Saturday, 1 April 2017

Doctrine - Bread breaking

Oh crumbs!

OAC member #1 wrote: “...No razor shall come on the head of Samson because his might is in his hair. So beloved let's look this teaching in a spiritual concept, what is this hair that must not be cut and who is Samson today?...”

OAC member #2 wrote: “…samson ke moya wo o phelang within us.. n de hair dat must nt b cut off is our own identity of being called israelites or child of God.. if separat ourselves frm God,dats wen de hair has been cut off...”
For those of you who don’t understand Southern Sotho, this member is saying “…samson is a living spirit within us… and the hair that must be cut off is our own identity of being called Israelites or child of God… if we separate ourselves from God, that’s when the hair has been cut off…”

OAC member #3 wrote: “...Sal se dusi sewe dae se aktiwiteite dus war os krag le een dag weg van jo aktiwiteit af en j vloor i vlegsels dus mar my siening goeie dag my broeders en susters...”
For those of you who don’t understand Afrikaans slang, this member is saying “...Will say it’s the seven days of activities that’s where our power lies one day absent from your activity and you lose your pleats that’s my view good day my brothers and sisters...”

OAC member #1 replied: “...Samson can also be the officer that leads us we as the members and the hair is us brothers and sisters because without us Priest/Anderdeacon has no power...”

The comments above are actual examples of “bread breaking” and in this instance the “bread breaking” is about Samson and his hair!

“Breaking bread” in OAC terms is when verses of Scripture or “teachings” are discussed in imaginative detail to discover so-called hidden “mysteries” or “spiritual” interpretations. This is where the Bible loses its actual meaning in an attempt to discover its “spiritual” meaning, and imaginations run wild. OAC members are encouraged to partake by being told that nobody is wrong in their understanding. This means that even lies and unbiblical statements can be accepted as truth. This is considered as being led by the “spirit” because the “letter is dead”. Ironically, members of the OAC accuse members of other churches of believing in a “god of imagination” because they worship the real Jesus of Nazareth who lived on earth 2000 years ago. During “bread breaking” members ask questions which are totally irrelevant to the meaning of the whole passage. They will focus on a single word or single verse out of context and elaborate a whole imaginative teaching from that single word or verse without reading that word or verse in the context of the whole chapter.

Literal breaking of bread

OAC members don’t believe Jesus performed literal miracles because they don’t believe the Bible should be interpreted literally. For instance when Jesus fed thousands with a few loaves and a few fish, the “bread” is commonly believed within the OAC to have been “teaching” which multiplied as it was discussed. The “teaching” gets broken down into easy to understand pieces (bite sized) because your ears are your mouth and your mind is your stomach. The fish is commonly believed within the OAC to be souls (fishers of men), and as “teaching” is shared, souls are added to the church.

When Jesus fed the thousands, the Bible mentions loaves. A loaf is bread that has been raised (Matthew 14:13-21, Matthew 15:32-39, Mark 6:30-44, Mark 6:52, Mark 8:1-10, Luke 9:10-17, John 6:1-15).

  •          OAC members believe the loaves are words of “teaching”, but there are no loaves mentioned for example when Jesus spoke to the multitudes during His sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7). Jesus did however teach us to prayerfully ask for our daily bread (Matthew 6:11); and compared bread as a good gift as opposed to a stone (Matthew 7:9).
  •          OAC members believe fish are souls, but there is no mention of fish for example during Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and God added to the church daily (Acts 2:14-47).

Literal loaves and fish

Jesus was quite clear when He meant for something to be understood literally or figuratively (Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21, Luke 12:1-3 etc.) The rest of the Bible is also very clear when something should be understood figuratively (1 Corinthians 5:6-8, 1 Corinthians 10:15-17, Galatians 5:7-9 etc.)

We read about the breaking of bread in Luke 24:35, Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 20:7. When read in context we see that the activity of breaking bread is not the same activity as expounding Scripture:

  •          Expounding Scripture (Luke 24:25-27, Luke 24:32)
  •          Breaking bread (Luke 24:30, Luke 24:35)

Later we read that Jesus after He was resurrected ate a piece of broiled fish when He appeared to His disciples (Luke 24:36-43).

Jesus’ disciples came together daily for meals together and this included sharing their bread because they had all things common (Acts 2:44).

We also read about the unleavened bread that Jesus broke during Passover. The Passover meal is a family meal and Jesus also had a special Passover meal (commonly known as the Lord’s Supper) with His disciples (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26 and Luke 22:7-38). He also washed His disciples’ feet (John 13:2-17) before the meal signifying by this humble deed that God’s power lies in love and sacrifice. His disciples are expected to serve one another in humility.

The breaking of bread is not to be understood literally according to members of the OAC, but they celebrate “avondmaal” once a month where they literally break unleavened bread (Matzo) during the service.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

See also what the OAC’s founding father Carl George Klibbe wrote about Jesus’ return, and how this differs with the OAC’s doctrine today.

If breaking bread at “avondmaal” is to be done literally, then there’s no reason why members’ feet shouldn’t also be literally washed prior to “avondmaal” being served according to the example that Jesus set for us (John 13:8-17).

In summary, “bread breaking” in the OAC is a form of Bible study, but without confirmation from the Bible because “the letter killeth”.

Let’s read “the letter killeth” in the context in which it was written:

2 Corinthians 3:3-7 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

The letter that kills is the Mosaic law chiselled in stone because it meant a literal death sentence to the sinner or transgressor of the law (Leviticus 20:10-21, Deuteronomy 22:22-27, John 8:4-12). The words that Jesus spoke are spirit and life and they are written in the Bible (John 6:63).

There appears to be a clear aversion in the OAC to actual Bible study. When I was still active in the OAC, single verses were always quoted out of context to mean something completely different and termed as “bread breaking”. The term “Bible study” did not exist in our vocabulary.

In July 1835, there were twelve ʺliving apostlesʺ ordained in the Albury circle. The words of these “apostles” were considered to be more authoritative and binding than Scripture. Some of them were of the highest political and social standing. Eight of them were members of the Church of England; three of the Church of Scotland and one of them from the Independents when they held their first council in Albury in 1835.

“chief-apostle” Hermann Christoph Niehaus in 1896 called the Bible “...withered hay and stinking stagnant well water...”

An OAC member wrote:
“...What God has given to the Apostles is Authority over the scriptures...”
“...the Apostolic spiritual guidence is Supreme. To us (OAC), a bible/translation will always remain just that...”

When compared to what Paul wrote, the “apostles” in modern times differ vastly from what the apostle wrote in the first century.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Other topics discussed during “bread breaking”:

Was Eve the soul of Adam?
Sometimes OAC members don’t know what to talk about and then they’ll ask if there’s anyone who has “bread” to put on the table. On one such occasion the OACpriest” shared what was spoken about during the Sunday service. His fellow OACpriest” preached that morning about Adam and Eve, and explained that Adam is the body and Eve is the soul. The OACpriest” said it’s only when the soul is female that the Holy Spirit can fellowship with the soul. An OACunderdeacon” said that the soul is female and he misquoted Isaiah 54:5 out of context as a proof text, which incidentally makes no mention of a soul’s gender, but the city of Jerusalem (Isaiah 49:14-26, Isaiah 51:17-23, Isaiah 52:1-12).
          OAC members don’t seem to know that the LORD God formed Adam of the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils and Adam became a living soul (Genesis 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:45). Afterwards the LORD God took one of Adam’s ribs and made Eve (Genesis 2:21-25, 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, 1 Timothy 2:13). Adam and Eve were both bone and flesh (Genesis 2:23-24, Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:6-12, 1 Corinthians 6:16-17, 1 Corinthians 7:2-4, Ephesians 5:28-31). OAC members don’t seem to understand that the man Adam was a living soul even before Eve was made.

