Elton Fairfield - "I am a Christian."

"I didn't buy that status, nor did I work for it. I was not born into it, even though both my parents are devoted Christians. I am a Christian because there was a moment in my life when I accepted the fact that the death of Jesus Christ was for my sins."

• About this site

"Take the Challenge"

• About this site

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment

• About this site

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• About this site

Avrell Bowden - "If I die tonight, where will I be? Heaven or hell?” People make commitments to God an confessions of faith that sometimes have no reality.  At age 6 I made a false profession of salvation. That is, I told people I was saved. (more)

• About this site

Sunday School Teacher Resources

• 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

WHEN WILL OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS BE RAISED?
If we are right in taking the expression, “in Christ,” as a New Testament term, and therefore “the dead in Christ” (1 Thessalonians 4" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4: ) as referring only to New Testament saints, when will the Old Testament saints be raised?

In 1 Corinthians 15:23" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:23 we have the general truth that Christ is “the first- fruits” of the Resurrection, “afterward, they that are Christ’s at His coming.” This expression seems to include here the whole completed Second Coming, when the first Resurrection will be finished.

This will have taken place in different stages and categories. Thus, supposing the Resurrection in 1Thessalonians 4" TARGET="_blank">1Thessalonians 4 is of the saints of this dispensation alone since Pentecost (to such only applying the expression—”dead in Christ), that will be the beginning of the first Resurrection, which will not reach its final stage until Revelation 20: 4," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20: 4, where the Resurrection of more than one category of saints is indicated, of which we read in verse 5, “this is (i.e., completes), the first Resurrection.” This will no doubt include the Old Testament saints. To conceive of Old Testament saints however, being included in the first Resurrection, at the same time as the Church, is very difficult and indeed impossible. How could such be caught away to meet the Lord in the air along with the Church? In that case there would be two distinct companies, each in a distinct relationship with the Lord.

W.H.

• About this site

Can a believer be possessed by a demon? Can demons attack us?
Possessed?  No.
Attacked? Yes.

Demons may enter the body of an unbeliever and take control of his thoughts and emotions but the Chrisitian is protected from Satan and his angels for the following reasons:

#1 Christians are indwelled by the Holy Spirit

1 John 4:4" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:4 says

 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

"He that is in you" refers to God, and more specifically, the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer since the moment of believing in Christ through the gospel.

Ephesians 1:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:13-14  In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,  (14)  who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

#2 Christians are no longer under the power of Satan

Colossians 1:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:13-14  He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,  (14)  in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

But what about demon-possessed people in the Bible?

There are a number of examples of people who were possessed by a demon, but none of them were believers.  The demoniacs of Gadara (Matthew 8:28;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:2)" TARGET="_blank">Mark 5:2) are them most startling examples of demon possession.  These show us the extreme change that came upon them once Christ had driven the demons from them.  These were not mere problems such as "demons of depression" or "demons of mental illness" or "demons of alcoholism", but true possession of a demonic spirit.

Were Ananias and Sapphira possessed by Satan?

Were Ananias and Sapphira believers?  Yes.   They were true followers of Christ, who possessed eternal life and are now in heaven.  They were in the "congregation of those who believed" (Acts 4:32)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:32) and were involved with the Holy Spirit (v. 3), but remained hypocrites. They sinned under the influence of Satan.  Satan did not indwell or possess them, but he rather slyly suggested this sin of hypocrisy in their mind or heart.

What does delivered unto Satan mean?

1 Corinthians 5:4-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:4-5  In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,  (5)  To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This discipline of sin the Church is further explained at the end of the passage.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:12-13  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?  (13)  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Delivering one to Satan is therefore to put someone out of the communion, the protection and godly influence of the church and to let the believer live in the world, outside of the fellowship of the church.  He is once again in Satan's realm.

A believer can be attacked by Satan, as seen in the story of Job in Job 1:1-20." TARGET="_blank">Job 1:1-20.  He suffered the loss of home, business, health and family as a direct result of Satan's work.  Ananias and Sapphira were the victims of his mental attacks.  Believers must guard against his spiritual attacks (Ephesians 6:11-18)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:11-18) which are best combated by learning and holding to good doctrines.

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Some say that the word translated, “only begotten”, in such phrases as, “The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:14)," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14), merely means, “beloved,” and should be so translated especially in all passages relating to the Eternal Son—the Second Person of the Divine Trinity.

Do you think this is so?

My own conviction is other, though I know esteemed brethren who maintain it. I doubt indeed if such an opinion would ever have been broached, had it not been for the mistaken notion that to apply such a term as “only begotten” or even “begotten” to our Lord in a past eternity, necessitates the thought of a time before the begetting, and therefore must infringe on the eternity, and therefore on the true Deity, of the Son. This, however, is only so, if we insist on defining and explaining Divine relations by the human, whereas, the latter are the vaguest shadows of the Eternal and Divine: as soon measure the fixed stars with a foot-rule. The same objection applies to the terms “Father” and “Son”. Such terms do imply priority and subsequency in earthly relations, but there cannot be priority or the reverse in the case of Eternal Persons.

The same objection would apply to the epithet, “the Word,” for does not such a term necessitate to our minds a time before the word was uttered, and when consequently the word had no existence? was reading only the other day two writings, one by a denier of the Deity of the Son, the other by a denier of His Eternal Sonship, who both refused to believe, because their minds forsooth could not comprehend the possibility of such things. There must be no unsolved mysteries to this type of person, though one wonders how such can believe at all in the God of Revelation, for surely His existence is beyond their comprehension. Such might also lay to heart the limitation imposed by the Lord Himself, “No man knoweth the Son save the Father.” However, to return to those who, while holding firmly the Eternal Sonship of Christ, yet refuse the term “only begotten,”* and substitute for it “well-beloved.” This is indeed a secondary meaning springing, as we see, directly from the primary, forwho is more beloved than an only child? Now although “only-begotten” is the literal translation of the Greek word, it would be permissible, under certain conditions to abandon this—the etymological meaning—if usage justified it. But if the predominant usage agrees with the original philological meaning, then we must keep to that.

That this is the case here, can, I think, be clearly shown by a reference to our three chief sources of information (not to mention Latin ecclesiastical writers who translate—uni-genitus “only begotten”)—the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint Greek version, and the New Testament. (a) The Hebrew word, “yahidh,” occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, and is translated in A. V.: twice, “my darling”; margin “only one” (Psalm 22:20; 35: 17);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:20; 35: 17); twice “desolate” or “solitary” (Psalm 25:16;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 25:16; Psalm 68:6);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:6); once “only beloved” (Proverbs 4:3);" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 4:3); and six times “only son” (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac; Jeremiah 6:26." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 6:26. Amos 8:10," TARGET="_blank">Amos 8:10, and Zechariah 12: 10);" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12: 10); and “only child” (Judges 2:34," TARGET="_blank">Judges 2:34, of Jepthah’s daughter); and with all these the R.V. agrees. (b) The Septuagint translates the two Genesis, the Proverbs, and the three prophetic occurrences by “beloved,” and the remaining five by “only child” or “son” (monogenës). It may be added that the LXX in their translation of Genesis 22:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2 have, “thy loved son, whom thou lovest,” the tautology of which translation might alone have raised a doubt as to its correctness. (c) In the New Testament the word “mono- genes” occurs nine times: once of Isaac (Hebrews 11:17)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:17)t and thrice of only children (Luke 7:12;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:38), and five times of the Son of God (John 1:14, 18;" TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, 18; John 3:16-18" TARGET="_blank">John 3:16-18 and 1 John 4:9)," TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:9), translated in each case both in A.V. and R.V. as “Only Begotten.” Lest anyone should imagine that this is the ordinary word for “beloved”, when applied to the Lord, I would mention the significant fact that on the two occasions on which the Father bore audible witness from heaven to the Lord as His beloved Son (Matthew 3:17;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17:5), He does not use the word we are considering (monogens), but the ordinary word for “beloved” (agapetos). Surely these two occasions would have been specially suitable for the use of the word “only-begotten,” if the Lord’s Sonship depended, as is falsely taught in some quarters to-day, on His incarna tion.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site