Does giving thanks for the bread and cup differ from other prayers at the Lord's Supper?

Does giving thanks for the bread and cup differ from other prayers at the Lord's Supper?

When believers gather to break bread on the first day of the week, it is an opportunity to call to remembrance the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 11:24, 25)," TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 11:24, 25), His deity, incarnation, holy life and testimony, the efficacy of His death and glorious resurrection, His ascension to heaven, and His present position seated at the right hand of God. The words of the Lord Jesus were, "This do in remembrance of Me," not, "This do in remembrance of My death." In the Lord's Supper, we remember the Lord and proclaim His death. The consequence of this causes worship and thanksgiving. Although the Breaking of Bread is never called a "worship meeting," worship is the normal attitude of the individual believer toward God.

In 1 Corinthians 10:16," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16, the apostle writes, "The cup of blessing which we bless" and "the bread which we break." This is the act of each individual believer. On behalf of the assembly, a brother gives thanks for the bread and the cup, thanking God that He gave His Son in a human body and His Son's blood was shed to make propitiation for sin. These prayers of thanksgiving have a more specific focus than do the other expressions of worship.

J. Abernathy
Other pages in this section

About this site

How could Cornelius the centurian's prayers ascend to heaven as a memorial since he was not saved?

Is there a difference between what is implied in Acts 10:4, 22," TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:4, 22, 31 and what is taught in Romans 3:10" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:10 -12?

Romans 3:10-12" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:10-12 and the wider context state categorlcally that all, without exception, born of human parents are unrighteous. This must of necessity include Cornelius. The words, "Peter... shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved" (Acts 11: 14)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 11: 14), and subsequent verses clearly teach that prior to Peter's visit all who heard him preach were in their sins. Until all who heard Peter actually believed the message and received the Holy Spirit, none in Cornelius' house were saved.

How then are we to understand how Cornelius' alms and prayers "went up for a memorial before God" even though he wasn't vet saved? Consider the saints of the Old Testament. Their piety and righteousness were not a prerequisite to God's favor, but rather a response to God's dealings. Consider Cornelius in this context: his good works are not a result of being intrinsically good, but a response to what he had learned of God. He was responding to light from God. God then reveals to Cornelius further truth by sending Peter to preach. Again, Cornelius receives God's message. We must conclude that Cornelius is not good in himself, just as Romans 3:10-12" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:10-12 teaches, but is reckoned righteous as a result of his response to the gospel Peter preached.

S. Wells

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Hell forever?

Is man's punishment for sin eternal?

This question cannot be answered by human reasoning, but by biblical revelation. Before we answer this, we need an understanding of what "sin" is before an infinitely holy God. Sin is missing the mark. It is unrighteousness, iniquity, transgression, lawlessness; therefore sin cannot be tolerated and must be punished. Romans 6:23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:23 teaches, "The wages of sin is death." Sin is actually an affront to the character of God. If God does not justly punish sin, He will be untrue to His character.

The Word of God reveals eternal punishment for sin in vivid and unmistakable language: "punished with everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9);" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:9); "go away into everlasting punishment" '(Matthew 25:41);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41); "have their part in the lake of fire which burneth with fire and brimstone forever and ever" (Revelation 21:8)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 21:8). This is not only eternal punishment, but conscious eternal punishment: "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night" (Revelation 14:11);" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 14:11); "suffering (present continuous) the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7)." TARGET="_blank">Jude 7). The greatest proof of "eternal punishment" for sin is offered in the infinite sufferings of Christ for sin. The rejection of Christ has eternal consequences. If we could fathom Christ's sufferings for sin, we could fathom the eternal punishment of men in their sins. Impossible!

A. Hull

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Great Commission for a future dispensation?

Is the Commission of Matthew 28:18-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:18-20 for the present dispensation, or only for one yet future?