Are the animals in Noah’s ark a “yes” and “no” in your head?
An OAC member asked about the animals on Noah’s ark. Another OAC member confirmed that at an “apostlesealing service, the “apostle” states that God the Father seals all the animals, birds and serpents inside of you which are paired as a “yes” and a “no”. The “brother” gift is apparently the ark and the “brother” must have control over the “buffalo spirit”, “lion spirit”, “dove spirit” etc. The “brother” will release these “animal spirits” from the ark with other “soul spirits”.
          The animals on Noah’s ark weren’t spirits, they were all flesh with the breath of life (Genesis 6:17-20, Genesis 7:15-16). Noah was instructed to take of every clean beast by sevens, male and female. Of the beasts that were not clean he took by two, male and female (Genesis 7:2).
After the flood Noah and his family were also permitted to eat animals besides green herbs for food (Genesis 9:1-3).
Nowhere does the Bible say that a “yes” and a “no” are male and female animal spirits inside your head (Matthew 5:37, 2 Corinthians 1:17-20, James 5:12).

Did Noah get drunk on too much responsibility?
An OAC member wanted to know what it meant that Noah drank and got drunk. Another OAC member said it had something to do with the vineyard which he planted himself and that Noah probably got drunk with the spirit. Then an OACpriest” asked what it means to drink wine spiritually. Some OAC members asked if it’s when one is full of the Holy Spirit. Then the OACpriest” gave a clue by referring to Jesus when He said let this bitter cup pass me by. Then he went on to explain that Noah got drunk because he drank only wine and this apparently means he just did deeds all by himself without any help. Apparently the modern equivalent is that Noah wrote and performed in plays, opened and closed the curtains, led the choir, was the doorman, Sunday school teacher and so on. One person can’t do everything. Then the OACpriest” elaborated further by saying that when one person does everything, the other members who aren’t involved will be quick to criticise and in so doing expose that person’s nakedness. Instead of also drinking from the bitter cup, they don’t contribute and by so doing the salt loses its savour. Apparently that’s why Noah got drunk because he had to drink the whole cup all by himself without any help.
          Noah drank of the wine from his vineyard, was drunken and uncovered in his tent (Genesis 9:21). The Bible doesn’t say anything about Noah being too busy; he simply enjoyed the fruits of his labour, he got drunk and was sleeping it off in his tent (Genesis 9:24). Only Ham saw his nakedness whereas Shem and Japheth had more respect for their father by looking away and covering Noah while he slept (Genesis 9:22-23).
Nowhere does the Bible refer to wine or the fruit of the vine as being the spirit. When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD, they are not to eat or drink anything at all from the vine (Numbers 6:2-4). The Bible warns us not to be drunk with wine, but rather to be filled with the spirit (Ephesians 5:18).
Jesus never said “let this bitter cup pass me by”. However, the “bitter” cup that Jesus referred to in Gethsemane was not a cup of the fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:39-46). Jesus had already shared a cup of the fruit of the vine with His disciples earlier that evening (Matthew 26:27-28). Afterwards Jesus said that He will not drink the fruit of the vine until the day when He drinks it new with them in His Father's kingdom (Matthew 26:29). This was before He mentioned the “bitter” cup in Gethsemane. The “bitter” cup refers to suffering and death (Matthew 20:22-28).

Were David’s five stones the five “offices”?
An OAC member asked what the five stones that David picked up were. Another OAC member suggested that it was the five “gifts”. This was endorsed by several other OAC members and they referred to the “apostle”, “prophet”, “evangelist”, “pastor and teacher” as the five stones. Then an OACpriest” said that the five stones are teachings picked up out of the “underdeacon” stream, and that David’s sling was actually his tongue and he slew Goliath with the “evangelist” gift.
          In order for David to have spoken to the Philistine, he had to have used his tongue (1 Samuel 17:45-47). The sling was only used after David had spoken to the Philistine (1 Samuel 17:48-50). David didn’t preach Goliath to death with some teaching or OACgift”.
Why did David pick up five smooth stones from the brook (1 Samuel 17:40)? He was prepared, he wouldn’t have known that one smooth stone would be enough to end the battle and that the other Philistines would flee instead of attacking (1 Samuel 17:51). There were four other giants related to Goliath that fell by the hand of David and his servants in later battles (2 Samuel 21:15-22).

Did God really command stones to be turned into bread?
An OACpriest” started the bread breaking session by stating that the enemy came to Jesus while He was fasting in the desert and told Him to make bread from the stones. Then the OACpriest” asked if there are any stones in the desert. An OAC member replied that you don’t get any stones in the desert, only sand. The OACpriest” agreed and asked where did the stones come from then. This got the OAC members imaginations all fired up with answers ranging from the stones being hurtful words hurled at one another to what camels could be “spiritually”. Then the OACpriest” said that we first have to look at how stones are formed. This led to more imaginative answers and OAC members becoming more distracted. One OAC member said that stones are non-OAC members with hearts of stone. Another OAC member said that he who has no sin casts the first stone. Yet another OAC member said that John the Baptist was a camel because he wore camel hair. Another OAC member said that the camel is the “underdeacon”. Then the OACpriest” said we should first look at how a stone is formed, namely with sand and water over a period of time. The OACpriest” then asked what does sand and water mean “spiritually”. An OAC member replied that sand is sin and water is the gospel. Then the OACpriest” asked how can an apostolic get hungry if there is a meal every day and the soul was present at the meal. The OACpriest” explained that when we get hungry, we get weak and we start to fast by not attending any of the OAC activities, opting to rather sit at home to ponder about disappointments. These disappointments apparently build up over time and it’s these “stones” that are revealed in the field. Then the OACpriest” said that God tells him to turn stones into bread.
          This is a total distortion of the facts and what’s written in the Bible (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13). Nobody even bothered to read the relevant verses during this “bread breaking” session. The Judaean Desert is full of stones and the stones are real and they never came about by bitter disappointments. Fasting isn’t the result of hunger; hunger is the result of fasting. God doesn’t command us to turn stones into bread; it was satan the tempter who told Jesus to turn the stones into bread (Matthew 4:3, Luke 4:3). Jesus answered by quoting Scripture (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4).
          The OACpriest” totally missed the point. Jesus was tempted three times by satan in the wilderness and the main point is how Jesus deals with temptation in the light of His own humanity. Jesus shows us how to respond to temptation – with Scripture.
          When Jesus was hungry and satan tempted Him to convert stones into bread, Jesus replied with Scripture (Deuteronomy 8:3). When satan quoted Scripture (Psalm 91:11-12) and tempted Jesus to jump off the top of the temple so that the angels could catch Him, Jesus again replied with Scripture (Deuteronomy 6:16). When satan tempted Jesus with all the power and glory of the kingdoms of the world, Jesus again replied with Scripture (Deuteronomy 6:13).

Does a fish refer to testimony on Monday or Thursday evenings?
An OAC member wanted to know what the meaning was of the two fish when Jesus fed the crowd with two fish and five loaves.
This question gave rise to many imaginative answers without anyone taking the time to consult the Bible on this topic. One OAC member said it’s the seven powers of faith, another OAC member said the five loaves are the five gifts and the two fish are the brother and sister on testimony. Then an OACpriest” intervened and said it’s the five evenings when members receive bread during services, bread breaking, choir practice and play practice etc. He further explained that the two fish are the two evenings when members catch fish in the sea of nations. Everyone accepted this interpretation and all felt “enlightened” and thanked the “priest” for this wonderful revelation.
If anyone bothered to open the Bible, they would’ve read about two separate incidents where Jesus fed thousands with a few loaves and fish (Mark 8:19-21). On one occasion Jesus broke five loaves among five thousand and twelve baskets of fragments were gathered afterwards (Matthew 14:17-21, Mark 6:38-44, Luke 9:12-17, John 6:5-13). On another occasion Jesus broke seven loaves among four thousand and seven baskets of fragments were gathered afterwards (Matthew 15:34-38, Mark 8:1-9). How can OAC members not understand this?
The people followed Jesus; He healed their sick, taught them many things and then fed them in the evening. On the other occasion Jesus only fed the multitude after they were with Him for three days. In every instance the loaves and the fish were eaten simultaneously, and not on separate days.

Was Jesus known only as Christ Jesus after crucifixion?
There’s a common fallacy in the OAC during “bread breaking” that Jesus is the flesh and Christ is the gift or spirit. It is commonly believed that after Jesus was crucified He became known only as Christ Jesus.
OAC members don’t seem to realise or understand that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 1:16, Matthew 16:20, Matthew 26:63, Matthew 27:17, Matthew 27:22, Mark 12:35, John 20:31, Acts 2:36, Acts 17:3, Acts 18:5, Acts 18:28, Romans 8:11, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 5:1).
Even after His crucifixion the Bible continues to refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:6, Acts 3:20, Acts 4:10, Acts 5:42, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:34, Acts 10:36, Acts 11:17, Acts 15:11, Acts 15:26, Acts 16:18, Acts 16:31, Acts 20:21, Acts 28:31, Romans 1:1, Romans 1:3, Romans 1:6-8, Romans 2:16, Romans 3:22, Romans 5:1, Romans 5:11, Romans 5:15, Romans 5:17, Romans 5:21, Romans 6:3, Romans 6:11, Romans 6:23, Romans 7:25, Romans 13:14, Romans 15:6, Romans 15:8, Romans 15:16-17, Romans 15:30, Romans 16:18, Romans 16:20, Romans 16:24-25, Romans 16:27, 1 Corinthians 1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 1:7-10, 1 Corinthians 2:2, 1 Corinthians 3:11, 1 Corinthians 5:4…all the way through to Revelation 1:1-2, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 1:9, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 22:21)
and Christ Jesus (Acts 19:4, Romans 3:24, Romans 8:1-2, Romans 8:39, Romans 15:5, Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 1 Corinthians 4:15…all the way through to Philemon 1:6, Philemon 1:23, Hebrews 3:1, 1 Peter 5:10, 1 Peter 5:14).
Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Christ and Jesus are used interchangeably throughout the New Testament and all refer to Jesus as the Christ, they are one and the same.

Did Jesus Christ become many people?
A popular question posed by OAC members during “bread breaking” is to ask where Jesus Christ is.
An OACunderdeacon” explained that we shouldn’t cling to the Jesus of 2000 years ago because when He was glorified it actually meant He increased in number, going from singular to plural. The OAC apparently has a different definition for glorified. The OACunderdeacon” used this logic to explain why he believed the OAC is the glorified and collective body of Christ, and why he believes the OAC is the Son of God! Then an OAC member explained further that the word is God, him and his Father are one and therefore he (the OAC member) is the Son of God. When the OACunderdeacon” was asked for a reference he misquoted John 12:23-24 out of context. An OACpriest” then continued by saying that the Jesus of Nazareth from 2000 years ago never rose physically from the dead, but rose in a glorified body, i.e. a plural body which is the OAC. Then the OACunderdeacon” misquoted 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 out of context to support this statement. Another OACpriest” also explained that Jesus of Nazareth showed at the last supper that his body will in future consist of many members yet one body, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the first vessel in which the Christ was manifested.
Misquoting verses out of context leads to OAC members having a god-complex and preaching a different Jesus and gospel to the Bible.
According to Strong’s, the word “glorified” is translated from the Greek word doxazō and is defined as:
to render (or esteem) glorious (in a wide application): - (make) glorify (-ious), full of (have) glory, honour, magnify.
Glorify is to make glorious, exalt to the glory of heaven, transform into something more splendid.
Jesus is the Head of the church, He didn’t become a church (Ephesians 5:23-32, Colossians 1:18). There is only one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Only through Jesus the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16-18) can we become sons of God (John 1:12-13, Romans 8:12-17). Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus rose physically from the dead, He was still the same singular flesh and bones Jesus after His resurrection (Luke 24:39-40, John 20:24-29, 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, Acts 1:2-3). It was expedient that Jesus should go away so that He could send the Holy Spirit (John 16:4-14). The OAC’s “apostles” weren’t there because they only started in South Africa in 1927 after breaking away from the New Apostolic Church. A branch that has fallen off a tree loses its claim to the roots of the tree.

