Should the bread be unleavened and the wine unfermented?

Should the bread be unleavened and the wine unfermented?

The Lord taught (John 4:19-24)" TARGET="_blank">John 4:19-24) that true worship is spiritual. Tangible types were for a past age (see Hebrews 9:9; 10:1)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:9; 10:1). Thus, although they have spiritual significance, we should not attach typical significance to the loaf and the cup. The loaf both reminds us of our Lord's body given for us at the cross (1 Corinthians 11:24)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:24) and also represents the unity of the assembly in which each believer partakes of that one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:17). The cup reminds us of the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:25)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:25) and represents the basis of our fellowship with God (I Corinthians 10:16, 21)." TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 10:16, 21).

The bread used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was unleavened bread, but Acts 2:46," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46, 20:11 and (indisputably) 27:35 link breaking bread with the general eating of food. Therefore, we use common bread. The New Testament words for unleavened bread (azumos) and common bread (artos) are different. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke use azumos in their passages giving the institution of the Lord's Supper they use anos when referring to the bread of which the Lord said, "This is My body."

Since the grape harvest was in the Fall (the seventh month) and the Passover at which the Lord's Supper was instituted was in the Spring (the first month) and since there would have been no refrigeration to inhibit the process of fermentation, it is likely that the wine at the last Passover was fermented. In addition, the Lord made water wine (John 4:46)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:46). Timothy was told to drink wine (I Timothy 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 5:23). The word in both those cases is the same word used for wine that causes drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18).

We cannot insist that the loaf be unleavened bread or the cup unfermented wine.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does it mean that God created man in His image?

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should believers take a letter of recommendation when visiting other assemblies?

Is it right for an assembly to receive to its fellowship one coming from a distance, without a letter of commendation, and Should such one be allowed to partake of the supper?

The use of letters of commendation is a most scriptural one. Paul recognises this in 2 Corinthians 3" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3: , by the fact of protesting against being required to bring such a letter when visiting Corinth, where he had “laid the foundation.” “Need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or from you?” They were his letter, written on the heart, when he came to them; when he left them, they were his letter too, known and read of all men. We have the cases of Apollos in Acts 18 27," TARGET="_blank">Acts 18 27, and of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2," TARGET="_blank">Romans 16:1-2, which will occur to all. This last case is helpful to our consideration, because the apostle’s was no mere formal commendation, but he adds her titles to special care from the saints—”Which is a servant (diakonos) of the church, which is at Cenchrea.” Letters then were not the stereotyped things they usually are to-day, mere forms filled up. Not that these are not better than nothing, nay often sufficient; but sometimes more would be better. Here Paul adds to “receive her as becometh saints,” “assist her, etc., for she hath been a succourer (prostatis) of many and of me also.” Ought not one, who has been regular at the meetings, diligent in service and helpful to the saints, get a better commendation than one who has been irregular in attendance, no special help, and even perhaps a trouble, on occasion?

If “fellowship” means sharing others’ privileges and responsibilities, how far can one who is hardly ever seen at the Gospel, Prayer, or Teaching Meetings consider oneself in full fellowship? As for the question whether no one can be received without a letter of commendation, as no rule is laid down, it is not for us to make one. It is rather strange that Paul, though he took letters from the high-priest to Damascus, did not think of getting one from thence to Jerusalem. It would have been easier for him had he done so, but Barnabas knew him and could answer for him, which did instead. But there can be no doubt as to the advisability of always carrying a letter when going to a strange place. Otherwise you can only be received on a principle which Scripture does not recognise—self-commendation. Really I should judge, no truly humble, godly person would wish to impose himself or herself on the saints and force fellowship, unless there were full confidence. A good letter imparts this. Where there is a godly walk, there will be godly consideration for fellow saints, and the more they are in touch with the Lord, the more they will share His mind in receiving those whom they believe to be His own and right with Him. “Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” No one was ever so glad as He to receive, nor so careful as to whom and on what
conditions he did receive.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the breaking of bread the same as the communion service?

Why do we avoid calling the Sunday meeting when we break bread the Communion Service?

We express our communion (or fellowship) when we remember the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16). Taking the cup demonstrates our fellowship with God (v 21). Taking the bread expresses our fellowship with one another in the assembly (v 17). It is therefore a communion service. As we gather to take these emblems, we obey the Lord’s words, "This do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19). It is therefore a remembrance meeting. We meet to do this each Lord’s Day morning, therefore it is a morning meeting, although believers in Acts likely met in the evening (Acts 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7). However, none of these designations is used in the New Testament as a name for this gathering of the assembly. The Spirit uses "the breaking of the bread" (literally) in referring to this gathering (2:42). Likewise, the Spirit inspired Paul to use the expression "the Lord’s supper" (1Co 11:20)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 11:20) when he wrote about the Corinthians meeting to remember the Lord. Calling it "The Breaking of Bread" or "The Lord’s Supper" is more consistent with the Biblical designations of this gathering.

