Elizabeth Stickfort

• About this site

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

Creation - A series of ten messages by Norman Crawford on what the Bible says about the origins of the earth.  In the series, Mr. Crawford examines the definitions of "science", assumptions about uniformity, the basis of faith, the Gap Theory, fossile dating.  This series was taped at a weekend conference in Canda.

• About this site

 Shawn St. Clair

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Funny Bible Questions grouped into eight categories:

• About this site

PARADISE

Is there any truth in the idea that the Lord, when He arose, changed the place of the Old Testament saints from some Paradise below, to be with Himself in a Paradise above?
 
We may eliminate from this consideration, Enoch and Elijah, who are clearly exceptional. Exactly into what part of the heavenly sphere they were introduced is not revealed. Even did we know, it would tell us nothing about the dead. It is clear, however, that the Old Testament saints did not go at death to be “with Christ,” not for the reason alleged by some, that they were not forgiven, etc., for they clearly were (see Psalm 32:1-2)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 32:1-2), and that on the ground of the work of Christ, yet to be accomplished.

The reason was that as yet there was no Christ, in the Theanthropic sense, for them to be with. He had not yet died and risen nor “brought life and immortality to light, through the gospel,” though ever in the bosom of the Father as the only-begotten Son of God. As for those who died in Old Testament times, such expressions are met with as, “He slept with his father,” “He fell on sleep,” “Descended to the grave,” the idea being that the dead went down into Sheol, the unseen world (Hades of New Testament). See Jacob’s words (Genesis 37:35)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:35), where he could not have meant a literal grave, as he believed Joseph devoured, and so, not buried.

In Numbers 16:33" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:33 we read that Korah, Dathan and Abiram went down alive into the pit (Sheol). The case of Samuel (1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:) may occur to some. The Scriptures do not say that the witch brought up Samuel. On the contrary, when she saw the strange apparition, she cried out, presumably in fear. I have no doubt that God in his sovereignty did bring Samuel’s spirit up from Paradise (not his body, for that was buried at Ramah, fifty miles away), for the express object of conveying to Saul the news of his approaching end, On the morrow, Saul and his sons would be with Samuel in the unseen world.

Sheol never** represents the literal grave, but some other word is always used of it, like “Qeber” or “akath.” Psalm i6. to makes it plain that the Lord in spirit went to Sheol, and His body to the grave. That saint and sinner went to one general place, before the resurrection, is clear from Luke 16," TARGET="_blank">Luke 16, where our Lord lifts the veil of the unseen world in the intermediate state. The word there is “Hades.” True the saved were far-off from the lost, there being “a great gulf” fixed between the Paradise of the blessed and the place of torment, but still they were within seeing and speaking distance. Why should this be incredible, even if we had not our Lord’s words for it?

The Tower of London was for a long period in two sections—a royal palace and a state prison. It meant everything, which part a man went to, It was into Paradise that the Lord descended in Spirit, and where He welcomed the repentant thief. Can we suppose that only three days after, He left this trophy of grace behind? Did no benefits accrue to the saints confined there? The resurrection of Christ had mighty effects on the universe—He filled it: on the Church—He bestowed on her His spiritual gifts: on the Old Testament saints—”He led captivity captive,” that is, I believe, He set them free from their cabined and confined condition, and took them to be with Himself, henceforth in the Paradise above. This may throw light on the words in Hebrews 2:14," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:14, “to deliver them who through fear of death,” etc. The word here translated, “deliver,” depotes usually a change of place, a release, a removal. The change did not mean, of course, that they were raised, but translated to be “with Christ” in a new sphere. Thither Paul was caught up, temporarily (2 Corinthians 12:4)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:4), and permanently at His decease ”Absent from the body . . . present with the Lord,” awaiting the perfect condition of glory at the resurrection
day. W.H.

** Psalm 141." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 141. 7 (though the Authorised Version gives “grave” for “sheol”) is no exception. Bones are not scattered at the grave’s mouth, but buried in it. The idea is rather of bones left unburied, on the brink of Hades—the unseen world, where the owners of the bones had entered. Dr. Tregelles trarilate, sheol here as elaewhere—Hades

• About this site

Please explain Judges 11:31" TARGET="_blank">Judges 11:31: “Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

