Truth Magazine

By Douglas T. Hawkins 

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the cup (drinking vessel) in the communion represents the New Covenant. 

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 brother 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. Brother 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 brother Moore seriously wants to confuse my attack of his error with a personal attack of his character, then I feel terribly sorry for him. Despite brother 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” 

Brother 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.” Brother 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. Brother Moore, Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 7:22; 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 better covenant. To remember what Christ accomplished is to remember him. Brother 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 or 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” (Luke 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” 

Brother Moore also quoted 1 Corinthians 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 (1 Cor. 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. Brother Moore I’m embarrassed for you. I thought you knew that. You see friend, Brother Moore’s sectarian argument proves nothing. (The sectarian will argue that Jesus, in the latter half of Mark 16:16, didn’t say “and is not baptized” attempting to prove that baptism is unessential to salvation. That must be where brother Moore learned his argument. I think I can help him though.) (Brother 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 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 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” (Luke 22:20), giving it just as much importance in the Lord’s supper as the bread and the fruit of the vine. Basically, brother Moore’s objection comes down to this: Paul only mentioned the body and the blood and said nothing of the covenant in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:27. Therefore, he concludes that there are only two significant elements in the communion. Brother Moore, where in Acts 20:7 or 2:42 when discussing the breaking of bread does it say anything about drinking the fruit of the vine? Do these verses teach that there is only one significant element in the communion? 

“The NASV”

In quoting this particular translation of Luke 22:20, brother 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 passage 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 brother Moore? Christ didn’t shed a cup nor did he shed fruit of the vine. Secondly, if brother Moore’s reasoning is right, the pas- sage 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. Brother 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? Brother Moore has. 

 “The Order of Record” 

Brother 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 Luke 22:20 in light of his example in Romans 10:9 because they are nothing alike. Maybe then we can determine where the shame rightfully belongs. In Romans 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 al- ways 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 the new covenant,” teaches that the contents represent the blood changes the thought altogether. Brother 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 is my body” 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” brother Moore. These statements are not the same as you have said, and yes, you have arbitrarily changed the words within the sentence of Luke 22:20. Furthermore, I have comparatively shown the difference in the statements: “This cup (filled with fruit of vine) is the new covenant in my blood” and “this (the fruit of vine in the cup) is my blood of the new covenant” in my first two affirmatives. Despite 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 brother 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) Brother Moore has turned my illustration of the boiling kettle against me. (2) Thayer and Bullinger actually agree with brother Moore. (3) I have contradictingly said the literal container represents both the blood and the new covenant. “It” in Luke 22:17 — brother Moore contends that since the pronoun “it” in Luke 22:17 is used to refer metonymically to the contents of the cup that I’m wrong in what I’ve contended for. The only problem is that it is in Luke 22:20 (not v. 17) that Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant.” The demonstrative pronoun “this” shows that Christ was referring to “the cup” that he had just taken. If it is solely the contents that are considered as brother 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 Matthew and Mark 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 re- quires the container and its contents together to represent both the new covenant and the blood of Christ. Jesus said, “This cup (filled with fruit of vine) is the new covenant in my blood.” It comes down to this: do you believe the Lord meant what he said? 

Thayer and Bullinger — Brother 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. Brother 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, Thayer on page 15 said the cup represents the new covenant and the wine represents the blood. 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. (Brother Moore’s desultory remarks about the Catholics are altogether irrelevant.) Why didn’t you deal with Thayer and Bullinger? You plainly ignored these points, Brother Moore. 

Contradictions — Time and again brother 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 brother 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 first affirmative). Now then, I don’t have to distort what Elmer has written to show his discrepancy. Brother Moore has continuously said: The cup (contents — fruit of vine) is the blood and the cup (contents) is the new covenant. Can’t you see brother 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 Corinthians where the Bible teaches the fruit of vine represents the blood. That teaching is found in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24. Let me ask you, where in Acts 2:38 is faith taught? Does the fact that it is not void the role of repentance in the plan of salvation? 

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 brother Moore take exception to the Lord’s statement? The reason is because his back is against the wall to uphold the man-made arrangement of using “individual cups.” Brother 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 Truth Magazine, and Don King, editor of Old Paths Advocate, for printing this exchange. Brother Elmer Moore, thank you for your part and for the hours that you spent prepar- ing your articles to make this discussion possible. And a word of thanks to all of my preaching brethren who spent time in conversation with me about this discussion. Finally, 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.”

By Elmer Moore

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the cup (drinking vessel) in the communion represents the new Covenant. 

In this, my second negative in response to brother Hawk- ins’ second affirmative, I wish to express my confidence 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 Brother 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” affecting my reasoning, (12) guilty of “contradictions, misrepresentations and failures” creating a “Gordian knot” for myself, I hardly know whether to ad- dress 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 brother 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 supposed 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 “affection- ate calling of the person himself.” The bread and the fruit of the vine do 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 the Lord’s supper and not three (1 Cor. 10:16.) Read the first negative. 

The affirmative again cites Luke 22:20 and Matthew 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 passages.

This is my blood (of the new covenant).

This cup is the new covenant (in my blood). 

