• About this site

Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

• About this site

101 Ways to Teach a Memory Verse

• About this site

Albert Hull

• 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

• About this site

Is there any good ground for the change, advocated by some, of the word “virgin” In Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 to “young married woman” or “young woman of marriageable age”?

I believe “virgin” can be shown to be the true rendering, along several lines of proof. It is significant that those who propose this change are mostly of Modernist tendencies. Such men deny the miraculous in general, and would gladly get rid of the Virgin Birth of our Lord, and create a discrepancy between Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23 and our verse. Gesenius, the well-known author of the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, a man with a strong Modernistic bias, says, “The true meaning of ‘almäh, (“virgin” in Isaiah 7:14)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14) is a girl of marriageable age, with no special reference to her unspotted virginity, which is expressed,” he affirms, “by another word, bethulah”; but that moral purity is surely taken for granted, unless definite proof is alleged to the contrary. He adds, “almãh is used of a youthful spouse recently married”; but the only place he quotes to prove this is the verse in question, Isaiah 7:14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14, where he wants to rule out the other meaning, and thus begs the question. He also
quotes Canticles 6. 8 to prove his point, but as virgins (‘almöth) are distinguished there from wives and concubines, we may ask what they do stand for, if not for unmarried girls of unspotted character? Gesenius admits, moreover, that his word bethfflah is sometimes clearly used of a woman newly married, e.g., in Joel i. 8. If that word had been used in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 he might still have found a loop-hole, and have quoted Joel to show that even “bethfflãh was not conclusive. God, however, has raised up to oppose Gesenius a man of equal scholarship, namely, Dr. S. P. Tregelles, of humble evangelical faith, and also of European reputation as a Hebraist. He translated Gesenius’ Lexicon from the German, and has added notes in brackets to neutralise, where necessary, the bias of the Lexicon. The following note by Dr. Tregelles occurs under “‘almãh”: “Gesenius’ object in view in seeking to undermine the opinion, which would assign the signification of virgin to this word, is clearly to raise a discrepancy between Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23. Nothing which has been stated (i.e. by Gesenius earlier in the article) does, however, really give us any ground for assigning another meaning.. . . ‘Almãh in the Punic language signifies virgin.
The absolute authority of the New Testament is, however, quite sufficient to settle the question to a Christian.” We may refer here to the words of Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is by interpretation, God with us.” The Evangelist uses the ordinary Greek word, “parthenos,” for “virgin,” used too in Luke 2:27," TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:27, of the Virgin Mary. The Greek Version, the Septuagint, does sometimes translate the word “‘almãh” otherwise than by “parthenos,” but here in Isa. 7. 14," TARGET="_blank">Isa. 7. 14, where as Tregelles points out “it must to their minds have occasioned a difficulty,” they translate by the same word that we have in the Gospels. We may suppose these learned Jews—the translators of their own Scriptures—knew at least as much of Hebrew and Greek as Modernist scholars. Matthew does not appear to have quoted from the LXX, so is an independent witness. We do not, however, in any case, need even the authority of God-fearing scholars. This is a question in which “a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err.” Let us look at the other occurrences of the word, “‘almãh,” in the Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 24:43" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24:43 of Rebecca—the prospective wife of Isaac. The other word, “bethülãh, occurs in verse i6, as we might say “virgin” or “maid” indiscriminately. Miriam, in Exodus 2:8," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 2:8, is called an “‘almh,” and she was clearly not a young married woman, but a maiden. This suits, too, in Proverbs 30:19." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 30:19. Canticles 10:3 seems to demand the sense of virgins, as also chap. 6. 8, as we have seen. Psalm 68:25" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:25 we may take as neutral; we cannot affirm the damsels to be virgins, though they might have been. Then there is another consideration. The name to be given to the child—”Emmanuel,” “God with us”—goes a long way to justify the translation of “virgin” by our Translators and Revisers, as such a birth demanded extraordinary concomitant circumstances. The context, too, favours the same conclusion. Jehovah had offered Ahaz any sign he might choose to ask—”in the depth or in the height” above, that is anything comparable with the drying up of the Red Sea or the Jordan, or on the other hand, with Joshua’s long day. When Ahaz refused, the prophet replied, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. “Behold a* (literally “the”) virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” Clearly God’s sign would be something extraordinarily arresting. How else would the Eternal Son of God enter into manhood except in the womb of a Virgin? The birth of a son to a young married woman, far from being an arresting sign, would not be a sign at all, but the most atural of events.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Is it scriptural in the light of  1 Corinthians 10:16-17," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16-17, to have more than one cup on the table?

