Douglas Hawkins - 1st Affirmative

     I'm thankful for this exchange and for the opportunity to stand in defense of this proposition. To minimize any misunderstanding, let me tersely define my proposition. By the term "Scriptures," I refer to the word of God. By "teach," I mean to impart the knowledge of. As indicated, the word "cup," denotes a drinking vessel. By the term "communion," I mean the Lord's Supper. By "represents," I mean metaphorically symbolizes. And finally, by the "New Covenant" I mean the new arrangement or the agreement that was ratified by the blood of Christ. These definitions should suffice, but if further clarification is needed, I will be very happy to accommodate Bro. Moore in my next article. I will now systemically prove that this proposition is unmistakably true.

THE NEW COVENANT AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST

     The Bible teaches that God established a new covenant at the time of Christ's death on the cross and that this new covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ. The writer of Hebrews said in Heb 8:8, "Behold the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." Due to the imperfect nature of the first covenant, God fully intended to effect a new covenant that would provide the forgiveness of sins to all who believe and obey. Romans 11:27 states, "For this is My covenant unto them, When I shall take away their sins." This promise of a new covenant and the forgiveness of sins was accomplished through the shedding of Christ's blood. Just as blood was required means of confirmation for the first covenant, in order to ratify the new covenant, the blood of Christ had to be poured out. Hebrews 9:18 says, "Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood." Taking the blood animals, Moses sprinkled the book and all the people saying, "This the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you" (He 9:20). Accordingly, the Lord, when referring to his own blood, used the same language as Moses. Christ said that his blood was the "blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt 26:28). In other words, his blood was the inseparable seal of the new covenant. Because the blood of Christ effectuated this new promissory agreement with its terms and conditions, it was a better covenant (He 8:6). Before continuing, I want to make a few fundamental observations that I'll come back to momentarily.: (1) The blood and the covenant are two separate and distinct things with an integral relationship. (2) The blood ratified the new covenant. It is not a symbol of the new covenant. (3) The new covenant became effective at the death of Christ (Col 2:14-17; He 9:14-17). That the law of Moses codified the specific terms of the old covenant is seen in Ex 34:28 and Deut 4:13. Thus, when the old law was "nailed to the cross," the old covenant was annulled, and the new covenant was inaugurated.

THE DEATH OF CHRIST
THREE THINGS HAPPENED - THREE THINGS ARE REPRESENTED

     Three things of significance occurred when Jesus died on the cross, and in turn, these same three things are emblematically pictured in the Lord's Supper. 1) Christ's body was sacrificed (He 10:10). 2) His blood was shed (Jn 19:34). 3) The new covenant was ratified (He. 9). When instituting the memorial, Jesus said: 1) Something is (represents) my body (Mt 26:26). 2) Something is (represents) my blood of the new covenant (Mt 26:28). 3) Something is (represents) the new covenant in my blood (Lk 22:20). Unfortunately, here is where Bro. Moore and I come to a parting of the ways in our understanding of the Scriptures, and so I would like for you, dear reader, to notice comparatively the Lord's three statements. In his response, Bro. Moore will untenably say that the statements "...the blood of the covenant" (Mt 26:28) and "...the new covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20) are identical expressions of the same thought but in reverse order. Are they the same? Absolutely not. They're not even cousins much less twins. One statement declares that something is (represents) Christ's blood

— "For this is my blood of the new covenant." And the other statement says that something is (represents) the new covenant

— "This... is the new covenant in my blood." The modifying prepositional phrases in the two statements do not change the metaphorical affirmations at all. Godspeed translates the phase in Mt 26:28 as "this is my blood which ratifies the agreement" and the phrase in Lk 22:20 as "This.., is the agreement ratified by my blood." In other words, something represents the blood that ratified the agreement and something represents the agreement that was ratified by the blood. This vital point must be clearly understood for it is the vortex of this stormy controversy. To say the phrases are the same is grammatically incorrect. If you can understand that the statement "this is my body" means that something represents my body, and that the statement "this is my blood" means that something represents my blood, then it should not be too difficult to understand that the statement "This... is the new covenant;" means that something represents the new covenant.

WHAT REPRESENTS WHAT?

     Having conclusively shown that the body, the blood, and the new covenant are equally represented in the Lord's Supper, I'm now ready to discuss what metaphorically symbolizes each of them. To establish this, we are going to study the Lord's statements in Mt 26:26-29 and Luke 22:20.

     1) The Body of Christ. The Bible says in Matthew 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body" (NKJV). By tracing the pronoun "this" back to its antecedent, we learn that the bread represents Christ's body. When Jesus said, "this is my body," he referred to the bread that he had taken, had blessed and had broken. Thus, the expression "this is my body" means "this (bread) is my body."

     2) The Blood of Christ. Again the Bible says in Matthew 26:27-29, "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. (28) ‘For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29) ‘But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (NKJV). This passage is another critical point of dissension for Bro. Moore and me. The question that has to be resolved is: to what does the pro noun "this" in Mt 26:28 refer? Now actually, Bro. Moore and I already agree that the pronoun "this" refers to the fruit of the vine. Bro. Moore, however, will speciously contend that Jesus is saying the "cup" is the blood and subsequently, the cup (v. 27) is used in a figurative expression. Problematically, this position ignores how scholars say the word "cup" in Mt 26:27 is used, and too, it hastily overlooks that there are two elements found in v. 27. 1) There is the cup (a drinking vessel) that is explicitly stated. 2) There is the contents of the cup (fruit of the vine) that is necessarily implied by the command to drink. Notice carefully. The scripture says in Mt 26:27, "And he took the cup." This statement very simply narrates what Jesus did that fateful night in Jerusalem. The expression does not use any figure of speech. In fact, all reputable Bible scholars agree that the word "cup" in this verse is used literally and means "a drinking vessel." (cf. Thayer pg. 533). However, the cup that Christ took and gave to the disciples obviously was not empty for he said, "Drink from it all of you." In order for these men to drink from the cup, there had to be some kind of liquid contained within it, but there is nothing inherent in the word "cup" that suggests a certain liquid. Therefore, the liquid that they drank had to be stated. When Jesus said in v. 29, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine," he wasn't qualifying the meaning of the word "cup" nor was he showing how the word cup was previously used. He simply established that the fruit of the vine was what both he and the disciples had drunk. We have then: (1) the cup and (2) the contents of the cup. The cup is not the content and the content is not the cup. In Jesus' statement, "For this is my blood," the pronoun "this" refers grammatically to the cup, but by metonymy "this" emphasizes the contents of that cup, which is the fruit of the vine. The Lord said, "For this (the fruit of the vine in the cup) is my blood." Hence, the cup is not the blood because the fruit of the vine represents the blood. Consider this parallel sentence. He picked up the cup, took a drink out of it, and said, "This is delicious, but I'll not drink anymore of this coffee until tomorrow." What is the antecedent of "this" in the statement "this is delicious?" Cup. What is delicious? The coffee. Is the cup the coffee? Absolutely not. Neither is the cup the fruit of the vine.

     AT. Robertson said: "Poterion (cup) means a literal cup, while in verse (28) touto (this) means the contents" (Quoted by J.D. Phillips in The Cup of the Lord pg. 12). E.E. Stringfellow of Drake University said: "In Mt 26:28, ‘this' is a neuter word, and must refer to ‘cup' which is neuter, but the reference is, by metonymy, to the contents of the cup, as indicated by the context" (Phillips. pg. 19). Therefore, the statement "For this is my blood" means "For this (f. of v.) is my blood."

