About this site

101 ways to teach a verse

101 Ways to Teach a Memory Verse - suggestions for how to help students memorize a verse during class. "...the Holy Sciptures... able to make you wise unto salvation" Learn it. Explain it. And yes, memorize it. You can make this part more interesting with several strategies. (more)
Other pages in this section

About this site

Gospel Hall dot Org exists to share information about assemblies of Christians who gather to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to raise awareness of the gospel message and teaching about Christian living in a New Testament Church.

FAQs

Does "breaking bread" in Acts always refer to the Lord's Supper?

Among the various passages where “breaking bread” is mentioned, in Acts and elsewhere, please distinguish, which do, and which do not, refer to the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever difficulty there may be of settling this point in any particular instance, is due to one or both of two considerations. On the one hand, it is clear that the usual Jewish method of eating bread was by first breaking it up into convenient portions; and therefore the statement that a person had “broken bread” might with them signify merely that he had had a meal, with bread as its prominent feature. On the other hand, it also seems to be beyond doubt that in the apostles’ days the Lord’s Supper was often associated with a meal, of which the saints partook in fellowship together; and therefore, when the phrase “break bread” is linked with some other one about taking food, it is open to question whether this, or an ordinary meal only, is meant.

In Acts 27:35," TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:35, and of course in the references in the Gospels to the Lord breaking bread to feed the hungry multitudes, there can be no suggestion of the Ordinance; and to these occurrences I would add Luke 24:30, 35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:30, 35; for although the Lord there took bread, blessed, brake, and gave to the two disciples; and although their eyes were opened to recognise Him as He did so; they could not, even in thought, connect this with the Supper which had been instituted a few days previously; since none but the apostles had been present on that occasion.

Over against these instances we may place Acts 2:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16; as passages in which the reference to the Lord’s Supper cannot reasonably be denied; and we then are left with Acts 2." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2. 46 and Acts 20." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20. II, as the only occurrences about which there may be difference of opinion, In each of these there is an additional word or phrase about the partaking of food; and although in the view of some, this rules out any reference to the Ordinance; it seems to me that its effect is just the opposite. For why, if an ordinary meal, and nothing more, is intended, should the two separate expressions have to be used at all? Either of them, in that case, would have said all that was to be said, without the other.

In Acts 2:46" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46 the significance of the statement appears to be that, while some of the activities of the early disciples could be carried on in the precincts of the Temple, the Breaking of Bread could not; and so it took place in their homes (see R.V.). As for Acts 20:2," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:2, the insertion of “the” (R.V., “had broken the bread”), which is according to the reading of all the most ancient authorities, links the statement with verse 7, and implies that here too the Ordinance is meant; though some may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul’s long address would thus have been given before the Supper, transgressing certain views they hold as to it being out of place for a brother to speak, or even to read the Scriptures, in the part of the meeting which precedes it.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Adam alive before God breathed into him the breath of life?

Had the body of Adam physical life, before the Lord God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”? (See Genesis 2:7)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:7).

I should consider such an idea most speculative. How do we know what interval, if any, occurred between the formation of Adam’s body and the inbreathing of the breath of life? There is no necessary thought of Adam’s body lying without breath, but even so, that would here prove nothing, for the body of a person who has just died has still the blood in it, but there is no life in the blood. James by the Spirit distinctly affirms that “the body without the spirit is dead” (James 3:26)," TARGET="_blank">James 3:26), therefore Adam’s body could not be alive before receiving the spirit. It is striking, but not surprising, how the Bible confirms true science, which are both products of the same divine Mind; but science is a very different thing from “scientists” self-styled, and their theories. Scientists used to make merry at the idea of a body made of the dust of earth. Now it has been discovered that the fourteen elementary substances said to be found in the dust of the earth, do occur also in the human body in greater or lesser quantities. The word for “breath” in Gen. 2." TARGET="_blank">Gen. 2. 7 is UeShãnij, a word only used of God: 2 Samuel 22:16" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 22:16 (blast); Job 4:9;" TARGET="_blank">Job 4:9; Job 32:8;" TARGET="_blank">Job 32:8; Job 33:4;" TARGET="_blank">Job 33:4; Isaiah 30:33," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 30:33, etc.; or of man: 1 Kings 15:29;" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 15:29; Job 26:4;" TARGET="_blank">Job 26:4; Isaiah 2:22;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 2:22; Isaiah 57:16," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 57:16, and in contrast with animals—see Joshua 11:11, 14," TARGET="_blank">Joshua 11:11, 14, where “everything that breathed was slain”, but the cattle were left alive.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Must there be only one bread and one cup used at the Lord

Must there be only one bread and one cup used at the Lord’s Supper?

Two factors frame the response to this question. The first is the text and the second is the stated symbolism.

"The cup of blessing which we bless . . ." (Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Co 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">Co 10:16) indicates a singular vessel. It is a drinking vessel, literally derived from the root word "drink." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Words says regarding this drinking vessel, "In a Palestinian home it is the pitcher (usually an earthen bowl) that stands filled on the table." Obviously, in this passage, Paul is using a figure of speech. We do not drink the cup; we drink its contents. What we drink comes from a common source, a vessel for drinking.

In the same verse, Paul speaks of "the bread which we break." Again, it is a singular entity. The object is a loaf of whatever shape or substance used as bread. In addition, taking from the loaf is a personal act, each one "breaking bread."

The stated symbolism when we partake of these two emblems expresses a communion, a common fellowship, a sharing with others, or a joint participation (v 17).

To answer the question, then, apart from having one loaf and one vessel for drinking, we cannot express the intended symbolism. If that one loaf is distributed so that more than one person is taking from the loaf at one time, this does not compromise the symbolism. When all have taken from the loaf and the remainder returns to its original place (usually a table), there is value in reuniting the remaining parts to form - as best as possible - a loaf. The loaf has no typical significance. An opening (like a wound) in the side of the loaf, the wheat from which it is made, the process of preparing it, the color of its flour, or our taking the bread are not to be analyzed for added significance. The loaf reminds us of the Lord’s body given for us; taking our part from the loaf expresses our fellowship with those in the assembly who have "broken bread." One loaf seen both before and after we break bread expresses this effectively.

If all drink their portion of the "fruit of the vine" from a common vessel, this expresses our fellowship with the Lord. This is not primarily to express our individual fellowship with the Lord but to express that all unitedly share with God in "the fellowship" that honors His Son. Therefore, although the symbol of the blood of Christ may be distributed in more than one vessel, if it visibly comes from a common vessel, this does maintain the scriptural symbolism.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did God reject Cain's sacrifice?

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. . . God testifying of his gifts, and by it he being dead yet speaketh.”Hebrews11:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews11:4

Why were Abel and his offering accepted, and Cain and his offering rejected? Does the expression “more excellent” imply that there was something excellent in that of Cain?

The word translated, “more excellent,” is literally “more, “or’ ‘greater,” and is used either of quantity or quality, here clearly of the latter. It does not imply any excellence in Cain’s offering, otherwise we should not read, “but unto Cain and to his offering God had not respect.” Also later God said to him, “If thou doest well (i.e., come like Abel with the slain victim, implying that Cain had not done well in offering his fruit of the earth), but if thou doest not well (i.e., persist in thy refusal of that offering;) sin’ lieth at the door; i.e., croucheth like a wild beast ready to spring. There can be no reasonable doubt that God had revealed to His fallen creatures how they must approach to Him—even by the minhab or approach offering—a lamb of the flock. Clearly this was to be slain, as the expression—”of the fat thereof” shows. Had there been no such revelation, how could Abel have had “faith” to draw near in this way?

I remember years ago seeing a blind Kabyle reading in Braille type by the wayside in North Africa, what I learned to be this fourth chapter of Genesis. When we asked him why God accepted Abel’s offering, he replied, “There was something in it which spoke of the Messiah.” This is true; no doubt that sacrifice was a type of the Lamb of God slain at Calvary, and foreshadowed the bruising of the Kinsman’s heel. Abel confessed himself worthy of death and appropriated the death of the victim in his stead. Cain’s offering was of the same vegetable kingdom as the fig-leaves of the aprons of Adam and Eve, and as the host of flour and water, which the Romanist and Ritualist offer on their “altars,” all of which are bloodless offerings and powerless to remit
sin.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Other pages in this section

About this site

[ Back ]

Main Menu