The Person of Christ is a work by various authors about the most precious subject in all the scriptures - God's Son, Jesus Christ.  Some subjects include the Perfect Servant, the Eternal Sonship of Christ, the Incarnation of Christ, the Deity of Christ, the Impeccability of Christ, His Pre-existance, His Moral Glories, the Atonement  Work and others.

• About this site

• About this site

Jim Joyce - When I was 16, I decided to leave home and live on the street.  I thought real living was having fun and going after a thrill.  I became a regular user of drugs and alcohol. In my parents' home, God and spiritual things were most important. Just as I decided to leave the house, it occurred to me, “If I leave, I will leave behind the gospel. This will be my final decision to reject God.” It was as real as if I was opening a door and walking into hell. I didn’t want to go. I didn’t want to be lost. I wanted to be saved...

• About this site

 Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

• About this site

Sarah Stickfort

• About this site

Printable Activity: 8 page mini coloring book and full-sized pictures to tell the story of Peter preaching the gospel for the first time to Gentiles - Cornelius and his family.

• About this site

• About this site

Had Satan any history previous to his appearing in the Garden Of Eden?

or does the expression in Ezekiel 28" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28 —”Eden the garden of God,” mean the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were?

Such a thought as that Satan fell in the earthly Eden is entirely foreign to the Genesis account, where Satan is presented to us at once as the seducer of man. His fall is always considered in the Scriptures as from heaven not on earth. To rest such a theory as that Satan fell in the Eden of Genesis 2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2, on the words, “Thou wast in Eden,” (Ezekiel 28:13)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13), is like balancing a pyramid on its apex. The word Eden is ‘edhen (from ‘adhan, to be delighted), and simply means a place of delight. It would be like saying that when Paul was caught up into Paradise, it must have been into the garden of Eden, for the same Greek word paradeisos is used there. As there is a heavenly and an earthly paradise, we may believe there is a heavenly as well as an earthly Eden. It is noticeable that “the garden of Eden” does not necessarily mean that the garden and Eden are the same, for in ver. 8 we read, “God planted a garden in Eden”, and in ver. io, “A river went out of Eden to water the garden”; thus the two are distinguished. This garden is never called “the Garden of God”, as in Ezekiel 28:13" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13 (“In Eden, the garden of God. . . thou wast.”) The Genesis “garden” is rather the garden of man. The description of Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:12-15" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:12-15 (for it is surely he) must be taken as a whole, revealing his created glories (v. 12), and the place of delight, perfectly suitable to his nature prepared for him by God. Next his covering is described. The beauty of the place seems to have been rather mineral than vegetable. He was the anointed cherub that coyered (i.e., the throne of God?). “He was in the holy Mountain of God and he walked up and down (same word and mood employed of Enoch) in the midst of the stones of fire.” All this is perfectly foreign to the earthly paradise of Genesis 2." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2. The account goes on—”Thou wast perfect in all thy ways, from the day that thou wast created till iniquity was found in thee.” The earthly “garden of Eden” was prepared by• God for man at his creation, and we have no reason to believe he was long in Eden before he fell. Is it not a fantastic theory that all that we have read in Ezekiel, beginning with “Thou was in Eden . . . till iniquity was found in thee”, must be squeezed into man’s unfallen, sojourn in the garden! We do not make ourselves responsible for speculations attributed to those who believe Satan fell long previously! to man. We do not profess to be “wise above that which is written,” but we regard the theory of Satan’s fall in the Adamic garden of Eden’ as quite untenable and as subversive of all sane scriptural interpretation.
W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Romans 3:9-23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3:9-23  What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,  (10)  as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;  (11)  no one understands; no one seeks for God.  (12)  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (19)  Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.  (20)  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin… For there is no distinction:  (23)  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 John 5:9-13" TARGET="_blank">1 John 5:9-13  If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son.  (10)  Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.  (11)  And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  (12)  Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.  (13)  I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

• About this site

Is it safe to use Weymouth’s Translation, since it contains such error as is found in the note upon Hebrews10:27" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews10:27 (page 560)?

It has been pointed out that the notes in this version are not by Dr. R. F. Weymouth, but by E. Hampden-Cook, M.A., who is said to have “Edited and partly revised” the work. In my edition of 1910 the very unsound note on Heb. 10." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 10. 27 referred to above is on page 6i6; and it is by no means the only one of the kind; the notes on this subject always being in the interests of what is known as, “Annihilationism” a very serious and growing heresy to-day. This teaching, however, is not confined to the notes, but occurs in the text. Wherever, apparently, the translator (or do we owe these touches to the “part revision” of Mr. Cook?) comes upon the question of the future of the wicked, the same influence can be noted: e.g., Matthew 25:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46 which is translated, “And these shall go away into the punishment of the ages, but the righteous into the life of the ages,” which is the ordinary meaningless and erroneous language affected by the Annihilationist teachers. How this book found its way into my small library, I have no idea; but I neither use it myself, nor would I advise anyone to do so. The Lord’s words apply here, “Take heed what ye hear,” and I am convinced that all this talk about “onian” and “the ages” is everywhere a danger-signal for those who desire to hold fast the whole revelation of God and the
doctrine of Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

THE HOUSE OF GOD

Do you think that the House of God is regarded in Scripture as “the place of profession,” as is sometimes taught?  That is, the "profession" of one who is not saved, but is a part of church culture.

A good deal is taught on this subject, which we do well to test by the Word of God. It is sometime erroneously taught that the House of God is the place of Christian profession, and that God recognises this as a “third something” between the true Church and the world. What is known as Household-Baptism, for instance, thus seeks to justify the baptism of children and unconverted household servants. These are brought, they assert, into the House of God—they are “in the ambit of the Church of God,” as the strange expression goes. They are there on the ground of profession; but what profession can infants make? And if unconverted persons make any, it can only be false. That man has made a mixed thing of it by carelessness in reception, or by neglect of Scriptural discipline, is sadly true; but to make out that God is responsible for, or connives at such a state of things is indeed serious.

Now, the expression “House of God” refers in the Old Testament, if we except Genesus 28:17, 22, where Jacob uses the expression in a figurative sense, to the Tabernacle or to the Temple, and though uncleanness and even idols (2 Chronicles 33: 7)" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33: 7) might invade that House, they never formed part of it, and at every revival were drastically removed and cleansed away (e.g., 2 Chronicles 24:13;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 24:13; 2 Chronicles 29:16;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 29:16; 2 Chronicles 33:15)." TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33:15).

Paul in writing to Timothy speaks of his knowing “how to behave himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” This is the local aspect—the Church of God, viewed as the place of responsibility. Undesirable elements did incorporate themselves, alas too easily, in the local “house” (see Jude), but though the condition was detected, it was not approved of. Ecciesiastics justify the sad lack of discipline in their organisations by the parable of the tares and the wheat—”Let both grow together until the harvest”—but they seem to forget that “the field is the world,” not the church. Undesirable visitors, thieves, and such-like, may find entrance into a house, but it is contrary to the desire of the head of the house, and they form no part of the household and must be removed as soon as detected. In Hebrews we read, “But Christ as a Son over His own house: whose house are we, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:6)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:6), that is, those who continue in the way prove themselves to be the House of God, the rest have no part in it.

It is indeed a blessed privilege of the people of God no longer to be “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:19). And this is His purpose in gathering saints to Christ —“To whom coming as unto a Living Stone. . . chosen of God and precious; Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:4," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:4, ). “Ye are God’s building.. . ye are the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:9, 16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:9, 16). When the apostle speaks of the “House of God,” does he then view it as possibly or even probably including “false brethren crept in unawares,” or ideally? I believe the latter, for whatever is not God’s building is an extraneous element to be purged out. For instance, in Hebrews 10:21," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:21, Christ is presented as “High Priest over the house of God”—surely He is not the High Priest of false worshippers—trespassers in that house. Again, Peter reminds us that “judgment must first begin at the house of God.” Has he in view the heterogeneous company, that some seem to see almost exclusively, in the place of profession—a mixture of believers and unbelievers, because they all profess and call themselves Christians? I think the context shows rather that the true House of God is in view—contrasted with those that “obey not the gospel of God,” and paralleled in the following verse with the righteous—”If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:17, 18)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4:17, 18). Where is there room in this verse for a third something, neither righteous nor ungodly, but “professors.” The original from which this quotation is taken bears this out: “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; much more the wicked and the sinner” (Proverbs 2:31)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 2:31).

These latter, including false professors, will be recompensed not now, but in the future. But someone will say, “Does not Paul speak of ‘the great house of Christendom’ in his Second Epistle to Timothy?” Certainly not in so many words, though such a form of words has been dogmatically attributed to his writings. What he does say, I believe parenthetically, is, “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour” (chap. 2. 20). This passage and the ‘parable of the tares seem to be the sheet anchors of ecclesiastics to justify their mixed systems. To them “the great house” is “the Church” in their broad sense of a great ecclesiastical, christened organisation, reciting the apostles’ creed and practising “the sacraments.”

Others, as we have seen, understand Paul to mean “the great house of Christendom,” though I believe such an idea springs from a misreading of the passage. I submit again that verse zo is in the nature of a parenthesis, explaining the use the apostle is about to make of the term, “vessel unto honour” in verse 21. “In a great house” (that is in any great house in Rome, where he was in prison, or in Ephesus, where Timothy is supposed to have been), there are vessels of various materials and of varied uses. At this point the apostle resumes his exhortation, “If a man purge himself from these”—the evil things and men above referred to—he shall be something corresponding to the literal material vessels of gold and silver of any great house, namely a spiritual vessel unto honour in the House of God, “sanctified and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”

One does not wish to dogmatise, but I would ask my readers, who desire to be still subject to the Word of God, apart from the glamour of great names, carefully to weigh above with the Scriptures.

W.H.

• About this site