"Take the Challenge"

• About this site

How to write your testimony effectively - Telling your own story is perhaps one of the most effective methods in sharing the gospel message.  It's Biblical, attractive and effective if done right.  “The problem with some writing isn’t that it’s bad writing. It’s just boring,” - Ginger Kolbaba, managing editor of Marriage Partnership magazine...

• About this site

Fernando Medina

• About this site

10 Ways to Read the Bible

• About this site

John Dennison

• About this site

Joel Hovey

• About this site

• About this site

Go to the main Sunday school page for puzzles, lesson plans and other activities for Sunday school teachers.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE SPIRIT’S GUIDANCE

Is the Breaking of Bread meeting open for ministry, etc., under the Spirit’s guidance, in a way which would not equally apply to a Conference, a Gospel meeting or a Prayer meeting?

I certainly think it is; but in order to understand why, it is necessary to apprehend the special character attaching to meetings of different kinds. Each has in effect its special character, which predominates, though there is a certain latitude, and other things may have their place up to a point. Thus a Gospel meeting is for the preaching of the good news to sinners; that should characterise the meeting, though a short word to believers present may sometimes be in place and cannot be forbidden. A teaching meeting is for teaching the truth of God to believers, and need not be taken up too much with long prayers and hymn singing; an exhortation meeting is for exhortation, also to believers. In these cases it is a question of the exercise of gift manward. All are not evangelists or teachers; all are not called to exhort, etc. “He gave some, evangelists, some, pastors and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11);" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:11); and in Romans 12:6" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:6 we are reminded that “we have gifts differing according to the grace given,” either for prophesying (a foundation gift that no longer exists) or for ministry of various kinds—teaching, exhortation, etc. To apply the principle of equality of opportunity to all in such cases is clearly to set on one side the Lordship of Christ, who has given gifts according to His own will. We may invite men known to be qualified to evangelise or teach to the more general meetings for teaching (wrongly called “conferences,” for rarely does anyone confer). Where there are several teachers present, unless some special brother has been invited to minister the Word, there may well be an opportunity for open ministry, not however to all present, but only to those known to possess the gifts needful for edification.

Too often what is called “the open platform” has been abused, either because of too much liberty granted by elder brethren convening the meetings, or because of too much liberty taken by brethren present, who are not truly qualified to teach, but who get up on the plea of “the liberty of the Spirit,” and waste valuable time by unedifying talk. Let those who are gifted to teach wait on their ministry, and consider their brethren. The liberty of the Spirit is not anybody’s liberty to do as they like, but for the Spirit to do as He wills and use whom He chooses. The breaking of bread meeting is quite different; it is not primarily for ministry, though there may be secondary opportunities for this, when the true object of the meeting is over, which is to “shew the Lord’s death” (thus remembering Him in the breaking of bread), and to worship the Father. The object of those present is not to receive instruction, but to obey the Lord’s command, and as priests to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. As all believers, by the fact of the new birth, are constituted priests, the meeting is left open for all present to worship the Father, whether silently or vocally.

In the 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:  passage there is not a hint of any arrangement of speakers for ministry, and much less of anyone to preside and, as clergyman, minister, or pastor, “administer the sacrament” or “dispense the elements.” The bread is “the bread which we break,” the cup is “the cup of blessing which we bless.” These are terms which make breaking the bread and giving thanks for the cup a general privilege, rather than an ecclesiastical monopoly. The same principle applies to a prayer-meeting. All may pray, the women silently (1 Corinthians  14:34), the men “everywhere lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Timothy 2:8);" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:8); that is, it is they who lead in prayer. How can a prayer-meeting be rightly anything but “open” for the Spirit’s guidance? He alone knows the state of each soul; He alone knows the particular needs, and can make known that need to each and give suitable words to express it. Accordingly, there is not a hint in 1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2: of anyone presiding over or directing the prayer-meeting.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Why is it some assemblies will not admit believers to the Lord’s Table, until they have been baptized? Is this scriptural?

The question ought, I judge, to be reversed. Why do some assemblies admit believers who have not been baptized? It can hardly be questioned that baptism was ordained by Christ Himself as the initial rite in the Christian life. “Go, disciple the nations, baptizing them (i.e., the disciples when made), in (or into) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19). “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:15-16). Accordingly, in the Acts a profession of faith in Christ in one form or another was always followed by baptism, e.g., “Many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:8).