If so, how can we give thanks for “THE cup”?

The expression, “cup,” in the various accounts of the institutions of the Lord’s Supper refers, not to the containing vessel, but, by the figure of metonomy, to the wine contained (e.g., Matthew 26:27," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:27, and 1 Corinthians  11:25, “This cup is the New Testament in My blood”). We speak of “a good table,” meaning the food on it. The Romanisers who insist on our taking literally the words, “This bread is My Body,” should also force the words, “This cup,” to mean the literal vessel holding the wine, rather than the wine, which is not once mentioned. Now, there is certainly an important truth which demands that there should be only one loaf, “For we being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Corinthians  10:17). The R.V. margin seems still clearer, “Seeing that there is one bread, we, who are many, are one body.” But there is no corresponding truth which obliges us to have only one original receptacle, no idea of unity being bound up in the “oneness of the wine.” Indeed, the blood of Christ was not shed on the Cross as a unity, but gradually, though finally all was poured out from His pierced side. However, any division, beyond what is absolutely necessary for the convenience of distribution, should be avoided. What is called “the individual cup” seems abhorrent to the idea of communion one with another.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

To create one of Printable Bible Quizzes for Kids please choose one of the following:

Browse the 350 Sunday school worksheets that contain a variety of printable Bible quizzes for kids from nearly every story of the Bible, a coloring page, crossword puzzle and other activities to review a Bible story.

Use one of the puzzle makers below to create your own Bible quizzes for kids. 

• About this site

• About this site

“THY KINGDOM COME”

Why did our Lord teach His disciples to pray “Thy Kingdom come” (Matthew 6:10)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 6:10), yet later say to Pilate in John 18:36, “My Kingdom is not of this world”?

How can I reconcile these statements?

It may be said on the face of it that, if we take the expression, “Thy Kingdom come,” by itself, there is nothing to affirm that the Kingdom referred to is of this world. The expression is often used to-day of what would be termed “God’s cause”—”not meat or drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” When we speak of the Kingdom of God coming, why, it may be asked, should we not be referring to the spiritual Kingdom? However, I am not advocating this use of the term, as we ought to take the words in their context. Such a question as this shews how important it is “rightly to divide the word of truth,” and to recognise the dispensational change, which occurred even in the brief space of our Lord’s ministry.

The kingdom that John, and subsequently our Lord and His apostles, proclaimed, was the Kingdom for which the disciples were taught to pray. This Kingdom, as we have shewn more than once lately, was the fifth Kingdom foretold by the prophet Daniel (chap. 2. ). Babylon, Medo-Persja and Greece had lost their power, and for nearly a century Jerusalem had been subject to Rome. The Lord Jesus was born King of the Jews. Born of the seed of David according to the flesh, He was the rightful heir to the Throne. He offered Himself as such. His miraculous works were His credentials, but these were in Matthew 9" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 9 and 12 imputed by His foes to Satan, and His rejection on the day of His entry into Jerusalem became a foregone conclusion.

This in no way set on one side the necessity of atonement, but that is kept in the back-ground till Matthew 16:21" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:21: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples how that He must suffer and be killed and be raised again the third day.” The Lord could not reign over an unrepentant people, and only, if repentant, on the ground of atonement. The setting up of the Messianic earthly kingdom was then postponed, so that the Lord’s words to Pilate fit into their place: His Kingdom had then for the time being lost its earthly character. When once more He claims the Kingdom, it will be as the Son of Man, coming in glory, and then it will be established by force. It will be said in that day, “The kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.” The Millennial Kingdom will be the vestibule of the “Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

W.H.

• About this site