God's Merciful Grace

Everyone is pleased to have the grace of God in their life, but are we disturbed when God’s grace shows up in the lives of others in a way that seems more abundant than in our own? I am afraid that is sometimes the case. The parable of the laborers found in Matt. 20:1-16 is an example and is also an illustration of how man has a tendency to feel he knows more about what is just than God does. We judge God.

The passage is too long to quote here, but I will jog your memory and summarize it for you. A man had a vineyard and needed workers. He went out to hire workers for his vineyard five different times during the day, each time sending them directly to work as they were hired. At day’s end each was paid. A problem arose in the hearts of those hired early in the day when, at the end of the day, the owner of the vineyard paid those who came to work last, late in the day, who did the least labor, the same amount of money as those who had gone to work first and who had put in the most hours of work. They complained, feeling they had been treated unjustly. “These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.” (Matt. 20:12 NKJV)

It is easy to read this account and, at first impulse, feel that indeed the earliest workers were mistreated, that this was unjust. We have all been raised to believe in the concept of quid pro quo, pay based on the amount of work done, the more work, the more pay. The last workers in this parable did not do an equal amount of work, far less, yet received equal pay.

To an American this seems most unfair, but what was the vineyard owner’s response? “Is your eye evil because I am good?” (Matt. 20:15 NKJV) The ESV reads, “Do you begrudge my generosity?” The NAS reads, “Is your eye envious because I am generous?” The bottom line is that they were jealous and angry over the generosity shown by the vineyard owner to those hired last.

One must understand, and I think we do, that this parable is about God’s dealings with those who believe and obey the gospel. It is about God’s grace, not about how people ought to be paid in the material, physical world in which we live our daily lives. God’s grace gives a man what he needs, not what he deserves. Every person who is saved is granted far more than he deserves. God’s grace is not based on works, not on how much work one has done, not on how difficult it has been, not on how long one has had to endure.

God is always just in the sense that he treats us honestly and fairly and does not go back on the word he has given. In the parable, those who went to work in the vineyard earliest in the day were glad to go, to have the opportunity, and agreed that the wage set was fair and the work required was just. He did not ask of them more than they could do or were willing to do.

These early workers were blessed and enjoyed the grace of the vineyard owner. What had he done for them? He had given them work. Not every man was so blessed with a job. He had given them security. At the end of the day, they knew their need to feed their family was going to be met. He had given them dignity and self-respect. They need not hang their head in embarrassment and shame as those who could not provide for themselves and their family.

Those were great blessings in that day, and they are great blessings in this day. These men were treated not only with justice but with grace in being given these blessings. They should have been in a state of thanksgiving and rejoicing, and perhaps they were for a time—until the time they learned of grace given to others, grace beyond what they perceived had been given to them. Envy and jealousy arose. If we are not careful, the same attitude can develop within us and for the same reason. It is the age-old complaint that men have that God is not fair. In the parable, the vineyard owner is representative of God. Was he fair? Did he do what was right?

In the parable, as the day went on, others were hired, with the last being hired at the eleventh hour, quite late in the work day. When they were paid at the end of the work day, what did they receive? They received the same amount as did those who had worked far more hours of the day, who had endured a much greater workload because of it, and who had borne the heat of the day.

How could that be? If I owned a business today and went out and hired men as in the parable and acted accordingly in paying them, would I be doing what was right? Most would say no. In what sense, then, could this be said to be right? If it was right, it would have been wrong to have done it the way most think it should have been done—pay based on the amount of work done.

Here is what made it right. Every man hired that day had an equal need—the need to feed himself and his family, if he had one, which is most likely. If it is in my power to do good and make that possible for another man, can I be righteous and fail to do it? “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17 NKJV)

Paul told Timothy to command the rich to “be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share.” (1 Tim. 6:18 NKJV)

In Matt. 25, who is it that is going to be condemned on the last day? “Then he will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’” (Matt. 25:41-43 NKJV)

“But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17 NKJV) The eleventh-hour men in the parable had a need. The vineyard owner, since he had it in his power, could not have been a just man with the love of God in his heart and done anything other than what he did. What he did was good and right. If these laborers had not had need, they would not have been laboring, so there was a need to be met that could not now be met by any other principle.

What was that principle? The principle of grace. God is a God of grace. If we are his children, we too must have grace for others. When we take the position everyone has to earn all he gets, then that locks us all out of heaven “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23 NKJV) Remember this parable is in reality about spiritual matters, not economics.