     3) The New Covenant. Once again, the Bible says in Luke 22:20 "Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." As you can see, Luke provides additional information that was not recorded by Matthew and Mark. According to Luke (and Paul I. Cor 11:23-25) Jesus took the cup, filled the fruit of vine, and specifically referred to it by saying "This cup is (represents) the new covenant in my blood." We are now ready to formulate some conclusions. 1. What represents the body? The bread. 2. What represents the blood? The fruit of the vine. 3. What represents the new covenant? The cup.

INTEGRAL BOND

     I previously told you that the blood and the covenant are two things that sustain an integral relationship. Indissolubly bound, one could not possibly exist without the other. Without the stated terms, promises, and conditions of the new covenant the shedding of Christ's blood would be pointless. On the other hand, if a covenant is made and a new system established, blood is required as a seal. The interdependent relationship is very clear. In the same sense, God chose two distinct elements that are integrally dependent upon each other to symbolize the blood and the covenant. The fruit of the vine could not possibly stand alone, and too, an empty cup would not serve any good purpose. For ease of explanation, I have addressed what represents the blood and what represents the covenant separately, but in reality, the two cannot be disjointed. The Lord took a cup of fruit of the vine, and he explained that by it, both the blood and the covenant are inseparably portrayed. When looking at it from the vantage point of the fruit of the vine in a cup, Jesus said "this is the blood of the covenant" but when looking at it from the standpoint of a cup filled with fruit of the vine, he said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." As Bro. Wayne Fussell said, "Just as the New Covenant conveys the benefits of the blood, the cup conveys the representative of that blood. And the presence of the fruit of the vine in the cup is that which makes the cup significant. There is no covenant without blood. The cup does not represent the testament without the emblem of blood." Bro. Moore, dear reader, my proposition is proven. Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant."

Elmer Moore - 1st Negative

I. Introduction

     I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the teaching of our Lord about the memorial supper He instituted on the night of His betrayal. A word of appreciation to the Guardian of Truth and Old Paths Advocate for publishing this exchange. It is my prayer that this exchange will enlighten brethren as to the issue between us. It is more than just a question about how many containers may be used in the Lord's Supper. The proposition of this exchange indicates as much. There are some serious differences between us about the Lord's Supper. It is my hope that this discussion will resolve at least one.

Since Brother Hawkins did not number or otherwise label his arguments, I shall assume his major sections to be labeled I, II, III, IV & etc., respectively. I shall enumerate my response to his arguments under these respective sections.

II. The New Covenant and The Blood of Christ

     1. I take no issue with what Brother Hawkins wrote about "The New Covenant and the blood of Christ." I would remind the readers that he obligates himself to do two things. (1) Prove that Jesus gave some significance to a literal container, and (2) that this literal container represented the New Covenant just like the bread represented His body.

     2. 1 want to preface my statements of reply by a few observations. We are admonished to be "not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is," (Eph 5:17), to do so we need to understand that the New Testament was written to the whole world and not just to the people of Texas and Missouri. Consequently, we need to understand that there was a mode of expression that was peculiar to time and place of the recording of the New Testament. Serious students of the New Testament will endeavor to understand what was meant at the time the message was written. and how it was understood then. I do not believe that Brother Hawkins has done this. He writes about metaphor and metonymy and ignores the rules that must be respected when examining such. He treats figurative language as if it were subject to the natural laws of grammar. Bullinger, in his book on figures of speech, writes: A figure is, as we have said before, a departure from the natural and fixed laws of grammar and syntax," (pg. 11 intro.). This is the same mistake that men have made in dealing with symbols and parables. He also ignores the purpose or design of the Lord's Supper. The purpose for doing a thing is vital. Our brother understands this about the subject of baptism. We need to understand that Jesus was observing the Passover Feast; a feast that was a memorial. Jesus declared, "This do in remembrance of Me," (Luke 22:19; I Cor 11:24, 25). He commanded the design and we had better not forget or ignore it. W. E. Vine writes, "In Christ's command in the institution of the Lord's Supper, Luke 22:19; I Cor 11:24,25 not ‘in memory of' but in an affectionate calling of the person himself to mind" (Page 957). Anything that is made significant in the Lord's Supper must meet this design. One can readily see that the bread. That represents His body, and the fruit of the vine,, which represents His blood, affectionately calls the person Himself to mind. Brethren what is there about a literal container that causes one to affectionately call the person Himself to mind?

III. The Death of Christ: "Three things happened— Three things are represented"

     1. Our brother writes that "three things of significance occurred when Jesus died on the cross." I would remind him that there are many more than three things that happened when He died on the cross: He obtained the remission of sins for man, (Matt 26:28); The church was purchased, (Acts 20:28); The Old Testament was abrogated, (Col 2:14), to name a few. He settles on three because that is what his proposition demands. I would remind you that Jesus, when He instituted His supper, mentions two things that involve His blood: the forgiveness of sins, and the ratifying of the New Testament. Both necessitated His blood. Under this heading Brother Hawkins also tells you that I will say that the statements, "blood of the covenant" (Matt 26:28) and the "covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20) are "identical statements." I say no such thing. I say what the New Testament teaches: that these two statements are affirming the same truth. Both are teaching that the contents of the cup represent the Blood of Christ which ratified the covenant. The order of record is not always the order of occurrence.

     2. Let me tell you what Brother Hawkins has done by failing to understand the nature of figurative language. He has Matthew and Mark contradicting what Luke said. Look at his reasoning. Matthew 26:27 states, "and he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, drink from it all of you, for this is my blood..." Please note by his reasoning the word "this" refers back to cup. Hence, Matthew and Mark affirm that the "cup" is His blood, and Luke affirms ,by his reasoning, that the literal "cup" is the New Covenant. Thus, Brother Hawkins has these inspired writers contradicting themselves. To avoid this he will have to recognize his improper use of metaphorical and metonymical language; and when he does this he will have to give up his "container represents the New Covenant" theory.

IV. What Represents What?

     1. Under this heading Brother Hawkins correctly states that "by tracing the pronoun ‘this' back to its antecedent, we learn that the bread represents Christ's body." He then cites Matt 26:27-29 where Jesus "took the cup, gave thanks, gave to them, saying, ‘drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood...' In Christ's statement, "for this is my blood," the pronoun ‘this' refers grammatically to the cup." You will note that he understood that by tracing "this" in v 26 back to bread, he learned that the bread represented His body, but he didn't learn that by tracing the word "this" back to cup that the cup represented His blood. But, my brethren the word "cup" does represent His blood in this passage. Does our brother not see that his reasoning on Luke 22:20 has Matthew and Mark in contradiction with Luke. Matthew and Mark write that the "cup Is His blood' and Brother Hawkins has Luke declaring that it is not His Blood but is His New Covenant. Brother Hawkins please take note: Jesus identified what was in the cup, "fruit of the vine." We would not know if He had not told us. No drink was required in the Passover. It was there either by custom or in anticipation of what Jesus intended to do. This is why He said "this fruit of the vine;" and in so doing he explained His use of the word cup. He was not emphasizing a container. Certainly, because of the physical nature of grape juice, a container was necessary but served no other purpose.

     2. Brother Hawkins tries to avoid his difficulty by arguing that the "cup is not the blood because the fruit of the vine represents the blood." He has grammatically argued that the cup is His blood. Now he is changing his mind. Why does he get into this predicament? Because he is emphasizing a literal container. He is ignoring the figure of a metaphor and metonymy. He tries to prove that the word "cup" is referring to a literal container that has some significance. He gives an illustration of a cup of coffee. Brother Hawkins this denies what you are arguing, and admits my contention that the emphasis is on the contents and not the container.

V. What Do the Scholars Say?

     1. Brother Hawkins tries to prove his point by scholars. He writes, "all reputable bible scholars agree that the word ‘cup' in this passage is used literally and means a drinking vessel". Brother Hawkins they do not! You cite Thayer where he defines the word cup and you say he said that the word is used literally. Thayer defines cup to mean a drinking vessel. He then shows how the word is used. He writes, "by metonymy the container for the contained, the contents of the cup, what is offered to be drunk, Lk.22:O" Brother Hawkins there is no such thing as a figurative definition of a word. All words are defined in their literal sense, but they are capable of being used figuratively. Brother, you misrepresented Thayer.

     2. He then tries to show the significance of the container from Robertson and Stringfellow. Please look at what these men say. They say exactly what I am contending, which is that the "cup" is named for its "contents". The emphasis is on the contents, not the container. The contents; the fruit of the vine which represents His blood that ratified the New Covenant.

     3. Paul, In writing to the church at Corinth stated: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not, [it is, e.m.] a communion of the blood of Christ. The bread which we break, Is it not [It is, e.m.] a communion of the body of Christ." (I Cor 10:16). Brother Hawkins there are only two elements of significance, not three.

VI. Formulated Conclusions

     1. Brother Hawkins "formulates some conclusions." In these he again states the integral relationship between the covenant and the blood of Christ. No one denies this. As has been noted there are a number of things that are integrally related. Jesus mentioned two in the institution of the Lord's supper: the forgiveness of sins and the New Covenant. These point to the value that the blood of Christ has in man's salvation. But that does not help his case by arguing that a literal vessel represents the New Covenant and becomes a significant element in the Lord's Supper.

VII First Corinthians 11:23-25.

     1. I kindly suggest that Brother Hawkins look at his authority, Thayer, on this passage. Thayer points out that the word "cup" is metonymy, where one thing is named for something that pertains to it. He says "Paul uses the word ‘cup' in! Cor 11:23-25 to refer to its contents," (page 533). What does this mean? It means that in whatever way that the "cup" is in the New Covenant it is not the container but the contents. This is why Paul writes that you drink the container.

     2. There is no doubt that the blood of Christ ratified the New Covenant and abolished the Old Testament just as the blood of Christ made possible the remission of sins and purchased the church. But our Lord instituted a memorial supper. Whatever we make significant must call, affectionately, the person Himself to our minds. This is the design of the supper. The bread referring to His body and the fruit of the vine referring to His blood.

     3. Brother Hawkins mentions a Brother Wayne Fussell but then failed to tell us who he is and what are his credentials.

VIII. Brethren, Brother Hawkins failed to sustain his proposition.

IX. Three Questions for Brother Hawkins.

     1. Did Paul present, in I Cor 11:23, precisely what Jesus taught in Matthew, Mark and Luke concerning the Lords Supper?

     2. What two things did Paul state, in I Cor 11:28, that one would be guilty of if he partook in an unworthy manner?

     3. What did Jesus say in Matthew 26:26-28, the disciples were to eat and drink?

Douglas Hawkins - 2nd Affirmative

     I'm again grateful for the opportunity to submit my second article of this exchange. I thank the editors, respectively, for the space afforded us in the G.O.T. and O.P.A. Before I begin, let me reassure you that I'm not attacking Bro. Moore personally. I am only taking issue with his position. In this article, I want to focus clearly on the contradictions, misrepresentations, and failures of Bro. Moore's first response. The negative has done a most inadequate job disproving what I have adduced thus far regarding this proposition. In fact, because of truth's impervious nature, Bro. Moore has ignored the critical points that I have advanced. Instead of showing the fallacy of my reasoning, he has just twisted my statements, and then has argued from a postulated premise. I will now carefully point out his mistakes to you and meticulously unravel his "Gordian knot." Intermingled throughout my answer to his first response will be additional material to further show the accuracy of my position and the absolute folly of his.

THE VORTEX OF THE CONTROVERSY

     At times, the real points of disagreement are obscured in a discussion. My first article illustrates that the statements "This is my blood of the new covenant" (Mt 26:28) and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20) are teaching two distinct truths. One is affirming that something represents the blood —"This is my blood of the new covenant." The other is stating that something represents the new covenant "This... is the new covenant in my blood." Unwarrantably and likeI told you he would, Bro. Moore has presumptuously said, "these two statements are affirming the same truth. Both are teaching the contents of the cup represent the blood of Christ which ratified the covenant. The order of record is not always the order of occurrence." However, these statements are wrong. To escape the unavoidable conclusions of my comparisons, Bro. Moore has conveniently said that "the order of record is not the order of occurrence." In the process, he has implied that we may arbitrarily relocate words within a sentence without respecting their specific grammatical function. The Catholics are sure going to love Bro. Moore. How does his observation of "the order of record is not always the order of occurrence" affect the statement "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?" Does it cryptically mean "he that is baptized shall be saved and believeth?" Why not? As to the matter at hand, how does his self-appointed rule apply to Jesus' statement, "This is my blood of the new covenant" in Mt 26:28? In light of his observation, does the statement actually teach that something represents the covenant instead of the blood? If the statement "this.., is the new covenant in my blood" means that some thing represents the blood as Bro. Moore contends, then am I to understand that the statement "this is my blood of the covenant" means that something represents the covenant? Sounds like someone is fancifully tailoring the Scriptures to their practice to me. Let's examine the statements closely.

THIS IS MY BLOOD (OF THE NEW COVENANT)
THIS CUP IS THE NEW COVENANT (IN MY BLOOD)

     Notice, the subjects, predicate nominatives, and prepositional phrases are different in both sentences. Contrary to Bro. Moore's implications, the fact these are metaphorical expressions doesn't change the grammatical function of the words in the sentences. In the statement, "this is my blood of the new covenant," the pronoun "this" (referring to the fruit of the vine) is the subject. "Is" is the verb meaning metaphorically represents, and "blood" is the predicate nominative, which is linked to the subject. The statement simply means: this (f. of v.) rep resents my blood. Likewise, in the second sentence, cup is the subject. "Is" means "represents," and the word "covenant" is the predicate nominative which refers back to the subject. The statement means the cup represents the new covenant. On one hand, Matthew and Mark affirm that the fruit of the vine represents the blood and on the other, Luke and Paul declare that the cup represents the new covenant. Bro. Moore is falsely working from the assumption that Luke and Paul affirm the same thing as Matthew and Mark. Bro. Moore is mistaken. Let him show otherwise.

RULES OF METONYMY AND METAPHOR

     Several times throughout his response, Bro. Moore has stated that I have ignored the rules regarding these figures of speech. Bro. Moore, I ask you specifically "where and what rules?" You quoted E.W. Bullinger where he says that figures are a departure from the natural and fixed laws of grammar to intimate that the statement "this cup is the new Covenant" is not to be understood as written. Let me remind you that any rule you apply to Lk 22:20 (This cup is the new covenant) to alter the phraseology will equally apply to Mt 26:28 (This is my blood). Are there any laws governing figurative language? E.W. Bullinger says, "It is not open to any one to say of this or that word or sentence, ‘This is a figure,' according to his own fancy, or to suit his own purpose. We are dealing with a science whose laws and their workings are known. If a word or words be a figure, then that figure can be named and described." (p. 11 intro.) In other words, Bro. Moore ought to be able to tell us exactly what rules have been violated. It is not enough for him to make vague insinuations. Let me dwell for a moment on these figures, metaphor and metonyrny, to show that I haven't ignored their use at all. In fact, my position is built upon them.

     1. Metonymy. This is a figure based entirely upon association. The kind of metonymy used in the Lord's Supper is where the container is named to suggest or include its contents. Even though you may not recognize the figure of speech by name, you are very familiar with its daily use. For instance, if I were to say "the kettle is boiling." I have used a metonymy where I name the container (kettle) to suggest its contents (water). Here are a few basic rules of this figure of speech. 1) The object named is not the thing suggested. (i.e. The kettle is not the water.) 2) The object named is real. (i.e. The reference is to a literal kettle.) 3) In metonymy of the "container for the contained" when referring to a liquid, the container named must contain the thing suggested. This is the only association or relationship that exists between the two objects.

     Near the end of his article under the section of 1 Cor 11:23-25, Bro. Moore says, "Thayer points out that the word ‘cup' is metonymy, where one thing is named for something that pertains to it. He [i.e. Thayer D.T.H.) says ‘Paul uses the word ‘cup' in I. Cor 11:23-25 to refer to its contents.', (page 533) What does this mean? It means that in whatever way that the ‘cup' is the New Covenant it is not the container but the contents." Is that what Mr. Thayer means Bro. Moore? No, that is not what Thayer means at all. Thayer means the word "cup" is used metonymically to include its contents, the fruit of the vine, a symbol of Christ's blood. I have already stated in my first article that the cup must be filled with fruit of the vine before anything is represented in the communion. How do I know that the metonymical use of cup in I Cor 11:25 and Lk 22:20 is meant to include but not put solely for the contents? Be cause, first of all, that is precisely what Mr. Thayer writes on page 15 under his entry on blood. He says, "I Cor 11:25; Lk 22:20 (in both which the meaning is, ‘this cup containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by the shedding of my blood an emblem of the new covenant.')" Joseph Thayer, the very man who said "cup" is used metonymically in the passages under question, explained the exact manner of its use.

     Secondly, I also know because the fruit of the vine cannot consistently represent both the new covenant and the blood of Christ. That is contradictory. Bro. Moore is the man hopelessly at odds with the teachings of the New Testament, not me. I don't need to give up my "container represents the new covenant theory." He needs to renounce his unscriptural practice of individual cups. His position has the inspired writers contradicting each other by saying that the fruit of the vine represents both the blood and the new covenant. He vaguely says, "in whatever way that the ‘cup' is the New Covenant it is not the container but the contents." I have told you the exact way. When Jesus took the cup and said, "This cup is the new covenant", he specifically referred to the vessel he had taken. The metonymy, as shown by Thayer, establishes that the cup was filled with the fruit of the vine.

     2. Metaphors. Along with metonymy, this figure of speech further proves any proposition. According to E.W. Bullinger in his book on figures of speech, a metaphor is: "a distinct affirmation that one thing is another thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything ex pressed or understood." (pg. 735) The established laws of metaphors given by Bullinger are: 1) "The verb ‘is' means in this case represents." (735) 2) "There may not be the least re semblance" (735) 3) "The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean" (735). Let's apply Bullinger's rules to the metaphorical statements in the Lord's Supper; specifically, the two rules stating the nouns are always to be taken absolutely literal, and the figure lies in the verb "is" which means represents.

This (bread) is my body
This (f. of v.) is my blood
This cup is the new covenant

     Bro. Moore said I obligate myself to do two things. (1) Prove Jesus gave significance to a literal container. (2) Prove that the literal container represented the new Covenant just like the bread represented His body. These rules prove just that. Now, in light of these rules, does Bro. Moore still want to argue the "cup is the blood?"

"THIS" IS MY BLOOD - THE FRUIT OF THE VINE, OR THE CUP?

     I have explained in detail in my first article what the pronoun "this" in Mt 26:28 has reference to - the fruit of the vine. In responding, Bro. Moore has shyly represented me as arguing "the cup in the blood," but in doing so, has unfairly misrepresented me. Notice, he writes, "He (i.e. me D.T.H.) has grammatically argued that the cup is His blood... He tries to prove that the word ‘cup' is referring to a literal container that has some significance. He gives an illustration of a cup of coffee. Brother Hawkins this denies what you are arguing, and admits my contention that the emphasis is on the contents and not the container." I believe Bro. Moore almost saw the point. But I think he must have accidentally drunk the coffee from my illustration and the caffeine made him "jump to conclusions" prematurely. My exact point is that the pronoun "this" does emphasize the contents and not the container. Matthew and Mark didn't write the "cup in His blood." Elmer Moore wrote that. Matthew and Mark record Jesus to say "For this is my blood." How can the pronoun "this" refer grammatically to the cup and yet mean the fruit of the vine? Because, as Bro. Moore and I agree, the fruit of the vine was "in" the cup. The pronoun "this" through metonymy refers to the contents of the cup. Can a pronoun be used metonymically? Absolutely. For instance, if I were to say, "take the kettle off the stove when it boils," the pronoun "it" grammatically refers to the kettle, but through metonymy actually means the contents. The same is true regarding the Lord's statement, "for this is my blood." The cup that Christ had taken is the antecedent of "this", but through metonymy the pronoun "this" emphasizes the con tents of that cup, the fruit of the vine. When Jesus said, "I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine," he wasn't explaining the meaning of cup or its use. He was identifying what he had referred to by using the pronoun "this." Bro. Moore is exactly right when he said, "The emphasis is on the contents, not the container." Not only do Stringfellow and Robertson agree, Elmer Moore does as well. Jesus said, "for this (f. of v.) is my blood."

THAYER ON MT 26:27

     One other matter I quickly want to address in this article is Bro. Moore's accusation of me misrepresenting Thayer on the definition of the word cup in Mt 26:27. I noted in my first article that all reputable Bible scholars agree the word cup in Mt 26:27 (not Lk 22:20 as quoted by Bro. Moore) is used literally. For comparison, I referred you to Thayer's lexicon on pg. 533. Bro. Moore contradictively said, "they do not!" and then said, "Brother you misrepresented Thayer." Well, let's see. Thayer on pg. 533 under Strong's #422 1 says, "Poterion -a cup, a drinking vessel; (a) prop; Mt 23:25 sq.; Mt 26:27...;" Bro. Moore, do you know what prop. is an abbreviation for? Properly or literally. I shall be glad for you to issue an apology for your mistaken accusation.

BRO. MOORE'S QUESTIONS

Question #1. Matthew and Mark declare that something rep resents the blood and Luke and Paul write something represents the New Covenant.
Question #2. In verse 27 (not v. 28 as Bro. Moore noted) Paul said we would be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
Question #3. Bread and fruit of the vine.

Elmer Moore - 2nd Negative

     In this, my second negative in response to Bro. Hawkins' second affirmative, I wish to express my confidence that you the readers are fully capable of determining what has or has not been done in this exchange. The affirmative, apparently, does not think so. He seems to feel that he must tell you that I have created an exceedingly complicated problem for myself. He tells you that I have twisted his statements and involved myself in contradictions, misrepresentations and failures. He writes, "I am not attacking Bro. Moore personally." I will let - you decide whether he is or not. I have confidence in your ability to determine these things for yourselves. However, since charges have been made that I: 1. acted "slyly"; 2. "ignored critical points"; 3. "twisted statements;" 4. "argued from postulated premises"; 5. "made mistakes;" 6. acted without good sense ("folly"); 7. acted "presumptuously;" 8. am guilty of "unscriptural practice of individual cups"; 9. used "fanciful tailoring [of] the Scriptures;" 10. "unfairly misrepresented;" 11. "drink too much caffeine" - effecting my reasoning; 12. guilty of "contradictions, misrepresentations and failures" creating a "Gordian knot" for myself, I hardly know whether to address the issues or try to redeem my reputation. However, since these are merely vain attempts to hide the true issues, I will try to ignore them and stick to the scriptures to prove that Bro. Hawkins' proposition is not true according to my understanding of the revealed word of God. You be the judge. By the way, the statement of item 8, introduces a point of contention upon which there is wide spread disagreement and since this written exchange is suppose to present proofs not unsubstantiated conclusions, is completely out of order in my view. The affirmative used this second article to re-hash his first article and tell you what I did not do. However he totally ignored my rebuttal arguments, giving not even a slight mention of them. What did he have to say about my argument on the purpose of the Lords supper? We are to "do this in remembrance" of Christ. Whatever is of significance must aid us in doing this, must bring to mind an "affectionate calling of the person Himself." The bread and the fruit of the vine does this; the container does not. The container was necessary to hold the fruit of the vine. Also, I called attention to the fact that the New Testament teaches that there are two elements of significance in he Lord's supper and not three, I Cor 10:16. (Read first negative.)

     The affirmative again cites Lu 22:20 and Mail 26:28 and declares that they are teaching "two distinct truths". He tries to prove this by a conglomerated process that I doubt seriously if anyone will understand. He presents a chart on these two nassaes.

This is my blood (of the new covenant)
This CUP Is the new covenant (In my blood)

     Bro. Hawkins then states that in the statement "This is my blood of the new covenant" the pronoun "this" is referring to the fruit of the vine. Look at what he does. The word "this" in Matt 26:26 refers back to the bread. He then argues that the word "this" in Matt 26:28 refers to the fruit of the vine. He ignores his argument on "grammar." I pointed this out in the first article and he ignored it. According to his argument on grammar the word "this" in Mail 26:28 refers back to the "cup." Look at the statement. "And he took a cup and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new covenant. "Thus, according to his grammatical argument Jesus declared that the cup was His blood. The consequence of his argument has Matthew and Luke in contradiction. Matthew wrote that the "cup" (container according to Bro. Hawkins) was His blood. Luke wrote that the "cup" (container according to Bro. Hawkins) was the new covenant.

     Bro. Hawkins takes issue with my statement that the "order of record is not always the order of occurrence." I really thought that our brother knew this. I am embarrassed for him. I thought that students of the Bible knew this. I will give him just one example. In Romans 10:9 Paul wrote, "Because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved." Was Paul teaching that man is to confess to something that he has not believed? Bro. Hawkins then wrote, "Our brother has implied that we may arbitrarily relocate words." Sir, you know that I did not imply any such thing. This accusation is beneath the dignity of a gospel preacher, you should be ashamed. He then writes "his time E.M. self appointed rule." Just because Bro. Hawkins (seemingly) have not learned the exegesis of basic Biblical Hermeneutics does not mean that others have not. He mentions the Catholics in this accusation. He is the one that has the kinship with them in this present matter. They argue that the bread and cup (fruit of the vine) literally becomes the body and blood of Christ while Bro. Hawkins argues that Jesus is emphasizing a literal container as something that will affectionately call Jesus to mind; (I will be happy to correspond with Bro. Hawkins on how to properly understand the Bible, when this exchange is over).

     In Luke 22:20 Jesus declared, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood' (New ASV). The cup is that which is poured out. What was poured out? It was the blood of Christ. Hence the statement declares that the cup is the blood of Christ just as surely as does Matthew.

     In his section discussing Metonymy and Metaphor, Bro. Hawkins writes that any rule to "alter" the phraseology will equally apply to Matt 26:28. Certainly! There is no question about the phraseology; the question is what was he teaching. The Catholics will argue with you on the phraseology and insist that the phraseology states that the bread is His body i.e., actually becomes His body. You will tell them (and rightly so) yes that is what He said; but this is what He is teaching. I would remind the readers that the Holy Spirit said, "be not foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph 5:17) Bro. Hawkins cites Bullinger page 11 and apparently thinks that Bullinger is denying what he wrote on the same page. This reference is stating the very first rule in determining how a word is to be used you do not make a word figurative unless you have to. Bro. Hawkins wants to know what rule. If he will go back and read my first article he may see this and other matters that he overlooked. However, I will answer the question. A word or statement is figurative only if in making it literal you involve an impossibility. To make the statement "this is my blood" mean that it literally becomes His blood, as the Catholics do, involves an impossibility. This is precisely what the affirmative is doing with the word "cup." He argues that "cup" is being used to suggest a "drinking vessel" and in doing so has a literal drinking vessel representing the blood of Jesus. To avoid this he changes his argument on the word "this". One time the word refers back to bread and the next time the word refers forward to "fruit of the vine." He tries to justify this by writing that "Bro. Moore and I agree, the fruit of the vine was ‘in' the cup." We do so agree but not for the same reasons. I believe that the fruit of the vine was in the cup of Luke 22:20 for the same reason it was in the cup in Matthew, Mark and First Corinthians. The cup is named to suggest its contents. Jesus, in Matthew, told us what was in the cup, "the fruit of the vine." The same is true of Luke 22:20. The cup is named to suggest fruit of the vine which was in the cup.

     Bro. Hawkins proves this in his kettle illustration. He writes, "it" grammatically refers to the kettle but through metonymy actually means the contents." Apply this to Luke 22:17 20. "It" (Luke 22:17) grammatically refers to the cup, but through metonymy actually means the contents. This is totally devastating to Bro. Hawkins contention that the literal container refers to the new covenant. Bro. Hawkins, in whatever sense the "cup" is the new covenant, it is not the literal container but what is in the container.

     Brethren, I am amazed that Bro. Hawkins cannot see that what he cites from Thayer and Bullinger establishes precisely what I have been arguing, that the container is named for its contents. His illustration of a kettle does the same thing. He writes that the "object named is not the thing suggested." Bro. Hawkins, do you not see that this is what I have tried to get you to see. The , object named, is not the thing suggested. That which is suggested is the contents. Thus, the cup (contents) represents that which was poured out (the blood of Christ) which ratified the new covenant and made possible the remission of sins. Both of these expressions are identified in the institution of the Lord's Supper.

     Bro. Hawkins denies that he has misrepresented Thayer (I use the word misrepresented without thought as to motive). In his first article he wrote, "All reputable scholars agree that the word ‘cup' in this verse is used (my emp em) literally and means a ‘drinking vessel' (Thayer pg 533)." Note that Bro. Hawkins writes the word used. The quote that he attributes to Thayer is not about how the word is used. Thayer defines the word to mean a "drinking vessel, and then shows how the word is used. He wrote, "By metonymy of the container for the contained, the contents of the cup, what is offered to be drunk." That is how the word is used in these passages. Bro. Hawkins did misrepresent Thayer in that he applied the basic definition to its use. Yes, Bro. Hawkins, Ida know what the initials "prop." means. I wonder if you know what the initials "sq." stands for? It "sq." means that the word cup is used in the same way (the container for the contents) in the following references(s), (I Cor 11:25-28.). This is why I wrote that in whatever sense the "cup" is the new covenant it is the "contents" and not the container.

     Please look at the two statements that the affirmative has been writing about. Matt 26:27-28. "He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins."

     It was the blood that was poured out. This blood did two things. 1. It ratified the New Testament, (Hebrews 9:11-20)2. It made possible the remission of sins, (Hebrews 9:22). The contents of the cup are identified in Matt 26:29 — fruit of the vine. We would not have known what the contents were if the writer had not told us. Thus, the "cup" is named for its contents, the fruit of the vine, which is a fair representation of His blood that ratified the new covenant and made possible the forgiveness of sins. What is the literal container a fair representation of in the Lord's Supper? Now look at Luke 22:20, Luke's account of the same incident. "And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, this cup which is Poured out for you is the New covenant in my blood," (NASV). In both passages something was poured out. That which was poured out was the blood of Christ. Matthew writes "blood of the covenant' and Luke writes, "covenant in My blood." In Both passages cup is named for its contents that was a fair representation of the blood of Christ. My friends, these passages are not teaching "two distinct truths" as the affirmative states, they are affirming the same truth. Question: Bro. Hawkins tell us where Luke 22:20 and I Cor 11:25-28 teaches that the fruit of the vine is the blood of Jesus? Don't forget to do this. You are arguing that the "cup" represents the new covenant. What, in these two references, has reference to the blood of Christ?

My Questions

     1. I don't believe that Bro. Hawkins answered my question on what Paul presented to the Corinthians in Chapter Eleven. Bro. Hawkins why did you not answer the question? Regardless of that, you, the readers, know that Paul presented precisely what Jesus taught. Paul wrote what he received of the Lord, and what he received of the Lord is what transpired on the night Jesus was betrayed. What Paul wrote was that they were to "drink the cup," (I Cor 11:27). They were to drink the contents of the cup. Thus, in whatever sense the "cup" is the new covenant; it is the contents and not the container as Bro. Hawkins has affirmed. In question

     (2) He answers that they would be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Precisely! These are the two elements of significance in the Lord's Supper. Why did he not also say and "of the new covenant" if this was a third element of significance? In question (3), the disciples were to eat the bread and drink the cup. The action involved had reference to the two elements of significance; the bread and the fruit of the vine.

     It is very dangerous to make a law where God did not. It is not safe, it is soul damaging.

Douglas Hawkins - 3rd Affirmative

     When a man is unable to overthrow the truths of an argument by pointing out the fallacy of what has been stated, he must resort to tactics that divert the audience's attention away from the issues of the discussion. This is precisely what Bro. Moore has done in his opening paragraph and with the other unrelated matters he has introduced in his second negative. I guess now would be as good a time as any to give him (with sympathy) #13 to add to his lengthy grocery list of complaints. Bro. Moore has clearly evaded his responsibility in this discussion as the negative. A great part of my second affirmative dealt with metaphors and metonymy in answer to his objections that I ignored these figures of speech. In responding, he didn't say a word against it. Why not? Either he plainly could not answer what I have written or else he purposely is waiting until his last article to say something about it so I will not have the chance to respond to him. I need to remind him that it's his job to take up my arguments and not vice versa. Also, if Bro. Moore seriously wants to confuse my attack of his error with a personal attack of this character, then I feel terribly sorry for him. Despite Bro. Moore's allegation that "[I] ignored [his] rebuttal arguments," I want to pick up where I left off and quickly cover the rest of the relevant material that I did not have the space to address the last time. Then I'll note his second article.

"IN REMEMBRANCE"

     Bro. Moore contends that the proposition is untrue because it does not serve to meet W.E. Vine's opinion of "affectionately calling that person to mind." Bro. Moore's conclusion is that the bread is a fair representation of Christ's body and that the fruit of the vine fairly represents Christ's blood, but he can't see how a "container" would serve the purpose of calling someone to mind. Let's help him. Bro. Moore, Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant (He 7:22; He 8:6). To have a symbol of that covenant is to have something that reminds us of what he accomplished, the ratification of this new and bet ter covenant. To remember what Christ accomplished is to re member him. Bro. Moore, in his first article, also said that a number of things are stated in connection with the shedding of Christ's blood (i.e. the remission of sins, the purchasing of the church etc.) Yes, but Christ didn't say anything represented the remission of sins nor that anything symbolized the church. What he did say though is that something represents the new covenant. What is it? Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant" (Lk 22:20). Of the cup that Christ took in his hand, he said, "This cup" represents the new covenant. Elmer denies it, but the Lord still said it.

"ONLY TWO ELEMENTS"

     Bro. Moore also quoted I Co 10:16 and stated that there are only two elements of significance mentioned in the communion, the body and the blood. In addition, in the questions of his last article, he pointed out that we would only be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if we partook unworthily (I Co 11:27) and that nothing is said "of the covenant" to indicate a third element in the communion. First, the reason is because it is established in several other places in the Scriptures that the blood of Christ is the "blood of the new covenant;" therefore, it does not need to be stated again. Bro. Moore I'm embarrassed for you. I thought you knew that. You see friend, Bro. Moore's sectarian argument proves nothing. (The sectarian will argue that Jesus, in the latter half of Mk 16:16, didn't say "and is not baptized" attempting to prove that baptism is unessential to salvation. That must be where Bro. Moore learned his argument. I think I can help him though. Bro. Moore, I'll be very glad to correspond with you when this is over.) Secondly, to enjoy the communion of the blood of Christ is also to share in the fellowship of the new covenant, but conversely, to splash carelessly through the blood of Christ is to desecrate that one ratified agreement. Thirdly, so closely connected are the blood and the new covenant (as I pointed out in my first affirmative) that to state one would be to imply the integral relationship of the other. Fourthly, Paul in I Co 10:16 and I Co 11:27 didn't assign representative significance to any element of the communion. The Lord had already done that. Jesus said regarding the cup that he took, "This cup is the new covenant" (Lk 22:20), giving it just as much importance in the Lord's Supper as the bread and the fruit of the vine. Basically, Bro. Moore's objection comes down to this: Paul only mentioned the body and the blood and said nothing of the covenant in I Co 10:16 and I Co 11:27. Therefore, he concludes that there are only two significant elements in the communion. Bro. Moore, where in Ac 20:7 or Ac 2:42 when discussing the breaking of the bread does it say anything about drinking f. of v.?" Do these verses teach that there is only one significant element in the communion?

"THE NASV"

     In quoting this particular translation of Lk 22:20, Bro. Moore has sought to prove that Luke teaches the "cup is the blood." However, this particular version inaccurately translates the passage. The phrase "which is poured out for you" doesn't modify "cup" as the NASV has rendered it. Rather, the phrase modifies blood. The New King James Version says in Luke 22:20 "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." Another translation says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." In these other translations the sense is not that the cup was poured out, but that the blood was poured out or shed for us, which is vastly different from the NASV. Which translation is right? Let's ask ourselves, what was shed or poured out for us? A cup? Fruit of the vine? Blood? Obviously, it was blood. To translate the pas sage as "This cup, which is poured out for you" is to say that Christ poured out a cup or shed fruit of the vine for us. Is that what you believe Bro. Moore? Christ didn't shed a cup nor did he shed fruit of the vine. Secondly, if Bro. Moore's reasoning is right, the passage means the blood is (represents) the new covenant. It would not mean that the cup is (represents) the blood as he has concluded. The passage in the NASV, says, "This cup (symbol of blood according to E.M.) which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Hence, the blood is (represents) the new covenant. That is completely absurd. The blood was shed to ratify the covenant, but it is not a symbol of that covenant. The blood and the covenant are two separate things. Bro. Moore's main problem is that he cannot see that the statement "This.. .is the new covenant" means that something symbolizes the new covenant. He can see that the statement "This is my blood" means that something represents the blood, but he can''t see the truth that something represents the new covenant. Will you base your faith upon this faulty translation? Bro. Moore has.

- "THE ORDER OF RECORD"

     Bro. Moore has stated a number of times (as innumerable as Abraham's descendants I believe) throughout this exchange that "the order of record is not always the order of occurrence." In the preceding article, he said that I ought to be ashamed for accusing him of arbitrarily relocating words within a sentence. Let's look at his application of Lk 22:20 in light of his ex ample in Rom 10:9 because they are nothing alike. Maybe then we can determine where the shame rightfully belongs. In Rom 10:9, we all know that belief precedes a confession of our faith. Notice, that "confessing with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in our hearts that God raised him from the dead" are two finished and complete thoughts that are understood in their proper sequence. However, this example is a far cry from saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" means that the cup (contents) represents the new covenant (actually the blood) because the order of record is not always the order of occurrence. To say that faith naturally precedes our confession doesn't alter the truth of either statement, but to say that ‘This cup is not the new covenant," teaches that the contents represent the blood changes the thought altogether. Bro. Moore, is the order of record ever the order of occurrence? If so, how shall we know when it is? (Oh yeah, I forgot. You will correspond with me). Brethren, if the statement "this my blood" means that something represents the body, and the statement "this is my blood" means that something represents the blood, then why, oh why, pray tell does the statement "This... is the new covenant" not mean that something represents the new covenant? I believe I should say, "shame on you" Bro. Moore.

     These statements are not the same as you have said, and yes, you have arbitrarily changed the words within the sentence of Lk 22:20. Furthermore, I have comparatively shown the difference in the statements: ‘This cup (filled with f.v.) is the new covenant in my blood" and "this (the f.v. in the cup) is my blood of the new covenant" in my first two affirmatives. De spite the insinuation that you, the reader, are too doltish to understand such a "conglomerated process," we clearly see that these statements affirm two different, yet complimentary, truths. (Perhaps Bra. Moore can correspond with you after he's finished with me.)

"MY WATERLOO"

     Much to my chagrin, my contention that the literal container represents the new covenant has been "totally devastated" because: 1. Bro. Moore has turned my illustration of the boiling kettle against me. 2. Thayer and Bullinger actually agree with Bra. Moore. 3. I have contradictorily said the literal container represents both the blood and the new covenant. 1. "It" in Lk 22:17 - Bro. Moore contends that since the pro noun "it" in Lk 22:17 is used to refer metonymically to he contents of the cup that I'm wrong in what I've contended for. The only problem is that it is in Lk 22:20 (not v. 17) that Jesus said "This cup is the new covenant." The demonstrative pro noun "this" shows that Christ was referring to "the cup" that He had just taken. If it is solely the contents that are considered as Bro. Moore has insisted, why did Jesus say "this cup?" The Lord just as easily could have said this fruit of the vine to indicate only the contents. Why did Christ refer to the container at all? Furthermore, if it's the contents that represent the blood why did Jesus say, "This.., is the new covenant in my blood", meaning that this is the agreement ratified by my blood? In Mt. and Mk. Jesus said "This is my blood", but according to Luke the Lord also said, "This.... is the new covenant." If the Lord wanted something to symbolize the ratified new covenant, what language would he have had to use? Clearly, it requires the container and its contents together to represent both the new covenant and the blood of Christ. Jesus said, ‘This cup (filled with f.v.0 is the new covenant in my blood." It comes down to this: do you believe the Lord meant what he said? 2. Thayer and Bullinger - Bro. Moore says that these scholars "establish precisely what [he has] been arguing, that the container is named for its contents." Of all the assumptive, specious, and tenuous things I've ever read, this tops them all. Bro. Moore you need to reread what these men have written because they changed their minds. They don't agree with you after all. In fact, 1. Thayer on pg. 15 said the cup represents the new covenant and the wine represents the blood. 2. Bullinger said the nouns in a metaphor must both be mentioned and are to be taken absolutely literally. In other words, literal fruit of the vine represents the literal blood of Christ and a literal cup represents the literal covenant. (Bro. Moore's desultory remarks about the Catholics are altogether irrelevant.) Why didn't you deal with Thayer and Bullinger?

     You plainly ignored these points, Bro. Moore. 3. Contradictions - Time and again Bra. Moore has said that I have made Luke contradict Matthew and Mark by saying that the container represents both the blood and the new covenant. I've said no such thing. What I have said speaks for itself. This is just another classic example of Bra. Moore's "sly" misrepresentations. I've said the fruit of the vine symbolizes the blood and the cup represents the new covenant. I've noted that these two elements must be together before anything is emblemized in the communion. (see the end of my 1st affirmative) Now then, I don't have to distort what Elmer has written to show his discrepancy. Bra. Moore has continuously said: The cup (con tents - f.v.) is the blood and the cup (contents) is the new covenant. Can't you see Bra. Moore that your reasoning has Luke contradicting Matthew and Mark? The reader and I can. It's not Napoleon Hawkins who has met his waterloo. It's Elmer Bonaparte. Finally, as to your question, there is no place in Luke or 1 Cor. where the Bible teaches the fruit of the vine represents the blood. That teaching is found in Mt 26:28 and Mk 14:24. Let me ask you, where in Acts 2:38 is faith taught? Does the fact that it's not void the role of repentance in the plan of salvation?

THE CONCLUSION

     Brethren, the issue boils down to this: do you accept what the Lord said? Jesus didn't say "this cup is my blood," nor did He say "this fruit of the vine is the new covenant." What the Lord could have-said, he didn't. The Lord said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Elmer hasn't been debating me. He's been debating the Lord. This isn't about what Doug Hawkins said. This is about what the Lord said and whether or not the Lord meant exactly what he did say. Why does Bra. Moore take exception to the Lord's statement? The reason is because his back's against the wall to uphold the man-made arrangement of using "individual cups." Bro. Moore noted the consequence of making a law where God has not. Let me add to that. It's as equally dangerous to disobey a law that God has made. In light of the evidence, I must call upon you brethren who use individual cups to abandon the practice and restore the ancient order of worship. Please consider these things prayerfully. A word of thanks to brethren Mike Willis, editor of G.O.T., and Don King, editor of O.P.A., for printing this exchange. Bra. Elmer Moore, thank you for your part and for the hours that you spent preparing your articles to make this discussion possible. And a word of thanks to you, the reader, for the time you've invested in reading this discussion. May God bless this effort. Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant."

Elmer Moore - 3rd Negative

     I will try to wade through all of the reckless and loosely connected statements that Bro. Hawkins wrote. If you have difficulty in trying to understand what he wrote, join the crowd. He reminds us of my obligation in the negative and my failure to measure up to that obligation. The negative is to examine proof offered by the affirmative (of which I find very little) and has the right to present rebuttal arguments. This I believe I have done. You be the judge.

     The problem with the affirmative is that he admits that in the texts describing the institution of the Lord's Supper figurative language is used. He even admits that you have both a metaphor and metonymy. Then he ignores the basic rules governing them in his explanation of the texts under discussion. This is the same mistake that men make in the study of parables and symbols, making literal that which is symbolic. He charged me with ignoring what he wrote about these figures. He wrote, "He didn't say a word against it". I agreed with his basic argument, "that any rule about the phraseology will equally apply to Mt 26:28." 1 wrote, "Certainly! There is no question about the phraseology; the question is what was he teaching."

     This rule our brother will not apply. You will note that I presented an illustration of his blunder. I pointed out that in Mt 26:26 he argued that the word "this" refers back to the bread. He then argues that the word "this" in Mt 26:28, the same context, points forward to fruit of the vine. Thus, he has the word "this" referring back to bread and forward to fruit of the vine. You see this even if he doesn't. To follow his rule the word "this" in Mt 26:28 must refer back to "cup." Thus, according, to his rule. Jesus is saying that the "cup" (container) is (represents) his blood. Yet Bro. Hawkins is arguing that the "cup" (container) is (represents) his new covenant and in so doing has Matthew and Luke in contradiction of one another. This is the logical consequent of his argument. I presented this in article two and what did bra. Hawkins say about it? He wrote "this is a classic example of his sly misrepresentations." Jesus used both a metaphor (one thing named to suggest another) and metonymy (the change of one noun for another related noun) as in the "cup" for its "contents."

     While I am discussing these figures let me also, once again, address what he said about Bullinger and Thayer. He blatantly misrepresents these men. He wrote, "Thayer on page 15 said the cup represents the new covenant." Brethren look at what Thayer said. Thayer is discussing the subject of blood and he writes, "The blood by the shedding of which the covenant should be ratified, Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24 or has been ratified add, I Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20 in both which the meaning is, this cup containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by the shedding of my blood an emblem of the new covenant." Brethren this is recklessness on the part of Bro. Hawkins.

     Thayer states the same thing here that he does on page 533 where he writes, "By metonymy of the container for the contained, the contents of the cup, what is offered to be drunk."

     Our brother then writes, "Bullinger said the nouns in a metaphor must both be mentioned and are to be taken literally." Bullinger also writes on Pg. 739, "The whole figure. in a metaphor, lies, as we have said, in the verb substantive ‘is' and not in either of the two nouns." He also wrote, "so in the very words that follow ‘this is' (i.e. represents or signifies) my body we have an undoubted metaphor. ‘He took the cup... saying this IS my blood!' Here, thus, we have a pair of metaphors. In the former one, ‘this' refers to ‘bread' and it is claimed that IS means changed into the ‘body' of Christ. In the latter, ‘this' refers to ‘the cup' but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into ‘blood'."

     Bullinger does not support the claim of the affirmative, quite the contrary. Bullinger writes that "this" refers to the cup.

     Bro. Hawkins continues to misrepresent these scholars.

"IN REMEMBRANCE"

     He writes that "in Remembrance" is W.E. Vines opinion. No, Jesus said "this do in remembrance of me". I simply gave Vines definition of the word "remembrance." The word means "affectionately calling that person to mind." The bread representing his body and the fruit of the vine representing his blood does precisely this. The literal container does not. Bro. Hawkins is arguing for the "literal container" but bases his argument on what the Bible teaches about the "new covenant" which is not an issue. I agree that there is something that reminds us of what Jesus did, but it is not the "literal container" of the Lord's Supper. Our brother argues that Jesus said something represented the new covenant and has conveniently ignored what Jesus said about it. He said "new covenant in my blood" We are dealing with figurative language. What did this mean? What ratified the new covenant? Was it a literal container or the blood- of Jesus? A container was named to suggest its contents. The contents was the fruit of the vine. What did the fruit of the vine represent? It represented the blood of Jesus. What did the blood of Christ do? The shedding of His blood ratified the new covenant and made possible the forgiveness of sins. Bro. Hawkins asked the question why did Jesus refer to the container at all? Jesus named the container to suggest what was in it. His audience understood His language. Brethren the two statements, "the new covenant in my blood" (Lu 22:20) and "my blood of the covenant" (Mt 26:28) are teaching the same thing.

THE ORDER OF RECORD

     Our brother knows what I wrote concerning the order of record. He put it in quotations in this article. Yet in his second article he falsely charged me. I now know he knew better. He then tries to get out of trouble by charging me with "relocating words in a sentence". I showed that the two passages, Matt 26:28 and Luke 22:20, taught the same thing but not in the same order. (see previous article). I wrote, "These passages are not teaching two distinct truths, as the affirmative states, they are affirming the same truth." Remember that these writers are describing the exact same event that took place on the night of the betrayal; Thus, that which they relate to us must be consistent. Matthew was present at that event and knew exactly what the Lord was saying and exactly what took place. Neither Mark nor Luke were present but, being guided by the Holy Spirit, that which they wrote must agree with what Matthew wrote about the matter. I didn't cite Romans 10:9 to argue that it was like Luke 22:20. I cited the passage only to show that "the order of record is not always the order of occurrence." Bro. Hawkins built a straw man to attack and ignored my argument.

HIS "WATERLOO"

     In this section Bro. Hawkins tells you that I contended that the word " it" metonymically refers to contents. Is he denying this? He then points out that the word "it" is not in Lk 22:20.

     Is he arguing that this is not the same cup in verse 20 as the cup referred to in verse 17? How many containers does he think were there? Note also that he is making some progress. He is affirming "literal container" represents the new covenant. Now he writes "this cup (filled with the f.o.v.) is the new covenant." Thus, he virtually admits what I have been arguing that "the container is named for its contents, and in whatever sense the ‘cup' is the new covenant, it is talking about contents and not the container". He has denied his own proposition. If the container becomes significant only after it is filled with "wine" then we must ask ourselves "what made it significant?" After the "wine" is drank, is the container still significant? What can be done with the container other than wash it and put it back on the shelve or throw it away if it is of the throw-away type? These questions are not trivial because there is the problem of showing when the container becomes "holy" and when it ceases to be "holy." Not so with the "wine" or the "bread." They become of significance, to each individual, during the process and completion of the act of imbibing of each, respectively, and then only if it is properly done, (I Cor 11:20-29).

I Cor. 11:27

     The affirmative attempts to answer my argument on two elements in I Cor 11:27. He totally ignores my argument and writes about the covenant and its importance, which is not an issue. My argument was based on what the passage states about the Lord's Supper. There are two actions identified. They were to eat the bread and drink the cup. Paul declares "whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord". My argument still stands. There are only two elements of significance. Is it possible that Paul would have ignored the significance of the container if it was of importance. He was teaching the Corinthians the proper manner of taking of the bread and the fruit of the vine. That which he received of the Lord is that which he taught.

     Bro. Hawkins tries to prejudice the reader by referring to "Bro. Moores sectarian argument". I guess bethought that you would not realize that he did not touch top, side, or bottom of my argument. In this same connection he cites Acts 2:42 & 20:7 where the passages refer to the "breaking of bread" and wants to know if this is only one element of significance. No Bro. Hawkins the phrase "breaking of bread" sometimes referred to a common meal and sometimes referred to the Lord's Supper. In these passages the Lord's Supper is suggested in an often used figure of speech, synecdoche, where a part is named and the whole is intended. The part of the Lord's Supper implied, of course, is the eating of the bread. Did you think that this only meant that they just ate the bread and did not drink the cup?

NASV

     Bro. Hawkins takes it upon himself to challenge the translators of the NASV. He writes that they "inaccurately translated" Luke 22:20 but gives no authoritative evidence of why he believes this to be true. He reminds me of the Baptist who deny the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20. They do it because they know that it repudiates their doctrine. Our brother challenges the NASV for the same reason. He knows that it utterly destroys his contention. Bro. Hawkins writes that "poured out modifies blood". This does not help him in the least. There is no issue about what was poured out, it was the blood of Christ. What represented that blood is the question? In Mt 26:27-28 Jesus took a "cup" and said "drink ye all of it [cup]; for this [cup] is my blood." Thus, it was the cup (contents) representing His blood that was poured out. The NASV presents the truth on this passage in Lk 22:20. 1 would also remind the reader that Bullinger agrees that the word "this" in the above passage refers to the "cup"

CONCLUSION

     We must handle aright the word of truth. In so doing one must exercise caution in examining texts that involve figurative language. When Jesus said "go tell Herod that fox.:.". I know what He said, but I must try and understand what he meant. Bro. Hawkins emphasized what Jesus said but failed to understand what he meant. This can be a fatal mistake when dealing with figurative language.

     My brethren there are two elements of significance in the Lord's Memorial Supper. This is taught in I Cor 10:16. "The cup of blessing which we bless is it not [it is, em] a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not [it is, em] a communion of the body of Christ. Also in, I Cor 11:27, we are directed to "Eat the bread and drink the cup". If we do so in an unworthy manner we become guilty of the "body" and "blood" of the Lord. The Lord's Supper is a memorial. Whatever is of significance must "affectionately call the person [Jesus] to mind." The bread representing his body and the cup representing His blood does precisely this; the container does not. It is my hope that the reader will realize the fallacy in making the physical container an element of significance in the memorial feast. There is no way for the partaker to relate to the container except that it is necessary to contain that which is of significance, the fruit of the vine that represents His blood that was shed for the new testament and for the remission of our sins. It is important that we are continually reminded of this great sacrifice that was made by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen

     I thank both the editors of the Old Paths Advocate and Guardian of Truth for allowing me space to set forth what I believe about the Lord's Supper.