“The Lord Jesus before His death made just one appointment with His disciples, which was, to meet Him on a certain mountain in Galilee after He had risen (Matthew 26:32;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:32; Mark 16:7)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:7). Of this fact we are reminded in Matthew 28:16," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:16, the opening verse of the paragraph in which the Commission is contained. There had been some more or less informal meetings elsewhere previous to it, but this was the specially prearranged meeting, which naturally would overshadow them all in importance. yet there are those who would ask us to believe that what He told them when He met them there, was not about their Own work at all; but that He gave them minute instructions and comforting assurances with regard to the work of some other unknown individuals, who would live two thousand or more years after their time. They would have us believe that when He said, “Go ye and teach,” lie meant that somebody else was to go and teach; that when He said, “I am with you,” He meant, I will be with some other people who will be on earth two thousand years hence; and that when He added, “Even unto the end of the age,” He meant, until the end of some other age. Those who can swallow this kind of thing must have good digestion, for I frankly confess I prefer to believe that the Lord meant just what He said.

The statement, which some of these brethren make, that Matthew does not acknowledge the Church period, is absurd. Is it not in Matthew that we have the formal introduction of the Church in chapter 16, and of Church order in chapter 18? Is it not there that we find the Lord’s action, so symbolical of turning from Jew to Gentile, in chap. 13. 1; in which after having been definitely rejected by the Jewish leaders in the two previous chapters, it is said, “The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside”? And immediately after, He speaks the Seven Parables of the Mysteries of the Kingdom, which have so often been shown to picture successive stages of this present Church period. That Matthew’s Gospel has a Jewish tinge, no one who is a careful reader can doubt; but this is far off from the Conclusion that there is nothing in it except for Jews. The Gospel of Luke has a Gentile tinge, but would these brethren suggest that there is nothing for Jews in Luke, nothing about the Tribulation, nothing about Millennial times? As a matter of fact, the Commission as given in the end of the Gospels of Luke and of Mark, has a more Jewish Sound about it than the form of it occurring in Matthew.

As illustrating the fact that the Apostles did carry out Matthew 28:18-20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:18-20 there is a word worth noting in Acts 14:21" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:21: “They had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught (Gr., discipled) many.” It is the very word, “matheteuo,” used in Matthew 28:1," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:1, and this is the only place in the New Testament, apart from Matthew’s Gospel, where it occurs. Were they not here carrying out the Commission as given in that verse?”

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Are Christians supposed to be ambassadors for God?

To whom does "we" refer in verse 20: "We are ambassadors . . ."?

Paul uses the first person singular pronoun (I, me, my, mine: see v 11, for example) because he is the writer, but he includes at least Timothy (1:1) and Silvanus (1:19) with himself.

Before this verse (5:20), Paul uses the first person plural pronoun (we, us, our) about 120 times. About one fourth of those uses could include the Corinthians, but the context indicates that all but one refer to Paul and his associates. That one time, Paul includes the Corinthians by using the word "all": "We all with open face . . ." (3:18).

In a unique sense, the Lord had directly entrusted to Paul ("He hath given unto us") - and Paul graciously includes his associates - a "ministry of reconciliation" (5:18). That makes it likely, then, that in verse 20 Paul means that he - and those with him - were ambassadors for (on behalf of) Christ.

Some will point to the next verse and ask if being "made the righteousness of God in Him" is exclusive to Paul. In the context, Paul is referring to "us," meaning himself and his associates. He is emphasizing the blessings that constrained them in their labors. All will have to agree, though, that we have received the same blessings that Paul received through the work of Christ. Further, we have a responsibility to declare "the word of reconciliation" to sinners. More than that, in our declaration, we should be no less conscious than Paul was that we are speaking on behalf of God or Christ (1Pe 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">1Pe 4:11).

We have a work to do and we do not need "ambassador status" to do it. For us, failing to do this work would be what Paul calls (6:1) receiving "the grace of God in vain."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the baptism of Israel in the Red Sea mean?

HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM
Are those who teach what is known as “household baptism” justified in using the crossing of the Red Sea, referred to in 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: as a type of Christian baptism, and in asserting that, as undoubtedly infants were carried across the Red Sea by their mothers, they therefore were baptised unto Moses, and so infants now should be baptised?

Certainly these friends must be hard put to it to find authority for their practice of baptising households to-day, if they have to go back to this far off Old Testament event to justify it. We are asked, moreover, to believe that had Moses and the elders held Believer’s Baptism, they would have been obliged cruelly to leave all the infants on the west bank of the Red Sea to the mercy of the pursuing Egyptians, on the plea that such were not fit subjects for baptism. I remember one well-known clergyman in Brighton (the “Reverend” H. B.), who wrote a tract to justify the sprinkling of infants, and he built his argument on the probability of the wind sprinkling the Israelitish infants, as they were carried through the Red Sea. It seems hard to believe that fancy could go further. We may be sure that no-one from Moses to the youngest Israelitish mother had the slightest idea that a figure of Christian baptism was being carried out during the crossing of the Red Sea.

But if for the sake of argument, all who shared in the crossing were baptised, then this was true of “the mixed multitude” and of the flocks and the herds. Perhaps those who christen bells and ships rely on this passage. We see, however, from Numbers 4" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 4 that the children did not count, but only those of Israel who were numbered “from twenty years old and upward,” for in verses 29 and 33 a difference is made between those who were numbered (v. 29) and their children (v. 33). Whereas the former (except Caleb and Joshua) would be excluded for good, all the children would be brought in when their fathers’ carcases were wasted in the wilderness. We may be sure that the infants no more shared in the baptism of the Red Sea, than in the daily eating of the manna and drinking from the rock that followed them. No doubt it is legitimate to see in the crossing of the Red Sea a figure of the death and resurrection of Christ and of believers’ association with Him, but it is not, properly speaking, a figure of Christian baptism, for that would be a case of a figure representing a figure. Rather what is set forth is what has already taken place for all believers, namely, their baptism in the Spirit. Christi n baptism is in no way in view in 1 Cor 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 10 and it is a great mistake to think that wherever the slightly different word, “baptismos” that occurs in our Authorised (e.g., Mark 7:4, 8;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 7:4, 8; Hebrews 6: 2;" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6: 2; Hebrews 9:10)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:10), The reference clearly is to the ceremonial purifications of the Levitical service.

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does God punish sin on earth? Does God punish sin only in Hell?

“Does God punish sin on earth? Does God punish sin only in Hell?”

Interesting question, and to answer it we need to clarify the terms we use. When it comes to an authority dealing with behavior that is undesired, there are two basic motivations called “punishment” and “vengeance”. Others use the terms “discipline” or “correction” for what I call “punishment”, and “punishment” for what I call “vengeance”, but I think my terms are more biblically accurate.

Whatever the words, God and earthly governments do both.

Using my terms, a “punishment” is like a “spanking”, something bad that is administered with the intent of changing the character of the one being punished. This is done so he may rejoin society as a disciplined, productive member. “Vengeance”, on the other hand, has no goal but to make an example of the punished one so others are afraid to try the same thing, and to protect society at large by removing the threat the lawbreaker represents. One looks to help the guilty one, the other looks primarily at minimizing losses to the whole and protecting the authority of the government. It may be argued that the consequences of law often may very well do both, but the motivation behind each remains distinctly different. And there are clear cases where there is no overlap.

God does both in this life as well. He clearly punishes people with the intent of driving them away from evil and toward Himself. We read He spanks His children in ways that seem “grievous” (Hebrews 12:6)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:6), and also read that He in a general way “chastiseth (spanks) the heathen” (Psalm 94:10)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 94:10), the ones who do not yet know Him. “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth” (Heb. 12:6)" TARGET="_blank">Heb. 12:6) . . . lots of love here.

But He also executes “vengeance” (Romans 12:19)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:19) in this life as a means of declaring and enforcing His governmental authority over mankind. He forcefully tells us to stay out of that business on a personal level when it comes to dealing with people who harm us. The phrase in that verse is this: “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, saith the Lord”. That phrase is found virtually the same in four different Bible verses, the only statement I can think of so honored.

So He really takes this seriously.

Deadly diseases associated with specific violations of His commandments are a clear example of this, as can be premature deaths by various tragedies. “The wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” (Colossians 3:6)" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:6) . . . no love here, just wrath.

Even righteous members of a society may suffer as He executes vengeance on the whole.

To get back to the question, when it comes to hell there is no punishment, there are no spankings, only the raw endless fury of vengeance to prove to the universe that He is God and what He says goes. Hear these solemn words spoken to Christians suffering at the hands of wicked people: “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to

recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) Everlasting Fire – no purgatory, no hope, nothing but vengeance.