Many who work hard and make a living develop a negative attitude toward those who have been less fortunate than themselves. It goes something like this. See me, see what I have done: anyone could have done the same as I have and would have if they had any get-up-and-go about them and were not so shiftless. Look at me. Vanity, pride, arrogance all fit into one body, one made of dust to which it will return in due time.

It would be good to look closer at the eleventh-hour laborers. In the parable, when the vineyard owner was preparing to hire the eleventh-hour workers, he quizzes them before doing so and asks them, “Why have you been standing here idle all day?” (Matt. 20:6 NKJV) Their answer is, “Because no one hired us.” (Matt. 20:7 NKJV) It was not that they were lazy, nor that they had not been seeking work. It may well have been simply a matter of not being in the right place at the right time. I say that because the vineyard owner had been seeking day laborers evidently all day long, hiring, it seems, about any who would answer the call. He only runs into these men at the eleventh hour, and yet they had obviously been where they were long enough to have been passed over by other employers, as per their answer to the vineyard owner’s question.

Why were they passed over? Was it unwillingness to work? They went to work at the eleventh hour knowing the work day was pretty much over and that they could not realistically expect anything close to a full day’s wages, yet they went being willing to work for what they could get. They had been passed over, but it was not because of failure to seek work or unwillingness to work. People are passed over for employment for a great many reasons that have nothing to do with character, and yet we so often see their plight as their fault, for look at us: we raised ourselves up by the bootstraps, and if they have any grit about them, they would do the same.

We, if we are not careful, see ourselves, because we were hired, as worthy, as talented, as deserving, while looking down on the other guy who was not hired. We can sin in our attitude toward others if we are not awfully careful, and it is not just a matter of attitude but also of judging. Where is compassion and mercy? Where is grace?

I do not judge those first hired in the parable as regards their attitude toward the eleventh-hour workers, for their attitude was not revealed except for one particular. In this they could be judged. They, in concern for self only, lost sight of compassion for others who had a like need—the need to provide for themselves and for their family. How easy that is to do, to become so concerned about oneself, and one’s own needs, that it blinds us to the needs of others. It is easy to do, but it is still a sin.

Were the first-hour workers treated fairly? Most certainly, for they got exactly what they had been happy to agree to. Had they been paid in private and left unaware of what the later laborers received, they would have walked away fully satisfied and content. But, as it was, they were made jealous by the generosity of another, one who gave grace.

Bible teaching is that we “rejoice with those who rejoice.” (Rom. 12:15 NKJV) The proper attitude is to be happy and thankful for the good fortune of others. I think we know this, but we have to battle human nature (which tends towards jealousy and envy) and overcome it if we are to become the person of character that God would have us to be and to have the kind of attitude God would have us have. Those first hired in the parable fell short in this respect.

Jesus used the parable about the laborers in the vineyard to teach how God’s grace works for those who become Christians. We become Christians at different stages in life and in different circumstances and environments. Some have much longer to live and labor as soldiers of Christ than do others. Likewise, some suffer much greater persecution than do others, with the apostles being perfect examples of that. Yet we all, if we will live faithfully unto death, receive the same inheritance.

Is it fair? Would you have it any other way? If it is your son, your daughter, your wife, your husband, your mother, or your dad who is the eleventh-hour worker, you would have it no other way. Give praise to God for his grace. We are pleased with his promise to us no matter what hour worker we are, and we rejoice in the grace he gives others. No, we would have it no other way. We will not complain, and we are overcome with joy to know there is hope, even yet, that some will come to work at the eleventh hour, even some of our loved ones.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

The Case of Cornelius and The Holy Spirit

There are many who believe beyond doubt that Cornelius was saved at the time the Holy Spirit came upon him and his household. It is a topic that ought to be discussed. While I have written once before on this subject, more needs to be said, as there has been some objection to what was written.

I know of no person who claims to be a Christian who would deny the fact that the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection was in the city of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts chapter two. Neither do I know a man who would deny but what the words spoken by Peter were given by the Holy Spirit.

The reader ought to note and carefully digest what the Holy Spirit, speaking through Peter, said on that occasion in response to those who asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37 NKJV). They had heard the sermon Peter preached, believed it, and now these men who were “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37 NKJV) find themselves in need of forgiveness. What is Peter’s reply, speaking by the Holy Spirit? It is: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 NKJV).

