common people (am hd'drez) were on that account to be cleansed. (Maimonides, Vad. Mishkab and Moshab, 11. 11, 12, 18).
The words of Jesus in Mt 23^- ^ are simply an instance of the use of a homely figure to express hypocrisy.
2. Figurative.— OviX Lord uses the familiar Heb. figure of a ' cuj) ' to denote the experience of sorrow and anguish in two instances : (1) in His challenge to James and John, checking their am- bition (Mk 10=«-2i> = Mt 20-=--=, 'Are ye able to drink the cup which I drink ? ') ; and (2) in con- nexion with His Passion, both in His cry of agony (Mk 14» II in Mt. and Lk. ' this cup '), and in His calm rebuke of Peter's hasty attempt to defend Him against His captors (Jn 18" ' 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. Ps 16^ 23^ lie's, Jer Iff?), as well as those of trembling, desolation, and the wrath of God (Is 51i7ff-, Jer 2515'r-, Ezk 2332ff., Zee 122). Rabbinic writers e-xhibit the figurative use of ' cup ' for trouble and anguish (Gesen. Thes. s.v. DID). The kindred expression, 'taste the taste of death," Ls also to be met with (Buxtorf, Lex. s.v. DVa). The conception of death as a bitter cup for men to drink underlies it. (Note the Etymologicon Magnum gives ToTr.f,,, . . . ni^m, xa.', TO. 0«.«Te»). Instances of this phrase- oloery in the Gospels are (in the words of Jesus) Mk 91 ( = ilt IfiSs) and (in the words of the Jews) Jn 852. Cf. also He 2'.
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 cor- rect 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 Co 10'*), and one is inclined to make a direct connexion with the third cup at the Paschal celebration, which was kno^vn as the Cup of Benediction (iriSD Dis), and is often referred to in the Talmudic tractates (e.g. Berakhoth, 51a).
Supper w would be 1 ing to trace three out of the four Paschal cups, viz. the one mentioned in Lk 22", the one common to the Synoptics — the cup of blessing, and the fourth, or Hallel cup, suggested by vit-v-qaavTei (Mk 14=«=Mt 26'"), taking the hymn referred to a.s none other than the second part of the Hallel (Pss 115-118), with which the Pas.sover was usually closed. Lk 22'^''- -", however, is not above sus- picion : and on other grounds we cannot definitely connect the cup of the institution with the cere- monial 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 (Mt 26»"-, Mk U~'\ Lk 22"- '«), and in the after-view the cup thus used, and with such signifi- cance, niight well stand out as par excellence the Cup of . '
If St. Luke's account of the Last Supper were to be received without question, it would be tempt-
) given with i
The words of Jesus regarding the cup ; noticeable variation. Mk. gives rourd irti> to ocitto •r„«.ei.m! tJ ixxtmifiitc i^if ToXXi. (U'ii) ; and Mt. re this ^\ith but slight clianges, possibly of a liturgical i
CUP
401
St. Ma
Ex 24»-8. St. «r, (1 Co 11=^), as compared
(26^U The Konlirit,- m I l -i^' , 'blood,' ivhilbt ^--"' ( ' : I I 1 ' interpolation, clum , i combining the furm m > , I i il \' solemn expression, ' ur, l.:>j jil ul Uiu ^ blood,' can be exjjlaineil only by i Paul's phrase, r xa.„i, h,«.0,r---yi . . . i introduces no important difference
with the JIarkan formula. To lay stress on the idea ot a • w-w covenant' is all in ket']Mnp with the Pauline standpoint. One other point as rejrards the words of the institution alone remains to he mentioned. As with the bread so with the cup, St. Paul alone represents our Lord as savinj^ tqZto Totiitt ti; rr,v ifii> ittxfi.r.r^v (1 Co ll-'-i' -■). Is it possible, then, that no per- manent 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 Covenant, Lord's Supper.