The twelve disciples of Ephesus, having been wrongly baptized, were re-baptized in (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus. There is not a single case mentioned of an infant being baptized. Baptism ought undoubtedly to be put before all candidates for fellowship. With young converts there is rarely any difficulty, but when we come to older Christians seeking fellowship, who have perhaps formed part of some evangelical denomination for a number of years, the case is more complicated. Many such firmly believe they have been truly baptized, either as children before faith, or by sprinkling after faith.

The question then arises whether it can be right altogether to refuse fellowship to such undoubted believers, who seem unable to see the need for “rebaptism.” I judge that such passages as 2 Chronicles 30:18;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 30:18; 1 Samuel 21:6;" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 21:6; Numbers 28: 9," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28: 9, etc., with our Lord’s comment on the last two passages in Matthew 12:3-7," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:3-7, shew that there are cases where God’s strict order may be modified by special circumstances. “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.” Each case, however, must be judged by spiritual men, who will surely have wisdom from God how to act; but certainly there should be no reception into the local fellowship without this question being raised.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE HOUR — THE BREAD

Ought we not to observe the Lord’s Supper only at night, and only with unleavened cakes, seeing this was the case at the institution?

Of course all admit that the Lord’s supper was instituted “the same night that He was betrayed,” “while they were eating,” that is, as the passover meal was drawing to its close. This was in the evening by a definite direction of Jehovah, but no direction was given that the Lord’s supper should be observed at any special hour of the day. Acts 2:42" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42 and 46, where the “supper” is, I think, certainly in view, makes no mention of the evening, but simply states that “they broke bread at home” (R.V.), in contrast with the daily public meeting in the temple.

In Acts 20:7" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7 the first day of the week is specifically mentioned, but we are left to gather incidentally that the observance was in the evening. There is, moreover, a very simple reason, quite apart from any spiritual significance, which I have never heard attached to the hour, why the evening was probably the time usually chosen in those early days, because it was the most convenient or the only time free in the day.

The observance of a “Sunday” on which shops were shut, and work closed down as to-day among men of all creeds or no creeds, was then quite unknown. For those who stickle for an exact imitation of the institution, one wonders why they do not celebrate the feast on the Thursday, the original day of its institution. We certainly only have custom rather than direct command for the first day of the week, though I do not question that this is the right day. Christianity is not like Judaism, a religious system of “days and months and years,” worked on a time-table, but a life to be lived on spiritual principles in the power of the Spirit, and governed by the Word, but not by inferences or deductions merely. Of course believers are perfectly free to break bread in the evening, if convenient, but it is not the only time, for the Word is “as oft as ye do it,” which cannot be limited to any particular hour of the day.

As for the necessity of using only unleavened bread, there is not a hint in Scripture for making this a sine qua non. Christians, no doubt, may use it if they see fit, but they have no right to impose it on their brethren. It is mere ceremonialism. The word, “artos,” used for the bread or loaf, simply stands for any mixture of flour and water, baked. There is nothing wrong about leaven itself, though, in the Scriptures typical of evil, but its anti-type is not leaven (to interpret a type by itself is not very helpful exegesis), but “malice and wickedness” or some such defiling sins (1 Corinthians  5:8). What we are called to do, is, not, like a company of Jews before the Passover, to search for literal leaven, but to examine ourselves for unjudged sin. To be occupied with the hour of the day, or the exact components of the bread and wine is to substitute the accidents* for essentials, and human inferences for Divine commands. I would close with the following weighty words of the well-known  servant of Christ, John Wesley: “What the Bible commands is good, what the Bible forbids is evil: what the Bible neither commands nor forbids, either in plain words or in undeniable inference, is a thing in itself indifferent, and neither good nor evil. The Bible is our sole guide and our adequate guide in faith and conduct.”

Matters on which the Bible does not legislate are left to the judgment of believers. The course good for one, may not be so for another. We are “by reason of use to have our senses exercised to discern between good and evil.” If the above principle were understood, it would help us to distinguish between things commanded, things commended, and things left entirely open, like the hour of the breaking of bread, or the exact kind of bread to be used, and it would prevent the harmful habit of judging one another on matters where even an apostle would confess he had no commandment from the Lord.

W.H.

* A property or quality of a thing which i not essential to it, aa whiteness to paper, the texture of cloth, the exact composition of bread.  

• About this site