Creation - A series of ten messages by Norman Crawford on what the Bible says about the origins of the earth.  In the series, Mr. Crawford examines the definitions of "science", assumptions about uniformity, the basis of faith, the Gap Theory, fossile dating.  This series was taped at a weekend conference in Canda.

• About this site

How to Build a Learning Unit

• 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

Karen Hoy

• About this site

The Moral Glories of Our Lord

• About this site

Fernando Medina

• About this site

Help will be valued upon Genesis 4:4, 5," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4:4, 5, where we read that God had “respect” to Abel and his offering and not to Cain and his, and Romans 2:11," TARGET="_blank">Romans 2:11, where it is said that there is “no respect of persons with God.”

We can be quite sure that this latter verse is ever and absolutely true. The Greek word, “to have respect of persons,” means, “to receive the face of a person,” i.e. to look at the outward appearance—at the gold ring and the gay clothing, at the feature and the stature, etc., whereas we know that “God looks, not at the outward appearance, but at the heart.” When, therefore, we read that God had respect to Abel and his offering, we must divest ourselves of any idea of favouritism or unfair preference on His part. In fact, the Hebrew word in Genesis 4," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 4, “to have respect,” has no thought of respect of persons, but of looking to someone, or something. The word is used in Psalm 119:117" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 119:117—”I will have respect unto thy statutes continually”; again in 2 Samuel 22:42" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 22:42—”They looked but there was none to save,” and also in Isaiah 17:7" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 17:7—”In that day shall a man look to his Maker.” We may be sure that had it been righteously possible, God would have accepted Cain as well as Abel. The key to the verse is in Hebrews 11:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:4—”By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain . . . God testifying of his gifts.” It was not that Abel was “more excellent” than Cain, though very likely he was, but that his sacrifice was more excellent; so that God simply had respect to Abel because of his sacrifice. The expression, “by faith,” shows, I think, conclusively that God had revealed how his creatures were to approach him, “for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” No doubt, Cain’s sacrifice was beautiful enough, but it was Cain’s way, not God’s. It was merely the work of his hands-of the same vegetable kingdom as the fig-leaves of which Adam and Eve had made themselves aprons. Abel offered from the first-fruits of  the flock and of the fat thereof, i.e. the slain lamb. In Abel’s offering there were two things : there was something which spoke of his repentance, it was as though he admitted that he deserved the death of the victim; and there was something, too, which spoke of the lamb of God, without blemish, slain before the foundation of the world. How far Abel apprehended the truth we cannot say; he obeyed and allwas known to God. We are blessed according to His appreciation of the infinite Person and work of Christ, not according to ours, which, however, does determine our enjoyment of our blessings.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE ATONEMENT
It has been stated that Atonement is an Old Testament truth, which has no place in the New Testament, Is this so?

I am surprised that any Christian “apt to teach,” should make such a statement. Perhaps it is owing to the fact that in the one place in our King James Version, where the word “atonement” occurs, it ought to be “reconciliation”: “By Whom we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:11). This however, does not prove that the truth of atonement is not expressed in other passages of the New Testament, under a different form of words, for which “atone” or “atonement” might be correctly substituted.

The fact is that the atonement of the Old Testament is only a shadow of the truth, and that if we had not the substantial, divine thing in the New Testament, we could not have the shadow in the Old. The Hebrew word for atonement constantly occurring in the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus is the root, “Kaphar,” which primarily means “to cover,” then by a simple transition, it gets to mean that by which alone God can righteously cover sin—namely by full satisfaction being offered to His holy claims, or in other words, by atonement. The word, “atone,” has long since lost its philological, or derived, meaning of “at-one,” for that by which God and the sinner can be “at-one”—the atoning work of Calvary.

