the drink is blood. That would explain why none of the accounts mention the literal contents of the cup as being wine. My gut reaction to that idea is that it creates more interpretation problems than it solves.

Does the text focus on the vessel and not the drink because they were synonymous or because the contents of the cup were to be downplayed for some reason?

Answer 1

Isaiah 51:17 (ESV):

Wake yourself, wake yourself, stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his wrath, who have drunk to the dregs the bowl, the cup of staggering

See also Jer 49:12 (ESV):

For thus says the LORD: “If those who did not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, will you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink.

And in Psalms 116:13 (ESV) we see:

I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord

So the Hebrew idiom does not always distinguish between cup and contents. For an example from a time closer to Paul, Rabbi Ilayi said:

בשלושה דברים אדם ניכר: בכוסו, בכיסו ובכעסו

Transliterated: "B'shlosha d'varim adam nicar: b'coso, b'ciso uv'caaso"

Translated: "By three things a man is known: his cup, his wallet and his temper"

Meaning: You can judge a man by how he manages his drink, his money and his temper. "His cup" is sometimes interpreted to mean his hospitality, his wallet to mean his generosity.

Wine ("yayin") and grape juice ("tirosh") are often referred to as the blood of the grapes ("dam anavim").

In the Passover seder a (fifth) cup of wine is left full on the table for Eliyahu the Tishbi, in anticipation of his return. While this custom is not adhered to by all, it was common at the time as attested to by the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon in the "Gaonic" version of the Babylonian Talmud tractate Pesachim 118, side A (although this version of the text is usually not included in our current Vilna Rom based editions so don't try this at home kids).

So - that there was a cup of wine left, that it's contents is a metaphor for blood, and that it has a symbolic meaning sounds natural for the setting - assuming that you read against John and hold that the last supper was the Passover Seder and that is the Lord's Supper referenced in Corinthians 11.

Answer 2

Eli and Gone Quiet's answers already contain much helpful information, but I want to further legitimize their answers by putting a term to what they (and especially Eli) have said.

Paul is using the common literary device of metonymy. This is no uncommon or arcane linguistic phenomenon. By the way, did I mention that I just bought a new set of wheels two days ago? Yep, as in, I've got a new ride now.—We use this literary device in English all the time, especially in slang and poetry. In fact, there is an intensified form called metalepsis which is one metonym piled on top of the other.

It is a serious exegetical mistake to distinguish between that which is signified by the metonym and the metonym itself. The purporse of the metonym is to refer to the other thing. In short, Paul is not here intending any distinction between cup and wine.

It may also be good to note that there is quite a theology of the cup developed in the Scripture, which Paul may be alluding to (though the theology of the cup has everything to do with its contents).