Truth Magazine

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?

By Douglas T. Hawkins

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

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 brother Moore in my next article. I will now systematically 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, “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” (8:8). 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 a 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 of animals, Moses sprinkled the book and all the people saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you” (Heb. 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” (Matt. 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 (Heb. 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; Heb. 9:14-17). That the law of Moses codified the specific terms of the old covenant is seen in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 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 oc- curred 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 (Heb. 10:10). (2) His blood was shed (John 19:34). (3) The new covenant was ratified (Heb. 9). When instituting the memorial, Jesus said: (1) Something is (represents) my body (Matt. 26:26). (2) Something is (represents) my blood of the new covenant (Matt. 26:28). (3) Something is (represents) the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:20). 

Unfortunately, here is where broth- er 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, brother Moore will untenably say that the statements “. . . the blood of the covenant” (Matt. 26:28) and “. . . the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 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 (rep- resents) 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 phrase in Matthew 26:28 as “this is my blood which ratifies the agreement” and the phrase in Luke 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 under- stood 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 Matthew 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. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 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 brother Moore and me. The question that has to be re- solved is: to what does the pronoun “this” in Matthew 26:28 refer? Now actually, brother Moore and I already agree that the pronoun “this” refers to the fruit of vine. Brother 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 Matthew 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 vine) that is necessarily implied by the command to drink. Notice carefully. The Scripture says in Matthew 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, 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 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. 

A.T. 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 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, 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, 1 Cor. 11:23-25) Jesus took the cup, filled with 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. With- out 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 disjoined. 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 brother Wayne Fussel 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.” Brother Moore, dear reader, my proposition is proven. Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant.”

By Jim McDonald

Teressa Cruz -Toreja is the daughter of Ben and Delores Cruz. Ben preaches for the Kapitbahayan, Navotas church, one of Manila’s largest congregations. Teressa is a medical doctor, practicing medicine under what some might call “primitive” conditions. However, Teressa’s knowledge and skills are anything but primitive! 

Teressa’s practice has greatly increased and I have seen her facilities expand from just one room to where now she occupies almost the entire house of her parents. One of Teressa’s promises to her parents (who greatly sacrificed that she might go to college and then to medical school) was that she would attend the needs of indigent Christians, without charge. Teressa has kept that promise and needy saints from all over Manila come to seek her help and at- tention. The Kapitbahayan church helps Teressa by paying for the medicine she supplies to their needy members. 

Teressa does not confine her care solely to Christians. She practices Paul’s instructions “as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). Once each month she has a “Saturday clinic” in which she sees, without charges, the sick in her area. By chance I was at her parents’ home the day one such clinic was conducted and witnessed the overflowing number of patients there who took advantage of Teressa’s mercy. 

Teressa is a devout Christian. She and Jerry, her husband (who works for Philippine Airlines), provide regular, monthly support to some of the Manila area preachers for their needs and transportation. When funds for her father’s radio program (Manila’s only radio program among brethren) was not forthcoming and cessation of the program seemed eminent, Teressa and Jerry saved the day by providing half of its cost and challenging the Kapitbahayan church to provide the other half (they did). Ben’s widely heard program continues, with its growing and far reaching effectiveness. 

Teressa’s love for fellow-Christians and care for her fel- lowmen provide an excellent opportunity to Americans who also want to share in practicing pure religion. Individual Christians can help Teressa greatly by supplying her with medicine and medical supplies that she might not only help needy saints, but other indigents, as well. She would welcome and distribute to those who need it most, cough and cold medicines, anti-asthma medications, antacids and anti-ulcer medications, antifungal, antibacterial, anti- inflammatory ointments and creams, vitamins, aspirins, gauze, plaster, steristrips, sutures (chromic, silk, needles), any medical instrument (even slightly used ones), as well as all other various kinds of “over the counter” medicines. You can help this noble woman help attend to poverty stricken brethren and non-Christians, and prove to be a blessing. 