Now note: When does the Holy Spirit, speaking through Peter, promise these believers they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Is it before repentance and baptism for the remission of sins or after? The answer is evident. This raises a question: Does the Holy Spirit preach one message concerning salvation at one time but a different one at another time? Are there two different gospels, one for Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and another for Caesarea some 7 to 10 years later?

Does God show partiality toward some? Are some saved one way and others in a different way? The Bible says, “there is no partiality with God” (Rom. 2:11 NKJV), and Paul says there is but “one faith” (Eph. 4:5 NKJV), while saying also of one who preaches another gospel, “let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8 NKJV).

All of this being the case, then how does one account for the fact that in the account of Cornelius’ conversion we have the Holy Spirit arriving before, rather than after, baptism? Has the Holy Spirit suddenly changed his mind on repentance and baptism being for the forgiveness of sins, as he formerly taught? And if he has changed his mind this one time, is it possible he may change his mind again? Has he changed his mind on there being but one gospel?

The answer is obviously no. What the Holy Spirit taught on the day of Pentecost, he also taught years later at the household of Cornelius. Repentance and baptism still retain the same position in God’s plan of salvation for man as they did on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

How then does one account for the Spirit arriving before baptism in the case of Cornelius? If one reads carefully all of Acts 10 and 11, he will see God’s reason. The gospel was meant to be preached to all men of all races and nationalities. And yet, quite a number of years have gone by since Pentecost. Where are we at? We are still at the point where the vast majority of Jewish Christians cannot believe the gospel is for Gentiles as well as Jews. Judaism, out of which they came, had been an exclusive religion confined to the Jewish race. Yes, there were proselytes, but there was never a Great Commission in Judaism to go out into the world and make converts of the Gentiles.

Even Peter, an apostle, though inspired so he could teach and preach without the possibility of error, does not fully comprehend the meaning of the message Christ taught in Matt. 28:18-19—the Great Commission. This was nothing new, for prophets often did not know the full import of the inspired words they spoke. (See 1 Peter 1:10-12)

In reading Acts 10, one learns by seeing Peter’s initial reaction to the heavenly-sent vision he had that Peter was still observing as law the dietary restrictions found under the Law of Moses, all the while living under the law of Christ. Then, in verse 28 of chapter 10, he says, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (NKJV). This was the purpose of the vision—to bring about a change in Peter’s attitude toward going to the Gentiles.

Note the word “unlawful” in that verse. Up until the time of this vision, Peter was lacking a full understanding of how the Law of Moses had now been completely done away with. He was still, up to this time, concerned about dietary commands and keeping a distance from Gentiles. It took the vision of the sheet let down from heaven and the Spirit speaking to him directly (Acts 10:19-20) to convince Peter it was God’s will to go to the Gentiles and preach.

Why did the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius and his household before baptism for the remission of sins? Was it because that was the means of salvation, because Cornelius was already a saved man without repentance and baptism? No. It was because it was going to take a miracle, not now so much for Peter, because he seems to be getting the idea, but in order for the whole Jewish Christian body to come to an understanding that the gospel was for all and not just for Jews, and to get them out preaching and teaching the Gentiles. In fact, when the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household, the Bible says of those Jews who had traveled with Peter that they were “astonished” that this had happened—that God would grant this to Gentiles (Acts 10:45).

When Peter went back to Jerusalem, to show you and me how great the prejudice was against the Gentiles, the Bible says—and it is speaking of Jewish Christians (read the context)—that “those of the circumcision contended with him” (Acts 11:2 NKJV). Peter had to rehearse the whole account of what had happened to silence his critics, but having done so, they realize for the first time that “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Acts 11:18 NKJV). The world has now changed in that henceforth the gospel will be preached to all men everywhere, but it took a miracle to get the message across that that was God’s intention. They, the Jewish Christians, would never have been convinced without it. They now confess, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Acts 11:18 NKJV).

Thus, we have the real reason the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household prior to baptism. It was not for the forgiveness of sins, for the gospel had not changed. Peter still needed to command them to be baptized (Acts 10:48). But who really commanded them to be baptized? Was it Peter the man or the Holy Spirit within him? If the Holy Spirit commanded it, why did he do so?

I know one who argues that Cornelius and his household were already saved, having received the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit commands them to be baptized. Is this baptism to be for some other reason than what the Holy Spirit first said in Peter’s inspired sermon in Acts 2:38? Is baptism for one reason or purpose at one time and place, but then for another reason at another time and another place?

