Marriage and the Family

• About this site

Peter Brand

• About this site

Eternal Security

• About this site

Sarah Stickfort

• About this site

Joel Hovey

• About this site

Sunday School Lesson

• About this site

What are the crowns that Christ will give to believers for their reward?  At the Judgment Seat of Christ, the Lord will reward believers for what they have done in their life (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:11-15).  From other Bible verses, we can see that the Lord will reward believers with several type of crowns...

1 Corinthians 9:25" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:25 - "And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible."

1 Thessalonians 2:19" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 2:19 - "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing"

1 Timothy 4:8" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:8 - "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."

James 1:12" TARGET="_blank">James 1:12 - "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him."

1 Peter 5:4" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:4 - "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

Revelation 2:10" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 2:10 - "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life."

Revelation 4:4" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 4:4 - "And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold."

• 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

If Hades be “in the heart of the earth,” as some have thought, how can we reconcile this with Jonah’s experience, who went down into the whale’s belly (symbol of Sheol), spirit, soul and body, while the Lord’s soul went to Hades (Sheol) and His body to the grave?

There is really no contrast, still less contradiction in the two thoughts. Though Jonah speaks of being “in the belly of hell” (Sheol), I think those are mistaken who deduce that he actually died in the belly of the whale, as I think the rest of his prayer shows. The Lord does not say that the prophet died, though so terrifying was his experience, that he might have imagined he was in the unseen world. But the death of the prophet was quite unnecessary to justify the Lord’s comparison between Himself and Jonah. Jonah’s disappearance in the belly of the whale was a figure of the disappearance of the Lord, when His body was laid in the grave and He in spirit descended into the place of departed spirits—Paradise——as it was for Him and for all of His own, who had already died. But the exact location of this it does not seem necessary for us to define, even if it were possible. Our Lord’s words were, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:40), and this came to pass. W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Do people become angels after death? Do children become angels?

No.  Angels are spirit beings, while humans are composed of a body and spiritual part consisting of soul and spirit.

Christ taught in Matthew 22:30" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:30 that angels do not get married nor have children.  

In heaven, there are two distinct groups who live there.  Hebrews 12:22-23" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:22-23 mentions a  “myriads of angels” and “the spirits of righteous men made perfect”.

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:19-31 tells us that at death a person either goes to the agonies of Hades or to the bliss of God's presence.  The Rich Man even asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his father's house, but believers who have died do not return to earth to communicate with anyone.  In contrast, God sends his angels to protect and communicate with believers who are still alive (Hebrews 1:13-14;" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:13-14; Psalm 91:11-13;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 91:11-13; Acts 27:23-24;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:23-24; Matthew 2:13;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 2:13; Acts 5:19)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:19).

Children who die do not become angels.  They die like adults who are saved.  They are covered by Christ's work at the cross.  A related question to this is "Are children saved who die young?"

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

WAS JUDAS PRESENT

Was Judas present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper?

This is a much debated point, on which godly men have differed, so one would hesitate to dogmatise. Before giving what I believe to be the correct answer, I would say that the anxiety to prove that Judas was not present seems to rest on the false assumption that his presence would sanction to-day the admission of the ungodly to the Lord’s table. I believe this to be an entire mistake. Judas was a professed disciple of the Lord and one of the twelve apostles. He had passed all the tests and was apparently the most trusted of all by his fellow apostles, though the Lord knew from the beginning that he was a devil and would betray Him (John 6:64, 70)." TARGET="_blank">John 6:64, 70). He did not, however, use His omniscience to expose Judas before the time, in fact not till he had irretrievably committed himself. His presence then at the Lord’s table would no more justify the reception of those known to be ungodly, than his being sent forth to preach would sanction the sending forth of the ungodly for this purpose. Matthew 26:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25 seems to shew he was present up to the institution, and verse 26 begins, “As they were eating.” That is, the passover was not yet formally over; is it conceivable then that Judas would have left the room thus prematurely, as he must have done, to bar his being present at the institution of “the supper”? However, whether he did or not is not clearly stated in this Gospel, nor yet in Mark 14:22." TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:22.

It is true that before that, the Lord had said plainly that the traitor would be found “among them that dipped with Him in the dish”; and He had said to Judas, “Thou has said,” in answer to his query, “Master (not Lord) is it I?” which for very decency’s sake he must have felt bound to make, lest he should draw attention to himself by his silence (Matthew 26:25)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25). But this was probably only to Judas’ ear, who sat next to Him. This must not be confounded with the Lord’s definite sign to John, in answer to what I believe was his subsequent question, “Lord who is it?” “He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.” This revealed definitely to John the name of the traitor, and he alone narrates the incident (John 13:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:26, 27).

When we come to Luke’s Gospel we have a definite statement which must be allowed to have its influence, and I believe, its determinative influence with us. After the Lord has instituted the supper of remembrance, He immediately adds, “But, behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” The force of this definite statement is met at once by some who assert that Luke does not give us things in historic, but in moral order. Certainly there is a measure of truth in this, though it can not mean that the historic order in some detailed account by Luke is never to be followed, but only has weight when Luke gives us an order of events (as he does, e.g., in the last journey to Jerusalem) which seems to clash with the other Gospels. But what moral order is concerned in such a statement as that of our Lord? (Luke 22:21)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:21). It would seem to be going out of the way to introduce confusion, rather than moral order, unless we are to take it literally. If Matthew and Mark had clearly stated that Judas had left before the supper was instituted, then such an argument might have force, and Luke’s testimony be discounted. John 13" TARGET="_blank">John 13 does not seem really to help us, as there is no hint that Judas went out before the first “breaking of the bread,” for nothing is said of it. He did go out when the Lord had given him the sop and that was, I believe, after he had par- taken to his own condemnation of the bread and the wine, symbols of that very body and blood, of which by his betrayal he became guilty.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site