It is highly unlikely that you will come into contact with a fraction of the needy that Teressa does. Jesus will com- mend some on the last day by saying, “I was sick . . . and ye ministered unto me,” concluding “inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye did it unto me.” By providing Teressa with medical supplies, you can help as she gives to others and by aiding your brethren, these little ones, you minister unto our Lord! What noble and blessed deeds you can do by helping our sister in her acts of mercy and compassion! 

Write her: Teresa Cruz-Toreja, MD, B-01 Kapitbahayan, Navotas, 1413, Metro Manila, Republic of the Philippines.

By Herschel E. Patton

The old Downtown building and property was sold to North’s Funeral Home and was immediately demolished to begin the construction of a funeral chapel. 

The late Charlie Jones, long time elder in the Downtown church, and an avid record keeper, a few years ago wrote a history of the church in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. He gave a few of us who had been closely associated with the work there a copy of his records. 

According to his records, the church began meeting about 1895. Preachers in those days included such men as C.E. Holt and T.B. Larimore. The brethren erected a building in 1906, in which they worshiped until 1930. In this year they built and moved into the Downtown building, which they used for 67 years. The Downtown church of Christ in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee has had an illustrious history of contending for New Testament Christianity across the years. 

When the elders were planning the last service in the Downtown building, they decided to use the oldest, living and able, former preacher to deliver the last sermon. That turned out to be me. They invited Johnnie Felker, a former preacher, to lead the singing. 

Following is the sermon I delivered on that occasion. 

Downtown Church of Christ 

I hope no one fails to realize the real purpose of this gathering this afternoon — to worship, praise, and glorify God. Special circumstances could eclipse this purpose, but should not and must not. I suppose it is in order, as we conduct this last service in this antique building, to have an antique preacher, who has knowledge of what has gone on here, to deliver the last sermon in it. 

I appreciate the invitation extended to me to be here and speak on this occasion. I am happy to be here and to see so many of you gathered here. 

As I look out over this audience, I see many who are the children, grandchildren, and relatives of many who used to be a part of the Downtown church, but have now passed on. I am reminded of such names as Striblin, Coffman, Dugger, Lock, Hickman, Downey, Pollock, O’Neal, Gaither, Crowder, Ayers, and others. 

My emotions this afternoon are of a dual and different nature — both happy and sad. But, how can one be both happy and sorrowful at the same time? There are times in life when such is the case. Do you remember the time you took your child to school for his first day, knowing that he would no longer be with you during the days to follow? Were you not happy for the child’s growth and progress, yet shed a few tears? Or, when the child graduated from high school and went off to college, perhaps far from home? When our oldest son, Gary, graduated from high school, he went into the Air Force for a few months, then went to college, attending Reserve meetings all the while. When he left for the Air Force after graduation, it was a happy time, but also a time for shedding tears. When Steve graduated from high school here in Lawrenceburg, we took him to Tampa, Florida to enter Florida College. After getting him set up in his dormitory we hit the road back to Lawrenceburg. We had no sooner left when Reba burst into tears. Charles, who a couple of years before had graduated from Lawrenceburg High School and went to Florida College, but now was in MTSU, was with us on this joyful trip. When his mother started sobbing, he said “Mother, what’s the matter.” I said to him, “Charles, your mother did this same thing when we left you down here. She did the same thing when Gary left for the Air Force. 

Maybe someday day you will understand.” 

It is this kind of joy and sadness we feel today as we have this last service in this building. 

The Building is Not the Church 

I think most of you gathered here today realize that this large yellow brick, imposing building, situated here in downtown Lawrenceburg, is not now, and never has been the Downtown church of Christ. It is only its meeting place. 

The church that is of Christ is people — a special kind of people, not brick, mortar, wood, plaster, etc. 1 Peter 2:9 says, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His special people, that you may proclaim the praise of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” 

The church of Christ is the same thing that is said to be the body of Christ. “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head of all things to the church, which is His body” (Eph. 1:22-23). 

For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church: And He is the savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:23-26).

It is the same thing as the family of God. “I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house (family) of God, which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim.3:15). 

It is the same thing as the kingdom of Christ. In Matthew 16:16-19, Christ used the terms “church” and “kingdom” interchangeably, and Colossians 1:13 tells us that the saved have been translated out of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of His love.” 

