Fernando Medina

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

 Baptism

• About this site

Byrne Foreshew

• About this site

 Marriage and the Family - Dr. Sandy Higgins explores the roles of parents, raising children, abortion, courtship, the Basis of Christian Living in the Home, God's Pattern Under Pressure, Heartbroken Homes, Being Single, Failing Fathers and other topics from the Bible's point of view.

• About this site

It has often been stated, and generally accepted, “That God did not need to be reconciled.”

Now Trench, in his “Synonyms,” points out that katallage has two sides :—(ist) God laying aside His holy anger against our sins and receiving us with His favour; (2nd) The daily depositions under the Holy Spirit of the enmity of the old man toward God. Did God need to be reconciled?

No question is raised as to God’s love to sinners, nor as to His willingness that all should be saved (the death of Christ does not make God love sinners. He “so loved that He gave”). But whether EFFECTIVE “reconciliation” is made in Scripture simply to depend on the sinner’s willingness to “make it up” with God, it is certain that our Lord by His atoning death has fully met POTENTIALLY all the claims of God on account of sin. This, however, only becomes ACTUALLY true for those sinners who individually acknowledge their guilt, and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and until they do, God’s attitude toward them is not one of complacency, but of righteous displeasure. As the late Dr. Moule puts it—”Reconciliation (katallage) habitually points to the winning rather the pardon of an offended king, than the CONSENT of the rebel to yield to his kindness.” “Be ye reconciled to God,” would then mean, “As the offending party, secure while you can His acceptance through the atoning work of Christ.” This is borne out by Matthew 5:23-24," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:23-24, where it is the offender who is told to go and be reconciled to his brother, ostensibly by confession and amends. We, too, are the offenders: in order to be reconciled we must come to God, confess our sinfulness, and believe the Gospel, and then we have peace with God. As Trench (Syn. p. 292) writes of reconciliation: “To make the secondary meaning (that is the breaking down of the enmity of the carnal mind to God), the primary, is based . . . on a foregone determination to get rid of the reality of God’s anger against the sinner” (i.e., Psalm 7:11," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 7:11, “God is angry with the wicked every day”).

W.H.

• About this site

HOW MANY CUPS?
Is it not as much a departure from the scriptural practice to use two or so cups at the Lord’s table, as it would be to use fifty-two?

Though the unity of the cup is not insisted upon in the Scriptures in the same way as that of the loaf, which in 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: represents the one indivisible Body of Christ, nevertheless it is always “the cup” that is spoken of—the unique receptacle of that which represents the blood of Christ. But even in the case of the loaf, as each member present partakes, the outward unity of the loaf is not preserved. Indeed, even before that, as the brother who gives thanks, breaks the loaf, and for convenience places the portions on different plates, the figure of the unity of the body is in no way affected, as it would be were the loaf originally cut up in in bits. No more would the unity of the cup be, even though it stood on the same ground as the loaf, by being poured into different glasses or cups, for convenience of distribution. It is still “the cup,” each being filled from the one original receptacle. But by the introduction of what is called “the individual cup” for each “communicant,” the receptacles are multiplied and the identity of the wine in them is completely lost and the thought of fellowship hindered. As we practise it, though there be two or more cups, for purposes of distribution, all are filled from the original receptacle and still constitute “the cup”—the communion of the blood of Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Hebrews 9:22" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:22 states that “almost all things are by the law purged with blood,” and Wm. Lincoln has pointed out that the only sin offering which did not Involve blood-shedding was that of Levitus 5:11. The peace-offering was never made without the burnt-offering and then blood was shed.

Who paid for the burnt offering? Did one offering avail for two persons?

To reply to the last parts of the question first: I judge from Leviticus 10:2," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 10:2, that each offerer brought his burnt-offering at his own expense, and if so, it was an individual offering. There was, however, the continual burnt offering (see chap. 6. 9-i3), and I should think that was provided by the priests from the offerings to them by the people. I do not think the peace-offering was necessarily accompanied by a burnt-offering. They were quite distinct, but it would be true to say that the burnt- offering, representing the whole offering of Himself by Christ to God, was constantly accompanied by a meal-offering (see Numbers 28: 11-13;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28: 11-13; Numbers 29;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 29; Judges 13:16-19)," TARGET="_blank">Judges 13:16-19), representing the spotless humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, tested in every possible way. The bloodless offering to which Mr. Lincoln refers was the tenth part of an ephah of fine-flour offered for a sin-offering (Leviticus 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 5:11). This represents the lowest form of sin-offering. Really there was only one—representing Christ. The different degrees of offering in Lev. 4" TARGET="_blank">Lev. 4 and 5 represent the different degrees of appreciation of the offering by different classes of offerers. Some, like the high priest, would offer the bullock—that would entail a very high estimate of Christ; this also availed for the whole congregation. It will take the whole of the redeemed fully to appreciate Christ. The ram would stand for a lower, though still high, appreciation of Christ, and so down to the turtle doves, but in these all the offerer would have the see of the need and value of the blood of Christ. The handful of flour would be Christ too, but Christ little understood, little appreciated, “a touching of the hem of His garment,” a coming to Him, a trusting Him, but with no sense of His atoning sacrifice. Some, perhaps many, to-day, begin like that, they come to the right Person, but they do not yet apprehend Him in the right way, and which of us can say that we do this as we ought to? One thing we may say in the case of the fine flour, the offering would be almost unseen, but in the case of the bullock it would be the offerer who might be almost unseen; and the higher our thoughts of Christ, the smaller we will become. We cannot think much of Christ, and of ourselves at the same time. “He must increase, I must decrease!”

W.H.

• About this site

WTB - Want to Buy - Christian Website or your website based on the Bible, Sunday school, prayer, Bible study or related topic.

If you have a website that has been useful for sharing the Bible with the Internet audience but now find it difficult to maintain, please contact us at using the Contact link on the left.

Information we would like to know about your site:

1) Costs.  How much are you asking to sell your site for?

2) Value.  A website is valuable not for it's design, but for it's traffic. We are interested in buying a site that has some value in its assets such: established time online (more than one year), has some traffic (100 or more visits per day), some quality inbound links from other internet sites (such as dmoz or yahoo directory),  some subscribers in a mailing list, and some search keywords that are in the first 10 results of Google, Yahoo or Bing (MSN).

3) History.  Tell us about your site. Why and when did you create it? What makes you decide to no longer operate it?

GospelHall.org is a Christian website whose mission is to share the message of the Bible as God's Word.  Any websites that we aquire are operated on this understanding.

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

Could our Lord have returned to heaven without going to the Cross?

This idea used to be put forward as a possible suggestion for illustrative purposes. What a wonderful ending to our Lord’s life it would have been had He gone straight up to heaven without dying! but without asserting that this was a possibility. Of later years this supposition has become an affirmation, put forward as though there was a clear “thus saith the Lord” for it. Especially have speculative teachers, who love the sensational, asserted this in connection with the Transfiguration on the Holy Mount. In reality this was the most unlikely moment for such a thing to occur, had it been otherwise within the range of God’s purposes, for such an event is never hinted at in any of the three Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration.

In Matthew 17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17 this comes just after the Lord’s first clear announcement of His passion: “Jesus began to show unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things”, etc. (Matthew 16:21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:21). In Mark 9" TARGET="_blank">Mark 9 likewise the account is preceded by the words of Mark 8:31," TARGET="_blank">Mark 8:31, “The Son of Man must suffer,” etc., and so in Luke 9" TARGET="_blank">Luke 9—the reference to the sufferings in Luke 9:22" TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:22 as a necessity, is followed by a glimpse of the coming Kingdom glory.

Far then from a choice being offered to our Lord on the Holy Mount of returning to heaven without dying, I believe this prophetic view of the coming Kingdom glory was to cheer the disciples in view of the certainly coming Cross. There is an additional fact given us in Luke, namely, the subject on which Moses and Elias conversed with our Lord in the glory —“They spake of His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem.” Certainly Peter tried to turn Him from this purpose in Matt. i6, but was met with a stern rebuke.

The momentous scene in Gethsemane clearly shows, however, that the Lord was a free Agent in redemption. He was under no fatalistic necessity to redeem men, but He was “the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” and He had said to Nicodemus, “The Son of Man must be lifted up.” Later we hear Him saying, “For this cause came I unto this hour,” and “The Son of Man came . . to give His life a ransom for many.” These two sides of truth are seen at Gethsemane. His holy human will rightly shrank from contact with sin, and the Divine abandonment involved; but as a Divine Person His will was able to say, “Nevertheless not My will but thine be done.” When Peter sought by the use of the sword to defend His Master, the latter says, in Matthew 26:52," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:52, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” but immediately adds, “But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

In John 18:11" TARGET="_blank">John 18:11 we have an additional word, “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” which, coming either before or after the other words, gives us the balance of Scripture. It was with “wicked hands”—the voluntary act of murderers—that men crucified and slew Him; but it was also with holy hands that He by a voluntary act, and by the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God (Hebrews 9)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9). He could say with equal truth, “No man taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself,” and “this commandment have I received of My Father” (John 10)." TARGET="_blank">John 10). There was no fatalistic necessity for our Lord to lay down His life, but there was a moral necessity, and it is very unprofitable and unsound specula tio to assert the contrary.

W.H.

• About this site

Does a sister violate the truth of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:34-35 when she says "Amen" audibly after a brother's prayer?

No.

We read in verse 16 of the same chapter, "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?" Clearly, it was customary for assembly saints to say "Amen" at the close of a brother's prayer, praise, or thanksgiving. In Nehemiah 8:6" TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 8:6 we read, "And Ezra blessed the Lord, the Great God. And all the people answered Amen, Amen." "All" must have included the women.

When we say, "Amen," at the close of a brother's prayer, we express our agreement, therefore we must listen and understand what he has said. It would be good if every assembly saint were as ready to say "Amen" as New Testament saints were, but we should never use "Amen" as a political tool. The less politics we have in an assembly, the better.

W Gustafson

• About this site

Is “Reconciliation” the same as “Atonement”?

No, they are as distinct as cause and effect. Atonement is the ground on which reconciliation becomes possible. Unfortunately the Greek equivalents are not always correctly translated in our version. In fact in the only place (Romans 5:11)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:11) where the word “atonement” occurs in the Authorised Version it is a mistranslation for “reconciliation.” On the other hand, “make reconciliation,” in Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2: 17 would be quite correctly translated, “make atonement” (hilaskomai), as it is the same root and nearly always translated so in the LXX, Greek Version of the Old Testament. This, too, is the word the publican uses in his prayer (Luke 18: 13)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13), and goes much deeper than merely asking for compassion. It might be translated, “Be propitiated by sacrifice.” Some shallow teachers having sufficient acquaintance with Hebrew, to know that Kaphar (making atonement) means primarily “cover,” have thought this was its only meaning and have whittled “atonement” down to “covering,” and asserted that it is a purely Jewish thing. They ignore the fact that the word has a secondary meaning, denoting that by which alone God can cover sin, namely, by making full satisfaction for His broken law. This has alone been effected by the blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ: “He poured out His soul unto death.” The Old Testament has the word again and again but only typically and prophetically; the New Testament alone has the reality (see 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2: 2 and 1 John 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:10— hilasmos, the same root again). Reconciliation becomes possible by atonement, but practical when the sinner turns to God with repentance and faith. The word for “reconciliation” (Katallage) “points habitually,” as Dr. Moule reminds us, “to the winning rather the pardon of an offended King, than the consent of the rebel to yield to His kindness.” ‘Be ye reconciled to God’ would then mean, secure while you can His acceptance.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site