As you know, "artos" means bread in Greek. Greek does not have two words--one for bread and the other for loaf. The context determines when "artos" may be understood as a loaf of bread, but to be consistent it could be translated bread every time for this is how the Greek reader would read it. The singular does not necessarily mean one loaf, but can mean bread in general and sometimes may refer to a complete meal.
To illustrate the singular meaning of more than one loaf—my mother always made our bread (singular), which included many loaves. The Bible uses bread in the same sense, thus referring to the kind of food, the substance, and not the number, unless the number is stated, but even then one bread (singular) could be used to mean the type food, one food, thus include many loaves.
The following passages use bread in the singular, which means bread or maybe food in general, or a meal.
Mt. 4:4; Lk. 4:4 – man shall not live by bread alone.
Mt. 6:11; Lk 11:3 – give us our daily bread (food in general).
Mt. 15:2; Mk. 7:2, 5 – the disciples were eating bread.
Mk. 6:8; Lk. 9:3 – disciples not to take bread with them.
Mk. 8:4 singular; Mt. 15:33; John 6:7 plural, bread to satisfy many.
Mark uses the singular while Matthew and John uses the plural.
Lk. 7:33 – John did not eat bread.
Lk. 14:1 – Jesus went to eat bread.
John 6:7 – multitude of 5,000 men ate from 5 loaves of bread. All the bread
they ate after the miracle was called bread – Jn. 6:23 (singular), which
included many pieces taken from 5 loaves.
2 Cor. 9:10 – God gives bread for food.
2 Thess. – 3:8 – Paul ate bread.
3:12 – people are to eat their own bread.
Maybe bread is used of a meal because
meals at that period of time may have consisted sometimes only of bread.
Showing that bread can mean food in
general or a number of loaves instead of just one loaf does not prove
that “one bread” means bread in general in 1 Cor. 10:17, but shows that
bread in the singular or one bread can refer to one substance instead of
just one loaf.
Saying Christians who partake of the “one bread,” are “one body” (1 Cor. 10:17) would not refer to one local congregation, for "one body" in NT usage includes all the followers of Jesus. All the members everywhere are the one bread, one body that partakes of one bread, of the same substance, but not the same loaf.
The expression "one body" is only used in the NT of all the churches as a whole and not of just one congregation, unless I Cor. 10:17 is the exception. Paul does not write "you," as exclusively including only the members at Corinth, but "we," including himself, thus “we,” all Christians, are one body that eats the communion bread, one bread that is common to all Christians. We all share the one bread that represents Jesus' body, “My body,” thus we all, the one body, share the same bread, the “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16) represented by the bread common to all Christians. The whole body of Christ cannot share the same loaf but we can share the same bread, the substance which signifies the one body of Christ.
Notice how “one body” is used of all Christians in all the churches of Christ and not of just one congregation by the use of “we,” as in other passages and as well as in Corinthians.
“we, being many are one body in Christ” (Rom.12:5).
“we, though many are one bread and one body; for we all
partake of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17).
“we (not you) were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13).
“that He might reconcile both [Jews and Gentiles] in one body” (Eph. 2:16).
*see also 1 Cor. 12:20; Eph 4:5;
All Christians, being one body throughout the world, all eat the same bread to commune with the body of Jesus, which the bread represents. Thus all of us being one body partake of the same bread representing Jesus' body, the one bread but not the same loaf.
One Cup
According to Webster's dictionary definition, a metonymy is “a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated (as in 'lands belonging to the crown').” The statement and example in your booklet may not be completely accurate. “Metonymy does not make the originally named object disappear. Instead, it demands the presence of the originally named object.” p. 29.
True, the metonymy “does not make the named object disappear” for it suggests so remains to suggest but it is not present as a part of what it suggests. The example most used in dictionaries, as mentioned above is, “lands belong to the crown,” shows this to be true. Crown suggests the land but is not present with or a part of the land that is suggested by crown.
Like a metonymy, a metaphor is used to compare but does not include what it compares. Jesus is a door and a vine, These words only are used in comparison so a door and vine are not present or a part of Jesus. The metonymy that suggests is not with or of a part of what it suggests. The fruit of the vine which represents Jesus' blood suggests Jesus' blood. We drink the fruit of the vine that suggests, but Jesus' blood is not present with or of a part of the fruit of the vine that we drink.
We might say, “I ate the dish sister Hobbs made, which was the best food at the potluck.” The container suggests but is not a part of what it suggests--what I ate. What suggests is not a part of what it suggests. If it is a part, then I ate the fiscal dish along with the food in it.
The booklet illustration has, “The radiator boiled.” Only the water is meant, not the radiator for it was not a part of what boiled. The radiator is used to suggest something else, the water. The water is what boiled, but not the radiator. "Radiator" suggests but is not included in what it suggests, if it is, then the radiator also boiled.
When Jesus took the cup, He said, “This is My blood.” Not the cup but the fruit of the vine that represents His blood. The physical cup is neither the fruit of the vine nor Jesus' blood. Cup is a metonymy that suggests the fruit of the vine that represents His blood, but the cup is not included in what it suggests. If it were, then we would also drink the cup along with the fruit of the vine.
The fruit of the vine in the cup symbolizes
Jesus' blood. This is why we usually say that the “fruit of the vine represents
Jesus' blood.” (Matt. 26:27, 28). In the metonymy, “this cup” is not the
container, but what it suggests, which is the fruit of the vine,
the contents of the cup. The fruit of the vine in the cup, not the cup,
represents Jesus' blood. Jesus' blood is the blood of the new covenant
that forgives sins, not the fruit of the vine or the cup. The cup suggests
but is not a part of what it suggests. If the cup is included then, the
cup is also a part the fruit of the vine that represents Jesus' blood.
What the cup suggests is what matters.
As long as we drink the right contents, the contents Jesus
intended by saying, “This cup,” the contents, the nature and number of
container is not suggested so does not matter as long as we drink what
is suggested by the cup. If the container is a part of what is suggested,
then we must drink the container also.
Paul wrote, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” Did Paul mean we commune with Jesus' blood though the cup or with Jesus' blood through the contents suggested by the cup, the fruit of the vine that represents the blood of Jesus? Surely not the cup for it does not represent Jesus' blood. How can the container bring us to commune or to share with the blood of Jesus? We can commune with the blood by drinking the fruit of the vine that represents His blood. We have no communion with the cup as if it were the blood of Jesus. This is why brother Bales wrote, “cups.” for he meant the contents and not the containers. We all drink the same contents regardless of the number of containers, thus we all drink one cup. Notice, Paul never writes that we drink “of” the cup, if he had, he would have meant the vessel, but instead he wrote we drink the cup, thus a metonymy suggesting the contents.
Jesus and Moses both believed that blood was the blood of the covenant. (Ex. 28:4; Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Heb. 9:20). The cup is not the cup of the covenant, but the blood of Jesus is the blood of the covenant which is represented by the fruit of the vine that is in the container.
Jesus mentioned “This cup,” one cup, the only one cup. If the statement is to be taken as referring to the container, then only the cup in Jesus' hand is meant. “This cup” and no other cup would do. But because this is a metonymy, Jesus was suggesting what was in the cup, the fruit of the which represents His blood that is the blood of the new covenant. Thus the contents that represents His blood (not the cup) is the fruit of the vine that is in the cup. Jesus thus said this cup, the contents, the fruit of the vine, “is the new testament in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25).
The statement, “This,” is to be compared with Jesus' statement to Peter, “Upon this rock.” (Matt. 16:18). “This rock” – on this rock and only on this rock – the church will be built, Peter and the popes not included. “Rock,” represents Jesus, but a rock is not present or included, for the church is not built on a physical rock and on Jesus, but on Jesus who is suggested by “rock. The rock is not present along with Jesus. Jesus said “this cup;” the contents, not the cup, is what is included. If this is not a metonymy of the contents, we would need the cup Jesus held in His hand in order to observe the Lord's Supper. But Jesus was suggesting the nature of the contents, which is what we drink.
By writing this cup is the new testament in my blood, Jesus was referring to the contents. Both the OT and NT were dedicated with blood (Heb. 9:18-20), not with a cup. The fruit of the vine, not the cup, suggested Jesus' blood that dedicated the covenant.
Congregation Size
Some have used the size of the congregation in Jerusalem to prove more than one cup was used. Since the Bible is silent, we do not know what they did, but we know they had 5,000 men (Acts 4:4) and continued to increase [“multitudes of men and women” (Acts 5:14); “were multiplying” (Acts 6:1); “continued to increase greatly” (Acts 6:7)]. They were not meeting in homes but in Solomon porch (Acts 5:12). Estimates have reached 100,000 and more disciples. Trying to figure out how they could have used only one cup and one bread seems to be a problem.
I have preached for congregations that
use one cup and consider them my brothers in Christ. The congregation in
Mammoth Spring used one cup when I was a boy. I realize some in those congregations
believed using more than one cup is wrong and may be a sin. I think almost
everyone will agree that one bread and one cup are safe. Those who believe
this should use one of each instead of wounding their conscience by using
more than one, but Jesus was not requiring the use of one cup and one piece
of bread, for if He was, Paul would have written, “As often as a congregation
eats from one piece of bread and drinks the fruit of the vine from one
cup, you declare the Lord's death until He comes again” , but 1 Cor. 11:26
reads, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show
the Lord's death till he come."