Imagine before we start filling our plates at a potluck, I go to the food table, pick up a dish, and say, “Everyone listen! You all have to try this dish. It is awesome.” What did I mean by the word “dish”? Was I referring to the container the food was in? Was I saying you need to bake with the literal dish because I love the cookware? Or, was I referring to food that was in the container? Was I saying you need to eat the figurative dish because I love the recipe? Both are grammatically possible.
If I was referring to the food in the container, I was using metonymy. Metonymy is “the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example, suit for business executive” (NAOD). “Metonymy … is a figure of speech used in rhetoric in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept. For instance, ‘London’, as the capital of the UK, can be used as a metonym (an instance of metonymy) for the British government” (Wikipedia). More examples: The White House refused to comment. Houston, we have a problem. When Queen Elizabeth dies, the British crown will undergo monumental change. The press has a liberal bias.
How would you decide if I was referring to the container or the food in it? Better yet, what has this got to do with religion? When observing the Lord’s Supper some brethren believe local churches may use multiple literal cups and others believe they can only use one literal cup. To decide who is correct we must answer two questions regarding the institution of the Lord’s Supper. First, was Jesus referring to a single literal cup or to what a literal cup held, i.e. the fruit of the vine? Second, if Jesus was referring to a single literal cup did He make it a third emblem in Lord’s Supper?
For further reading, click on the sermon lesson sheet