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

How is the Lord Jesus Christ a priest like Melchisedec?

What is the significance of "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Psalm 110:4)" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 110:4)?

Aaronic priests served in an earthly sanctuary with repeated sacrifices under an old covenant. By comparison and contrast, Christ’s priesthood is linked with a heavenly sanctuary, a final sacrifice, and an eternal covenant (Hebrews 7-10)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7-10). Israel’s high priest transferred his office to his son. Our Great High Priest (4:14) is unique. Melchisedec, like the Son of God, did not derive His office from ancestors nor delivered it to successors, since his genealogy and posterity are not recorded (Genesis 14:18;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 14:18; Hebrews 7:3)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:3). The Bible’s first priest, Melchisedec, is from a mold into which no one else fits. The original (the mold), in God’s purpose, is His Son.

Melchisedec was both a priest and king. The meaning of his name and title, King of Righteousness, King of Peace (7:2) is significant (Psalm 72:3;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 72:3; Isaiah 60:17)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 60:17). He appears after the Bible’s first war and battle, involving a confederacy of kings (Genesis 14;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 14; Psalm 2:2)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 2:2). He assures Abram of God’s ability to give him the land of promise. All of this reminds us of a coming day when our Lord will be a priest on His throne (Zechariah 6:13)." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 6:13). Until then, we enjoy the benefit of His priesthood.

The single, defining act of Melchisedec’s priesthood was blessing Abram (Hebrews 7:1)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:1). By lifting Abram’s vision to "the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth," he strengthened the pilgrim’s faith to withstand the coming trial.

Assured by an oath of the immutable God (Hebrews 7:21)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:21), our Lord’s priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec" is non-transferable, eternal, millennial, and spiritual, strengthening faith in the Unseen.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What should a church teach about homosexuality?

Q: I just wondering what the Gospel Hall's stance was on homosexuality? Would a homosexual be welcome at a Gospel Hall? Also what is its stance on gay marriage?

Thanks!

A: There are two stances that most assemblies with the name Gospel Hall on the building would take - one stance in relation to messages address to the general public and the other as to homosexuality within the membership of the church.

1)In teaching the message of salvation all kinds of sin are condemned by God. That doesn't mean the church should try to carry out judgement on people, but instead teach people that God will judge sin in eternity. Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God.

However, the world is full of all kinds of sin in addition to homosexual activity. All immoral behavior is condemned as wrong whether it be adultery, prostitution, pornography, fraud, deceit, malice, alcohol and drug abuse, idol worship, violence, murder, covetousness, greed etc. etc.

The problem of sin is addressed during sermons at the Gospel Hall. We do not to tell sinners to reform to be saved. That is, try to leave their vices behind or make promises to change their ways in order to be saved. The solution for our sin is found in accepting forgiveness through the punishment for our sins that Jesus Christ suffered on the cross. "For when we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:6." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:6. The entire world needs this salvation, regardless of their sexual activity. A non-homosexual person should feel no superior than the homosexual "There is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23." TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:23.

2) Homosexual behavior is not allowed as a member of the church. 1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5 is the Biblical guide to how a church should handle a list of specific sins that are contrary to biblically-defined godliness. Sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, slander, drunkenness or a swindler sadly appears among Christians even though such behavior is a contradiction of everything that God is. A person practicing such behavior obviously should be excluded from the local church membership until the person changes his behavior. That doesn't mean a homosexual person is excluded from attending a service. It means he cannot participate as a member of the church - in worship, in preaching, in offeringsm, in public prayers.

Here is the chapter in its entirety.

1 Corinthians 5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Other pages in this section

About this site

What qualifications should a preacher meet?

If a man in the fellowship of an assembly has previously been put away on several occasions for fornication, should he be permitted to preach the Gospel or minister the Word in assembly meetings?

1 Timothy 3:8-12" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:8-12 gives us the qualifications for deacons, men who serve the Lord in an assembly. The primary service of deacons (servants) is spiritual, that is, ministering the Word of God to believers and preaching the Gospel to sinners. Verse 10 clearly states that they must first be proved; "then let them minister being found blameless" (Newberry margin). The Scripture therefore clearly disqualifies a Christian man in an assembly from preaching the Gospel to sinners or ministering the Word to believers, if he has been guilty of repeated moral sins.

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

In what ways could the Lord experience pain in a sinless body?

In what ways could the Lord experience pain in a sinless body?

Clearly, the Lord suffered for sin (1 Peter 3:18)" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:18) in His holy body. Because He relied on divine protection and was morally perfect, He had no inward walls of self-protection. His experience of physical pain from the time of His arrest through His death was thus heightened. He suffered more than any other who experienced the same maltreatment. Further, His holy soul grieved deeply over the ravages of man’s sinfulness expressed in those events. That caused emotional pain beyond our comprehension, because we share in that sinfulness. The source of those pains was external and sinfully intentional.