The time for corrective punishment is in this life. God is to be greatly feared, and those who refuse to do so in this life, refuse His “spankings” with the intent of driving them to the Savior, will have all of eternity to regret it.

Alfred Corduan

Other pages in this section

About this site

Sell Your Christian or Bible Website WTB

WTB - Want to Buy - Christian Website or your website based on the Bible, Sunday school, prayer, Bible study or related topic.

If you have a website that has been useful for sharing the Bible with the Internet audience but now find it difficult to maintain, please contact us at using the Contact link on the left.

Information we would like to know about your site:

1) Costs. How much are you asking to sell your site for?

2) Value. A website is valuable not for it's design, but for it's traffic. We are interested in buying a site that has some value in its assets such: established time online (more than one year), has some traffic (100 or more visits per day), some quality inbound links from other internet sites (such as dmoz or yahoo directory), some subscribers in a mailing list, and some search keywords that are in the first 10 results of Google, Yahoo or Bing (MSN).

3) History. Tell us about your site. Why and when did you create it? What makes you decide to no longer operate it?

GospelHall.org is a Christian website whose mission is to share the message of the Bible as God's Word. Any websites that we aquire are operated on this understanding.

Shad Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between Adam

What is the difference between Adam’s original humanity and the Lord’s?

As others have said, Adam’s was innocent humanity (implied in Genesis 2:17; 3:5);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:17; 3:5); His is holy humanity (Luke 1:35)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:35). In exploring the meaning of such statements, irreverent curiosity about the Lord’s humanity is as dangerous as looking into the ark was for the men of Bathshemesh (1 Samuel 6:19)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 6:19). Of the meal offering which presents the perfections of the Lord’s life, God said, "It is a thing most holy" (Leviticus 2:3)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 2:3).

In order for the Lord Jesus to be our Redeemer, He must be truly human, "near of kin" to us (Leviticus 25:49)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 25:49). As "the Last Adam, the Second Man" (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:45, 47), He must be physically related to Adam. The body prepared for Him (Hebrews 10:5)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:5) was not a separate creation but a superintended conception (Luke 1:31, 35)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:31, 35). The Spirit of God both empowered the conception and preserved Him from the contamination of fallen humanity.

No form of analysis could distinguish the material substance of the Lord from Adam’s. However, morally and mentally the Lord differed from him. Without a bias to sin, Adam could sin and did. The Lord could not and cannot sin. Adam possessed amazing intelligence; the Lord was and is omniscient. Though He was a learner (Isaiah 50:4;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 50:4; Hebrews 5:8)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:8), He knew all things (John 16:30)." TARGET="_blank">John 16:30). He possessed all wisdom (Colossians 2:3)," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:3), but grew in the display of wisdom (Luke 2:52)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:52). Every capability He displayed, He had learned, although they were His inherently.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Mount Moriah the same place as Calvary, the place of the crucifiction?

Was the mountain in the land of Moriah, upon which Isaac was offered, the mountain on which our Lord was crucified?

It is important to notice the exact wording of Scripture. Abraham was told to go “INTO THE LAND OF MORIAR” and offer Isaac there “UPON ONE OF THE MOUNTAINS WHICH I WILL TELL THEE OF,” so that the exact place is unknown. Probably the principal height was Moriah, and the scene of Genesis 22" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22: one of the lower spurs of the mountain. Mount Moriah or Zion is actually at Jerusalem, and in 2 Chronicles 3:1" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 3:1 we learn that Solomon’s temple was there. Now, it is nowhere said in Scripture that Calvary was a mountain, or even a “green hill,” but is simply called “a place.” But then it must be remembered that the whole of Jerusalem and its suburbs is a mountainous district. We read of “the mountains round about Jerusalem” (Psalm 125:2)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 125:2), so that though our Lord was crucified outside Jerusalem, and not actually on Moriah, it MAY have been the spot where Isaac was offered. All the verbs of John 8:6" TARGET="_blank">John 8:6 are in the aorist tense, and thus connect Abraham’s joy with a special incident, when “he rejoiced to see the day of Christ.” And he called the name of the place “Jehovah-Jireh” i.e. “in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” The word, “mount,” is the Hebrew for “mountain” (har), and includes a mountainous district, properly describing “the place called Calvary.” However, we must not be too dogmatic on the point raised.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu