Jim Sluiter

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

• About this site

The Moral Glories of Our Lord

• About this site

• About this site

How to write your testimony effectively - Telling your own story is perhaps one of the most effective methods in sharing the gospel message.  It's Biblical, attractive and effective if done right.  “The problem with some writing isn’t that it’s bad writing. It’s just boring,” - Ginger Kolbaba, managing editor of Marriage Partnership magazine...

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

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

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

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

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

W.H,

• About this site

• About this site

If Hades be “in the heart of the earth,” as some have thought, how can we reconcile this with Jonah’s experience, who went down into the whale’s belly (symbol of Sheol), spirit, soul and body, while the Lord’s soul went to Hades (Sheol) and His body to the grave?

There is really no contrast, still less contradiction in the two thoughts. Though Jonah speaks of being “in the belly of hell” (Sheol), I think those are mistaken who deduce that he actually died in the belly of the whale, as I think the rest of his prayer shows. The Lord does not say that the prophet died, though so terrifying was his experience, that he might have imagined he was in the unseen world. But the death of the prophet was quite unnecessary to justify the Lord’s comparison between Himself and Jonah. Jonah’s disappearance in the belly of the whale was a figure of the disappearance of the Lord, when His body was laid in the grave and He in spirit descended into the place of departed spirits—Paradise——as it was for Him and for all of His own, who had already died. But the exact location of this it does not seem necessary for us to define, even if it were possible. Our Lord’s words were, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:40), and this came to pass. W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is there any good ground for the change, advocated by some, of the word “virgin” In Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 to “young married woman” or “young woman of marriageable age”?

I believe “virgin” can be shown to be the true rendering, along several lines of proof. It is significant that those who propose this change are mostly of Modernist tendencies. Such men deny the miraculous in general, and would gladly get rid of the Virgin Birth of our Lord, and create a discrepancy between Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23 and our verse. Gesenius, the well-known author of the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, a man with a strong Modernistic bias, says, “The true meaning of ‘almãh, (“virgin” in Isaiah 1:14)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 1:14) is a girl of marriageable age, with no special reference to her unspotted virginity, which is expressed,” he affirms, “by another word, bethulãh”; but that moral purity is surely taken for granted, unless definite proof is alleged to the contrary. He adds, “almãh is used of a youthful spouse recently married”; but the only place he quotes to prove this is the verse in question, Isaiah7:14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah7:14, where he wants to rule out the other meaning, and thus begs the question. He also quotes Canticles - Song of Solomon 6:8" TARGET="_blank">Song of Solomon 6:8 to prove his point, but as virgins (‘almöth) are distinguished there from wives and concubines, we may ask what they do stand for, if not for unmarried girls of unspotted character? Gesenius admits, moreover, that his word bethülah” is sometimes clearly used of a woman newly married, e.g., in Joel 1:8." TARGET="_blank">Joel 1:8. If that word had been used in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 he might still have found a loop-hole, and have quoted Joel to show that even was not conclusive. God, however, has raised up to oppose Gesenius a man of equal scholarship, namely, Dr. S. P. Tregelles, of humble evangelical faith, and also of European reputation as a Hebraist. He translated Gesenius’ Lexicon from the German, and has added notes in brackets to neutralise, where necessary, the bias of the Lexicon. The following note by Dr. Tregelles occurs under “‘almãh”: “Gesenius’ object in view in seeking to undermine the opinion, which would assign the signification of virgin to this word, is clearly to raise a discrepancy between Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23. Nothing which has been stated (i.e. by Gesenius earlier in the article) does, however, really give us any ground for assigning another meaning. . . . ‘Almãh in the Punic language signifies virgin.
The absolute authority of the New Testament is, however, quite sufficient to settle the question to a Christian.” We may refer here to the words of Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is by interpretation, God with us.” The Evangelist uses the ordinary Greek word, “parthenos,” for “virgin,” used too in Luke 1:27," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:27, of the Virgin Mary. The Greek Version, the Septuagint, does sometimes translate the word “‘almãh” otherwise than by “parthenos,” but here in Isaiah 1:14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 1:14, where as Tregelles points out “it must to their minds have occasioned a difficulty,” they translate by the same word that we have in the Gospels. We may suppose these learned Jews—the translators of their own Scriptures—knew at least as much of Hebrew and Greek as Modernist scholars. Matthew does not appear to have quoted from the LXX, so is an independent witness. We do not, however, in any case, need even the authority of God-fearing scholars. This is a question in which “a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err.” Let us look at the other occurrences of the word, “‘almãh,” in the Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 24:43" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24:43 of Rebecca—the prospective wife of Isaac. The other word, “bethülãh,l occurs in verse 16, as we might say “virgin” or “maid” indiscriminately. Miriam, in Exodus 2:8," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 2:8, is called an “ ‘almãh,” and she was clearly not a young married woman, but a maiden. This suits, too, in Proverbs 30:19." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 30:19. Canticles 1:3 seems to demand the sense of virgins, as also chap. 6. 8, as we have seen. Psalm 68:25" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:25 we may take as neutral; we cannot affirm the damsels to be.yirgins, though they might have been. Then there is another consideration. The name to be given to the child—”Emmanuel,” “God with us”—goes a long way to justify the translation of “virgin” by our Translators and Revisers, as such a birth demanded extraordinary concomitant circumstances. The context, too, favours the same conclusion. Jehovah had offered Ahaz any sign he might choose to ask—”in the depth or in the height” above, that is anything comparable with the drying up of the Red Sea or the Jordan, or on the other hand, with Joshua’s long day. When Ahaz refused, the prophet replied, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. “Behold a* (literally “the”) virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” Clearly God’s sign would be something extraordinarily arresting. How else would the Eternal Son of God enter into manhood except in the womb of a Virgin? The birth of a son to a young married woman, far from being an arresting sign, would not be a sign at all, but the most
natural of events.

* Heb.—”the Virgin,” that is the Virgin of prophecy, predestined one day to be the Virgin of history. When people talk of the Virgin to-day, they refer to the Mother of our Lord, and this expression is undoubtedly better.

 W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Some of the free Bible games here include:

1. The Bible board game Lost Bible Searchers Game .  This free Bible game requires each player to travel the map of the Bible world collecting lost pages from books of the Bible.

2.  Books of the Bible Game .  This collection of six free Bible games uses the names of the books of the Bible to help students learn their order and some facts about each book.

3. Criminal Suspects of the Bible .  This free Bible game requires students to identify the bad guy based on a police record of his/her crime.

4. Tribulation Survivor Game .  This is one of the many free Bible games in the downloads section.  Students are put into the Great Tribulation with the goal of surviving great disasters, persecution of the Antichrist and famine.

For more traditional free Bible games, browse the350 Sunday school worksheets that contain a coloring page, crossword puzzle and other activities to review a Bible story.

Use one of the puzzle makers below to create your own free Bible game. 

• About this site