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

Should a person who is being disciplined by the assembly be present at the discipline meeting?

Should a person who is being disciplined by the assembly be present at the discipline meeting?

Yes. Not every form of New Testament discipline involves putting an individual away from the fellowship. How could an assembly rebuke a fellow-believer (1 Timothy 5:20)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:20) who is not present? In the case of excommunication, an individual remains part of the assembly until the assembly has acted to put him away Silently attending such a gathering might indicate submissiveness to and concurrence with the assemblys action. It may also convince a person of the sensuousness of his sin and of the saints concern for him. No one can force a person to attend; advising him to do so would be wise.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the meaning of "one flesh"?

What is the meaning of "one flesh"?

This was God’s intention at the institution of marriage (Genesis 2:24)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24). It expresses the oneness of a married couple. In this seminal statement, the Lord points out that a man leaves his role of obedience to his parents (although still responsible to honor them, Exo 20:12) to assume headship of a new and distinct relationship. At marriage a new family unit exists that had never existed before. This newly-formed oneness, involves a physical union, the culmination of marriage, but it involves more than that. Four of the five New Testament passages that refer to "one flesh" (Matthew 19:5, 6;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:5, 6; Mark 10:8;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:8; Ephesians 5:31)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31), quote the original statement and are passages that teach about marriage. The fifth (1 Corinthians 6:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:16) is part of Paul’s teaching about fornication (v 18). He states that one who "is joined to an harlot" is "one body." Then he cites the Lord’s original intention (Genesis 2:24)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:24) regarding "one flesh." The promiscuous relationship with a harlot is a physical union, but not the physical union God intended in marriage. "One body" does not include the intended intimacy and oneness of a unique relationship within marriage. "One body" is merely an external relationship. "One flesh" is both physical and relational, expressing the inseparable closeness of Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:31, 32)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:31, 32). This can never be expressed outside marriage.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Some hold that there is a difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, and that only those who are born again are in the former, while all who profess are in the latter. If such be the case, how can they explain Matthew 5:20" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:20 and Matthew 18:3" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:3? I was under the impression that both were the same, and that conversion and regeneration also were the same. Am I correct?

Some, I believe, maintain that the Kingdom of God is the real thing and the Kingdom of heaven inclusive of all profession. But does not the first Beatitude seem to refute this? “Blessed are the poor in Spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5. 2)." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 5. 2). A comparison of Matthew 13" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13: and Luke 13" TARGET="_blank">Luke 13: shows that in the two chapters the same parables—of the mustard seed and of the leaven—are referred, in the former to the Kingdom of heaven, in the latter to the Kingdom of God. This would seem to indicate that the difference cannot be vital. In the one phrase, the seat of the authority exercised is emphasised. It comes from “the heavens”: In the other, the one who exercises the authority is the predominant thought—it is God Himself.

I believe both are real. How could it be otherwise when both belong to God? It is dangerous, however, to shuffle Bible terms. But in the Kingdom of Israel remnants of the Canaanites, e.g., the Gibeonites remained, but were not subjects of the Kingdom. In the Kingdom of this land, foreigners, enemy spies, alien communists, ever hostile to our king, may live and lurk; they must recognise the law of the land, but they are not recognised as British subjects and they can be repatriated at the will of the Sovereign. So there are doubtless some who profess the name of Christ who are not really subjects of the Kingdom. They will be purged out, but it does not follow they were ever included in the Kingdom.

As regards the terms, “conversion,” and “regeneration,” they may coincide and I believe do, but they are far from being synonymous.Conversion is the turning of the sinner to God and represents the man-ward side of things; regeneration is the new-birth wrought in the soul by the Holy Spirit, when conversion takes place. This represents the God-ward side.

W.H,

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the narrow road a message for believers or a message of salvation?

Why do some say that the teaching of Matthew 7:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:13-14 is a message for believers?

Unbelievers (7:28) and believers (5:1) were both present while the Lord spoke. As in all that He did and said, His message was a model of good preaching; He set out the truth and then called for action. Verses 13 through 27 were His summary and call for action. Such was His skill in speaking that His summary applied to all who listened. He expressed universal principles. Submission to His Word results in "life which is life indeed" (1 Timothy 6:19," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:19, RV), enjoyed both now and eternally. Disobedience to His Word results in loss, suffered both now and eternally.

We who are believers need this reminder. The value of our present life and testimony depends on uncompromising submission to His Word. The degree to which we disregard His Word is the degree to which we will suffer loss at the Bema (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:12-15).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it possible for a brother whose home is in disorder to be an elder?

Is it possible for a brother whose home is in disorder to be an elder?

No. "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God" (1 Timothy 3:5)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:5)? The answer appears to be straightforward, but applying this requires spiritual wisdom. Maturing children bear responsibility for their own choices. Their wrong choices may or may not reflect the failure of their father to properly lead, care for, give attention to, or protect (meanings of "rule") them. Spiritual believers will seek help from God to graciously decide this without favoritism, self-interest, or bias.

The case of a brother separated from his wife and family may be clearer. Without putting an unfair burden on a brother in this heart-rending and difficult situation, the Bible teaches that his leadership both as husband and father places on him the responsibility for right relationships with his wife and children. Despite severe difficulties, this responsibility cannot be ignored. As in every circumstance of a Christian’s life, we regard our burdens as part of our Father’s "child-training" (Hebrews 12:4-11)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:4-11). For a brother to give up his responsibility in such a case will limit what his Father plans to accomplish in his spiritual development. The possibility exists that spiritually wise men who are close to the situation may sense that the grace of God has worked in this brother to a sufficiently remarkable degree and that he is qualified to be an overseer, but they must not make this decision lightly or hastily or out of pity or because of the likeable personality of the separated brother.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between the rapture and the coming of the Lord?

RESURRECTION AND RAPTURE
THE “AT ANY MOMENT” VIEW

Will Christ come secretly (as a surprise) for his church or will he come in shining glory and "every eye shall see Him"?

What about verses that indicate that he will come FOR His saints “immediately after the tribulation of those days”? Matthew 24;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24; Mark 13" TARGET="_blank">Mark 13:, or Luke 21" TARGET="_blank">Luke 21: don't appear to have any verse where Christ said He would come SECRETLY or “at any moment.” Please throw light upon this subject.

The Lord's coming in glory is quite distinct from the descent of the Lord from heaven to take away His sleeping and living saints from the earth, to be for ever with the Lord, as is revealed in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Many verses take into account the differences between these two comings (e.g., John 14:1-6;" TARGET="_blank">John 14:1-6; Philippians 3:20-21;" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:10)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 1:10). 1 Corinthians 15: 51-54," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15: 51-54, where the “mystery” of this first stage of the Lord’s return is revealed: “Behold, I shew you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.” This is not referred to in Matthew 24," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24, etc., for the good reason, that the time had not come to reveal it.

The coming there described is that of the “Son of Man” to the earth, to deliver Israel, which was not a mystery at all, but had been plainly revealed in the Old Testament, e.g., Zechariah 14:4-5." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 14:4-5. where we read that “His feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives, and that “all His saints will be with Him,” that is clearly all the saints already caught up to be with Him.

It is true that the words “secret rapture” do not occur in scripture, but if, as is stated, the whole event will be over in “the twinkling of an eye,” clearly only those taken away will know of it at the time, though their absence will doubtless be noticed later. They will be delivered thus from the Great Tribulation.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should "the fellowship of His sufferings" (Philippians 3:10) be understood spiritually or literally?

Should "the fellowship of His sufferings" (Philippians 3:10)" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:10) be understood spiritually or literally?

To be consistent, if we interpret this spiritually we must do the same for the two surrounding expressions: the power of His resurrection, being made conformable to His death. These two expressions take us to the truth of Romans 6." TARGET="_blank">Romans 6. We walk by the new power of resurrection life (v. 4b), reckoning ourselves to be united with Christ in His death (vv. 5-11). The difficulty is to understand in what spiritual way we share in His sufferings.

The context of the book and the verse favors a literal sharing in Christ’s sufferings. Paul was in house arrest in Rome because of the gospel. He desired either the power of Christ’s resurrection (Ephe-sians 1:19; 6:10) or the energizing truth of a living Savior (Mark 16:14, 15;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 15:8-10)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:8-10) to enable him in his sufferings. Because of the resurrection, he was willing even to suffer death for Christ’s sake ("made conformable unto His death"). His overriding longing was to be as like Christ now as it is possible to be (Philippians 3:11)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:11).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it wrong to conjure dead spirits?

Please explain 1 Samuel 28:15-19" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15-19 in the light of Ecclesiastes 9:5." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Does this give ground for to-day’s teaching of Spiritism?

The story of 1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28 in no way justifies the practice of Spiritism in this or in any other age.

As for Ecciesiastes 9:5, it expresses the general rule, “The dead know not anything”; the above story of the witch of Endor is the exception, by God’s special permission, as I shall seek to show. “The dead know not anything,” i.e., of what is going on on the earth, but they know what is going on where they are, as the story of the ex-rich man and Lazarus shows (Luke 16)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 16). The former and Abraham knew each other, and the former recognised Lazarus and remembered his own five brethren.

I have not the slightest doubt Samuel was really permitted by God to respond to the call. This was less, I doubt not, of a surprise to Saul the dupe, than to the witch, the deceiver. To her the attendant spirit was familiar, but she seems to have been completely taken aback by the appearance of the strange visitant that Samuel was, for “she cried with a loud voice,” and did not know him, though by some peculiar intuition she at once became aware of the identity of Saul. Samuel was a true prophet, and could foretell the morrow’s happenings, but we have no justification for supposing that wicked spirits can foretell the future.
That this response to Saul’s evil action does not justify modern Spiritism is clear, from the fact that it did not justify his own recourse to this medium, for it is specifically mentioned in 1 Chronicles 10:13" TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 10:13 as one of the two causes of his final downfall: (i) “his transgression” i.e., in sparing Amalek, and also (z) his “asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it. And he enquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him.” He did ask of the Lord (sha’al), as indeed of the witch, but he did so in a merely formal way in the former case and he did not enquire (dãrash) of Him, as he did of the witch; for in her case he put himself to all pains to get information. Saul knew perfectly well the distinct prohibition of Jehovah to any kind of occult practices—consulting spirits, etc. (see Leviticus 19:31;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6, 27;" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-12)," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18:9-12), and had as we know, acted thereon, till he found it convenient to transgress!

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible mean about women learning in silence and submission in 1 Timothy 2:12-15?

What does the Bible mean about women learning in silence and submission in 1 Timothy 2:12-15" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:12-15?

These verses deal with a woman's role in public testimony. Learning in "silence" and "submissiveness" (verse 11), she is forbidden to "teach," since this exercises authority over man. Usurp authority" suggests that only domineering power is forbidden, but "exercise authority over man" JND and others) is clearer. To preach the gospel, open a Bible Reading, minister the Word or be an overseer involves authority over man, as well as teaching, and thus violates Scripture. The reasons follow: in formation (verse 13), Adam was first; in the fall (verse 14) this order was reversed and Eve was deceived with catastrophic consequences. This implies that a modern reversal of God's order will have similar results. however, verse 15 assures the woman of salvation in its fullness if, while fulfilling her unique role of motherhood, she maintains faith with love, holiness and sobriety.

D. Gilliland

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu