The Scriptures teach that when we sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2:1. Also, in 1 John 1:9 we are told that if “we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The idea that the only way one can confess sins or receive forgiveness for sins is to come forward at a church service and make a confession for those sins, is not found in scripture. While it may be appropriate, at times, to do that, it is not mandatory. If one sins and is aware of the need for repentance, to make them wait until the next church service to confess that sin and have prayer is not only dangerous, it is without scriptural precedent. The sooner one can take care of such matters, the better. For these reasons, I cannot say that what the querist describes is unscriptural.

Published in the OPA January, 2002

There has been, for quite sometime now, a push on the part of some to give women more exposure in the church. Various groups among the churches of Christ have struggled to maintain what they consider to be valid restrictions placed on women and the public proclamation of the gospel. Unfortunately many of them have already lost the battle. Just today I received a religious journal in which one writer told about receiving a call from a preacher who said, “Women are taking an increasingly, active, public role in the work of this church, and the elders say it is alright because they have told the women to do so, thus, they are not usurping authority, but are acting under the elder’s direction.” Many among us would respond to that by saying, “I told you so,” or “I could have predicted that would happen since these churches have had women teaching in classes for years. It only logically follows that sooner or later women would want in the pulpit.” Well it appears that it will be sooner than later. But what said the scripture?

Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 wrote, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” In these verses the writer talks about a “learning process” and a “teaching process.” Women are to be silent in both. They may neither ask or answer a question. Of the word “teach” in this verse Thayer says “to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses.” A woman is out of place in the pulpit. In fact this passage keeps a woman out of the pulpit whether it be a literal one or figurative one. That is one where she assumes the prerogative of standing before others and teaching them. That is not her role. Why? Because according to our writer Adam was first formed then Eve, and Eve was first in the transgression. Those who claim that these verses in 1 Timothy apply only to an assembly of the church, miss the mark. If such were true then women could teach or preach over radio, television, or on the street corner. If not, why not? What scripture would forbid it? It might surprise you that some among us already believe that a woman can can do these things. What scripture would forbid a woman going downtown and standing on a street corner and proclaiming the gospel to all who would listen, if not this very passage? The street corner is not a church assembly, nor is the radio or television. Where then may a woman teach and under what circumstances? In Acts 18:26 we have the account of Aquila and his wife Priscilla taking Apollos unto themselves and teaching him the way of the Lord more perfectly. Note carefully that they “took him unto themselves.” In a private and informal manner they individually instructed this man. They did not advertise, announce, or broadcast the study. Hence in circumstances similar to this a woman may teach. Se may teach her children (2 Tim. 1:5 and 3:15). In Titus 2:3-4 older women are charged with admonishing (training) younger women. In none of these passages do we find any hint of women organizing brotherhood wide “women’s studies” where women come together and are taught by other women. Women who organize such are entirely out of their role and women who attend and teach are likewise out of their role. Both are in violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Published in the OPA March, 2002

The command to assemble, Heb 10:25, necessitates a place where the church can assemble. It is true that in the early days of the church many of these assemblies took place in homes or private dwellings. 1 Corinthians 14:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:20 both speak of the church coming together in one place, without specification as to location. The meeting in Acts 15 apparently was not in a private dwelling. To assume, therefore, that churches only met in homes or that churches could only meet in homes is an assumption without biblical foundation. The place of meeting is incidental to the meeting itself. Jesus loosed the place of worship in John 4:20-21, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship. Jesus said to her, Women, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.” It should be noted that not all the above verses, cited by the querist, refer to churches meeting in someone’s house. In Acts 2:46 the scripture speaks of “breaking bread from house to house.” While some have applied this “breaking bread” to the Lord’s Supper, I do not believe such an application is correct.

McGarvey points out that “the breaking bread” mentioned in this verse is not the breaking of the loaf of verse 42, but refers to common meals of which they partook from house to house. This is evident from the connection: breaking bread from house to house, they received their food with gladness and singleness of heart. It was that breaking of bread in which they received their food, which was not done in partaking of the emblematic loaf.” The real underlying question that needs to be addressed, however, is “what is an example?” Is every incident recorded in the New Testament an example for us to follow? If not, how may we determine the difference? If these passages that mention churches meeting in homes are not examples, what are they? First of all, to argue about when an example is binding is to misuse the word “example.” Webster defines the word example as “a pattern, a model, an illustration of a rule or precept.” An example illustrates a rule or command, thus becoming a model or pattern for carrying out that command.

Incident is defined by Webster as something “occurring accidentally, casual, that which happens beside the main design.” It is a mistake to say that an example is an incident or vice-versa. Such is a confusion of terms. It would also be a mistake to speak of an example that is not binding. If something is an example, it illustrates a rule or command, and is therefore binding. We must, therefore, decide whether or not an event is (a) an example illustrating a rule or precept, or (b) a casual incident. Illustrations for applying the rule are: in Acts 8:38 “They went down into the water” illustrates the command to baptize. Philippians 4:16 “Ye sent once and again unto to my necessity”; 2 Cor 11:9 “that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied”; 2 Cor 11:8 “I robbed other churches taking wages of them” all illustrate the rule “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should all live of the gospel” I Cor 9:14.

These passages further show that in support of gospel preachers funds are to be sent from the congregation directly to the preachers. Acts 20:7 illustrates “when” (the first day of the week), the disciples observed the Lord’s Supper. Hebrews 10:25 contains the background rule for that assembly. “They all drank of it”, or “out of it” Mk 14:23 illustrates the command “drink ye all of it” Mt 26:27, and serves as an example of how we drink the fruit of the vine when observing the Lord’s Supper.

In Acts 27:38 we read “They lighted the ship and cast out the wheat into the sea.” Here is an incident with no background precept, principle or command. Hence it is not an example of anything for us today, but merely a happenstance that occurred beside the main design. The same is true of the scriptures cited by the querist where churches gathered in some home to worship. There may have been a number of reasons why they did so. Some have suggested that public places where hard to come by. Others that such public gatherings would only agitate the leaders of the political system under which they lived. One thing is certain, they did not meet in private homes because of a biblical command.

Published in the OPA September, 1997

There are a number of issues involved in the above question. We shall notice them as follows: first of all the issue of what constitutes adultery. There are some today who teach that in Mt. 19:9 and 5:32 the adultery spoken of is not a sexual act, but merely “breaking wedlock.” Based on this assumption, they claim that when a divorce is secured for purposes other than fornication the individual who gets the divorce is guilty of adultery because they broke wedlock. John L. Edwards, one of the proponents of this theory, says in his book Marriage and Divorce that “it is the act of destroying the marriage that is adultery, according to Jesus.” Again “Adultery is committed if one divorces a faithful spouse (this action is adultery).” Another quote: “We conclude that adultery is the breaking of a covenant.” As a result of this new twist, one can divorce and remarry for any reason, as many times as they please, merely make a confession, and continue to live with that particular mate. There are, however, serious flaws with this teaching. In Mt. 19:9 Jesus says “Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” In this verse Jesus makes both divorce and remarriage necessary in order to commit adultery. The Bible does not say the very thing necessary in order for this theory to fly. In fact the Bible says the very opposite. In Mt. 5:32 Jesus said “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The man who marries this divorced woman had no part in the break up of the marriage, yet he commits adultery. If adultery is covenant breaking, what covenant has this man broken? The theory just won’t work. Another thing wrong with this teaching is the fact that it contradicts what the Greek lexicons say about the meaning of the word translated adultery. Both J.H. Thayer and W. E. Vine, two outstanding lexicographers, define the word adultery in Mt. 19:9 and 5:32 to mean the sexual act. Thayer “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with.” While the word adultery may be used figuratively, there is no hint by either of these scholars that it is used figuratively in these passages. It is passing strange to me that some of our own brethren who for years have hung their hat on Thayer and Vine who both say that “cup” in Mt. 26:27 is literal, now want to deny them on the definition of adultery. What happens, then, when a man divorces his wife for reasons other than fornication and marries again. Jesus said they commit adultery. The adultery is committed when the second marriage takes place. If there are no illicit sexual relations, no second marriage, there is no adultery. The second issue that is involved in this teaching is that of repentance. What constitutes repentance when adultery is committed? It seems to me that the answer is both simple and obvious i.e. the very same thing that must be done when any sin is committed. One must, with godly sorrow in his heart, resolve to cease the action that is sinful. Once the action is ceased, the fruit of repentance is evident. “Let him that stole, steal no more” Eph. 4:28. The thief must cease stealing if he is to be forgiven. The drunkard must stop getting drunk, the liar must stop lying, the homosexual must stop his homosexual activity, the heterosexual must stop his fornicating, and idol worshipper must cease worshipping idols. Those who claim that such a position makes “adultery” an unforgivable sin, miss the point. Adultery can be forgiven just like any other sin, but the one committing adultery must stop it. Merely making a confession won’t get the job done. Making a confession is not repentance. Those who teach this false doctrine are on record as saying that one can divorce and remarry, for any reason, as many as one hundred times, and as long as they make a confession they can go right on living with spouse number one hundred. Who can believe it? The seriousness of this situation is seen when one considers that some sincere, but deluded, individuals are in marriage situations that will ultimately condemn them, it they do not repent. May God help us to take the right road, rather than the easy one. Souls hang in the balance.

Published in the OPA August, 2002

No, it is not right, and their statement is cause for concern for several reasons. First of all, it is evident that someone has failed to properly teach these young people the truth on the Communion service. Either family, local church leaders, or preachers may have assumed that young people just naturally “inherit” what we believe the Bible to teach. This indicates that is not the case. Secondly, it is alarming that such ideas can be advanced and promoted without being contradicted and shown for what they are at the time. And thirdly, it should be a wake up call for all of us that the only way we will continue to successfully oppose such things as individual cups, Sunday school classes, women teachers and things of this nature is through eternal vigilance and continued teaching. These unscriptural practices are still a threat to the church and those who do not realize it, will discover it all too soon. It is wrong to use more than one cup both before or after thanks is given for the following reasons: (1) Jesus took one cup Mt. 26:27; Mark 14:23 “Then he took the cup…” Some translations say “He took a cup.” (2) He gave thanks for one cup “Then he took the cup, and when he had given thanks…” Mark 14:23. (3) He then “gave it to them” that is he gave it to the disciples Mark 14:23; Matthew 26:27. What he took, and that for which he gave thanks, he then handed or gave to the disciples. He did not divide or pour the fruit of the vine into two or more cups. Neither can we and follow His example. (4) He commanded the disciples to “drink from it, all of you” Mt. 26:27. The disciples understood what he meant and Mark records “they all drank from it” verse 23. Some translations say “they all drank out of it.” They did not pour the fruit of the vine into two or more cups; they drank from the cup Jesus took and gave to them. Nor can we, and be scriptural. It is just as unscriptural to use more than one cup after thanks is given as it would be to use more than one cup before thanks is given. Jesus refers to the cup containing fruit of the vine as the “new testament in my blood” Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25. Thayer says of this phrase on page 15 of his lexicon “This cup containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by the shedding of my blood, an emblem of the new testament.” The cup containing wine is an emblem of the new testament. Cups containing wine represent nothing, They are a violation of the pattern. A congregation that drinks out of individual cups violates the pattern. The pattern delivered by Paul to Corinth was “He took the cup.” The congregation was admonished to “drink this cup.” Note they were not told to “drink these cups.”

Brethren it is time to arise and teach the truth on these issues. We cannot suppose that our children or young people understand or believe the truth unless we teach and continually emphasize what the Bible teaches. All around us we see gradual but ever presistent movement on the part of some away from the plain teaching of the Scriptures on such issues. as the communion, women teachers, women studies, some of which are nothing but an attempt place women in leadership roles that are forbidden by the Bible, and a general eroding of Bible based preaching. It is past time to awake out of sleep.

Published in the OPA May, 2002

Both the above questions deal essentially with the same issue, hence I will deal with them as one. The Scriptures teach, I believe, that it would be wrong for those involved to have communion either at home or in a motel room for the following reasons: (1) The worship of the church is congregational in nature. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:23 speaks of the “whole church” coming together. In neither of the above situations has the “whole church” assembled. In 1 Cor. 10:16-17 Paul explains that one of the effects of the communion is to show the unity of the congregation. The “communion” of the body and blood of the Lord constitute a “joint participation” or a “sharing in common” by the congregation, in partaking of the bread and cup of the Lord. We accomplish that when the church has come together for worship. If we can observe the communion separate and apart from the assembled church, then it becomes an individual exercise, which is the exact opposite of the meaning of the word communion. (2) The above situations constitute a violation of Hebrews 10:25. This verse teaches that we are not to “forsake the assembling of ourselves together…” The assembling together implies that the church has come together. “Assembling together” translates a word that means, according to Thayer, “a gathering together in one place.” When Christians forsake the gathering together of the church, and choose to meet in a motel room, at home, or in a vacation spot, they violate this passage. (3) Someone might say, “What about Matt. 18:20? Didn’t Jesus teach that if two or three are gathered in his name he would be there?” A careful study of the context of these verses reveal that Jesus is talking about prayer and not worship. No consideration is here given by the Master regarding the practice of worshipping apart from the congregation because one is on vacation or work. But, suppose that this verse does apply to the worship. Notice that Jesus said “in my name,” i.e. “by my authority.” The gathering must be “in his name or by his authority,” in order for Him to be there. Nowhere does Jesus authorize an individual and his wife or family to have the communion in a motel room, or at home separate and apart from the congregational gathering.

Published in the OPA October, 2002

The institution of the Lord’s Supper took place on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. Exodus 12:8 gives us a description of the passover meal that was eaten, at that time, “And they shall eat the flesh (of the lamb without blemish) in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread, and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.” A further statement also specifies the kind of bread used, and is given in Ex. 12:15 “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread…” Thus we conclude that when the scriptures tell us that Jesus took “bread” (Mt. 26:26) it was “unleavened bread.” But what is unleavened bread? In Bible days bread was leavened by using a portion of a former mixture of leavened, or fermented dough. This “leavened dough” was obtained by exposing a lump of dough until it fermented by yeast. This “old lump or fermented lump” would then be placed in the new dough and over time would cause the dough to rise thereby producing leavened bread. Unleavened bread, was the very opposite. It was bread that had no leavening agent or lump in it, causing it to rise. Exodus 29:2 describes unleavened bread as follows “and unleavened bread, unleavened cakes mixed with oil and unleavened wafers anointed with oil (you shall make them of wheat flour).” We see from this passage that the addition of oil did not cause the bread to be leavened. Notice also Leviticus 2:1-13 where the meat offering had to be made with fine flour, oil, frankincense, and salt with no leaven or honey. Hence, the bread was unleavened even though both oil and salt were used. Since the only specification for the passover bread was that it be “unleavened,” we must be careful not to make demands that the bible does not make. As Brother Greg Gay noted in his excellent tract The Bread Which We Break “We must leave out leavening agents such as yeast, baking powder, baking soda, eggs (since air beaten into eggs can expand when heated), and injected air or steam.” Since the use of oil, or salt does not cause the bread to become leavened, to demand that such not be used is to demand something the scriptures do not. But what about the size of the loaf? Vine in his Dictionary of New Testament Words, defines bread or loaf as follows: “signifies a small loaf or cake, composed of flour and water, and baked, in the shape either oblong or round, and about as thick as the thumb…” Since the Lord did not specify the size or shape of the loaf he took, neither should we. The Lord did, however, take bread. As Brother Homer Gay used to say “he did not take toast and he did not take dough, he took bread.” Sometimes, it appears that the loaf is hardly baked. In fact it is so “doughey” one cannot break it. That is wrong. It should be baked until it is “done” or actually becomes bread. It should not be baked, however, until it is so brittle that it cracks or crumbles when one attempts to break it. Nor should it be so thin that it crumbles when one attempts to break it. Those who prepare the bread should practice until they are able to produce one that is suitable for use in the communion service. Older women in the congregation would do well to teach and train the younger women on the proper preparation of the bread to be used in the observance of the communion.

Published in the OPA May, 2003

We are told in Mt. 26:27 that “Jesus took the cup.” Some later versions say “he took a cup.” Mark and Luke in their accounts of the institution of the supper agree with this rendering, as does the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-26. Every Greek lexicon of which I have knowledge places the word “cup” in Mt. 26:27 under literal usage. There is certainly no reason from the text for doing otherwise. Jesus took a literal cup. The cup he took, however, was not empty. It contained something. That something (fruit of the vine) was a representation of his blood (Mt. 26:28). The idea that the cup was the blood or fruit of the vine is an attempt to prove that the fact that Jesus took one cup (container) has no significance. People who advocate this argument conclude that since the cup is the blood, it doesn’t matter how many containers are used to distribute the cup. Unfortunately for them their reasoning is greatly flawed. “Cup” is the name of a solid, not a liquid. Jesus never did call the “cup” his blood. Read the accounts in the Bible; it’s just not there. When Jesus said “this is my blood of the new testament…” his reference was to the contents of the cup, the fruit of the vine. The disciples were to “drink ye all from it” i.e. they were to all drink out of or from the cup Jesus had given them. If we follow the example of Jesus, we will use only one cup, when we observe the communion. But does the cup have any significance other than the fact that Jesus used one cup?

Let it first be remembered that since Jesus did not take or give thanks for an empty cup, whatever significance there is to the cup must be to the “cup containing,” not just an empty cup. In Luke 22:20 Jesus said, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Paul in 1 Cor. 11:25 says, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” Just as the bread “is” or represents the body of Christ, and the fruit of the vine “is” or represents the blood of Christ, the cup containing the fruit of the vine “is” or represents the new covenant. All three of these statements have a subject and a predicate joined by the copula “is.” A comparison is suggested by the usage of “is” and carries the meaning or idea of “represents.” In all three statements there is a literal something under consideration. Bread, fruit of the vine and the cup are all literal. The Lord is not defining bread, fruit of the vine, or cup but merely telling what each represents. Someone is ready to respond by saying, “Do you mean to tell me that a literal cup can represent the New Testament?” Well, if literal bread can represent the body of Christ and literal fruit of the vine can represent the blood of Christ, why cannot a literal cup containing fruit of the vine represent the New Testament? The Lord and Paul both said it does. That settles the matter. Thayer says on page 15 of his Greek lexicon, “This cup, containing wine, an emblem of blood, is rendered by shedding of my blood an emblem of the New Testament.” “An emblem of blood” is an appositive and put in opposition to wine. It describes what “wine” is, i.e. an emblem of blood. Thus, just as the wine is an emblem of blood, so also the “cup containing wine” is an emblem of the New Testament. In my opinion, it is a mistake, when offering thanks for the cup to say, “We thank thee for this cup which is the New Testament and its contents, the fruit of the vine, which represent the blood of Christ.” It is the “cup containing” that represents the New Testament, not the empty cup itself. The cup containing wine is significant. A beautiful picture should come to our mind when we commune. Bread, one loaf, representing the one physical body of our Lord who died for our sins. A cup containing wine reminding us of the blood shed for our sins and the one covenant sealed or ratified by that blood. Steak in the Lord’s supper represents nothing. Fermented wine, or Coca-Cola represent nothing; a plurality of cups represent nothing. All are additions to the word of God, and violations of the pattern set long ago by our Lord.

Ronny F. Wade

Published in the OPA August 1, 2001