In other ways, He was preserved from suffering. Psalm 91" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 91 promises protection for those who know the secret place of communion with God (vv 1, 2). The Lord counted on angels to preserve Him from injuring Himself, "lest Thou strike Thy foot against a stone" (Psalm 91:12)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 91:12). He trusted divine care to preserve Him from calamity: "There shall no evil befall thee" (v. 10). This did not, however, exempt Him from pain before His arrest. In Gethsemane, as at the grave of Lazarus, He experienced extreme emotional pain (Mark 14:33, 34;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:33, 34; John 11:33)." TARGET="_blank">John 11:33). In addition, He was hungry (Luke 4:2)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 4:2), weary (John 4:6)," TARGET="_blank">John 4:6), and thirsty (19:28), all of which imply that His body communicated some degree of discomfort due to physical needs.

Peter observed that the multitudes surrounding the Lord both closed Him in and pressed upon Him (Luke 8:45," TARGET="_blank">Luke 8:45, JND). Did His omniscience make it impossible for someone to accidentally step on His foot? Did He ever use His omniscience to protect Himself?

Adam didn’t have omniscience, but he lived in a sinless body. Is it inconceivable that a bear could step on Adam’s foot in paradise? Without laboring in the realm of the hypothetical, the point is that pain is not necessarily a foreign intruder due to sin. The Lord never mistakenly caused pain to others, but He used pain to remove animals from the temple (John 2:15)." TARGET="_blank">John 2:15). Pain can be a friend that expresses the body’s legitimate needs.

We can conclude with caution and reverence that, even apart from the results of sin, He experienced bodily pain. The cause of His pain was both external and internal, intentional and potentially unintentional.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why does 2 Kings 8:26 say Ahaziah began to reign at 22 but 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42?

Why does 2 Kings 8:26" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:26 say Ahaziah began to reign at 22 but 2 Chronicles 22:2" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42?

Commentators attempt to explain this in at least half a dozen ways (see John Gill’s "Expositor"). Here are two of the better suggestions.

1. The 42 years are an ironic connection with the house of Ahab. Omri, Ahab’s father, began his dynasty in Israel about 42 years before Ahaziah was 22 (1 Kings 16:23; 15:10; 22:42;" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 16:23; 15:10; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:17)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:17). The four sentences that follow the statement that Ahaziah was 42 (literally, "a son of 42 years") all link Judah’s King Ahaziah with Israel’s wicked house of Ahab. "Also," used twice, shows Ahaziah’s similarity to Ahab’s wickedness (2 Chronicles 22:2-5)." TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 22:2-5). The 42 years then make a powerful statement that the character of Ahaziah embodied the wickedness of those 42 years in Israel. However, the expression, "a son of 42 years," is nowhere else used in this way.

2. 42 is a copyist’s error and should be 22. Commentators, while upholding the inerrancy of Scripture, generally support this view. The difference between the two numbers is a difference between two similar Hebrew characters. 22 appears in some very old manuscripts of the Septuagint, Arabic, and Syraic Scriptures. In fairness, these postdate the Hebrew manuscripts and the absence of 22 in predated Hebrew manuscripts provides no evidence of an error by the scribes renowned for accuracy in copying the Scriptures. This explanation relies on an unsupported supposition.

If forced to choose, I prefer the first.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why preach the gospel if God has already chosen those who are going to be saved?

PREDESTINATION
How does Scripture present Predestination? Is it true, as I have heard it said, that “we are not out to save souls, God will do that; we teach believers”?

As for the latter part of the question, we believe it to be a most dangerous perversion of the truth. If it were so, why did the Lord tell His disciples, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28), and “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16)," TARGET="_blank">Mark 16), and again, “Ye shall be witnesses unto Me” (Acts 1)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 1), where clearly the thought is evangelising? True, we cannot save souls, but what is an evangelist for, if not to evangelise? All believers are called to this publicly or privately in their measure. Directly we allow election to tinge our gospel, the latter is spoiled, and is no longer “glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people,” and our election becomes fatalism. We preach Christ as a Saviour available for all sinners. “Whosoever” is the word for the unsaved; all might be saved did they repent and believe the Gospel. This being so, we equally believe in the electing grace of God. We do not need to understand in order to believe; we believe and so we understand. But not only is “election” a truth by itself, but it is to be distinguished from “Predestination.” Thus in Ephesians 1" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1: 4 we read that the saints are “chosen (eklego) in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before Him.” But they are also said in the next verse to be “Predestinated.” Now this has to do with their adoption, or receiving a place as sons. Thus the distinction would seem to be that Election determines eternal blessing to the objects of it, whereas Predestination determines the special character of the blessing. All the elect are chosen to be holy, but the special character of their blessing varies according to the class of elect persons to which they belong. We do not gather from Scripture that the angels, though they are certainly called, “sons of God,” are that, except in the sense of creation. Israel belongs to the earthly family, the Church to the heavenly. So we see later in the chapter that the saints of the present dispensation are predestinated to the inheritance (i.e., the heavenly), and in Romans 8," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8, are predestinated to be “conformed to the image of His Son,” which is not the portion of the redeemed of every age. The same word is found in Acts 4:28" TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:28 with reference to the “sufferings of Christ,” of which it could not be said that they were “elected,” but “determined to be done,” i.e., mapped out or planned beforehand. Again the word is used in the same sense in 1 Corinthians 2: 7," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 2: 7, of the wisdom of God revealed in Christ, which is said to be “ordained before” the world unto our glory. We who have by mercy believed, are exhorted to “make our calling and election sure,” by adding to our faith the practical graces of Christian life (2 Peter 1:10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:10). W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What do I do if my Christian friends have different standards for their children?