In evangelical usage, "The Communion Service" is a common designation of a gathering where believers share in taking the bread and the cup. Attempts to accommodate our terminology to that of evangelical congregations obscure the Scriptural difference between a church of God and other gatherings whose doctrine may be sound but whose pattern does not come from the New Testament. Rather than shrinking from being different, why not highlight the beauty of the Biblical pattern by using Biblical terms?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the proper order for the breaking of bread meeting?

What is the proper order for the breaking of bread meeting?

From 1 Corinthians 14:40" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:40 we know that godly order should characterize the Breaking of Bread. We are confident that the Word of God is a complete guide, and so we expect it to afford a pattern for this important and cherished gathering.

1 Corinthians 14" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14 deals with speaking in tongues, but in doing so describes features of an assembly meeting. Paul equates "bless" with "giving of thanks" in verse 16, linking this gathering with what he describes in chapter 10:16, giving thanks for the cup and the bread. Thus, the gathering described in chapter 14 at least includes the Breaking of Bread. Prayer, blessing, giving thanks, and singing are part of that gathering (14:15-17). Verse 26 indicates that all were ready to participate and that a number did contribute.

Although 1 Corinthians 10," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10, in keeping with the context, gives the moral order of blessing the cup (fellowship with God) and breaking the bread (fellowship with the assembly’s believers) (v 16), the chronological, historical order is in 11:23-29: breaking bread, then taking the cup.

Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20 records a gathering specifically for the breaking of bread. Verses 7-12 show that Paul concluded the assembly’s meeting to break bread by ministering to them from the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 16:1-2 teaches that material giving accompanied their gathering on the first day of the week.

Because God is a God of order, we conclude then that the believers gathered to break bread and, before doing so, their united songs and prayers of thanksgiving were consistent with the purpose of their gathering, to remember the Lord. Any opening of the Scriptures was likewise directed to this purpose. They then united in thanksgiving for the bread and all shared in the loaf. Following this, they united in blessing God for the cup and partook of it. At some point, after the believers carried out the intended purpose of breaking bread, they gathered together their material offering. Reading and teaching from the Word of God would appropriately conclude this meeting. Such ministry extended, was consistent with, or grew from the worship and devotion expressed in the breaking of bread.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

What is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

To be meaningful, convictions must express Gods will (Matthew 7:21-27);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:21-27); they must be based on truth. Truth is not relative (John 14:6)," TARGET="_blank">John 14:6), decided by each persons viewpoint. When believers differ on matters of Christian teaching, either one or both are wrong. In applying Christian principles to exactly the same circumstances of daily living, only one "behavior" will embody all the relevant biblical principles, only one can be totally Christ-like. This demands modesty, for whose behavior is totally, consistently like Christ? God has empowered the assembly, guided by its elders, to administer Gods will (Matthew 18:18)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18). Some behavior so clearly denies Christian truth that it requires assembly action, as in 1 Corinthians 5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5. In contrast, our individual responsibility is not to enforce truth, but to help others obey truth.,, Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy" (2 Corinthians 1:24)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 1:24). The apostle encouraged and enabled his errant childrens obedience to the Lord, because in that lay their greatest joy and blessing, but he was not their lord. We build up others by effectively "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:15), but, having done that, we are responsible to submit to truth ourselves and to commit to the Lord the affect of truth on others.

If teaching requires other means to make it effective in the lives of believers, it lacks the power of truth.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is

WEAKNESS IN TESTIMONY

Is “The Church of God” in ruins, as held and taught by many?

If by the “Church of God” is meant “the Church which is His Body,” the statement is quite erroneous, for that is preserved for ever. But “Church of God” is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:9;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:13, in an extended sense of all Christians he could get at, though the term generally refers to the local expression of the Church. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 10:32," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32, the inhabitants of the city are divided into “Jews,” “Greeks,” and “the Church of God” (see Acts 20:28;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1: 2; 11:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1: 2; 11:22).