Brother 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 Matthew 26:26 refers back to the bread. He then argues that the word “this” in Matthew 26:28 refers to the fruit of the vine. He ignores his argument on “gram- mar.” I pointed this out in the first article and he ignored it. According to his argument on grammar the word “this” in Matthew 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 brother Hawkins) was his blood. Luke wrote that the “cup” (container according to brother Hawkins) was the new covenant. 

Brother 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? Brother 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 [me E.M.] self-appointed rule.” Just because brother Hawkins (seemingly) has 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 brother 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 brother Hawkins on how to properly understand the Bible, when this exchange is over.) 

In Luke 22:20 Jesus declared, “This cup which is poured 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, brother Hawkins writes that any rule to “alter” the phraseology will equally apply to Matthew 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). 

Brother Hawkins cites Bullinger (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. Brother Hawkins wants to know what rule. If he will go back and read my first ar- ticle, 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 “Brother 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 1 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. Brother 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 brother Hawkins contention that the literal container refers to the new covenant. Brother 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 brother 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.” Brother Hawkins, do you not see that this is what I have tried to get you to see. The cup 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. 

Brother 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 emphasis, em) literally and means a ‘drinking vessel’” (Thayer, 533). Note that brother 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. Brother Hawkins did misrepresent Thayer in that he applied the basic definition to its usage. Yes, brother Hawkins, I do 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) (1 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. Matthew 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 (Heb. 9:11-20). (2) It made possible the remission of sins (Heb. 9:22). The contents of the cup are identified (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: Brother Hawkins tell us where Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25-28 teach 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 

I don’t believe that brother Hawkins answered my question on what Paul presented to the Corinthians in chapter 11. Brother 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” (1 Cor. 11:27). They were to drink the contents of the cup. Thus, in what- ever sense the “cup” is the new covenant; it is the contents and not the container as brother 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.

By Douglas T. Hawkins

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the cup (drinking vessel) in the communion represents the new Covenant.

I am 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 Truth Magazine and Old Paths Advocate (OPA). Before I begin, let me reassure you that I’m not attacking brother 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 brother 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, brother 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” (Matt. 26:28) and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 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 like I told you he would, brother 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, brother 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 brother 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 Matthew 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 something represents the blood as brother 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 his 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 brother 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.) represents 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. Brother Moore is falsely working from the assumption that Luke and Paul affirm the same thing as Matthew and Mark. Brother Moore is mistaken. Let him show otherwise. 

Rules of Metonymy and Metaphor 

Several times throughout his response, Brother Moore has stated that I have ignored the rules regarding these figures of speech. Brother 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 Luke 22:20 (This cup is the new covenant) to alter the phraseology will equally apply to Matthew 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” (Intro. 11). In other words, brother Moore ought to be able to tell us exactly what rules have been vio- lated. It is not enough for him to make vague insinuations. Let me dwell for a moment on these figures, metaphor and metonymy, 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 Corinthians 11:23-25, brother 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 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 to refer to its contents’ (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 brother 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 1 Corinthians 11:25 and Luke 22:20 is meant to include but not put solely for the contents? Because, first of all, that is precisely what Mr. Thayer writes on page 15 under his entry on blood. He says, “1 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 can- not consistently represent both the new covenant and the blood of Christ. That is contradictory. Brother 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 my 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 expressed or understood” (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 resemblance” (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. 

Brother 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 brother 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 Matthew 26:28 has reference to — the fruit of the vine. In responding, brother Moore has slyly represented me as arguing “the cup is 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 brother 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 is 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 brother 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 contents 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.” Brother 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 Matthew 26:27 

One other matter I quickly want to address in this article is brother Moore’s accusation of me misrepresenting Thayer on the definition of the word cup in Matthew 26:27. I noted in my first article that all reputable Bible scholars agree the word cup in Matthew 26:27 (not Luke 22:20 as quoted by brother Moore) is used literally. For comparison, I referred you to Thayer’s lexicon on page 533. Brother Moore contradictingly said, “they do not!” and then said, “Brother, you misrepresented Thayer.” Well, let’s see. Thayer on page 533 under Strong’s # 4221 says, “Poterion — a cup, a drinking vessel; (a) prop.; Mt. 23:25 sq.; Mt. 26:27 . . .” Brother 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. 

Brother Moore’s Questions 

Question #1. Matthew and Mark declare that something represents the blood and Luke and Paul write that something represents the New Covenant. Question #2. In verse 27 (not v. 28 as brother 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.

By Elmer Moore 

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the cup (drinking vessel) in the communion represents the new Covenant. 

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 Truth Magazine 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 labels I, II, III, IV, and 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 re- mind 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. I 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 the time and place of the recording of the New Testament. Serious students of the New Testament will endeavour 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” (Intro. 11). 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 on 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; 1 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; 1 Cor. 11:24, 25) not ‘in memory of’ but in an affectionate calling of the person himself to mind” (957). Anything that is made sig- nificant 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 af- firming 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 Matthew 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 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” (Luke 22:20). 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 com munion of the blood of Christ. The bread which we break, is it not [it is, e.m.] a communion of the body of Christ” (1 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. 1 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 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 to refer to its contents” (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. This is why Paul writes that you drink the cup (vv. 26, 27, 28). You drink the cup by drinking the contents, you cannot 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 Fussel but he 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 1 Corinthians 11:23, precisely what Jesus taught in Matthew, Mark and Luke concerning the Lord’s Supper? 

2. What two things did Paul state, in 1 Corinthians 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?