When the pastor takes the cup, he is doing something the church received. The action belongs to the account of the night Jesus was betrayed: Jesus took it, gave thanks, and gave it to his disciples. The cup reaches the congregation because Christ placed it in his Supper.
That is a simple observation. It also answers a question the church once had to ask in earnest: who is allowed to drink?
The Word
ποτήριον (potērion) means cup. It is an ordinary noun for a drinking vessel. The word itself does not mean sacrament, and the material of the vessel does not establish what the Supper is.
Like the English word, it can name the container while referring to what is received from it. When someone offers you a cup, you understand that you are being offered a drink, not merely a piece of pottery. Christ’s words tell us what his cup gives.
Range of Meaning
In the accounts of the Supper, the ordinary vessel becomes part of an extraordinary giving. Matthew and Mark describe Jesus taking the cup and passing it to the disciples. Luke and Paul record his words connecting the cup with the new covenant in his blood.
The movement matters: taking, thanking, giving, drinking. These are actions of a meal instituted for reception. The church does not complete the institution by looking at the cup from a distance.
Where You’ll Meet It
Matthew 26:27 addresses the disciples together; Mark 14:23 reports that they all drank. Luke 22:20 locates the gift in Christ’s covenant blood. Paul preserves the same pattern in 1 Corinthians 11:25–28.
In the preceding chapter, Paul asks:
“Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16, NET)
The expected answer is yes. Sharing translates koinōnia, participation or communion. Paul’s point is not merely that Christians think about the same event. In this cup they share in Christ’s blood. His next sentence makes the parallel claim about the bread and Christ’s body.
What Confessional Lutherans Hear
The Augsburg Confession defends giving both bread and cup to the laity by appealing to Christ’s command and the Corinthian congregation’s practice. The institution belongs to the whole congregation, not to a priestly class alone (AC XXII.1–3).
Receiving both kinds does not divide Christ into portions or suggest that his body lacks something. It follows what he instituted. The question is not whether the church can explain why one part would suffice; it is whether the church will give what he told it to give.
The blessing likewise does not make the congregation the source of the gift. We give thanks over what Christ has appointed. His word establishes the Supper and tells us what we receive.
Where People Get It Wrong
A memorial reading can take the cup seriously as a sign that directs believers to the cross. Christians who hold it may receive with deep gratitude. The disagreement concerns what the cup gives: a reminder alone, or the participation Paul names.
The Lutheran confession hears Paul making the stronger claim. The cup delivers Christ’s blood to the communicant. Its benefit is received through faith in the promise of forgiveness.
Historically, another problem arose when ordinary communicants received only the bread. AC XXII answers that practice from the institution itself. The cup was given to be drunk, and Christ’s command did not reserve it to the clergy.
So What
The cup is not a reward for reaching an inner circle. It belongs to the Supper of the Lord, who gives his body and blood to his gathered people.
When you receive it, let the words of institution name the gift. What matters is the Lord who gives, the blood he shed, and the forgiveness he promises to you.