God granted, in the case of Cornelius and his household, the Spirit prior to baptism (baptism for the remission of sins, which the Spirit taught in Acts 2:38) for a special reason, but the reader must bear in mind that God knows our hearts and what we will do before we do it. God knew Cornelius would obey the command and be baptized for the very reason those on the day of Pentecost did—because they believed every word Peter spoke, and part of that word was baptism for the remission of sins (or to be saved, which is one and the same thing). This is as it was on the day of Pentecost, for the message never changed. What was preached in one place was preached in every place.

They were the things the angel said Peter would tell them: “tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14 NKJV). An essential part of that word that we know Peter spoke was baptism, for the text says, “he commanded them to be baptized” (Acts 10:48 NKJV). Without Peter’s preaching the words by which he was to be saved, Cornelius and his household would have had no idea of what to do, or why, or how.

Yes, some say baptism is just a symbol or a picture and is meaningless other than as a symbol. Tell Peter that. Better yet, tell the Holy Spirit he did not know what he was talking about in Acts 2:38 on the day of Pentecost. If those in the audience on the day of Pentecost were saved without baptism, they did not know it, for they are asking what they must do after they had already come to faith. Furthermore, Peter did not know it, for he told them what to do. That is pretty much the end of the story.

Yes, the case of Cornelius was unique and an exception to the rule, but it is not the only such case, for when God has seen a need, he has acted for the specific purpose he had in mind. Saul was converted and became the apostle Paul, but not because he heard the gospel in the normal way and responded. We doubt that would ever have happened with Saul left to his own devices, with the attitude he had. But God acted directly, and the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. Why? Because he had a special reason for doing so. The case of Cornelius is similar in that regard.

One who has objected to my position has said that 1 John 4:13 means Cornelius was saved before baptism. I deny that. 1 John 4:13 is the word of God and truth. But the case of Cornelius and his household, like the case of Saul in his conversion, was a special act of God for a specific purpose God had in mind, but neither set aside the commands God himself had given. Cornelius still had to be baptized for the remission of sins, and Saul still had to do the same (Acts 22:16). God is not in a battle with his own law.

I might add this as I close. What if Cornelius that day, after receiving the Holy Spirit, had responded to Peter’s command to be baptized by refusing to do it? Would he have been saved? The Holy Spirit does not force a man to do right against his will. What if Cornelius had said no?

[To download this article or print it out click here.] 

Saved By Faith Alone in Acts 2

What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s sins? The Protestant world seems to have convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any further actions on an individual’s part. It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in salvation. It is hard to understand, but it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.

They use passage after passage that teaches we are saved by faith, which no one doubts, but they add the word “alone.” And yet the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible, the text says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV; see also the CSB, NAS, NET, NIV, and the NLT) The King James Version and the New King James Version read “not by faith only.”

One has to remember that faith has to be defined. When the Bible speaks of us being saved by faith, is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith? If it is a living faith, it does not stop at mental assent but is moving and active. To stop is to be dead in its tracks.

Let me ask a question. In Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached. Were those people in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith? Certainly! They were, but they were saved with a living faith that responded to Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized; Peter said, for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Now make no mistake about it; the faith-only or faith-alone crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s preaching to be baptized. Their doctrine demands it. They would say you must repent, but to do that you have to split Peter’s command in half, taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism. One wonders what good conjunctions are in grammar if you can do that to a sentence, or in this case to Peter’s command. Or should we say the Holy Spirit’s command? Yes, we should.

But if they include repentance in their faith-alone doctrine, then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone,” for that it would not be.

It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not repented when Peter issued the command to repent and be baptized, but they had developed faith. We know they had come to faith, for the text says, “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and asked Peter and the apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) We know Peter’s response. Why command people to repent who have already repented? Peter commanded them to repent; thus they had not done so, even though they had come to faith through his preaching.

Repentance is not just sorrow for sin. These people were clearly sorry about crucifying Jesus, as evidenced by their asking “what shall we do?” The text says they were cut to the heart. Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10), but godly sorrow by itself is not repentance. To repent, one must turn from sin to righteousness. It is a state of mind and will. It is a determination to cease sinning and to live righteously. One may be sorry about a thing for a number of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith. The question to be answered was whether it would produce repentance and baptism. The question the Bible student must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when the people present on that day were saved. The only options are (1) at the point of faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith, repentance, and baptism.