Is there a way for believing parents to have standards for their children that differ from the standards of other assembly believers without belittling those other believers?

If joy really depends on obedience to Christ (John 13:17)," TARGET="_blank">John 13:17), then Christian parents will want to model and teach their children submission to Gods Word. "The fear of man bringeth a snare" (Proverbs 29:25)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 29:25), so obeying truth because of what others think confuses the crucial lesson of personal accountability to God. Parents set the standard for their child and explain in a manner appropriate to the childs maturity the Christian truths that influence this decision. If the child points out that another assembly family doesnt do the same thing, the parents have at least two truths to model: personal accountability to God; personal responsibility to others. Modestly, a Christian parent must uphold what He understands from Gods Word. Thats personal accountability to God. Personal responsibility to others includes showing respect for them. This may mean recognizing that they too want to please the Lord, want the best for their family, or are perhaps dealing with circumstances of which others are not aware. It may mean simply expressing respect, yet admitting an inability to understand their decision. By responding in a way that makes his children feel superior to the children of "that other bunch" or makes the other parents seem less spiritual, a parent has not "honored others" (1 Peter 2:17)" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:17) or modeled biblical standards.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is "the destroyer" (Exodus 12:23) a destroying angel?

Is "the destroyer" (Exodus 12:23)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:23) a destroying angel?

"The destroyer" is actually a verb form and could be translated "that which causes destruction." Strong’s Lexicon relates it to "destroyer" in verse 13, "the plague shall not . . . destroy you." This suggests that the plague itself is "the destroyer."

Support for the widely-accepted thought of "the destroying angel" apparently comes from Psalm 78:49," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 78:49, "He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, . . . by sending evil [harmful] angels among them." The previous verses (verses 43-48) review the plagues prior to the Passover in Egypt.

Verse 51 deals with the Passover, but verse 50, the intervening verse, seems to indicate that verse 49 reflects back on the plagues prior to the Passover. It states, ". . . He spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence." The only time this word "pestilence" appears in Exodus is regarding the plagues before the Passover. It never refers to the Passover in the rest of the Old Testament. One time (1 Chronicles 21:12)," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 21:12), the pestilence is equated with the angel of the Lord’s "destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel" after David’s sin in numbering the people. This however seems to be a weak link.

Scripture affirms that the plague destroyed the firstborn but doesn’t clearly support that an angel was the destroyer.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Rahab of Jericho the same person as is mentioned in

Is Rahab of Jericho the same person as is mentioned in “Ruth” and Matthew 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:5?

Comparing the dates, this would seem impossible.

We certainly believe in their identity. Only one person of the name is known in the Old Testament (the “Rahab” of Psalm 87:4," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 87:4, etc., being a poetical designation for Egypt); and Matthew mentions a person of that name, living at the same epoch, as the well-known woman, without further description, as though everyone would know who was meant. This seems to point clearly to Rahab of Jericho. In the book of Ruth only three generations are given—Boaz, Obed and Jesse—between Salmon, the prince of Judah, who married Rahab, and David. The story of Ruth does not come chronologically after “Judges,” but as v. i of chap. i. tells us, is embedded in its history—”in the days when the judges ruled.” Salmon may have married Rahab many years after the taking of Jericho. The 450 years of the judges begin at the partition of the land and go on to Saul (Acts 13:20)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:20). Possibly Boaz was the son of the old age of Salmon and we know he was himself elderly when he married Ruth. There are still serious difficulties, but no doubt if we knew all, all would be plain. Perhaps the desire to find a second Rahab is due to a feeling as to her antecedents. The other women mentioned along with her in our Lord’s genealogy had all some disability. At least Rahab and Ruth were trophies of divine grace; and what are we to say of the wicked men in the genealogy, Rehoboam, Ahaz, Joram, Jehoiakim, etc.? Indeed, of the best of the links in the chain we must say, “All these once were sinners defiled in His sight.” Not one was worthy to be an ancestor of our Lord. But our Lord, though truly man by virgin birth, was completely detached from any inherited taint of the sin of Adam, by the fact of His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. He was “that Holy Thing” from His mother’s womb. He knew no sin, neither was sin in Him. Let go that, and Christianity must go at once, as far as we are concerned.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu