Andrew Musch

• About this site

 George Müller Biography - George Müller was one of the early brethren in the United Kingdom who is known for his work of faith among orphan children by running his organization by faith to provide for their needs.

"May it not be the will of God that I should establish schools for these children, asking Him to give me the means?"

• About this site

• About this site

Eric Walberer

• About this site

Brian Crawford

• About this site

Crossword Puzzle Maker

• About this site

Would it be correct to say that the two trees mentioned in Genesis 2:9," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9, viz, the “Tree of Life,” and the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” are only symbols, and not literal trees? Does the latter tree represent the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to-Adam?

Mere statements of opinion, even when said to be shared by “leading theologians,” carry no weight, unless supported by scriptural proof. Personally, I have never beard of any theologian or indeed anyone else who held such views as stated above, although of course, modern unbelief hates the story of the fall of man, and would fain get rid of it at any cost. But if the tree of knowledge is only a symbol, representing “the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to Adam,” (!) (whatever this exactly means), of what is the tree of life a symbol?

The two trees are mentioned first in Genesis 2:9" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree, that is pleasant to the sight, etc.: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Here the same Hebrew word for tree is used throughout, and in each case the tree is said to have been made to grow out of the ground. Surely they are literal trees all through. Again, in verses and 17 the tree of life is not mentioned apart from the trees whose fruit might be eaten; the only exception being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This would be very strange if it were intended to convey the injunction that they might eat of all the literal trees (including the symbolic tree of life), but that they must not eat of the symbolic tree of knowledge. It is the same in Genesis 3:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:2, “We may eat,” says Eve, “of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it.” Here we see that the tree of knowledge was like the tree of life, in the most accessible part of the garden, even the midst. How could two abstract symbols be in the midst of the literal garden? Eve clearly understood the tree of knowledge to be a literal tree, and so it is to the end of the chapter— “Hast thou eaten of the tree?” etc. The tree of life certainly was literal too, bearing fruit capable of maintaining the human body in its daily wear and tear—a kind of elixir of life, so much sought after since. I see that Cruden gives an interesting note in his Concordance under “Tree” in this sense: “Tree of life so-called because it was a natural means of preserving man’s life and freeing him from all infirmities, etc., during his abode on earth.” This agrees with the fact that after the fall God deprived his creatures of access to the tree of life, lest their existence should be indefinitely prolonged in a sin-haunted body.

Perhaps the great ages of the early patriarchs resulted from the fact that Adam and Eve had eaten of this life-preserving fruit. What then was the tree of knowledge? We do not know what kind of fruit it bore, except that it was very attractive, but God chose it to be the test tree for their obedience (for every moral creature, angel or man, has had to be tested). Much objection has been raised by unbelief against so much depending on such a simple thing as eating a bit of fruit! But surely the simpler the test, the easier of fulfilment, and the greater the responsibility of failure. If God had chosen to give them only one tree to eat from, and forbidden all the rest, that would have been, of course, perfectly legitimate, but much more difficult for them. Instead God gave man in His love an infinitely easy test, and solemnly warned him of the dreadful consequences of disobedience, but he fell and was alone responsible. How great the contrast of the Second Man! The commandment He received of His Father was to lay down His life. This was a test infinitely difficult of passing, but He came out triumphant: “He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name,” etc. Had Adam passed his easy test, I do not think he would have been put to another, but would for ever have been in blissful harmony with God’s will. I think what we have seen shows that we may safely reject the ideas referred to by our questioner, as unsupported by Scripture, and so contrary to the facts.

W.H.

• About this site

RULE
Do the Scriptures teach that an overseer is to rule the Church?

Does “obey them that have the rule over you,” imply that we have rulers in the Church to-day?

Three words are translated “RULE” in the New Testament in reference to oversight:

(1) P0IMAINO (from POIMN, a shepherd), used by our Lord to Peter—”Feed (better, ‘shepherd’) my sheep” (John 21:16)." TARGET="_blank">John 21:16). The word in vv. 1 and 17 for “feed,” is BOSKO; but feeding, though of the first importance, is only one item of shepherding.

(2) POIMAINO also occurs in Acts 20:28" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2, “feed the flock”; also in Matt. 2:6," TARGET="_blank">Matt. 2:6, “RULE”—”that shall rule (marg. feed) my people Israel.” (z) PR0" TARGET="_blank">PR0I- STMI, as in 1 Timothy 3:5" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:5 “If a man know not how to RULE his own house, how shall he take care (EPIMELBOMAI) of the church of God?” This word for “take care” occurs only here and in Luke 10:34, 35," TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:34, 35, of and by “the good Samaritan.”

PROISTEMI is used too of the RULE OF THE CHURCH in 1 Timothy 5:17." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17.

(3) HGEOMAI (from AGO, to lead), to be a leader, to rule (in New Testament this latter only in present participle), is used of Barnabas and Silas—”CHIEF MEN among the brethren” (Acts 15:22);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:22); of Joseph—”GovEiuoR over Egypt” (Acts 8:10);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:10); and in Hebrews 13:7, 17," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 in the expression, “them that HAVE THE RULE OVER” (marg., in two latter verses, “guides,” which seems to do well).

Overseers, then, are shepherds, feeding, guiding, tending the flock; also ruling, but not inthese]fassetiye, domineering way of a Gentile king, “not as lords over God’s heritage,” but with gentle control for the good of the sheep, whom they love, because they belong to the Chief Shepherd who has entrusted them to their care (1 Peter 5:2-4)," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4), and it is for the sheep to be subject to this godly rule.

W.H.

• About this site

Matthew 27:52," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:52,53 states that “many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Is it known what happened to these saints? Did they go to heaven with Christ or did they return to their graves?

We are not told in the Scriptures, but the resurrection of these saints in connection with that of our Lord leaves little doubt, I think, on the matter. Our Lord Himself was shewn after His resurrection “not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God” (Acts 10:41)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:41), to make it easier for the people at large to believe in the resurrection. He was the first-fruits. “Many bodies of the saints arose and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” They could not deny their own senses that they had seen their dead friends alive, and if so, why should not the testimony of the disciples be that Christ had risen? Under such circumstances, it seems very difficult to believe that the resurrection of these saints was anything but a true and lasting resurrection. I believe this was the first stage in the First Resurrection, of which the resurrection of the sleeping saints, when the Lord comes, will be the second stage, and the remaining saints who have died when He returns in glory the final stage. “This is the first resurrection.” Had they returned to their graves, it might be said that He did, too. Surely they were part of that captivity which He led captive when he ascended on high.

W.H.

• About this site

Will those who are judged in Matthew 25:41-46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41-46 appear again at the Great White Throne of Revelation 20:11" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:11?

Matthew 25:41-46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41-46 describes the Judgment of the Nations, which is to be distinguished from the Judgment of the Great White Throne. The Judgment of the Great White Throne takes place in eternity, after the Millennium. The wicked dead will be judged and consigned to the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:11-15)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:11-15).
The Judgment of the Nations, or Gentiles (the Greek word can mean either), takes place on earth when Christ comes to reign, as verse 31 clearly states: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him.” If we are right in identifying it with Joel 3," TARGET="_blank">Joel 3, the location is the Valley of Jehoshaphat, outside Jerusalem (Joel 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:2). The nations will be judged according to their treatment of Christ's Jewish brethren during the Tribulation (Joel 3:1-2," TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:1-2, Joel 3:12-14;" TARGET="_blank">Joel 3:12-14; Matthew 25:31-46)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:31-46).

Does this judgment teach salvation by works? The message of the Bible is that salvation is by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:8-9). But the Bible is just as quick to say that true faith produces good works. If there are no good works, it is an indication that the person was never saved. So we must understand that the Gentiles are not saved by befriending the Jewish remnant, but that this kindness reflects their love for the Lord.

The Scriptures do not, so far as I am aware, give us any further information about them than what is contained in Matthew 25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25 itself. In Matthew 25:41" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41 the command is, “Depart ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels”; and then in verse 46 it is stated, “These shall go away into everlasting punishment”; both of which expressions can scarcely be understood otherwise than of the Lake of Fire.

And if they are sent from this judgment to the Lake of Fire directly, it is difficult to see why they should be brought back from it to stand before the Great White Throne; especially as that appears to be entirely a judgment of the dead, whose bodies have been in the earth or sea, and whose souls have been in hell. According to Revelation 19:20," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:20, the beast and the false prophet will be cast alive into the Lake of Fire at the Lord’s appearing; and therefore there would be no difficulty in assuming that these of Matthew 25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25 may be similarly disposed of.

W.R.

• About this site

What is the true sense of Psalm 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 2:7?

There is no verse quoted so often as referring to the Incarnation by deniers of the Eternal Sonship of our Lord. Have they sufficient ground for this?

No, for to do so merely begs the question; it is exactly what has to be proved. The Psalm begins prophetically much later than the Incarnation, namely, with the rejection of Christ, for the apostles by the Spirit quote verse i, as fulfilled in His rejection by “both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel” (Acts 4:27)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:27). The Psalm is divided into four sections:

(1) Verses 1-3—the language of the rebels against Jehovah;

(2) Verses 4-6—Jehovah’s answer of derision and wrath. So sure is His purpose, that it is as if already executed: “Yet have I set My King upon My Holy hill of Zion,” though naturally this purpose did not begin then;

(3) Verses 7-9—the King Himself speaks: “I will declare the decree.” What decree? Would the Lord refer at such a juncture to His incarnation, which to the eyes of men has proved a failure by His rejection? No, it was the Eternal Decree, on which all God’s purposes rest, concerning the Eternal generation of the Son. “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee”;

(4) Verses 10-12 words of the Holy Ghost through David to living kings and judges of the earth, to be wise and serve the Lord NOW, and rejoice before Him. “Kiss the Son* lest He be angry and ye perish from the way when His wrath is kindled but a little, blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.” The word “NOW” shows that this closing section is not prophetic at all, but was, we might say, a lesson drawn by David to his fellow-kings. In the language of to-day, he is turning the occasion to profit to lead them to repentance and reconciliation to the Divine Son. In “NOW” the sense is adversative, in contrast with what has gone before, and with the future reign, when it will be too late to turn. David warns his brother rulers of their present duty. Surely such an appeal, addressed in about 1030 B.C., to kings living at that date, to “kiss the Son,” (evidently a Divine Person, the equal of Jehovah), does bear witness to the Eternal Sonship of Him who was at once the progenitor of David, and later “made of his seed, according to the flesh.” How shallow then are the thoughts of those who deny the relation of the Son to our Lord in the Divine Trinity, on the ground that such a relation is not recognised in the Old Testament Scriptures! How soon, alas, the Scriptures become so far a closed book to those who close their eyes to its teachings!

Now, let us return to the immediate object of our consideration, namely, the words, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” and enquire whether these words do indeed refer to the Incarnation. If so, we should expect to find them addressed to the Lord in the manger, or at any rate that some allusion to them would be found in the herald angels’ annoucement, but we search in vain for any reference to such a thing. All they say is, “Unto you is born this day in the City of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord,” but there is no hint that in that birth, a Divine Person, hitherto unknown, had become the Son of God. Not even do the words of Gabriel to Mary bear this meaning. In answer to Mary’s legitimate question, he makes a double statement:

(1) “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” that is, “the Holy Ghost will become to thee the Divine Agent of thy conception,” or in the words of Matthew i, “Thou shalt be found with child of the Holy Ghost.” But that conception, unlike any other human birth, was to be of One who had already existed in another form, and who, by the fact of human birth, would enter into manhood. Hence we read:

(2) “The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,” that is, a Divine Person shall, at the moment of the human conception by the Spirit, become flesh, or in other words, the Eternal Son will take to Himself perfect human nature in the womb of the Virgin. Hence the words of the Angel Gabriel:
“Therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” To assert that Christ only became “the mighty God” at the Incarnation would be to deny His Deity; to assert that He only then became the Son of God is to deny His person. If the Babe were only Son of God by human birth, then the Incarnation was an exaltation, not a humbling, and must be the predominant truth of the New Testament, though we know that neither our Lord nor His disciples ever grounded their testimony to His Sonship on it. The Lord in the words of Jehovah’s decree, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” goes back to the Eternal truth of Him as the Son. This He was “declared to be with power by the resurrection,” which, as Alford shows, is not less the subject of Romans z, because foreshadowed by resurrections on a lower plane. It does not mean that the Lord became Son at the resurrection, any more than at the Holy Mount, or at the Jordan, but that He was then “declared to be the Son of God with power.” Recognition of His Divine Sonship is repeated again and again, but the relation was Eternal.

Now, in considering the three-fold quotation of the words in the New Testament, if the Incarnation be ruled out in one case, it must be in all. Acts 13:33" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:33 must refer to resurrection. In verse 23, certainly incarnation is in view, and the word in the best texts is agö= “to lead, to bring.” “God hath raised unto Israel a Saviour.” in verse 30, a general word is used for “raised” (egeiro), the same verb as in verse 22 of David’s appointment as king, but in verses 33 and 34 we have another verb altogether (anistmi), which is found eleven times in the Acts, of resurrection, while the substantive “anastasis” is translated “resurrection” thirty-nine times, out of its forty-one occurrences. As Alford says, “The meaning, ‘raised from the dead,’ in verses 33 and 34 is absolutely required by the context, both because the word is repeated with, ‘from among the dead,’ verse 34, and because the emphasis throughout is on the resurrection.”
In Hebrews 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:5 the reference is not only to resurrection, but to that eternal past, when He, the Risen, Glorified One, had received a name, that of Son, more excellent than angels, by inheritance. He was Son, before He was “appointed Heir of all things,” and before He created all things.
In Hebrews 5:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:5 the subject is Christ’s call to priesthood. This could not be by the fact of incarnation, seeing He was not of the priestly tribe of Aaron. He must first ascend, where another order reigns—that of Melchizedek, “made like unto the Son of God”—the chief point of which likeness, if not the only point, consisting in the fact that His eternity in the past as Son goes equally with His eternity in the future.

Some have attempted to divide the decree into two: “Thou art My Son,” referring to the Eternal Sonship; and “This day have I begotten Thee,” to the Incarnation. To our mind, this seems forced and unjustified by the context. It arises from a fear of applying the word,”begetting,” to the eternal past, but this was Anus’ objection, and can only be justified by applying laws of time to eternal truths. When we can fathom the mystery of the Divine Being without beginning, then we may be able to solve the eternal begetting without beginning. To what “day,” then, does the Spirit of God refer in Psalm 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 2:7? We have been reminded so often of the varied meanings of “day” in Scripture that we hardly need insist on this—indeed it is sometimes used so broadly that the question of time hardly enters into it. This, we believe, is the case here:
“The use of smeron (the Greek word which here in the LXX, as also in the New Testament, is translated ‘to-day’ and ‘this day’) in the sense of ‘eternally’ or ‘in eternity’ is well established (it is found in Philo). Consequently an orthodox reader would understand it:
‘Thou art My Son, I have eternally begotten Thee’ “ (cf. Hebrews 1:5)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:5) This fits in with the New Testament quotations—a testimony in time to a fact beyond time, in the eternal NOW of a past eternity.

W.H.

* That the word here is “Bar” not “Ben” does not invalidate the argument, for as Gesenius notes, Bar is Son in Psalm 2:12" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 2:12 , in the sense of one begotten, and is applied to Jehovah, the King, and Tregelles adds, “that is Christ.” Gesenius goes on to compare the word here, with the more usual word, Ben, in Isa. o. 6. Indeed, here again we must note that the Son was not born at Bethlehem—but given (“A child was born”), that is, the Lord did not become Son by His human birth. He was bom a true human child. The Word became flesh.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site