In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins. There is no truth in it, but, for the sake of argument, let us pursue the thought. If that was so, then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins. You can be forgiven without repentance. If you repent and are baptized because your sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you repented of your sins. Saved without repentance. Now it is easy to see that will not work.

I suppose another question, in due order, that would be good to ask the faith-only people is this—had you been in the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching, being subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from it having believed it, repented, and been saved, without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized? Their doctrine demands that, if they are consistent. And in such a scenario, could it truly be said you believed Peter’s preaching if you refused his Holy Spirit-inspired command to be baptized?

Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed. But in an undisputed passage, Jesus says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV) You cannot go to heaven without baptism.

Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great Commission, for in it Jesus commanded baptism. “Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Can you disobey Jesus and be saved? He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) Obedience included baptism on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and it still does today.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

On Bless The Bread

“God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 NKJV)

Whose job is it to bless the bread and bless the fruit of the vine when the Lord’s Supper is being observed in the communion service? One hears prayers or petitions to God continually to “bless the bread” and to “bless the fruit of the vine” leading up to their serving at the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Why? I have no idea other than it has been done so long that it has become a habit. It is not scriptural.

A little thinking on the subject ought to convince most. How do you bless an inanimate (non-living) object? Rain after a long drought is certainly a blessing, but it is not the rain God blessed in sending it to man, but the man who received the rain. God blessed man, not the rain, unless you want to say the rain was blessed in the sense that God provided more of it.

It is true that in Deut. 7:13 you will find inanimate objects being blessed, but if you turn there and take a look at the passage you will see that those objects (fruit of the land, corn, wine, oil) are being increased by God’s blessing, being made abundant for the sake of his people. Do we want God to “bless the bread” and “bless the fruit of the vine” at the communion table this way—by making more bread and more fruit of the vine? I think not.

When we ask God to bless the bread and/or the fruit of the vine at the communion table, those who ask do not know or understand what it is they are asking for or what they are expecting from God. We want God to bless it, but we do not have the slightest idea of what we expect as a result of his doing so. What is supposed to happen when he does bless the bread (assuming he is doing it, which I deny)?

Sometimes the one who leads the prayer will qualify his request for a blessing on the bread and/or fruit of the vine by adding a qualifier saying “bless it to its intended use.” How does that help? What is the intended use of the bread and fruit of the vine—is it spiritual or physical? All agree the intended use lies in the spiritual realm, but that means for the bread and the fruit of the vine to be of benefit to me personally, it is not what God does to the emblems (as they are frequently called by man) but my attitude, my spiritual state of mind, my approach to the supper, that makes the difference as to whether or not it proves a blessing to me. It is not what God does that makes it a blessing.

The Lord’s Supper is meant to be a blessing to us, but it is already that without further action on God’s part. God long ago did all that was needed to make the Lord’s Supper a blessing to man.

It is what man does, not what God does, that counts now as to whether or not the Lord’s Supper will be a blessing to man or not. Paul teaches that the Lord’s Supper, instead of being a blessing, can become a condemnation, not because of God but because of our reckless partaking of it if we play the fool while partaking. “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27 KJV) “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” (1 Cor. 11:29 KJV) I have, over the course of a few decades, seen once in a great while someone talking or visiting while the Lord’s Supper was being observed. Do they understand what they are doing? I think not. Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is serious business. It needs to be done showing all respect, reverence, honor, and thanksgiving.

I do not believe there is the least bit of evidence in scripture for the idea that Jesus ever blessed the bread or the fruit of the vine in instituting the Lord’s Supper, based on what is recorded in the word. If he did, where is it found? Furthermore, where is the example of any man in New Testament times asking God to bless the bread and/or the fruit of the vine?

What does the word “bless” mean as it relates to prayer? There is one passage that is so clear on the matter as to settle the issue. That passage is 1 Cor. 14:16-17:

“Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1 Cor. 14:16-17 KJV)

This is so simple as to be nearly impossible to misunderstand. To bless in prayer means to give thanks.

Since the word “bless” is only used 10 times in a total of 9 verses in the King James Version of the New Testament, it will not take long to run through those listings, check them out, and see what we can find, namely, see if we ought to continue this practice of asking God to bless the emblems at the Lord’s table. Since we have already looked at 1 Cor. 14:16-17, we only have 8 other verses to look at. Those verses are: Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:28, Rom. 12:14, 1 Cor. 4:12, Acts 3:26, 1 Cor. 10:16, Heb. 6:14, and James 3:9.