This spiritual system, prophesied and typified in the Old Testament, found fulfillment in the advent of Christ, his death on the cross, resurrection, and the establishment of his church, kingdom, family, body. 

The divine format of Christianity existed in the first century under the guidance of inspired apostles, teachers, and prophets. We often refer to it as New Testament Christianity. Obviously, what existed then was exactly what God intended it to be, and according to his Word, was to be perpetually relevant — age lasting (Dan. 2:44). 

A Set Pattern 

The Bible teaches that when God establishes a system of religion, everything revealed must remain precisely intact for as long as they are designed to last. One would presume to change the divine arrangement to his own destruction.

 

An Old Testament example is Jeroboam I (1 Kings 13). He changed (1) the object of worship from God to golden calves, (2) the place of worship from Jerusalem to Bethel and Dan, (3) the priests from Levi to other tribes, and (4) the Feast of Tabernacles — a new feast was inaugurated. 

God’s attitude? “Jeroboam caused Israel to sin” (1 Kings 4:16). 

The early church was according to a God-given pattern. Acts 2:42 says, “They continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine” and 4:32 says “They were of one heart and soul,” suggesting unity of practice. 

Romans 6:17-18 says they were “free from sin” by “obeying a form (pattern) of doctrine.” They were told to “mark them that cause division and offence contrary to the doctrine.” How could they do this if no pattern of New Testament doctrine existed? They were not to go beyond things written (1 Cor. 4:6). We conclude — all spiritual activity must be Scriptural. 

The faith (a body of doctrine) can be departed from (1 Tim. 4:1), fall away from (2 Thess. 2:3), turned from (2 Tim. 4:1-4). “The Faith” is the same as “The Truth,” “The Gospel.” 

This is what existed in New Testament times. It was New Testament Christianity. It was to be age-lasting. 

History of Apostasy 

Apostasy was foretold in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7. This apostasy involved corruption in the organization of the church with men usurping authority that was not theirs. The result was the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and the Dark Ages. Corruption of the New Testament order and evil was so great that opposition could be expected. 

Protests introduced, what is known in history as “The Reformation.” Out of this came “Denominationalism.” Divided Christendom was as great an evil as the original apostasy.

 

Numerous men began to speak against the divided state in the religious world, and to plead for a return to the old Bible order of things; to a respect for the authority of God and his Word. They wanted to restore in the hearts of men what was divinely revealed and existed in New Testament days. History refers to this as “The Restoration movement.” The plea was:

• A plea for Christ.
• A plea for the authority of Christ.
• A plea for the church of Christ (body, family, kingdom).
• A plea to be biblical — to walk in the old paths.
• A   plea  for   people   to  be  what  God  wants  us  to  be ,as  revealed in his word (pattern).
• A plea for the restoration of New Testament Christianity in this present age. 

The results of such preaching were electrifying. Congregations of “The Faith” sprung up all across the land. New Testament Christianity was again popular. 

In the years that followed, other apostasies occurred, thinning the ranks of the faithful. Yet, in the midst of these departures from the faith, there has always been that spiritual body of Christ (the church of Christ) with its message of truth. 

When this building was erected in 1930, the body of Christ was just getting over another apostasy. Many brethren lost their respect for the need of Bible authority, for the divine pattern, and changed local church autonomy (each church doing the work of God, under Christ the head [king] to all churches functioning through an organization (Missionary Society) humanly created, and introduced instruments of music in worship. These unscriptural ef- forts resulted in the First Christian Church (denomination). Many souls and church buildings were lost to this apostasy. The church of Christ — family of God, kingdom of Christ suffered great loss. 

Brethren here in Lawrenceburg, who erected this building, continued to preach and practice “The Faith” and to walk in the old paths. New Testament Christianity was being maintained and practiced in this place, even popular.

Someone gave me copies of advertisements for a couple of meetings held in this building in 1944 (53 years ago). The Spring meeting involved numerous preachers (April 24-May 5 — an eleven day meeting).

 Speakers were D.D. Woody, Boone Douthitt, Franklin Puckett, Ira North, George DeHoff, Roy Cogdill, C.C. Burns, E.R. Harper, C.M. Pullias, N.B. Hardeman, C.L. Overturf, J.B. Gaither, A.R. Hill, Leon Burns, and J.L. Jackson.

 I knew every one of these men personally. Not one of them is alive today. Not many who heard the men preaching in this meeting are alive today. 

The Fall meeting, that same year, was preached by H. Leo Boles. He has been dead for a number of years. The young man pictured in this ad, who led the singing, is Robert C. Welch. Brother Welch still lives. He has been a close friend of mine all across these years. I was just a boy preacher, in Moulton, Alabama (less than a hundred miles south of here), and before then, preached at Savannah, Tennessee (about 50 miles west of here). I was in the neighborhood and aware of these meetings here at Downtown in 1944.

 All of these preachers, at that time, were pleading for New Testament Christianity and respect for the authority of God’s Word. Unfortunately, during this last half century the body of Christ has suffered the bitter effects of another apostasy — in the ’50s and ’60s. Some of the men that preached in these meetings were caught up in this new apostasy. Others continued preaching chapter and verse for all that is believed and practiced until they died.

 This apostasy was over Institutionalism and the Social Gospel. One involved the same principle as the Missionary Society — building societies, organizations, and institutions through which churches did their work (homes for orphans, widows, unwed mothers),  and the same kind of thing for evangelizing and schools for training. All these organizations were to be supported out of the treasury of churches. The Social Gospel involved moving the emphasis from saving and nurturing souls to administering to the physical and social needs of man (banqueting, ball teams and fields, gyms, etc.).

 The brethren at the Downtown church, who always opposed any departure from the divine pattern, were able to hold this building and continue the practice of New Testament Christianity because when this building was constructed it was written in the deed that if a time came when some wanted to embrace another organization than the local church, the building would belong to those opposing such things, whether in the majority or minority. So, the Downtown church of Christ has continued walking in truth according to the divine pattern revealed in Scripture.

 Preachers who have lived here and preached in this building have been committed to the principles of New Testament Christianity, speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent.

 I think of B.G. Hope, now deceased, Rufus Clifford, who was buried just a few weeks ago, E.L. Flannery, now deceased. My own tenure here for several years, David Clay- pool, Rufus Meriweather, Johnnie Felker, Julian Snell, Glen Seaton, and now Jim Deason. All of these men love the truth and give chapter and verse for all that is said and done.

 The Downtown church of Christ in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee has experienced change across the years, in personnel and membership, but not in faith and practice.

 Just a few of us remain who were around when this place of worship was built, and these are rapidly passing on to their eternal abode. Just this past year we have buried Laura Hermsdorfer, Marie Morrow, Lorena Dowden, Charlie Jones (at 92 — long time elder). Just a few weeks ago we buried Charlie Holt. Standing at his grave side, I noticed on the adjacent lot was the grave marker for Hiram Holtsford and his wife, Cecil, fixtures in the Downtown church for many years.

 Those who have passed on, and there are many others, have lost their earthly fellowship with members of this local church, but they have not lost their membership in the body of Christ, the church of Christ, or their citizenship in the kingdom of Christ. If they were faithful, and we now alive remain faithful, we can look forward to meeting them in the sweet by and by.

 This building in which the Downtown church of Christ has been meeting for worship, preaching and doing the Lord’s work for all these years is only an expedient. So, for whatever expedient reasons — location, steps too high, elevator difficult to maintain, difficult to heat and cool, parking space too limited, or whatever, go ahead and make these expedient changes that are deemed plausible and wise, even though it may, because of sentiment, be sad. Relocate.

 But don’t ever, ever, ever, ever, ever change the doc- trine, worship, organization, or work of the church from that divine pattern revealed in God’s word. Changes in this realm would result in separation from God, the removal of the candlestick, and loss of the soul.

 My time is up and the lesson is yours. Get your song- books and in just a moment we will be singing the song that has been announced.