Do the two loaves of the Day of Pentecost represent the Jews and the Gentiles?

Do the two loaves of Levticus 23:17 represent Jews and Gentiles?

And why were they “baken with leaven,” which speaks of what is evil?

The feast of Leviticus 23:15-21," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 23:15-21, called in Deuteronomy 16:10," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 16:10, etc., “The Feast of Weeks”; in Acts 2:1," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:1, etc., “The Day of Pentecost”: and in Numbers 28:26," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28:26, “The Day of the First-fruits”; is doubtless, as C. H. M. expresses it, “a type of God’s people, gathered by the Holy Ghost, and presented before Him in connection with all the preciousness of Christ.” This being so, the presence of leaven in the two loaves is, as he further says, “because they were intended to foreshadow those who, though filled with the Holy Ghost, and adorned with His gifts and graces, had nevertheless evil dwelling in them.” But the leaven was not burnt on the altar to God, either in this case or any other (see v. 20). That the number “two” may represent the elements, Jew and Gentile, out of which the Church is formed, seems reasonable enough.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a difference between the

Is there a difference between the “Principalities” and “Powers” mentioned in Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16;" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:16; 2:10 and 2:15?

Some of the statements made concerning them suggest that they are good, others that they are evil.

The words “principalities” and “powers,” when used together, define the status of certain who hold high place of rule, whether among men, or among angelic beings. In the former connection they are found in Titus 3." TARGET="_blank">Titus 3. i, where we are exhorted to be subject to them; while of the latter the clearest example is perhaps Ephesians 6:12, in which they are definitely set in contrast with “flesh and blood.” In some passages, as Romans 8:38," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:38, Ephesians 1:21," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 1: 16," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1: 16, they occur in a statement of such a character that it might perhaps be thought of as inclusive of both.
With regard to those principalities and powers which are angelic, there certainly does seem to be a difference on the lines indicated in the question above. Against those mentioned in Ephesians 6:12" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:12 we have to fight, and verse I shows that their leader is the Devil. But on the other hand, the principalities and powers of Ephesians 3:10," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 3:10, who are even now learning lessons through the Church of the manifold wisdom of God, can scarcely be thought of as other than good, especially when comparison is made with the similar statement of 1 Peter 1:12," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:12, “Which things angels desire to look into.” It must not be thought however that their being described as “in heavenly places” is sufficient proof of their goodness, since this is the very same term which is rendered “high places” in connection with those of chapter 6. z (see R.V.).
According to Col 1:16," TARGET="_blank">Col 1:16, all principalities and powers were created by Christ, and this of course implies that they were all good originally. But we read in Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6 (R.V.) of “Angels which kept not their own principality,” an expression which will at once suggest a reason why there should now be found both good and evil amongst them. Then in Revelation 12:7-9" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12:7-9 we read of a conflict between good angels under the leadership of Michael and evil angels led by the Devil, in which the latter and his host will be defeated, and cast down to the earth from the heavenly position until then occupied by him.
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Lord present only in the meeting of the Lord's Supper?

Do you consider that there is a deeper significance in the presence of the Lord at His table on the first of the week than when the saints meet for prayer or a Bible reading?

Perhaps it is not quite clear what the questioner means by “a deeper significance.” The Lord’s words, “Where two or three are gathered together in (or unto) My Name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20), apply primarily to the Prayer Meeting (v. 19). Perhaps the Lord’s presence is often more real to the saints at His table, because they are more occupied with Him there, than with their needs. Besides, there is often more real exercise of soul before going to the Lord’s table, than to the Prayer Meeting or Bible Reading. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat.” We get what we go in for. But the prayer eeting and Bible Reading ought not to be neglected, as is too often the case, by the majority of the assembly, or treated lightly even sometimes by those who attend. Surely there would be a greater spirit of prayer poured out and more edification in the Bible Reading if all went in a spirit of soul preparation and waiting upon God.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God allow divorce?

DIVORCE
Is it clear from Scripture, as some affirm, that divorced persons can under no circumstances be remarried, till the death of one partner?

This is a question that is often being raised in these days, in which the sacredness of the marriage tie has fallen so low in the eyes of an ungodly world, that divorce is treated as a light thing of no account. We may be sure that God’s thoughts on the subject have not changed since He wrote by the prophet Malachi, “The Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away,” as He terms divorce or “dealing treacherously,” (Malachi 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 2:16). In reply to the Pharisees, our Lord explains that, if Moses suffered (a man) to write a bill of divorcement and put his wife away, it was a permission “for the hardness of their heart,” but not at all according to the original purpose of God, who made man and wife to be one and remain one, as long as life lasted. He concluded with the clear and determinate words: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:4-9)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:4-9).

