• About this site

Printable Activity: 8 page mini coloring book and full-sized pictures to tell the story of Peter preaching the gospel for the first time to Gentiles - Cornelius and his family.

• About this site

Martin Prins

“I-I-I don’t know,” I answered, “Nobody knows.”

“I do,” she said confidently. "Sixteen years ago, I came to know the Lord Jesus as my personal Savior and I received eternal life.” She then got out her Dutch Bible. Together we read...

• About this site

A mini coloring book and small posters to help the Sunday school teacher tell the story of Elijah ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire.

• About this site

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

Is it correct to say that the Old Testament saints had the Gospel preached to them as we know it?

(see Galatians 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:8).

Did Abraham know when he offered up Isaac, that his son was a type of the Son of God? or did Isaiah know when speaking of the sufferings of Christ, that He was the Son of God? or again, did Job know that his Redeemer was the Son of God?

It is not possible, it seems to me, for anyone to search the hearts and understandings of these Old Testament saints, and define the exact extent of their spiritual apprehension of the Person of whom they spake. Spiritual truths are spiritually apprehended.

Certainly the Gospel preached to Abraham was not the Good News as we know it, but it contained it, for its promise of salvation was alone through Christ. Probably the apprehension of Patriarchs and Prophets was much greater than we might naturally suppose. For instance, would it not be difficult to define the limitations of our Lord’s words in John 8:56" TARGET="_blank">John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This seems to refer to a special occasion, as the verbs are all in the aorist and speak of a point of time in the past, probably to the great deliverance on Mount Moriah. Abraham might have called the name of the place “Jehovah-rahah”__the Lord has provided, had he thought all was over. Evidently he perceived that what had just taken place was the figure of a greater deliverance and so he called it “JehovahJireh”—the Lord will provide. Whether Isaiah and the prophets knew that the Messiah about whom they wrote was to be actually the Son of God, it seems profitless to enquire. They knew they were inspired by the Spirit of Christ testifying in them, and that they were speaking for us, concerning “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” (1 Peter 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:11). Their difficulty was not to know of whom they spake, but of what manner of time. As for Job’s wonderful words, “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” he would be a bold man (which boldness I neither share nor desire to share), who would undertake to limit this prophecy. It seems to me that in these words God gave His tried servant to understand a bit of “Romans” truth—”My Redeemer”; a bit of “Corinthian” truth —“He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth”; a bit of “Thessalonian” truth—”In My flesh I shall see God”; a bit of “Colossian” truth—”My Redeemer is God”; and a bit of “Timothy” truth—”I know.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

In Exodus 4:10," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 4:10, Moses complained of “slowness of speech” but Stephen in Acts 7" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:. says he was “mighty in words and in deeds.” Is there not a contradiction here?

Someone has said that Moses took forty years in Egypt learning all the wisdom of the Egyptians, then forty years in Midian learning that he knew nothing after all, and then forty years in the wilderness in learning what God could do with a man who had learned he knew nothing. There is no contradiction here, or anywhere else in the Scriptures. We read first what Stephen says of Moses, that he was “mighty in words and deeds,” that is, during his Egyptian period; then what Moses says of himself. Perhaps there are good speakers to-day who are genuinely diffident, and are quite unaware they are eloquent. It does not matter, if they think so, as long as they are all the more cast upon God and fulfil their ministry. Possibly the reverse is true of some of us. We think we can speak and would do well to be more often silent. In fact, the word is addressed to all “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.”

W.H.

• About this site

What is the difference in Isaiah 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6 between the expressions the “child born” and the “Son given”?

There is an important difference, I believe, and one which the exponents of what they term “the New Light,” as to the Eternal Sonship of our Lord, would do well to consider. Why is the “child” said to be “born,” but the “Son” not born, but “given”? We read in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 that God had been pleased to offer to king Ahaz a sign to confirm his doubting soul, that the line of David would not be superseded by the son of Tabeal, according to the Satanic design of Rezin and Pekah, which would have set aside the purpose of God regarding His future King, who must be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Ahaz had liberty of choice; he might ask for any sign in the depth, that is commensurate with the drying up of the Red Sea, or in the height commensurate with the standing still of the sun in answer to Joshua’s prayer. The king who was continually tempting God by his disobedience, refused this offer: He would not tempt the Lord, he said. Very well, then, the Lord will give a sign greater than any other known so far in the history of the world—the Virgin Birth of Him who was God:
“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (v. 14). A great effort of unbelief has been made to show that the word,” ‘almãh,” translated “virgin,” should be rather rendered “young married woman.” Such an objection hardly shows unusual scholarship, so much as a lack of common sense; for the fact of a young married woman having a son would be no sign at all. In this verse, in the phrase “a virgin shall.. . bear a son,” the same verb is used as in Isaiah 9:6," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6, “a child is born.” Here the Son is viewed as the Son of
Mary in the sense of Matthew 1:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25 “She brought forth her first-born Son.” Why then is the “Son” said to be “given” in Isaiah 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6? The reason is that there the One born is viewed as the One who had already been Son from all eternity. He could not become that by human birth. The child was born, but God gave His Eternal Son.

W.H.

• About this site

Is the Lord Jesus sometimes spoken of as an angel?

How can this be, seeing He is the Son of God, higher than the angels, and the Object of their worship?

We cannot be too jealous for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. The first chapter of Hebrews establishes His superiority over the angels in various ways, which we need not recapitulate. He has a place, a relation, prerogatives, and glory far transcending those of the highest of angelic beings. But the Hebrew word, “malak,” from a root “to depute,” and the Greek word, “angelos,” from a root meaning, “to announce,” both usually translated “angel,” are also frequently translated “messenger,” e.g., Genesis 33:3;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 33:3; Numbers 20:14;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 20:14; 1 Kings 19:2;" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 19:2; 2 Kings 5:10;" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 5:10; Haggai 1:13;" TARGET="_blank">Haggai 1:13; Isaiah 42" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 42: 19 (presumably of Christ Himself); and in N.T., Matthew 9:10," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 9:10, referring to John Baptist; Luke 7:24," TARGET="_blank">Luke 7:24, messengers of the Baptist; Luke 9:52;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:52; 2 Corinthians 7:7;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 7:7; James 2:25." TARGET="_blank">James 2:25.

So that when we affirm that there are places where the words “malak” and “angelos” represent the Lord Himself, we are not bringing him down to the level of His own creatures, the angels, but emphasising the fact that He was the MESSENGER OF JEHOVAH. There is indeed a number of O.T. passages where we are obliged to understand the angel mentioned as a Divine Being. In Genesis 48:16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 48:16, for instance, could it be a mere angel of whom Jacob speaks as His Redeemer, whose blessing he invokes on his grandsons? Is not this to place an angel on the level of God?

Then in Exodus 3:2," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 3:2, “the angel of the Lord” becomes “God” in v. 4. Later on Jehovah speaks of sending an angel before Israel, and adds, “Beware of him and obey his voice; provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for My Name is in him” (Exododus 23:21). Could all this apply to a mere angelic being? In the case of Manoah, how could anyone but a Divine Person dare to identify Himself with the burnt offering? Certainly Manoah and his wife believed they had seen God (Judges 13:20-22)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 13:20-22). To assert that God made Himself known by merely angelic beings is a flagrant denial of the truth of the words, “The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, HE hath declared Him” (John 1:18)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:18). He did not cease to dwell there. When thus revealing God, the Son of Man was in heaven, though on earth (John 3:13)." TARGET="_blank">John 3:13). Blessed paradoxes! Human reasonings stumble at them; faith bows to God’s word and adores.

To close I would refer to Malachi 3" TARGET="_blank">Malachi 3: , where the word “malak” is translated twice “messenger”—(1) as applying to John the Baptist, (2) to the Son of God manifest in flesh as the Messenger of the covenant,” exactly the same Hebrew expression as is used in the rest of the O.T. for the “angel of the covenant.” Is it not conclusive then that this Being is Divine, and represents Him whom we know to-day as the Lord Jesus Christ?

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site