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

Eternal Security

• About this site

Crossword Puzzle Maker

• About this site

• About this site

Gathering Unto His Name - The New Testament contains a clear pattern for how a church should operate. This book summarizes relevant scriptures to what a church is and how it affects our modern day practices.

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• 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

What are we to gather from the scriptural reference to Melchizedek?

Was he a man of God of his time—a priest of the Most High, indeed, or was he actually the Son of God?

In dealing with this perennial question one wishes to recognize the views of some esteemed brethren who take a contrary view to that expressed here. They believe that this was a Theophany or appearance of the Second Person of the Godhead in a temporary human form (all such theophanies being necessarily Christophanies), and that Melchizedek was actually the Son of God. But is there nothing in the fact that he is said to have been made “like unto the Son of God”? You don’t say a man is like himself; he is himself, but he may closely resemble someone else. However, many such theophanies occur to us—the man who wrestled with Jacob at Jabbok, the man with sword in hand who appeared to Joshua, the angels who appeared to Gideon and Manoah, etc.

One thing characterises them all. At first the appearance seems only human—an ordinary man, but at the end the superhuman, nay the Divine, character of the appearance is manifested. Note this in each of the cases referred to above. This is entirely absent in the case before us. In no sense are we informed that Abraham recognised Melchizedekas Divine, but he did recognise him as a king and as a priest of the Most High God, who ministered to his bodily needs and was greater than himself, therefore able to bless him and worthy to receive tithes from him. Again, Christ might have appeared as a King, but surely not as King of a well-known place as Salem or Jerusalem. Whoever Melchizedek was, his office as priest only shews that God in calling Abraham for a certain object, had not for that left all the world in darkness, but still had notable witnesses, outside His purpose concerning His chosen people to be. Those who stand for the deity of Melchizedek rely much on the expressions used by the Spirit of him in Hebrews 7" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7: , and make rather “in and out” efforts to shew how each expression applies to Christ. I believe the whole effort is in vain, for these expressions if forced to apply to Christ must be interpreted either of Him in incarnation or of Him before incarnation, and this cannot be done.

As a matter of fact, I believe there is one point and only one which the Holy Ghost would emphasise by His silence in Genesis 14" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 14:  concerning the parentage, genealogy, birth and death of Melchizedek, and that is the conventIonal continuity and endless character of His priesthood. The meaning is not that this man was actually without parents nor that he is alive somewhere to-day, but that by the fact that he appears suddenly on the page of Scripture and that no mention is made of his decease, he is thus qualified to be an apt figure of Him Who is Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek and Whose Priesthood can never pass to another.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Please explain what is meant by “waiting upon the Lord,” as in Isaiah 40:31" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 40:31?

Several Hebrew words are translated, “wait,” in the Old Testament. The root used here for “wait upon” is different from that, say in Psalm 62:5," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 62:5, and elsewhere, where the R.V. Margin has “to be silent” (“dämam”—properly “to be dumb”). Here the word is “qãvãh, of which the primary meaning is “to be strong,” and then “to await” (the idea being perhaps that waiting God’s answer does need a certain strength of purpose or endurance). The two roots are found together in Psalm 62:5," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 62:5, “My soul wait (dãmam—be dumb) thou only upon God,  for my expectation (qãvãh root) is from Him.” Isa. xl. 31 then means that they that come to the Lord and tell Him their needs, and are willing to wait His time for an answer, “shall renew their strength.” Waiting upon God gets the answer some day, and strengthens the soul to-day. Therefore “wait (qavah) on thy God continually” (Hosea 12:6)." TARGET="_blank">Hosea 12:6).

W.H.

• 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