Are there, then, no circumstances in which God Himself puts asunder what he has joined together? I believe there is one which our Lord points out clearly in Matthew 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:32, and again in Matthew 19:9," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:9, in both of which verses, while emphasising the sacredness of the marriage tie, and the sin of divorce, He does make an exception—”saving for the cause of fornication,” and “except it be for fornication.” When that cause arises and is clearly proved, divorce should take place, and when this is so, it is not man putting asunder what God hath joined, but God himself. If so, then the parties are henceforth as truly no longer married, as though they had never been united, or as though one was dead. The question of the remarriage of the guilty party is not under discussion. We have nothing to do with it, for one guilty in so gross a manner clearly must cease from the fellowship of the saints, and be put away into the outside place; but as for the offended party, I believe he or she is free before God to remarry, though only in the Lord.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Jesus in Hell between his death and resurrection?

Did Christ go to hell after dying on the cross? Did Christ suffer for sins in hell? Was he there to open the gates of hell to liberate those lost in their sins? Is hell the same as the Lake of Fire?

The short answer:

No. Jesus did not go to suffer in the flames of Hell. After dying on the cross, Christ went to the place of departed spirits. That is, he went to SHEOL (the Hebrew word) or HADES (the Greek word). He did not go to suffer in the flames of hell or go to Lake of Fire as some mistakenly believe.

The full answer:

To give a full answer to these questions one must study several scriptures and the meaning of the word SHEOL translated HELL in some versions of the Bible.

What scirptures say that Christ was in sheol/hades?

Starting with Psalm 16:10," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16:10, which is quoted in the New Testament in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2 in reference to Christ and his resurrection, we see the two words used in reference to Christ and his resurrection.

Psalms 16:10-11" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 16:10-11 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. (11) You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (ESV)

Here is the same verse from Psalm 16" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16 in the King James Version. Notice that hell is used in place of sheol.

Psalms 16:10-11" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 16:10-11 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (11) Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. (KJV)

Peter is giving his great Day of Pentecost speech in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2 when he quotes from Psalm 16." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16. The prophecy of Christ’s resurrection was written many years before by King David.

Acts 2:22-33" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:22-33 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- (23) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (24) God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (25) For David says concerning him, "'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; (26) therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. (27) For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. (28) You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.' (29) "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. (30) Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, (31) he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. (32) This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. (33) Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (ESV)

In the KJV the verse is written with the word hell in place of hades.

Acts 2:27" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (KJV)
Act 2:31" TARGET="_blank">Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. (KJV)

The meaning of SHEOL and HADES

In the King James Version, the Hebrew word SHEOL is usually translated as hell. The corresponding Greek word HADES is also translated as hell. Sheol means “the place of departed spirits” and hades means the “place of the dead”. The word “hell” conjures images of darkness, flames, torment and agony. However, the departed spirits of the Old Testament believers also went to sheol/hades, but not to suffer torments.

According to Vines Dictionary…

Hades is the region of departed spirits of the lost". This includes the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ. It corresponds to "Sheol" in the Old Testament. In the Authorized King James Version it has been unhappily rendered "hell" (Psalms 16:10)" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 16:10) or "the grave," (Genesis 37:35)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:35) or "the pit" (Numbers 16:30-33)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:30-33). In the New Testament the Revised Version always used the rendering "hades". In the Old Testament, they have not been uniform in the translation. For example in Isaiah 14:15" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14:15 it is translated "hell" with a note in the margin that says "Sheol". Usually they have "Sheol" in the text and "the grave" in the margin. Sheol never denotes the grave, nor is the permanent region of the lost.

Translation Challenge

Most Bible translators avoid using “hell” to translate the words sheol and hades. Instead they simply transcribe the words from the original Hebrew (sheol) or Greek (hades) as seen above in the examples from the English Standard Version (ESV). Other translations that use “sheol” instead of hell include the New American Standard Bible (NASB), The New King James Version (NKJV), Darby, and Young’s Literal Translation. The NIV and other loose translations and paraphrases use a phrase such as “the realm of the dead”. So to say that Christ went to hell means that he went to a place where spirits have no bodies.

Hades – one place with two conditions

There is a wider meaning to sheol and hades than what the word hell – eternal torments - brings to mind. Sheol/hades is a place, or perhaps better stated a condition, with two very distinct environments. The lost suffer in Hades while the saved enjoy rest there. For example, in Luke 16:19-31," TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:19-31, the rich man opened his eyes in Hades being in flames of torments. Lazarus died as well and was in Hades as well, but in a completely different condition. Lazarus was “far off” at Abraham’s side. There was “a great chasm” separating Lazarus from the Rich Man which was impossible to cross which indicates that there are two separate places to which people went. However both are in “the place of departed spirits” – that is SHEOL or HADES. When the Lord was on the cross, he promised the repentant thief that “today you will be with me in paradise”. This refers to the place of departed spirits of the saved. The thief went to the same place as Lazarus – “to Abraham’s side.” It is presumed that the other non-repentant thief went to hades the same day, but to the place of torments.

Where did Jesus suffer for sins – while on the cross or did he suffer in hell?

The fact that the KJV bible states that Jesus went to “hell” leads some to the conclusion that Christ he went to hell to suffer for our sins. As seen in the preceding paragraphs, the word hell (sheol/hades) does not necessarily indicate a place of suffering, only the place of departed spirits.

The idea of Christ suffering while his body lay in the tomb is contrary to other scriptures that teach he suffered for our sins on the cross. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24)" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:24) “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:10). He canceled “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:14)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:14). The cross is “the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:18) to those of us who are saved.

The cross is the lowest point that Christ’s sufferings took him.

Philippians 2:8-9" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:8-9 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (9) Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

Hebrews 12:2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

The work of salvation was completely finished when Christ died. “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (John 19:30)." TARGET="_blank">John 19:30). His suffering in our place was completed. His soul/spirit went to the paradise side of hades. Jesus did not go to the torments of hell. Jesus’ suffering ended the moment He died. The payment for sin was paid. He then awaited the resurrection of His body and His return to glory in His ascension.

Did Jesus go to hell? No. He did not suffer in the flames of torments.
Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes. He went to the place of departed spirits.

Other questions that are related to this are:

“Did Christ take people from Hades to Heaven when he rose from the dead?” Ephesians 4:8-10" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:8-10 talks about Christ “leading a host of captives” when he ascended.

“Did Christ go talk to spirits in Hades to declare his victory over Satan and death?” 1 Peter 3:18-20" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:18-20 has many interesting interpretations to consider on this question.

Some of the questions below will help you see the meaning in these statements.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How long before a person put away from the assembly can be forgiven and comforted?

How long before a person put away from the assembly can be forgiven and comforted?

When Paul writes his second epistle to the Corinthians, he has received from Titus a report of conditions in Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:6, 7)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 7:6, 7). Now as he writes, he is careful in his wording. At least one person who was put away from the assembly is likely to hear what Paul is writing. Although that individual has caused Paul grief, he indicates that the greater concern is the grief that the sinning individual has caused to the entire assembly (2 Corinthians 2:5)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 2:5). The Revised Version’s translation of the latter part of the verse, "that I may not overcharge you all," seems more consistent with the context. A number of other translations indicate that Paul is not thinking of the assembly alone. The following verses support this. The excommunication had been sufficient to accomplish its purpose. Paul, informed by Titus, was aware that the sinning individual could be overcome with sorrow, so he spoke - and asked the assembly to act - in a way that would not overburden that individual with sorrow.

The passage in chapter 7 (vv 2-16) has a number of parallels with what Paul writes in chapter 2. A key difference is that chapter 2 deals with the recovery of a man who was put away and chapter 7 with the recovery of the assembly. The comments Paul makes about the assembly’s repentance and sorrow (vv 8-11) give us principles that apply to the individual. "Godly sorrow" produces repentance, which results in deliverance from the condition that caused the sorrow (vv 9, 10). Sorrow which results from submission to God and His Word results in repentance. Paul judged that sorrow had done its work in producing repentance; any further sorrow would be destructive.

The passage gives the answer to the question. The assembly’s forgiveness and comfort are predicated on the individual’s recognition of the seriousness of his sin in dishonoring the Lord, defiling the assembly, and grieving his fellow believers. His contrition of heart and submission to the discipline and to the Word of God will be evident. Determining this is a matter of spiritual discernment that assesses the work of God in that individual. This is not a matter left to the opinion of each believer in the assembly, with every man doing that which is "right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 21:25). The elders who guided the assembly in the discipline of that individual will guide the assembly in recognizing when the assembly should confirm its love, forgive, and comfort the repentant believer.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did God wait 400 years to give Abraham the promised land?

Abraham believed God as to his seed, and it was “counted unto him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:6), but when promised the land he asked for a sign. Would he not have had it at once had he believed, without having to wait four hundred years for his descendants to inherit it?