This root,”Kaphar,” also occurs in the substantival form,”Kapporeth” (mercy-seat)—the place where the blood of atonement was sprinkled, therefore, one would suggest, better translated the “atonement-seat.” The verb is sometimes translated in our version—”make reconciliation” (e.g. Ezekiel 45: 15, 17;" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 45: 15, 17; Daniel 9: 24)," TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9: 24), “purge” (Psalm  79:9), “pacify” (Proverbs 16: 14)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 16: 14), “appease”—”I will appease him (Esau) with the present” (Genesis 32:20)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 32:20), but in the vast majority of occurrences “atone” or “make atonement.” What then, we may enquire, is the Hellenistic Greek equivalent used in the Septuagint? In nearly every case, “exilaskomai,” or in a few cases simply, “hilaskomai”—which is, we see, the same verb without the preposition “ek”—denoting here “entirely,” “perfectly”—though we need not press this, as “hilaskomai” means practically the same thing, for atonement, if of any value, must be complete. Turning to the New Testament, we find this same root (hilaskomai) employed (and N.T. Greek is much the same as found in the Septuagint) in six passages: In the publican’s prayer we read, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18: 13," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13, lit, be propitiated). As the publican was standing in the temple area—”afar off,” i.e., probably outside and in full view of the altar of burnt offering, we can see no reason to assert, as Alford does, that the publican could not have had any idea of the ground of his acceptance—though he would naturally not know what the lamb prefigured.

Then in Romans 3" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3: 25 and Hebrews 9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9: 5 there occurs the substantival form—”mercy-seat.” In Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2: 17 we have, “A merciful and faithful high priest.. . to make reconciliation for the sins of the people”; and finally in 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2: 2 and 1 John 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:10  the translation is, “propitiation for our sins.” I think it is clear and reasonable that we have in these passages the sense of atonement, applied, except in the case of Hebrews 9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9: 5 and Luke 18: 13," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13, directly to the work of Christ, as the ground on which God can come out to man in grace and the gospel be preached to every creature.

W.H.

• About this site

Hebrews 10:12" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:12  But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

• CE stands for "Common Era”  “Common” means that convention states we use the Christian dates to measure years.  
• BCE stands for "Before the common era."

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is preaching the same as prophesying?

I presume the questioner is referring not so much to prophesying in the sense of foretelling, as to prophesying as forth-telling. Certainly foretelling the future was not exactly preaching. Forthtelling was a distinct gift in the primitive Church, enabling those who possessed it to communicate direct revelations from God. It was one of the sign- gifts, and was necessary to the Church in the absence of the complete Canon of Scripture. It was a miraculous gift, and was a sign to believers (see 1 Corinthians 14:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:22). “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (verse 3).

Apostles and prophets were foundation gifts and exist no longer to-day, except in their work in the Holy Scriptures, which they were used to give us. Preaching is a very broad term. Probably the man who prophesied preached, but to-day the term is applied to delivering an address to believers or to proclaiming the Gospel. We have the gifts of evangelist, pastor and teacher with us still, but neither of them is to be confounded with this gift of prophecy.

W.H.

• About this site

Is it correct to say that the Old Testament saints had the Gospel preached to them as we know it?

(see Galatians 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:8).

Did Abraham know when he offered up Isaac, that his son was a type of the Son of God? or did Isaiah know when speaking of the sufferings of Christ, that He was the Son of God? or again, did Job know that his Redeemer was the Son of God?

It is not possible, it seems to me, for anyone to search the hearts and understandings of these Old Testament saints, and define the exact extent of their spiritual apprehension of the Person of whom they spake. Spiritual truths are spiritually apprehended.

Certainly the Gospel preached to Abraham was not the Good News as we know it, but it contained it, for its promise of salvation was alone through Christ. Probably the apprehension of Patriarchs and Prophets was much greater than we might naturally suppose. For instance, would it not be difficult to define the limitations of our Lord’s words in John 8:56" TARGET="_blank">John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This seems to refer to a special occasion, as the verbs are all in the aorist and speak of a point of time in the past, probably to the great deliverance on Mount Moriah. Abraham might have called the name of the place “Jehovah-rahah”__the Lord has provided, had he thought all was over. Evidently he perceived that what had just taken place was the figure of a greater deliverance and so he called it “JehovahJireh”—the Lord will provide. Whether Isaiah and the prophets knew that the Messiah about whom they wrote was to be actually the Son of God, it seems profitless to enquire. They knew they were inspired by the Spirit of Christ testifying in them, and that they were speaking for us, concerning “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” (1 Peter 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:11). Their difficulty was not to know of whom they spake, but of what manner of time. As for Job’s wonderful words, “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” he would be a bold man (which boldness I neither share nor desire to share), who would undertake to limit this prophecy. It seems to me that in these words God gave His tried servant to understand a bit of “Romans” truth—”My Redeemer”; a bit of “Corinthian” truth —“He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth”; a bit of “Thessalonian” truth—”In My flesh I shall see God”; a bit of “Colossian” truth—”My Redeemer is God”; and a bit of “Timothy” truth—”I know.”

W.H.

• About this site