Marta Shutt

• About this site

The Work of Christ

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

Jane Aubry - I remember one day in the 1970's playing my guitar, looking up to heaven, and saying, “If there is a God, I want to know Him.” When I met Roger, my husband to be, he told me he was “saved”.  I had never heard the word before.  I had thought we could only “hope” to go to heaven. He told me how he was saved and that was the end of talking about it for a time. more...

• About this site

How to Build a Learning Unit

• About this site

 Dennis Stickfort

• About this site

Was it only at His incarnation that our Lord became

(1) “The Image of the invisible God”; (2) “The Firstborn of every creature”; and (3) “The express Image of His Person”?

I believe that all three expressions were true of Him before then; and this is the opinion of most commentators on the passages, both ancient and modern.
 
With regard to Colossians 1:15-20," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:15-20, it seems to me that the simplest and most useful division of the attributes of Christ contained in these verses, and of the verses themselves, is into two groups.

(i) Those which were true of Him from the beginning (vv. 15-17).
(2) Those which were true of Him from the Cross (vv. 18-20).

In the first of these groups He is “The Image of the invisible God”; in the second He is “The Head of the Body, the Church.” In the former He has the title, “Firstborn of every creature”; in the latter He has that of “Firstborn from the dead.” In each case a reason is appended for the application to Him of these titles. He is “Firstborn of every creature, for by (or ‘in’) Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth.” He is “Firstborn from the dead . . . for it pleased the Father . . . by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself. . . things in earth or things in heaven.”

Now since the reason assigned for the title, “Firstborn of every creature,” is that all things were created by Him, I cannot see how that title, or the one coupled with it, “Image of the invisible God,” can be referred to His incarnation only. Both declare His dignity as Originator and Sustainer of the first creation, just as those in verse i8 declare His pre-eminence in connection with the new creation.

As to Hebrews 1:3," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:3, it is agreed by Mr. Hoste that Christ was always ‘The Brightness of His glory,” and when once this is granted I cannot Conceive how the next clause, “The express Image of His Person,” is to be divorced from its fellow, and referred to something which only became true of Him at His incarnation. Both clauses hang closely united Upon the same participle, “Being,” which precedes them; and if the view mentioned were correct, this participle would be bearing its literal meaning in the one clause, and then would have to be thought of as though it meant “becoming” in the next clause. On the other hand, when we take them together, as is usually done, we get in them an interesting contrast with the two opening expressions of v. x. In time past God spake in the prophets “by divers portions” (a portion now and a portion again), and “in divers manners” (some less clear and some more clear than others). But now God has spoken in His Son, in whom is, not merely a few rays shining out from time to time, but the whole effulgence of His glory; and not merely dim outlines and shadows, but the exact “image” of His substance. And of course it is implied that the revelation thus made is, like Himself, both full and perfect. On this the subject matter of the entire epistle is based. The passage should be read in the R.V., and its connection noted with the word “enlightened” in Hebrews 6:4," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:4, and “illuminated” (same Greek) in Hebrews 10:32." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:32.

William Rogers

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Can Atheists Disprove that God Exists?

While atheists can try to give evidence that God does not exist, they cannot disprove that God exists.  Similarly, even though theists can give evidence that God does exist, we cannot prove that He does exist.  Despite this, a very good case can be built that shows that it is highly irrational to say that God does not exist.

Atheists have a difficulty if they want to try to show that God does not exist in that it is much easier to show that something does exist rather than that it does not exist.  Pretend that I have told you many things about my supposed friend George yet you have never seen or spoken to him.  In fact, the only reason you know about George is because I told you about him.  You have to decide for yourself if you will believe what I say.  I can tell you about George until your ears fall off, but it ultimately comes down to your personal decision whether you choose to believe that George exists or not.

This is the same thing with God.  Some people—such as myself—have a true friendship with God.  It would seem ridiculous to you if I tried to convince you that your best friend didn’t exist.  Because I have a friendship with God, it seems ridiculous to me that someone would say that God doesn’t exist.  But the great thing about God is that I don’t have to prove Him to you, He speaks for Himself in many different ways.

One way that God shows us He is real is through creation.  As Psalm 19:1" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork”.  His glory can be seen in that even though we humans think we are so important, we are but a pale blue dot in comparison to the rest of the universe.  Our world barely makes a mark in the solar system, and there is so much out there that we don’t know. 

And then our minds can once again be amazed when we consider the complexity of the smallest things in our universe.  Scientists used to consider the atom the smallest thing in the universe, but now we know that atoms are merely the beginning.  When before we thought we knew everything there was to know, now we have just started to understand how much stuff there is that we don’t understand about how the universe works.  Something of this complexity must have a Creator.

Another way in which He speaks to us is through the Bible.  It is in the Bible that we read that God loves us but hates our sin. He loves the person (John 3:16," TARGET="_blank">John 3:16, Romans 5:8)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:8), but is unable to allow the sin into Heaven (Revelation 21:27)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 21:27).   It is in the Bible that we read about the life of Jesus and how He died to pay for sin (1 Peter 2:24," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:24, 2 Corinthians 5:21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21).  God tells us in the Bible that “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7" TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:7 ESV).

But perhaps the most direct way in which God spoke to us is by His Son.  The Son of God actually came down from Heaven and lived the life of a human from birth until death (John 1:14," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, Hebrews 1:2)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:2).  Many of His actions are recorded in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) all the way from His birth to His death to His resurrection and return to Heaven.  This God-man is not a mere imagination of a human author; He actually lived and died on this earth.

God has shown Himself to us in many ways, now it is the responsibility of each person to choose.  We must each choose to either believe what God says about Himself or to reject it.  But please, consider the evidence for yourself—in light of even these few items, how can someone rationally deny that God exists?

Anthony Elliott

• About this site

Ought we to interpret Genesis 1:1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1 as referring to the original creation of the universe quite distinct from the rest of the chapter, or is it the summary of what follows?

I certainly believe it is the former. If it were the latter, should we not expect the creation of both the heavens and the earth to be enlarged upon in the rest of the chapter, whereas the “heavens” in the sense of v. i are not mentioned again, nor is it the creation of the earth which is brought before us after Genesis 1:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2, but the refurbishing of its surface conditions to prepare it as a habitation for man. The verb, “to create,” occurs only twice in the body of the chapter, at the start of animal life and at the start of human life, vv. 21, 27. Does not the fact that the earth alone is described as “without form and void” (tohtI wãbhohü) indicate that something had happened to it, which had not happened to the uni.. verse at large? There is nothing in verse i to suggest that the original creation was not perfect. That the earth was created a scene of desolation, is distinctly negatived in Isaiah 45:18" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 45:18: “He created not the earth a waste” (tohü) (R.V.).

These Hebrew descriptive words for “without form and void” occur together in only two other places, i.e., Isaiah 34:11" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 34:11: “the line of confusion (tohü) and the stones of emptiness”(bohü) ; and Jeremiah 4:23" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 4:23 “I saw the earth and lo, without form and void” (tohü wabhohü), and both describe scenes induced by judgment. We are not called to speculate as to why the earth, created as we believe, so perfectly (Gen 1:1)" TARGET="_blank">Gen 1:1) that “the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7)," TARGET="_blank">Job 38:7), became so imperfect. We cannot imagine them doing this, if the creation they witnessed was a waste of desolation, covered with waters and pitch darkness. Between verses i and 3 may occur a period of untold millions of years, sufficient for the laying down of the stratified, fossiliferous and cretaceous, rocks, the coal measures, etc.
But is this division of the chapter a mere arbitrary device, or is it justified by the form of the Hebrew employed? I will cite as a reliable witness Dr. E. B. Pusey, for many years Regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford. He discusses the question in the Preface to his “Lectures on Daniel the Prophet,” p.p. xvii.-xxiv. He writes, “Of the forms of speech which could have been chosen, to express past time, that has been chosen, which least connects the date, when the earth was one vast waste, with the time when God created it.” Both were in past time, but there is nothing to connect “those times together.” “Had Moses intended to say that the earth was waste and desolate when God created it, the idiom for this would have been “and the earth without form and void” (without the verb) (page xviii.)—What Moses does write “has no force at all, unless it be used to express what was the condition of the earth in a past time previous to the rest of the narrative, but in no connection in time whatever with what precedes.” Dr. Pusey also points out that the “and” by which verse z is also united to v. i, shows that v. i does not stand as a mere summary of what follows. There are two distinct facts—the primal creation in v. x, and a subsequent condition of the earth “without form and void.”

W.H.

• About this site

What is the meaning of the text, “Thou has magnified Thy word above all Thy name” (Psalm 138:2)" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 138:2)?

Perhaps this statement will be more easily understood if we use an illustration. The Churches of Macedonia (i.e. the Philippians, etc.) had a good “name” with the Apostle Paul, as liberal givers from their very beginning (Philippians  4:10-16). Yet on an occasion when he sought their help for the supply of the need of poor saints in Juda, they did far beyond his highest expectation, as he tells us in 1 Corinthians 8:1-5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8:1-5. In effect, he says of them: “They have magnified their liberality above all their name for it.”
Now, God’s “Name” represents the sum of His manifestations of Himself. As has been said by others, it is the product of His deeds, and is according to His historically manifested glory. In plainer words, it is His reputation for lovingkindness to His people, faithfulness to His promise, etc., as may be seen by its use in such passages as Exodus 16" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 16 and Joshua 7:9." TARGET="_blank">Joshua 7:9. David, who according to its title is the author of Psalm 138," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 138, has already known much of the name and fame of the Lord, both from the history of His people, and from His previous dealings with himself. But on the occasion for which he gives praise so fervently in this psalm, he feels that God has shown His faithfulness in keeping His word, even beyond all that past experience would have led him to expect, and so he says, “I will . . . praise Thy name for Thy loving- kindness and Thy truth; for Thou has magnified Thy word above all Thy name.”
Possibly the occasion may be that which is referred to in 2 Samuel 7," TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 7, where at least he is found speaking in a strain very similar. He says there, “Thou hast brought me hitherto; and this was yet a small thing in Thy sight, O Lord God; but Thou hast spoken of Thy servant’s house for a great while to come; . . . for Thy word’s sake . . . hast Thou done all these great things . . . to make Thee a name; . . . and let Thy name be magnified for ever” (2 Samuel 7:18-26)." TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 7:18-26).
W.R.

• About this site

Why is it said of Abram in Genesis 15:9-10," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:9-10, “The birds divided he not”?

Why were the animals divided, but not the birds?

We see in verse 9 that, preparatory to making a covenant with Abram, the Lord God directed him to take certain sacrificial victims—a heifer of three years old, a she-goat of three years old, a ram of three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. On the slain carcases of these the covenant was to be made. Evidently God had given general directions as to sacrifices and the clean animals to be offered up, as we gather from the knowledge of such things displayed, for example, by Noah, who knew the animals that were clean, that is, fit for sacrifice, and unclean— unfit (see Genesis 7:2, 3);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 7:2, 3); and the same with the fowls—of the unclean two would suffice, but the clean were to go in “by sevens”—as these latter would be needed for sacrifice (Genesis 8:20)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 8:20). No doubt, too, the order to be followed was divinely revealed. The very word for covenant, “berlth, from an unused root, “barath” means “to cut, to hew”— that is, the victims were divided—he who made the covenant had to pass between the Victims. In Jeremiah 34:19," TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 34:19, those who made the covenant passed between the calves—all typical of Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant.

According to Hebrews 9:17" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:17 the covenant is always made on the ground of dead things (i.e. sacrifices). I am convinced that the idea at the back of this whole passage is that of a covenant, not a testament or will in our modern sense, as the next verse seems clearly to show. If we turn to Exodus 24" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 24: , there is no thought of a will being made, but of a covenant being established between Jehovah and Israel. How then could the second covenant be a testament? The R.V., although somewhat hesitatingly retaining “covenant” up to verse 15, translates verse i: “For a testament is of force where there hath been death” (margin, “over the dead”). The word, “dead,” is plural, and therefore must, one would judge, refer to the covenant victims, rather than to the testator of a will—who is a single individual. I suppose that the reason Abram did not divide the birds is that they formed one offering in two parts-_one of which was placed on each side, representing a cut victim. To those who have a deeper appreciation of the work of Christ, the Word divides the victim even between the . . . joints and
marrow (Hebrews 4:12)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 4:12).

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Is the "fear of death" no longer satanic in its origin?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

Satan used Adam as the instrument to bring death into the world (Romans 5:12)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12). So it may be said the Satan is the origin of death in the world.  The fear of death, though, has human origins.  However Satan can use it effectively as his tool.

The verse, therefore is not making a difference between those who lived before Christ and others who were born after the cross.  It would be incorrect to say that believers or unbelievers in times before Christ were more afraid of death. However, it is correct to say that we have a much clearer understanding of Eternity and life after death.  We should anticipate heaven more than even the greatest saints of the Old Testament.

D. Oliver

• About this site