Did Saul see a church on his way to Damascus?
An OAC member wanted to know what the light was that Saul saw on his way to Damascus. It was explained that it was the OAC members whom he was persecuting that revealed the gospel to him on his way to Damascus.
The OAC never existed prior to 1927. Those that Saul persecuted remained well out of his way and nowhere does it say that Saul spoke to church members on his way to Damascus, it was Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-11).  He was blinded by the light from heaven and the men that were with him had to guide him to Damascus. Once he got to Damascus he was still without sight for three days and he didn’t eat nor drink (Acts 9:9). He stayed in the house of Judas (Acts 9:11). Ananias was apprehensive about going to Saul because of his reputation, but the Lord reassured him (Acts 9:10-16). It was only once Saul had met Ananias that his sight was restored and he was filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 9:17-18, Acts 22:12-16).

These were just a few of the topics discussed during “bread breaking”, but there are quite literally thousands of topics discussed in the same manner. OAC members mislead one another with false and unbiblical teachings, and then pat themselves on the back afterwards for being so “spiritually minded”.

Regarding the topic at the start of this post, let’s see what actual Bible study reveals about Samson.

The angel of the Lord instructed Samson’s mother even before his birth to raise him as a Nazarite so that he could deliver Israel out of the hands of the Philistines (Judges 13:5-7). This demonstrates the fact that God has a plan, a purpose and a destiny for a person even while still in the womb which is also confirmed by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5).

A Nazarite is someone who practices self denial as a spiritual discipline; they do not cut their hair and take a vow of abstinence from any food grown on the vine, including wine. Many Nazarite vows are taken on a temporary basis while some people live their entire lives under the vow (Numbers 6:2-21).

Three aspects comprised the Nazarite vow:

  • 1.    No intoxicating drink or anything from the vine (Numbers 6:3-4)
  • 2.    Hair must remain uncut (Numbers 6:5)
  • 3.    No contact with the dead (Numbers 6:6-7)

Such a vow indicates the dedication of all a man’s strength and service unto the Lord (Numbers 6:8).

The definition for the Hebrew root word nâzir means to be made separate. A Nazarite therefore, is separated from worldly activities to focus on serving God alone.

Sadly, even though Samson possessed super strength through the Spirit of the Lord, he failed morally and spiritually in his calling as a Nazarite. His Nazarite vow did not make him holy.

Giving in to temptation leads to sin. Samson went to the vineyards of Timnath (Judges 14:5) which would’ve been a tempting invitation to break the Nazarite vow regarding the vine (Numbers 6:3-4). Had he avoided the vineyards he would not have encountered the lion. His encounter with the lion led to further sin (Judges 14:8-9) when he broke the Nazarite vow regarding contact with the dead (Numbers 6:6-7).

God will even use a sinful man to do His will. Samson’s acts of rebellion led him into situations that caused him to sin. God was still able to use him for His glory. Samson’s encounter with the lion would’ve given him the confidence to face the Philistines (Judges 15:3-8, Judges 15:14-16). God used Samson to lead Israel out of their oppression, despite Samson’s sin.

There are still consequences for sin. Samson’s fleshly weakness for women would ultimately lead to his downfall (Judges 14:1-3, Judges 16:1, Judges 16:4). He married a Philistine woman against his parent’s wishes and then the final part of the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:5) was broken when his hair was cut (Judges 16:17-19). Samson gained confidence from previous violations which seemed to have gone unpunished. He thought he could continue as before, not knowing that the Lord had departed from him (Judges 16:20). Mighty Samson was reduced to a sad example of tragic ignorance; the Philistines poked his eyes out, chained him and put him in prison. King Saul also had to face the consequences of his actions when the Lord left him (1 Samuel 28:5-6).

The lesson here is that if we willingly and continually walk into temptations that lead us to sin, we will suffer the consequences of our disobedience even though God still uses us to do His will.

Samson ended up blind, humbled and in prison. In the end, Samson understood where his great strength came from – his dependence on God (Judges 16:28). Samson never understood his true purpose though, because he was still driven by personal revenge and it cost him his life. The many blessings Samson might have seen were never realized. Samson ended up killing more Philistines with one final act of strength than he did in his whole life (Judges 16:30). With his death, God’s purposes prevailed and the people of Israel were delivered from the Philistines.

The lesson here teaches us that it’s never too late to turn back to God, no matter how much time we’ve wasted.

Besides Samson, there are also other lessons in the Bible warning us against temptation which leads to sin (James 1:14-15).

  •          Sin blinds (2 Peter 1:5-7)
  •          Sin binds (2 Peter 2:19)
  •          Sin becomes a bad habit (2 Peter 2:22)

The effects of sin are not easily removed, it is better to never yield to temptation at all. During Samson’s reign he was a bad example and ignored the consequences of sinning wilfully, he continually broke his vow.

Each of us has also been given a precious calling and a destiny. We cannot live only for ourselves or for the gratification of our fleshly desires. We were bought with a price and our lives are not our own (2 Corinthians 5:14-17). Just as Samson was given special strength by God, we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us (Philippians 4:13).

I hope that this piece of Bible study will encourage you to start reading and studying your Bible. The sword of the Spirit is the word of God (Ephesians 6:17). Reading single words or verses out of context and calling it “bread breaking” will only lead you further from the truth. “Private revelations” shouldn’t be trusted apart from confirmation in the literal Word because God doesn’t leave His Word to private interpretation.

See also:

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.


  1. Note of interest: The dates on both Constitutions that you have on the right side pane are both wrong.

  2. Thanks bro injalo.there other group full of officers naph most kuyafundwa ngayo le nkonzo its mostly bread esp about The Most basic questions we hv Where is heaven?Why heaven is not in sky?Where is God Who is God it’s a very good group i like it a lot justices ngayo le oac…I will ask link now if you interested to join

    Follow this link to join my WhatsApp group:

    1. Thanks Mr Tsotetsi, but...

      You can't join this group because this invite link was revoked.

  3. Goeie dag ampsbroers broers en sisters
    Die hare beeld die genade gawe uit wat in die vrou/gemeente sal heers
    Deur die wedergeboorte het oms deel aan gawe van God wat ook die krag van God is
    Die ou testament is n profetiese aankondiging
    Die krag van God maak al die “leeus” dws leuens en onregtighede in die hart vd mens dood
    Die grootste “leeu” wat bedood moet word was Saul daarom het die krag van God “geestelike hare” hom bedood

    1. Simson het 7 haarvlegsels gehaat, dis die 7 kragte, van die huispriester tot by die Apostel.

    2. Ai ai ai julle, ek wed nie een van julle het die hele gedeelte oor Simson ooit gelees nie. In plaas daarvan om te sit en nonsens uit te dink, doen asseblief die moeite en gaan lees eers Rigters, Hoofstukke 13 tot 16. Dis regtig net drie hoofstukke en die moeite werd om te lees, probeer dit gerus.

      So bietjie stof tot nadenke:
      Hoekom mag vroue hulle nie met vlegsels versier nie [1Ti 2:9-10]?
      Hoekom word haarvlegtery as verganklik beskou [1Pe 3:3-4]?