Where did the idea of a "gap" between the first two verses of Genesis 1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1 originate?

Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University first proposed the Gap Theory in 1814. By inserting a chronological gap between the first two verses of the Bible, Chalmers felt that he could make room for the vast ages demanded by the geologists of his day, yet still maintain a literal interpretation of the Scripture. This view, now called the Gap Theory, asserts that the account beginning at Genesis 1:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:2 describes a re-creation, not the original creation. George Pember widely disseminated Chalmer's Gap Theory, with some embellishments, in his book "Earth's Earliest Ages" (first edition, 1876). Pember believed that Genesis 1:1" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 1:1 described an original creation, which included a race of pre-Adamic men and a world of prehistoric animals. He taught that God destroyed this primeval creation when Lucifer fell. A footnote in the Scofield Reference Bible (first edition, 1917) enormously popularized the Gap Theory in the English speaking world. It is only fair to add that many able and godly teachers among us men deserving of deepest respect - hold this view.

D. Vallance
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the "house of God" refer to those under the influence of the church?

THE HOUSE OF GOD

Do you think that the House of God is regarded in Scripture as “the place of profession,” as is sometimes taught? That is, the "profession" of one who is not saved, but is a part of church culture.

A good deal is taught on this subject, which we do well to test by the Word of God. It is sometime erroneously taught that the House of God is the place of Christian profession, and that God recognises this as a “third something” between the true Church and the world. What is known as Household-Baptism, for instance, thus seeks to justify the baptism of children and unconverted household servants. These are brought, they assert, into the House of God—they are “in the ambit of the Church of God,” as the strange expression goes. They are there on the ground of profession; but what profession can infants make? And if unconverted persons make any, it can only be false. That man has made a mixed thing of it by carelessness in reception, or by neglect of Scriptural discipline, is sadly true; but to make out that God is responsible for, or connives at such a state of things is indeed serious.

Now, the expression “House of God” refers in the Old Testament, if we except Genesus 28:17, 22, where Jacob uses the expression in a figurative sense, to the Tabernacle or to the Temple, and though uncleanness and even idols (2 Chronicles 33: 7)" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33: 7) might invade that House, they never formed part of it, and at every revival were drastically removed and cleansed away (e.g., 2 Chronicles 24:13;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 24:13; 2 Chronicles 29:16;" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 29:16; 2 Chronicles 33:15)." TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 33:15).

Paul in writing to Timothy speaks of his knowing “how to behave himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” This is the local aspect—the Church of God, viewed as the place of responsibility. Undesirable elements did incorporate themselves, alas too easily, in the local “house” (see Jude), but though the condition was detected, it was not approved of. Ecciesiastics justify the sad lack of discipline in their organisations by the parable of the tares and the wheat—”Let both grow together until the harvest”—but they seem to forget that “the field is the world,” not the church. Undesirable visitors, thieves, and such-like, may find entrance into a house, but it is contrary to the desire of the head of the house, and they form no part of the household and must be removed as soon as detected. In Hebrews we read, “But Christ as a Son over His own house: whose house are we, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:6)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:6), that is, those who continue in the way prove themselves to be the House of God, the rest have no part in it.

It is indeed a blessed privilege of the people of God no longer to be “strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:19). And this is His purpose in gathering saints to Christ —“To whom coming as unto a Living Stone. . . chosen of God and precious; Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:4," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:4, ). “Ye are God’s building.. . ye are the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:9, 16)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:9, 16). When the apostle speaks of the “House of God,” does he then view it as possibly or even probably including “false brethren crept in unawares,” or ideally? I believe the latter, for whatever is not God’s building is an extraneous element to be purged out. For instance, in Hebrews 10:21," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:21, Christ is presented as “High Priest over the house of God”—surely He is not the High Priest of false worshippers—trespassers in that house. Again, Peter reminds us that “judgment must first begin at the house of God.” Has he in view the heterogeneous company, that some seem to see almost exclusively, in the place of profession—a mixture of believers and unbelievers, because they all profess and call themselves Christians? I think the context shows rather that the true House of God is in view—contrasted with those that “obey not the gospel of God,” and paralleled in the following verse with the righteous—”If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Peter 4:17, 18)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 4:17, 18). Where is there room in this verse for a third something, neither righteous nor ungodly, but “professors.” The original from which this quotation is taken bears this out: “Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; much more the wicked and the sinner” (Proverbs 2:31)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 2:31).

These latter, including false professors, will be recompensed not now, but in the future. But someone will say, “Does not Paul speak of ‘the great house of Christendom’ in his Second Epistle to Timothy?” Certainly not in so many words, though such a form of words has been dogmatically attributed to his writings. What he does say, I believe parenthetically, is, “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour” (chap. 2. 20). This passage and the ‘parable of the tares seem to be the sheet anchors of ecclesiastics to justify their mixed systems. To them “the great house” is “the Church” in their broad sense of a great ecclesiastical, christened organisation, reciting the apostles’ creed and practising “the sacraments.”

Others, as we have seen, understand Paul to mean “the great house of Christendom,” though I believe such an idea springs from a misreading of the passage. I submit again that verse zo is in the nature of a parenthesis, explaining the use the apostle is about to make of the term, “vessel unto honour” in verse 21. “In a great house” (that is in any great house in Rome, where he was in prison, or in Ephesus, where Timothy is supposed to have been), there are vessels of various materials and of varied uses. At this point the apostle resumes his exhortation, “If a man purge himself from these”—the evil things and men above referred to—he shall be something corresponding to the literal material vessels of gold and silver of any great house, namely a spiritual vessel unto honour in the House of God, “sanctified and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”

One does not wish to dogmatise, but I would ask my readers, who desire to be still subject to the Word of God, apart from the glamour of great names, carefully to weigh above with the Scriptures.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is

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.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

What is the Bible’s teaching regarding this subject?

Some assert the Bible merely condemns such behavior outside a "committed relationship" (compare Gen. 19:5;" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 19:5; Jdg. 19:22)." TARGET="_blank">Jdg. 19:22). Because the word "abomination" is linked with idolatry, some maintain the clear statements regarding this behavior (Lev. 18:22; 20:13)" TARGET="_blank">Lev. 18:22; 20:13) only legislate against idolatrous immorality, not the behavior per se. The context of both these Leviticus passages is wider than idolatry and involves any behavior that violates the sanctity of marriage (see the 7th commandment). Calling them an abomination shows how detestable such acts are to God (compare 1 Sam 15:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Sam 15:23).

Paul’s three references on the subject (Rom 1:23-27;" TARGET="_blank">Rom 1:23-27; 1 Cor 6: 9;" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 6: 9; 1 Tim 1:10)" TARGET="_blank">1 Tim 1:10) are crucial. In Romans, Paul addresses male with male and female with female relations. Both are against nature, violating God’s purpose in creation; they epitomize moral degradation. In First Corinthians, the words "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are relevant to the subject and express behavior foreign to Christian standards: "such were some of you." The first two terms of First Timothy chapter 1, verse 10 include every form of homosexuality and violate God’s moral law (v. 9). Such acts are sinful.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

When an unmarried, cohabiting couple is saved, what advice should they receive regarding marriage?

When an unmarried, cohabiting couple is saved, what advice should they receive regarding marriage?

The Spirit of God has likely convicted them about their relationship before salvation. Nonetheless, depending on the personalities involved, this is a delicate issue. There can be no compromise on the sanctity of marriage (Hebrews 13:4)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:4). No matter how long this relationship has existed or how much a couple may say they love each other, cohabiting apart from marriage is sin.

To continue this is a bad testimony. It leaves a weakened conscience and limits spiritual growth. It dishonors the God who designed marriage.

If the new believers raise the question, a scriptural answer will leave no doubt that they should live separately and resist temptation by not staying under the same roof. If the new believers do not break their relationship and don’t ask advice, the person or persons who have had the most to do with their salvation will best understand their personality, will know the best way to approach them, and should give them scriptural reasons for ending their relationship.

Living apart will give the couple an opportunity to begin building their relationship on something more stable than a physical relationship. At this point, they should confront the question of whether or not they are prepared to make the life-long commitment marriage involves. For others to assume that they will marry is unwise and unfair. If they decide to marry, they should allow adequate time for building a solid Christian foundation for their relationship before marrying.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did Aaron wear a mitre?

What is the typical significance of Aarons mitre and the bonnets of his sons (Leviticus 8:9, 13)" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 8:9, 13)?

Although the Lord is a priest after the order of Melchisedec (Heb. 5:6)," TARGET="_blank">Heb. 5:6), Aarons priesthood was typical of Christs (2:17). The mitre on Israels priest was of linen, the same material as his breeches and coat (Exodus 39:27)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 39:27). Although some have suggested that Aarons mitre portrays subjection, it may be better to see in it a complete righteousness in our representative as he appears before the presence of God for us (Hebrews 9:24)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:24). His head, controlling His body, also speaks of wisdom. The One in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom (Colossians 2:3)" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:3) exercises that wisdom on our behalf, consistent with perfect righteous. The "beauty of holiness" is seen from head to foot in the priest.

The bonnets of Aarons son are of the same material as Aarons mitre, but are distinguishable. Because his sons are related to him, they have this same righteousness "garment" as they move in Gods holy place. Perhaps this suggests that, although there is a difference between us and our representative, yet we have a link with him and therefore enjoy complete acceptance in Gods presence. Appearing for us in Gods presence is what Christ is essentially, but the complete favor that rests on us is conferred on us because of him.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Who recognizes overseers in a new assembly?

Who recognizes overseers in a new assembly?

Titus identified (Titus 1:5," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:5, "ordain," appoint, designate) elders in assemblies where no oversight existed. The authority for this came from the Word of God, not apostolic authority. He was dependent on God for the wisdom required. To preserve each assembly, Titus used the inspired guidelines from Paul to point out overseers the Spirit produced. Each assembly recognized these men as elders.

God used experienced hands to plant the assemblies whose history appears in the New Testament, so the pattern seems clear. Where God uses men in making disciples (Matthew 28:19)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19), those men also teach assembly truth. They discern when God has formed an assembly with these believers. Later, as with Titus, they identify those who exhibit maturing characteristics of a shepherd. Heeding Proverbs 15:22," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 15:22, they receive counsel from spiritually mature men. In light of 1 Timothy 3:6," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:6, they wait for appropriate evidences of spiritual maturity in potential elders.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why does the Lord Jesus emphasize the title "Son of Man"?

Why does the Lord Jesus emphasize this title?

In the Gospels, the Lord refers to Himself as the Son of Man on 53 occasions. In all but one of these, the words could be translated literally "the Son of the Man," a form only used of Christ in the Scriptures. On the other occasion, the form is "Son of Man," the same construction used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament on every occasion "son of man" appears. To give some perspective, in the gospel records the Lord referred to Himself as "the Christ" on eight occasions. He referred to Himself as Lord on ten occasions. We have five recorded incidents when He stated He is the Son of God.

But why this emphasis? In Daniel’s prophecy (7:13), at least three truths are related to the Son of Man: His authority, His coming, His rejection. In contrast to others whose dominion would be taken from them, the Son of Man receives authority that will never pass away (v 14). His coming is with the clouds of heaven (v 13). That His rejection precedes His coming is evident in linking two other Old Testament passages with this prophecy. He is a man Who comes from heaven. This is parallel to the teaching of Psalm 110" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 110 (verses 1-3), where the coming ruler has enemies and his own people are unwilling for Him to reign over them while He is sitting at God’s right hand. Add to that verse 17 of Psalm 80," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 80, which appears to be messianic and links "the Man of Thy right hand" (His ascension) with "the Son of Man."

In at least seven of the recorded 53 occasions, He emphasizes His authority: over the Sabbath, the forgiveness of sins, all judgment, and entrance to the kingdom. Comparing Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8 (v 4) and Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2 (vv 6-9), we conclude that the dominion over all the works of God’s hands was lost by Adam, the son of man, and now belongs to Jesus, the Son of Man, although all things are not yet put under to Him.

On at least 17 of these 53 occasions, the Lord is referring to His coming again - and always His coming to earth. He is anticipating His coming glory.

At least 26 of the occasions when He calls Himself the Son of Man, the Lord is emphasizing His rejection - including His death, burial, resurrection, or ascension. This is then a predominant thought associated with His title as the Son of Man.

As in Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8 and various other passages, the term "son" does not always refer to physical generation, but refers rather to character (e. g., sons of Belial; see also Eph 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Eph 2:2 JND and Mat 23:31," TARGET="_blank">Mat 23:31, JND). The Son of Man embodies all that God ever intended a man to be.

His reasons for using this title so often, then, may be to emphasize His messiahship, coming glory, rejection, authority, and perfection, showing that He was both like, yet distinct from, every other man.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is Eternal Punishment a Biblical idea?

Is belief in eternal punishment an archaic remnant of an outdated theology or is it both a doctrine of Scripture and a consequence of the character of God?

The Bible teaches eternal punishment.

1. The Test of Truth
A subject may be believed or disbelieved depending on factors which actually have no bearing on its truth or falsehood. If I say that the test of truth is the measure in which I feel comfortable in believing it, I am not really using logic, but subjective emotions. There is so very much in our tragic world about which we are most uncomfortable, so much that does "not seem right," and yet, we dare not reject reality because it pains us. Cancer, heart disease, child abuse, drug addiction, Aids, rape, hunger and murder have never produced a comfortable thought in our minds, yet they exist. Eternal punishment is not grasped by feeble sense and can never be comfortably believed. We must always make a difference between what is against reason and what is beyond it. Hell is as real as Heaven, because the Lord Jesus taught its reality as clearly as He taught that Heaven was the place from which He came to earth (John 3:13;" TARGET="_blank">John 3:13; John 16:26)." TARGET="_blank">John 16:26).

2. The Warnings Prove God's Tender Mercy
One of the greatest proofs of the love and mercy of God is His faithful warnings of coming judgment. There is a voice that comes down the corridor of time, warning of those who will "be cast into everlasting fire" (Matthew 18:8)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:8) and giving testimony to a place where "the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:48). It is the voice of the tender Savior who asked the Pharisees and scribes, "How can ye escape the damnation of hell (geenna)?" (Matthew 23:33)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 23:33), and then wept over them (v.37). His warnings are not only "true and faithful" (Revelation 3:14)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3:14), but are tender and timely, for we all are travelers to eternity, and we dare not trifle with it. Obscure teaching on this subject, or half-hearted warnings are not kindness, but cruelty. It is the same kind of cruelty that would allow a child to drink deadly poison when it was in my power to stop it, or see a blind man stepping off a precipice to his death when I could have warned him. What if those who soften this teaching are wrong? The consequences are eternal loss, an irreversible mistake, a shock from which no victim will recover.

It is a great error to suppose that if a thing is true, I must be able to fully comprehend it, for our minds are not the court of final appeal. There are many things in the physical universe beyond the range of our personal experience, and therefore beyond our full comprehension. In the spiritual realm, the holy character of God transcends our highest thought, nor do we comprehend the infinite sufferings of our Savior upon the cross. We will never find in ourselves an untroubled acceptance of the horrors of eternal punishment, but its reality is not based on our feelings, but on the words of the One who was "declared to be the Son of God ... by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:4). We acknowledge His authority as our Lord; He said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:35), and we believe Him.

3. God is Good
Many times Christians have heard an unbeliever ask, "How can a God who is good send people to hell?" or "Would a good man put any of his children into a place of eternal fire?" Human goodness and "the goodness of God" are scarcely comparable. Even God's goodness is holy and just, but the best of human goodness is "as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 64:6). However, it is not "the goodness of God" that puts anyone in hell, and most certainly God will never put any of His children in eternal fire. Those who perish forever have rejected "the good news" of the gospel. The "goodness" of God was fully displayed in the giving of His Son and in the infinite sufferings of Golgotha's darkness. Even at the cross, it can be said, "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God" (Romans 11:22)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 11:22). For those who crucified Him the Savior prayed, "Father forgive them..." (Luke 23:34)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 23:34). Surely this was "the goodness of God", but upon the holy Sufferer fell unmitigated judgment. For those who reject God's goodness and His mercy which flow through one channel - the cross, there can only remain "His severity."

4. The Meaning of Everlasting
In the Greek New Testament, "for ever and ever" is a translation of five words that literally mean "unto the ages of the ages". Some have claimed that this is a finite length of time, therefore the fire is not eternal. If a student of Greek wished to translate "for ever and ever" into Greek, he would have to use the same words that are used in the NT, because the language has no other choices. But, there is a far stronger argument against making "for ever and ever" a limited period. This exact phrase is used 21 times in the NT. Eighteen times it refers to God's eternal throne, His everlasting praise and His "glory for ever and ever." Three times the same phrase is used to describe eternal punishment. It must mean the same thing in the second case as it does in the first unless there is contextual evidence for believing otherwise, and there is not. The third major point in this debate hat the Lord Jesus said on at least's three occasions that "the fire never shall be quenched" and we know of no way to circumvent "never".
Two other words in the NT are translated "eternal" (aionios) and "everlasting" (aidios). W.E. Vine quotes Cremer, "While aionios negatives the end either of a space of time or of unmeasured time, and is used chiefly where something future is spoken of; aidios excludes interruption and lays stress upon permanence and unchangeableness". Aionios is used in such verses as "shall inherit eternal life" (Matt 19:29)" TARGET="_blank">Matt 19:29) and "Depart from Me ye cursed into everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41). In Romans 1:20," TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:20, aidios is used of God's "eternal power". It is impossible to make a difference in the meaning of these words whether they refer to the Eternal God or the eternally lost.

In Jude 1:7," TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:7, aionios is used of "eternal fire", but this verse does not say, "They suffered," but they are "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." In Revelation 20:10," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 20:10, two men that have been in "the lake of fire" are still there after 1000 years.

5. Universalism
The doctrine of universalism, that all men will eventually be saved, has a great appeal. It takes various forms. Some believe that after a period of purgation, what the blood of Christ could not accomplish will be done by the purging fire. Purification by fire is Paganism. The Scripture appealed to as proof is, "By which (the Spirit) also He (Christ) went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:19). This preaching was not in hell, but was "when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing." It was by the Spirit of Christ that Noah preached (Genesis 6:3)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:3). We must never interpret a difficult verse in contradiction of plain verses. When the door is shut the Lord will say, "Depart from Me ye cursed into everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:41).

6. Annihilation
This theory has several forms. Some believe that in the day of judgment the wicked will be annihilated, and others believe that after a period of conscious punishment, they will be annihilated. The Scriptures appealed to are those which speak of the wicked being "destroyed" and "perishing", and both qeber and sheol in the OT, as well as hades in the NT are said to be only the grave, which is impossible in the light of the Lord's teaching in Luke 16:19-31." TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:19-31. If Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16 is a parable, what is its meaning? The words "destroy" and "perish" are found about 92 times in NT and 80 of these times it is the translation of apolummi (to utterly destroy). We must ask, "Does apolummi mean the end of being or the end of well-being?" The Lord Jesus used it of the end of well-being in Luke 5:37;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 5:37; Luke 15:46;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 15:46; Luke 15:24." TARGET="_blank">Luke 15:24. In His teaching, it is synonymous with the eternal, conscious suffering of the lost.
There is no repentance after death, so those upon whom God's wrath will fall will blame God forever for their pains (Revelation 16:11)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 16:11).
To all of this, the humble believer responds, "The Savior who suffered for my sins on the cross and in triumph arose from the dead is my Lord. He said that the fire never shall be quenched and I believe Him."