I do not think there was necessarily any unbelief in Abraham’s asking whereby he should know that he should inherit it. God often dealt thus with his servants of old—with Moses, Gideon, Hezekiah, etc., and granted them signs to strengthen their faith. As a matter of fact, Abraham did not ask for a sign. His question brought out the basis on which God was acting, namely, on the ground of covenant. The heifer, the she-goat, and the other sacrificial victims, all spoke of Christ the One true covenant Victim. Verse i8 makes it clear that the terms of this covenant assured the land, not personally to Abraham, but to his seed, and this was, we need not doubt, the original purpose of God. Stephen understood it so, for he emphasises the fact that “God gave Abraham none inheritance in the land, no, not so much as to set his foot on” (Acts 7:5)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:5), nor does He in any way attribute this to Abraham’s unbelief. It would clearly have been premature for a single family to inherit a vast territory, like that indicated in Genesis 15:18-21;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:18-21; nor had God’s time come to expel the owners of the soil, for “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does discipleship overrule responsibilities to the family?

Considering Luke 14:26," TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26, does discipleship conflict with family responsibilities?

Disciples must obey "whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:20). Paul states that his writings are "the commandment of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:37). Therefore, Paul’s teaching that children obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:1), that husbands love, cleave to, cherish, and nourish their wives (Ephesians 5:28-31)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:28-31), that parents provide for their children (2 Corinthians 12:14)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:14), and that all manifest the affection of brotherly love (Romans 12:10)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:10) cannot conflict with Christ’s requiring His disciples to hate their father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters.

Luke’s record of the Lord’s previous use of the word "hate" is in 6:27, where we are to love and express good will even toward those who hate us. Therefore Luke 14:26" TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26 cannot teach absolute hatred toward our closest relatives when we are to love even our enemies. The Lord’s next use of "hate" (16:13) pictures a servant with two masters. If both give him a command, his response will involve either love, holding to one (same word as "holding fast" the faithful word, Titus 1:9)," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:9), or hate, being heedless (YLT) of the other. Loyalty and its resulting obedience are the issue. This is relative hatred. The demands of our dearest cannot rival our loyalty and obedience to Christ. The security and comfort of cherished relationships cannot compromise our commitment to Christ. But let us be assured that to act in loyalty to Christ is to do what is absolutely best for our loved ones.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I get my spouse to change?

How can I get my spouse to change?

If that word "get" means "make," "manipulate," or "manage," it is unacceptable.

Changing others is not our responsibility. Our responsibility in all our relationships is enabling others to be all the Lord intends them to be. We attempt to change others for our own interests. We enable others to fulfill God's will for the Lord's sake and for theirs. The model for our relationships is the One Who "took upon Him the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:7), therefore serving is the key to relationships.

Even if we were married to a perfect spouse, some days we'd find things to change.

Three truths will help settle our viewpoint. First, God's sovereignty assures us that our spouse is the perfect instrument with which the Lord intends to mold us into His likeness (Romans 9:20)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 9:20). Second, our spouse's bothersome qualities indicate where either we (see the previous paragraph) or our spouse need divine refining. That directs us to the "feet" that need to be washed (John 13:4-17)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:4-17). Lay aside your rights, slip on the servant's towel, fill the basin, and serve. Third, the Lord never entrusts us with a responsibility for which He does not enable us (Philippians 4:13, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:13, 19).

Since it's generally easier to answer a different question that what has been asked, it may seem unfair to change this question; however, the more appropriate question is, "How can I be a better spouse?"

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the use of multiple loaves and cups at the Breaking of Bread indicate departure?

Does the use of multiple loaves and cups at the Breaking of Bread indicate departure?

Departure begins with a cooling of our devotion to Christ. One evidence of departure is a lack of love for and obedience to His Word. To change our practices from what His Word teaches or to be unwilling to change our ways in order to conform to His Word is departure. We are best to judge our own hearts before we look for indications of departure in others.

When we apparently take delight in finding the failings of others, we too have departed from the teachings of the Lord. If we fairly evaluate the teaching of the Bible on this subject, we can hardly conclude that pouring the wine from a common vessel and distributing it to 500 people by means of 4 cups violates the Word of God. The same can be said of taking one large entity of bread and distributing it on 4 separate plates. If this is what is meant by "multiple loaves and cups," then the answer to the question is "No." This is not departure.

To officiate at the "Communion Service" by distributing "the host" or a wafer violates the Word of God. This is multiple "loaves" and, in addition, bespeaks officialism. To have communion using individual cups fails to clearly express the significance of partaking from the "cup of blessing." If this is the meaning of "multiple loaves and cups," then the answer to the question is "Yes." This is departure.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu