<p>14:23<i> And he took a cup- </i>This was by no means easy for Him, because in Gethsemane He struggled so deeply in order to take it. Surely Mark was aware of this and wishes us to remember it every time we break bread. He&nbsp;<i>did</i>&nbsp;take the cup- the cup we go on to read about, that was so difficult for Him to accept. Luke's record records the taking of the cup twice. This could be a reference to multiple cups of wine drunk at the Passover; or it could be that Luke simply records the incident twice. Or perhaps the Lord was simply drinking from the common table wine, and more than once drew out the symbology.</p><p><i>And when he had given thanks- </i>Here&nbsp;<i>eucharisteo</i>&nbsp;is used, but&nbsp;<i>eulogeo&nbsp;for</i> the 'blessing' of the bread. The difference may be in that the Lord took the bread, an accessory to the meal, and turned that which was so ordinary into something of spiritual symbolism; and His blessing of the bread was necessary for this. But&nbsp;<i>eucharisteo</i>&nbsp;includes the idea of grace,&nbsp;<i>charis</i>, and suggests more thankfulness for grace- a thought appropriate to the meaning of the Lord's blood shed for us by grace. And naturally we wonder whether the wine that was taken was one of the Passover cups, or simply some of the table wine, an accessory to the meal just as the bread was. Whilst there was a taking of four cups of wine at the Passover, this may not be the only explanation for Luke recording the taking of two of them. It could simply be that as they were eating the Passover lamb, they ate bread and drunk weak wine as part of the accompaniments which went with every Palestinian meal. And the Lord twice passed comment on the wine, that it represented His blood. This would be similar to the manner in which He chose the bread, the&nbsp;<i>artos</i>, the ordinary word for bread rather than one referring specifically to unleavened bread, as the symbol for His body- rather than the meat of the Passover lamb. He could have made use of the blood of the Passover lamb as a symbol in some way- e.g. He could have asked a servant to bring the blood of the lamb and asked the disciples to all dip their fingers in it. But instead He uses wine as a symbol of His blood. My hunch is that the wine was the ordinary table wine accompanying the meal, just as the bread was, and was not the ritually significant Passover cup. In any case, the tradition of drinking cups of wine at Passover was non-Biblical, and somehow out of keeping with the original spirit of Passover, which was to remember the haste with which the first Passover was eaten. 1 Cor. 10:16 speaks of &quot;the cup of blessing which&nbsp;<i>we&nbsp;</i>bless&quot;, with the emphasis on the &quot;we&quot;. We are to do what the Lord did that night- not be mere audience figures, but actually do what He did.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><i>He gave it to them and they all drank from it</i>- The Lord held the memorial meeting as a keeping of a Passover, and yet He changed some elements of it. Joachim Jeremias cites evidence that &ldquo;By the time of Jesus, individual cups were used at the Passover meal&quot;, and yet Mk. 14:23 implies that He used only one cup, which was passed around amongst those at the last supper: &ldquo;He took the cup RV &ldquo;a cup&quot;&hellip; he gave it to them: and they all drank of <i>it</i> singular&quot;. They didn&rsquo;t take up their own cups and drink- the Lord gave them His cup, just as He passes on to all in Him a participation in His &ldquo;cup&quot; of suffering and final joy. Reflect how deftly and determinedly the Lord must have &ldquo;received the cup&quot; (Lk. 22:17 RV), knowing what it represented; imagine His body language. Paul&rsquo;s references to &ldquo;<i>the </i>cup&quot; imply the same. This change was surely to indicate the unity that His death, His blood, His life, was to inspire amongst those who share in it. This, in passing, is behind my undoubted preference for not using individual cups at the memorial meeting. It would seem to be a returning to the Jewish legalistic tradition, however unintentionally. I have elsewhere commented upon the clear link between the death of Jesus and our unity. The memorial meeting is the supreme celebration of that unity between us. To deny a brother or sister participation in it is something serious indeed. Tragically, and it is a tragedy, we have tended to use the memorial meeting as a weapon for exclusion rather than as a celebration of our unity. Yet this was the intention, without doubt. Comparing Lk. 22:20 and Mk. 14:24 we find the Lord saying that the cup of wine was &ldquo;for you poured out, poured out for many&quot;- as if He wanted them to be aware at the memorial meeting that it was not only they who had been redeemed in Him. Likewise the Passover was essentially a remembering of the deliverance of a community, through which the individual worshipper found his or her personal salvation. This is why it is just not good enough to insist on breaking bread alone, or with no thought to the fact that all of us were redeemed together, as one man, as one nation, in Him. Remember that the Hebrew word for covenant, <i>berith</i>, is &quot;derived from a verb meaning 'to eat'&quot;. That covenant was made with a community, the Israel of God; by eating the covenant meal we recall that collective covenant, that salvation of a community of which we are part- and it is appropriate therefore that it becomes a symbol of our unity within that community. The Old Testament idea of covenant is associated with words like <i>hesed</i> (kindness, love, devotion, grace), <i>emeth</i> (truth, integrity), <i>emunah</i> (faithfulness, allegiance). These are the characteristics associated with being in covenant relationship; and we are to show them to all others who are in covenant relationship, not just some of them.</p>