Four of these eight verses teach the same message, so we can deal with them as a group. I will use the passage of Luke 6:28 for this purpose, which reads as follows:

“Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.” (KJV)

If the reader will check out Matt. 5:44, Rom. 12:14, and 1 Cor. 4:12, he will find the same doctrine being taught. I did not start with Matt. 5:44 for the reason that most modern versions do not have the word bless in them at that verse in view of the fact that there is a textual variant there.

Anyone can see from a quick reading that man, not God, is to do the blessing in all four of these passages. It is also obvious that one man can only bless another in one of two ways, either by word or by deed. Most commentators agree with Barnes’ remarks who says, “The word ‘bless’ here means to ‘speak well of’ or ‘speak well to.’” I am not sure I would want to limit it to that alone, but I am just passing on this famous commentator’s remarks. (Barnes’ comments are on the parallel passage—Matt. 5:44.)

This only leaves four other times the King James New Testament uses our word “bless,” and the reader will realize that so far we have not found an instance where the word bless is used as man commonly uses the term today.

The next verse is Acts 3:26:

“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (KJV)

In this passage, the meaning of the word bless is self-explanatory as it is plainly stated. Jesus does bless us by “turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” The ESV is even plainer for it reads, “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.” This blessing came to man by means of the cross and the gospel which, if believed and obeyed, results in the greatest blessing possible that could be bestowed upon a man—eternal life.

We next come to the word “bless” as found in 1 Cor. 10:16, which deals with the Lord’s Supper. It reads:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (KJV)

All agree that Paul is talking about the communion service. The “cup of blessing which we bless” (please notice we do this, not God) is the fruit of the vine used in that service. Paul says he was told by the Lord what was to be done at the Lord’s Supper, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’” (1 Cor. 11:23-25 KJV) Please note this 1 Cor. 11 passage comes in the very next chapter after 1 Cor. 10:16, the verse just quoted in the prior paragraph.

Paul says that Jesus gave thanks for the bread and then says of the fruit of the vine Jesus did the same (gave thanks), for he says “after the same manner,” that is, he followed the same procedure for the fruit of the vine as he had done for the bread. Bless thus means to give thanks in prayer to God or else Paul, in 1 Cor. 10:16, is asking us to do something different from what he said Jesus did in 1 Cor. 11:23-25. I also remind the reader again of 1 Cor. 14:16-17 which defines the word “bless” when used in prayer to mean give thanks.

In the last half of chapter 11 of First Corinthians, Paul deals with the subject of the Lord’s Supper so that the Corinthians (and all later generations) might observe it properly. He begins with the words (verse 23), “For I have received of the Lord.” (KJV) If you want to do what Jesus did and follow his example, do as Jesus did. It is safe; it is what ought to be done.

Here is the summary of the points that need to be learned from these Corinthian passages. (1) We are indeed to bless, give thanks, while at the Lord’s table, but that means we do it, not ask God to do something mysterious to the emblems, nor ask him to give thanks himself. (2) Jesus’ example shows that he did not bestow a blessing (as modern-day man perceives of the thing) on the bread and/or fruit of the vine in instituting the Lord’s Supper, but merely gave thanks for the emblems. (3) Jesus did not ask God to bless the bread and/or the fruit of the vine.

I think it is very possible that modern-day error on this subject has come from a bad rendering in the King James Bible of Matt. 26:26-27 where a word was added to the text by the translators but generally read by readers as though it was a part of the original Greek manuscripts. The text there reads as follows:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” (Matt. 26:26-27 KJV)

In the original Greek, there is only one “it” in this entire passage, and that is the very last one. The reader is likely aware that in the King James Bible the italicized words were not in the original text but were added by the translators for clarification. All the “it” words in this passage were added by the translators except for the very last one.

Thus, the King James Version makes the text sound as though Jesus blessed the bread, and people have been led astray by that little word added by the translators.

Here is the way the two verses read when words added by the translators, words that are not in the original Greek, are omitted (as they should have been):

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” (Matt. 26:26-27 KJV)

Jesus thus just blessed, which means, as we have already shown, that he gave thanks for the bread. In fact, one ought to be able to see this easily enough, for with regard to the cup, the text clearly says Jesus gave thanks. Did he do one thing for the fruit of the vine while doing something entirely different for the bread? Did he give a supernatural blessing to the bread while not doing so for the fruit of the vine? We know better.

Let the reader beware; the King James Version is not the only translation that has done this sort of thing with this verse, namely, added words not in the original Greek text. I am not going to go through all the various versions, but I can tell you the English Standard Version (ESV) is guilty of the same thing, and the problem with the ESV is that it does not italicize words added by the translators that are not in the original Greek. Overall, the ESV is an excellent translation, but I hate this failure to italicize added words.

Before leaving Matt. 26:26-27, here are some comments from Barnes’ commentary on the passage. He says, and I quote, “or ‘gave thanks’ to God for it. The word rendered ‘blessed’ not unfrequently means ‘to give thanks.’”

The word bless is used in the sense of giving thanks in prayer in all passages relating to the Lord’s Supper. One can find the record of the Lord’s instituting the Lord’s Supper in Matt. 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23 (again, the word “it” was added by the translators), and Luke 22:19-20. Matthew and Mark say Jesus “blessed” with regard to the bread, while Luke says he “gave thanks,” as does Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23-24. (As already stated, blessed means to give thanks when we are talking about prayer.) Matthew and Mark are not contradicting Luke and Paul. In every instance, as it related to the fruit of the vine in these passages, it was not blessed but “gave thanks” as far as what terms were used in describing what was done. Luke says “likewise,” but says about the bread that Jesus gave thanks, thus “likewise” means Jesus gave thanks.

The New International Version never uses the word bless in any of the passages related to the Lord’s Supper. It always says gave thanks.

If the reader will just remember 1 Cor. 14:16-17, he/she will never be confused again with regard to this subject. Many years ago, when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, it was common when people were gathered together for a meal to hear the one in charge ask another “to give the blessing.” People back in those days knew what the blessing was. As times have changed, so has the vocabulary people use. However, to bless or give the blessing is to have a prayer of thanksgiving to God. This is not to say that this is what the word bless means in every instance in the Bible, but it is to say that it is what it means in reference to the Lord’s Supper and in prayers surrounding that observance.

That pretty much covers the discussion, which is the subject of this paper, for the last two verses where the word “bless” is used in the New Testament do not relate to the Lord’s Supper. The first passage is Heb. 6:13-14, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.” (KJV) The reader will readily see we are not dealing with the subject of prayer here. The words blessing and bless here refer to what we commonly think of when we hear the phrase “blessings from God.”

The last time the word “bless” is used in the King James New Testament is in James 3:8-9. “But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” Here again is another passage showing that bless in prayer means to give thanks. The TEV, or as it is sometimes called “The Good News Bible,” translates these two verses as follows:

“But no one has ever been able to tame the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison. We use it to give thanks to our Lord and Father and also to curse other people, who are created in the likeness of God.” (James 3:8-9 TEV) To bless is to give thanks, as is easily seen by comparing the King James translation with that of the TEV.

We should follow the example Jesus gave in giving thanks to God the Father for the bread and the fruit of the vine when instituting the Lord’s Supper, and should stop this business of asking God to bless the bread and fruit of the vine. What do we expect him to do after all?

Many who give thanks at every meal and would not think of doing otherwise observe the Lord’s Supper regularly, where thanksgiving is never or rarely given, and that at the most important meal a person will ever take part in—the Lord’s Supper. Jesus gave thanks but we often don’t. We need to be educated on the subject. Jesus gave his life for us, and yet in observing that event, we do not give thanks. Friends, if you are a Christian, you ought to think long and hard about that.

Instead of doing what we ought to do, we do that which was unheard of in scripture, and that which no one can explain about what it is they want God to do. We say we want him to bless the bread, to bless the fruit of the vine, but when asked to explain, who can? What is he supposed to do in blessing it? The reality is, he gave us the Lord’s Supper as a blessing. It is up to us now, not him, to make it what he intended it to be for us.

Finally, there is the matter of conscience involved in this. If one believes as I do that we are to give God thanks for the bread and the fruit of the vine at the Lord’s table, how are we to worship in good conscience if the one leading prayer does not give thanks? What are we to do? We know we are to thank God, but the one in charge wants God to bless the bread, an inanimate object, and does not thank God. If we are to worship God “in spirit and truth,” are we doing so when we do not give thanks? Where is the truth part if we do not give thanks? I do not have any answers since I am like all others in that I am subject to whatever the speaker says; he is in charge, not me. I do all I can and offer a silent prayer of my own. This is certainly not the preferred route to take, but what are you going to do?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]