We have, too, the expression the “Churches of God” (see `1 Corinthians 11:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 2:14). The expression, “IN RUINS,” would apply rather to some WORLDWIDE ORGANISATION. When that breaks down, they say the Church is in ruins, but it is THEIR ORGANISATION. None of God’s assemblies, low as their state was, was ever said to be in ruins, though Ephesus was warned lest her lampstand be removed. The testimony, too, is of a remnant character, and in weakness; but such as it is, it is not “IN RUINS,” nor ever need be. Such an expression is not applied in the Scriptures to a Church of God.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Will christians judge angels?

In 1 Corinthians 6:3," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:3, we read the following:

1 Corinthians 6:1-6" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:1-6 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? (2) Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? (3) Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! (4) So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? (5) I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, (6) but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

There were problems in the church at Corinth with conflicts between brothers. Christians should be above such petty behavior. And then Paul suddenly writes the surprising statement that Christians will judge angels. He adds no explanation in the immediate context to help us understand where, when or how this will happen.

It is known from from Jude 1:6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:9" TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:9 that angels will be judged. It is also clear from scripture that Christ will be the Judge (John 5:22)." TARGET="_blank">John 5:22). It must be that we are united to Christ that gives us this right to be involved with the judgment upon angels. Since Christ will include us in this task in the future, shouldn’t we be able to handle matters of judgment in this life?

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is true subjection for a Christian wife?

What is true subjection for a Christian wife?

Ideally, Christian marriage involves two Spirit-filled believers fulfilling their God-given roles (Ephesians 5:17-33)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:17-33). The husband loves his wife with an unconditional devotion to her wellbeing (verses 25-28); the wife recognizes the responsibility God has given to her husband and respectfully defers to him (verses 22-24, 33). Neither should ever have to remind the other to fulfill his responsibility, because attaining this high standard is enough to challenge each one for a lifetime.

Rather than looking at marriage as male-dominant, verse 21 establishes marriage as "Lord-dominant," where both are in subjection to the Lord and respectfully defer to Him. "Fear" in verse 21 and "reverence" in verse 33 are closely related words. Aware that the Lord has entrusted to them what is best for them, both marriage partners fulfill their differing roles because of submission to Him. Both act because of obedience to the Lord and not because of the other spouse’s obedience to Him. No matter whether these roles are delightful or difficult to fulfill, the strength to obey the Lord in this can only come from the Spirit of God. Christian marriage requires a willingness to be a Spirit-filled marriage partner.

Subjection does not indicate that a wife exists for the benefit of her husband. In fact, he is responsible to nourish her (verse 29). "A woman’s job" and "a man’s job" are not absolute definitions, but a husband and wife define them by mutual agreement. The couple makes these and all decisions in the marriage with the understanding that God has entrusted to the husband both leadership in the relationship and responsibility for the health of the marriage and for the spiritual, physical, emotional, mental, and financial well-being of his wife.

Exactly how this works will differ in each marriage, but true subjection is a wife’s glad participation in this God-ordained arrangement.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

My parents are interferring in my marriage. What should I do?

What should a married couple do if their parents interfere in their marriage?

"Honor thy father and thy mother" applies lifelong. Overbearing parents should be treated with respect and love. Adult children honor their parents, not by obeying them, but by upholding what they value.

If patience and prayer don’t resolve the issue, a first response could be a gentle, perhaps humorous, reminder by the wife or the husband, depending on whose parent is overbearing. If that makes no difference, a kind, but more direct plea could follow. If this is ineffective a different course is indicated. By continuing to cultivate a relationship of mutual respect between themselves and the overbearing parents, the younger couple will be better able to handle the problem effectively.

Marriage forms a new relationship. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife" (Genesis 2:24)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24). The wife leaves her father’s headship for a new head. The man leaves his parents to establish a new home and headship. The husband is responsible for this new marriage relationship. He is responsible to lead in protecting this relationship and, therefore, in dealing with overbearing parents. Both partners should be open and caring in discussing the problem between themselves and should make every effort to extend understanding to the offending parents. This cannot be allowed to come between the husband and wife and they must remain united in arriving at a way to confront the issue. If his parents are the problem, it’s appropriate for him to speak to them both by himself. In this way, he protects his wife and confines the problem to the ones directly involved. When he expresses the problem and the proposed solution to his parents, he indicates that "we have this concern" (not "she has…"), and "we are asking you to…" (not "she wants you to…"). If the wife’s parents are the problem, the husband should speak with them in the same spirit, but should take his wife with him, so the parents know it is a united stance. While being direct and firm, it’s important to affirm the intention of keeping an enjoyable and loving relationship with these parents.

Postponing dealing with the problem only makes its impact worse and makes dealing with it more difficult.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu