Brian Crawford

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

Foundation Truths of the Gospel

• About this site

Peter Ramsay - I thought... “Yes I have done some wrong things, but I am not bad enough to go to Hell. There are many people who really deserve to be there – but I don’t."

The very last thing I wanted to do was to let go of the things that I thought earned me favor with God and gave me a special status.

• 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

Gloria Christopherson

• About this site

What is a Daniel fast?

The Daniel Fast is a diet based on the story from the book of Daniel in the Old Testament.  Daniel and his three friends decided to fast in the sense that they refused to eat the meat provided to them by the King of Babylon.  Daniel was not fasting in refraining from all food.  Neither was Daniel trying to improve his health by losing weight or by avoiding unhealthy fats.  Daniel was interested in obeying the law of Moses.

Daniel 1:8-14" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 1:8-14  But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.  (9)  And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs,  (10)  and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, "I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king."  (11)  Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,  (12)  "Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink.  (13)  Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king's food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see."  (14)  So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days.

Daniel decided to fast, not for health reasons, but for spiritual laws in the Bible.  Nebuchadnezzar had conquered the nation of Israel and was training a group of captured Jews to become officers in his government.  Part of the social adaptation to their new kingdom and culture was to eat the King’s meat.  It is likely that the meat itself was healthy, but involved in idol worship.
 
The concept of applying the Daniel fast to dieting is when a person decides to refrain from eating meat for a period of time.  The Bible does not command or recommend a person follow Daniel’s fasting method for health reasons. We are at liberty to follow a vegetarian diet or a diet that contains meat.  Other scriptures that deal with the matter of eating meat are found in Romans 14" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14 and 1 Timothy 4" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4 and 1 Corinthians 8" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8…

Romans 14:1-4" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:1-4  As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.  (2)  One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.  (3)  Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.  (4)  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

1 Timothy 4:1-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:1-5  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,  (2)  through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,  (3)  who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.  (4)  For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,  (5)  for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

1 Corinthians 8:4-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8:4-13  Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one."  (5)  For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--  (6)  yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.  (7)  However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  (8)  Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.  (9)  But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.  (10)  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?  (11)  And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.  (12)  Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.  (13)  Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

ASSEMBLY FELLOWSHIP

Would it be correct to say that there is only one Fellowship in Scripture, into which alt believers are brought upon accepting Christ as their Saviour? If this be so, how are we to understand the Fellowship of 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2? Again, does not the New Testament teach Assembly Fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away? and are letters of commendation necessary? Further, does the local church in any district include all the Christians in that district? and should a professed believer who belongs to a sect, but who comes to our Lord’s Day Morning Meeting and expects to get breaking bread, be received, though he has no intention of severing his ecclesiastical association?

The statement that “There is only one fellowship in Scripture, into which all believers are brought on accepting Christ as their Saviour,” is absolute nonsense. The particular kind of fellowship implied in any passage where the word “Fellowship” occurs has to be gathered from the context there; and an examination of this will reveal that there are various “fellowships” spoken of in the New Testament. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the Greek word “Koinonia,” which is usually translated “fellowship,” in the N.T. is also rendered, “communion,” “communication,” “contribution,” and “distribution.”

The first occurrence of the word is in Acts 2:42," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42, where it is said that the new converts “continued steadfastly in the . . . fellowship.” Here we have a “fellowship” in which one may “continue” or not continue; and to apply it to the fellowship of life in Christ, in which all true believers cannot avoid continuing, is to make the statement in the verse meaningless.

It is next found in Romans 1:26" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:26 (where in our English Version it is rendered “contribution”). Could it be said that every saint of the present dispensation, or even every saint then living, had fellowship in the gift which the saints of Macedonia and Achaia sent to those of Jerusalem?

The epistle to the Philippians supplies perhaps the most interesting examples of the various uses of the word “fellowship.” In Philippians 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:5 we read of their Fellowship in the Gospel. Are all saints in this? In Philippians 2:1 we have mention of Fellowship of the Spirit. If all have this, why does Paul say, “If there be any”? In Philippians 3:10" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:10 he speaks of the Fellowship of His Sufferings, which he himself desired to know. But could saints who never had the least experience of persecution for Christ’s sake, claim to be in that fellowship? Lastly in Philippians 4:15 (see R.V.) we get the

Fellowship of Giving.

As to the passage in 1 John 1:3-7," TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:3-7, in which we have the last four occurrences of the word “fellowship” in the Scriptures, the expression in verse 3, “that ye also may have fellowship with us,” implies a fellowship which they might or might not have, according to the extent of their knowledge of Christ and His Word; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, of which they might have more or less, according to whether they knew more or less of Christ and His Word. The further references in verses 6, 7, are clearly to a fellowship in which we can only claim to be, so long as we walk in the light. The man who says he is in it, while yet he is not walking in the light, is described as lying.

As to the next question—whether there is such a thing as “Assembly fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away”—only a person of warped mind would deny this. When Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 5:13," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” and the Corinthians obeyed him, was the one who was so “put away” to continue in the circle and insist on breaking bread, as being a member of the so-called “local church?” And if, while yet in the position of having been “put away,” he goes to reside in another town, must the Assembly in that town also set him down at the Table, because since he now has his home there, he is a member of their “local church?” If these things are so, we may leave the first epistle to the Corinthians out of future editions of our Bibles.

With regard to the meaning of the word “church,” when used locally, I have to say what already I have said about that other word “fellowship.” What it includes or does not include in any particular case must be judged from the context there. In 1 Corinthians 10:32" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32—it evidently takes in every saved person in the district, just as the other two terms in the verse, “Jews” and “Gentiles,” take in all the others in the district. But in the same epistle at 1 Corinthians 11:18" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35, it just as plainly means none but those who come to the Meeting; and this is made even clearer by 1 Corinthians 14:23," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:23, in which, after the whole church has come together, there may still come in one who is spoken of as “unlearned,” yet who is distinguished (by the little word “or” that follows) from an “unbeliever.” In other words, he is a saved man, but not yet in the “local church,” in the sense in which the term “church” is used in this verse.
Moreover, not only can a person be put out of a local church when he deserves it, but according to 3 John io, he may be “cast out of the church” even when he does not deserve it. One might well ask, Who were still “in” this local church after Diotrephes had cast these brethren “out” of it? Or were the cast out brethren “out” and “in” at the same time?

As to “letters of commendation,” is it not clearly enough stated in 2 Corinthians 3:1" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:1 that some needed them, though Paul, being well-known to everyone, did not? How often would some require a thing to be stated in Scripture, in order to feel themselves bound to act accordingly?

With regard to the other matter—the case of a professed Christian who belongs to some sect, but comes to our meeting and expects to get breaking bread for one Lord’s Day only, and then returns to his own company—I would need a good deal of convincing that the one who wished so to act was an honest man. If he believes that we are right, why should he not come to stay with us? If he believes us to be wrong and his own sect right, why should he want to do wrong even for one Lord’s Day? And if he can do without “breaking bread” on fifty-one Sundays in the year, why should he be insistent on being allowed to do so on the remaining one?

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

Did Christ go to hell after dying on the cross?  Did Christ suffer for sins in hell?  Was he there to open the gates of hell to liberate those lost in their sins?  Is hell the same as the Lake of Fire?

The short answer:

No. Jesus did not go to suffer in the flames of Hell.  After dying on the cross, Christ went to the place of departed spirits.  That is, he went to SHEOL (the Hebrew word) or HADES (the Greek word).  He did not go to suffer in the flames of hell or go to Lake of Fire as some mistakenly believe. 

The full answer:

To give a full answer to these questions one must study several scriptures and the meaning of the word SHEOL translated HELL in some versions of the Bible.

What scirptures say that Christ was in sheol/hades?

Starting with Psalm 16:10," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16:10, which is quoted in the New Testament in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2 in reference to Christ and his resurrection, we see the two words used in reference to Christ and his resurrection.

Psalms 16:10-11" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 16:10-11  For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.  (11)  You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (ESV)

Here is the same verse from Psalm 16" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16 in the King James Version.  Notice that hell is used in place of sheol.
   

Psalms 16:10-11" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 16:10-11  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.  (11)  Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. (KJV)

Peter is giving his great Day of Pentecost speech in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2 when he quotes from Psalm 16." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16.  The prophecy of Christ’s resurrection was written many years before by King David.

Acts 2:22-33" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:22-33  "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--  (23)  this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.  (24)  God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.  (25)  For David says concerning him, "'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;  (26)  therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope.  (27)  For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.  (28)  You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'  (29)  "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.  (30)  Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,  (31)  he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.  (32)  This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.  (33)  Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (ESV)

In the KJV the verse is written with the word hell in place of hades. 

Acts 2:27" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:27  Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. (KJV)
Act 2:31" TARGET="_blank">Act 2:31  He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. (KJV)

The meaning of SHEOL and HADES

In the King James Version, the Hebrew word SHEOL is usually translated as hell.  The corresponding Greek word HADES is also translated as hell.  Sheol means “the place of departed spirits” and hades means the “place of the dead”.  The word “hell” conjures images of darkness, flames, torment and agony.  However, the departed spirits of the Old Testament believers also went to sheol/hades, but not to suffer torments. 

According to Vines Dictionary…

Hades is the region of departed spirits of the lost".  This includes the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ. It corresponds to "Sheol" in the Old Testament. In the Authorized King James Version it has been unhappily rendered "hell" (Psalms 16:10)" TARGET="_blank">Psalms 16:10) or "the grave," (Genesis 37:35)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:35) or "the pit" (Numbers 16:30-33)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:30-33).  In the New Testament the Revised Version always used the rendering "hades". In the Old Testament, they have not been uniform in the translation.  For example in Isaiah 14:15" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14:15 it is translated "hell" with a note in the margin that says "Sheol".  Usually they have "Sheol" in the text and "the grave" in the margin. Sheol never denotes the grave, nor is the permanent region of the lost. 

Translation Challenge

Most Bible translators avoid using “hell” to translate the words sheol and hades. Instead they simply transcribe the words from the original Hebrew (sheol) or Greek (hades) as seen above in the examples from the English Standard Version (ESV). Other translations that use “sheol” instead of hell include the New American Standard Bible (NASB), The New King James Version (NKJV), Darby, and Young’s Literal Translation.  The NIV and other loose translations and paraphrases use a phrase such as “the realm of the dead”.  So to say that Christ went to hell means that he went to a place where spirits have no bodies. 

Hades – one place with two conditions

There is a wider meaning to sheol and hades than what the word hell – eternal torments - brings to mind. Sheol/hades is a place, or perhaps better stated a condition, with two very distinct environments.  The lost suffer in Hades while the saved enjoy rest there.  For example, in Luke 16:19-31," TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:19-31, the rich man opened his eyes in Hades being in flames of torments.  Lazarus died as well and was in Hades as well, but in a completely different condition.  Lazarus was “far off” at Abraham’s side.  There was “a great chasm”  separating Lazarus from the Rich Man which was impossible to cross which indicates that there are two separate places to which people went.  However both are in “the place of departed spirits” – that is SHEOL or HADES.  When the Lord was on the cross, he promised the repentant thief that “today you will be with me in paradise”.  This refers to the place of departed spirits of the saved.  The thief went to the same place as Lazarus – “to Abraham’s side.”  It is presumed that the other non-repentant thief went to hades the same day, but to the place of torments.

Where did Jesus suffer for sins – while on the cross or did he suffer in hell?

The fact that the KJV bible states that Jesus went to “hell” leads some to the conclusion that Christ he went to hell to suffer for our sins.  As seen in the preceding paragraphs, the word hell (sheol/hades) does not necessarily indicate a place of suffering, only the place of departed spirits. 

The idea of Christ suffering while his body lay in the tomb is contrary to other scriptures that teach he suffered for our sins on the cross. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24)" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:24) “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:10).  He canceled “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”  (Colossians 2:14)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:14).  The cross is “the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:18) to those of us who are saved.

The cross is the lowest point that Christ’s sufferings took him.

Philippians 2:8-9" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:8-9  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  (9)  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

Hebrews 12:2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:2  looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

The work of salvation was completely finished when Christ died.  “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.”  (John 19:30)." TARGET="_blank">John 19:30). His suffering in our place was completed. His soul/spirit went to the paradise side of hades. Jesus did not go to the torments of hell. Jesus’ suffering ended the moment He died. The payment for sin was paid. He then awaited the resurrection of His body and His return to glory in His ascension.

Did Jesus go to hell? No. He did not suffer in the flames of torments.
Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes.  He went to the place of departed spirits.   

Other questions that are related to this are:

“Did Christ take people from Hades to Heaven when he rose from the dead?”  Ephesians 4:8-10" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:8-10 talks about Christ “leading a host of captives” when he ascended.

“Did Christ go talk to spirits in Hades to declare his victory over Satan and death?”  1 Peter 3:18-20" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:18-20 has many interesting interpretations to consider on this question.

Some of the questions below will help you see the meaning in these statements.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

According to 1 Kings 15:33" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 15:33 Baasha began to reign over Israel in the third year of Asa, king of Judah, and reigned twenty-four years, making his death occur In the twenty-seventh year of Asa’s reign. In 2 Chron. xvi. i, however, we read that Baasha came up against Judah in the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign, i.e., nine years after his death, according to the chronology in ‘Kings. How can this discrepancy be explained?

The natural way of explaining such a difficulty would be to say that there has evidently been a transcriber’s error—_”tllirty_sjxth year of Asa” in 2 Chronicles 16:1," TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 16:1, for thirty-sixth year. Baasha would then have become king early in the 3rd year of Asa, and reigned 24 years, a part of a year counting a year. Baasha would then have died probably toward the close of Asa’s z6th year, and have been succeeded by Elah his son in the same year. Such an error would in no way affect the inspiration of the Bible, but only manifest the carelessness of the transcriber. I once found in a new French Bible the following sentence:
“God resists the humble and gives grace to the proud.” I at once wrote to the B. & F.B.S., and far from accusing me of attacking the inspiration of the Scriptures, they thanked me and had a new sheet printed and inserted in the First Epistle of Peter in this French edition. It is certain that, apart from the inspiration of God, by which the chronicler wrote, he, as a man, had access to the Books of Kings, etc., and was quite as capable of noticing the discrepancy as the present questioner and answerer. Besides, if it was a transcriber’s error, why was it left and why did no variety of reading spring up? Again, the numbers “thirty-six” and “twenty-six” are very distinct in the Hebrew, and are given not in numbers, but in words, “twenty” being “‘esrim,” and “thirty,” shelöshim,” which are not easily confused, so why should we not seek some other explanation? There are good authorities who believe that the thirty-sixth year of Asa in Chronicles really refers to the year of the division of the kingdoms, which would be the i6th year of his reign. This fits in much better with the time necessary for the wars between Asa and Baasha, the building of Ramah; and this mode of reckoning was, in all likelihood, in general use at the time. In any case, if we knew all, all would be plain, and we can fall back with confidence on the words of the Apostle, “All Scripture,” (or Every Scripture) is given by inspiration of God.”

W.H.

• 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

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