We know the story of Jephthah’s vow. It has been the subject of much heart searching and enquiry. Certainly there is something mysterious about it as it stands. Was Jephthah’s daughter really offered up as a burnt offering? This has been taken for granted and the story has been quoted to show the low morality of the times and the general need of humanity for the blessings of further “evolution” in their religious beliefs and practices! That the daughter was ever offered up as a burnt offering, however, can be proved neither by the story nor the morality of the times, but only that she bewailed her virginity. That is, she is supposed to have been thinking of this,when she might well have been thinking of losing her life. It would be like a convict about to lose his head, bewailing that they had cut his hair too close. I think the morality of Jephthah and his fellow-Israelites would probably compare very favourably with that of London or any other great modern city, and would certainly be better than that of some of the evolutionary, modernistic teachers, who while accepting a salary to preach what at the most solemn moment of their lives, they declared they unfeignedly believed, are now using their influence to undermine—the foundation truths of Creation, the Fall, Atonement, the true Deity of Christ, etc. All that we learn is that Jephthah is said to have met his daughter, and to have exclaimed: “I have been brought very low.” This was because she was his only child and therefore the only one by whom his name could be preserved. No doubt he was deeply moved: “I have opened my mouth unto the Lord and I cannot go back,” and the daughter, a true woman of faith, accepts the situation, and only asks that she may be allowed two months that she may go up and down and bewail—her life? No, again, her virginity. She returns at the end of the time, and “her father did with her according to his vow which he had vowed,” with what result? that she had died bravely and was buried? No, again we say, but that she never entered the married state. One would think this an unnecessary piece of information, if, in fact, she had been burnt alive, as some would have us believe. I will give one or two further reasons for believing that this is not the true meaning. (i) Human sacrifices were abhorrent to God’s mind. As for passing children through the fire in his honour, it was absolutely foreign to His intention. Jehovah’s words of this very thing are, “I commanded them not, neither came into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (see Jeremiah 32:35," TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 32:35, also Ezekiel 16:20, 21;" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 16:20, 21; Ezekiel 20:26," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 20:26, 3:). Can we suppose this man of God to do “such a thing”? (2) For Jephthah was, we see, a man of God, by verse i i, and also by the character of his remonstrance to the king of Animon. His name, too, occurs among the heroes of faith of Heb. ii. () It is distinctly said that “the Spirit of God came upon him” before this incident. Can we then suppose he would have been permitted to sacrifice his daughter in the way supposed, entirely out of harmony with the will of God? (ii.) I think the true solution is found in the margin of our Bibles, “Shall surely be the Lord’s, OR I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” Had it been his dog or other unclean animal, how could he have offered it up as a burnt offering? No, but he might have sold it and given the price to the Lord. This marginal reading is borne out by the disjunctive use of Waw (“and”) in Hebrew, which also has the force of “OR,” as in Exodus 21:6" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 21:6 (“selleth him, OR if he be found in his hand”), Ex. 21." TARGET="_blank">Ex. 21. 17 (“father OR mother”), Deuteronomy 24" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 24: 7 (“maketh merchandise of him, OR selleth him”); and of “WHETHER R,” as in Ex. 21." TARGET="_blank">Ex. 21. 31 (“WHETHER he have gored a son, OR have gored a daughter”). In all these passages, “and” would be out of place. It would seem clear that in Jephthah’s intention, to be “the Lord’s”, entailed a life of celibacy. There may have been some such custom current, to judge from this passage, though we know not of any command to confirm it. It is interesting to note the marginal reading of “lament” in the last verse of the chapter—”talk with”—the same verb, ”tinneh” which is translated “rehearse” in Judges 5:11" TARGET="_blank">Judges 5:11

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Are the “rests” of Matthew 11:28," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:28, 29 two distinct “rests”, or does it mean that the rest is not obtained by soul approach, but by taking the yoke, and learning of the Lord?

I judge that two “rests” are indicated, or perhaps I should say, two distinct stages of rest: the one, rest of conscience for the soul who has never known true rest in Christ; and the other, rest from a restless will, unsatisfied desires and self-seeking service. The word for “rest” is the same in both cases (anapausiS—or up-rest), which might be illustrated by the action of the Good Samaritan: first he relieved the smitten one, pouring in oil and wine, and then set him on his own beast, brought him to an inn (set him down there) and took care of him. This latter action may denote the “rest” (katapausis—down-rest) of Hebrews 3" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3 and 4, where this root is always used, except in verse 9: “There remaineth, therefore, a rest for the people of God.” The word here means a “Sabbath rest” (Sabbatismos)—the true spiritual thought of the Sabbath—a resting from our own works. This does not describe a future heavenly rest, but a Christ-rest, to be enjoyed here and now by all the people of God.

W.H.

• About this site