• About this site

"Take the Challenge"

• About this site

 The Person of Christ is a work by various authors about the most precious subject in all the scriptures - God's Son, Jesus Christ.  Some subjects include the Perfect Servant, the Eternal Sonship of Christ, the Incarnation of Christ, the Deity of Christ, the Impeccability of Christ, His Pre-existance, His Moral Glories, the Atonement  Work and others.

• About this site

• About this site

 Marriage and the Family - Dr. Sandy Higgins explores the roles of parents, raising children, abortion, courtship, the Basis of Christian Living in the Home, God's Pattern Under Pressure, Heartbroken Homes, Being Single, Failing Fathers and other topics from the Bible's point of view.

• 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

• About this site

When did the 2,300 days in Daniel 8:14" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 8:14 commence and end?

What sanctuary was to be cleansed at the end of that period?

No doubt, all questions concerning what it has pleased God to reveal to us, have their importance, and so with these, but they gain a certain fictitious importance, whether the questioner knows it or not, owing to the use or rather misuse made of the above passage by the so-called Seventh-day Adventists, to build up their arbitrary and altogether unscriptural system of interpretation, which nullifies the atoning work of Christ in its present application to the believer, and justification by faith alone. The originator of the system was a certain W. Miller, who foretold the return of the Lord to the earth on a certain day in 1844. His followers in white garments were expecting the event on that day. When it failed to realise, Miller was himself rid of his idea and confessed his error, and the whole system would have collapsed had not one of Miller’s adepts, a certain Mrs. Ellen ‘White imagined a way of escape to account for the evident failure of Miller’s prophecy. A mistake had been made, she affirmed: the Lord had come, not to earth, however, but to the most holy place of the sanctuary in heaven to complete, (!) the work of atonement. He had till then (i.e., up to 1844) been “pleading in the first apartment” of the sanctuary on behalf of penitent believers, and thus securing their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. So that, according to this heory, the sins of believers, though pardoned, still remained upon the books of record, and are supposed to be constantly defiling the heavenly sanctuary. Could anyone imagine a more arbitrary, selfc9ntradictory, or unscriptural system? It rejects the efficacy of His blood to cleanse from all sin. It denies that God has not only forgiven, but has also blotted out His people’s sins from the book of His renembrance—”Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no møre.” The whole theory of “the sanctuary” being in heaven, and that ou Lord was up to 1844 in the “first apartment” of it, is pure imagination, In any case, “the veil was rent at the cross from the top to the bottom”, so that since then, the sanctuary could be no more divided into two apartments, that is, into Holy Place and Holy of Holies. Moreover,, Heb. 8." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 8. i and 9. a. tell us that the place of our Lord’s priestly work is where He is now and has been since His ascension—”on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”; “in heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us.” That was true when “Hebrews” was written, and there is not a line to prove that any other entrance into any other part of the heavenly sanctuary was ever contemplated or took place, still less that such an event would occur in 1844. I believe the prophecy of Daniel does not deal directly with the church at all, but with God’s earthly people, Israel. The sanctuary that is spoken of in chap. 8. 13-14 is the literal sanctuary of the temple at Jerusalem, and “the 2,300 days” are, in fact, days, not years. This passage ought to be read with chap. 9. 27, where we see that the period in question is the last “week” or period of seven years, of the 70 weeks of years (lit. Heb., “seven of sevens”*), during which the covenant will be made between the Man of Sin, the last governmental head of the revived Roman Empire, who is called in Daniel 9:26" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:26 “the Prince that shall come”, and the last false King of Israel, the Antichrist. This covenant will be broken in the midst of the week (v. 27), that is after 3 years: the daily sacrifice will be taken away and the Sanctuary of the Temple will in some way be defiled (see Daniel 11:31)" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 11:31) by what is called “the abomination of desolation”, or in more usual language, the image of the beast set up in it, “standing in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:15). It is this vile image which will defile the sanctuary, and it will only be cleansed at the coming of the Lord at the end of the 2,300 days. Seven prophetic years is a period of 2,520 days, so that the time will be 220 days, or a little more than 7 months, short of this. This may be accounted for by God’s shortening of the days of persecution by the two Beasts for the elect’s sake, according to Matt. 24. 22." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 24. 22. There are those who fancy that Seventh-day Adventism is a more or less harmless system taken up with perhaps strange views on the Coming of the Lord. It is a deadly heretical  system which denies the fundamentals of the faith, nullifies the atone-, ment, attributes a sinful nature to our Holy Lord, makes Satan the ultimate bearer of Christians’ sins, and insists on his final annihilation and that of all the wicked dead. W.H.

* This is not the same as the day-year theory that every day can be taken for a year, because
the siord for “week” ia period of “seven”, it may b days, weeks or years.

• About this site

• About this site

Joshua 7:21." TARGET="_blank">Joshua 7:21. What would the “Babylonish garment and two hundred shekels of silver and the wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight” represent? What is the teaching in this verse?

I think they would stand for what most attracts the eye and fills the heart of the natural man; for what is more desirable to the flesh than fine clothes to deck oneself withal, and gold and silver, which will purchase “everything except peace of mind, and entrance anywhere except to heaven”! “Babylonish garment” is literally “a garment of Shinar,” the locality where Babylon was built, renowned, it is said, for its beautiful robes. The word for “garment,” is from a root meaning, “wide,” hence an ample covering, a cloak. It is used of Elijah’s mantle and also of the royal robe the King of Nineveh doffed in sign of repentance (Jonah 3: 6)." TARGET="_blank">Jonah 3: 6). Gesenius says these “cloaks of Shinar” were “variegated with figures, or interwoven with various colours, having the figures of men and beasts,” reminding one of the great copes worn by ecclesiastics to-day at their religious ceremonials—true “cloaks of Shinar” those! Let all see to it, lest fine clothes, ministering to the pride of life, or silver and gold, ministering to its “many foolish and hurtful lusts,” occupy our hearts! “But thou, 0 man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

FORGIVENESS
Is there to be forgiveness without acknowledgment of wrong?

There are various categories of forgiveness in the Scriptures, which must be distinguished—God’s forgiveness of sinners; the Father’s forgiveness of His children; ecclesiastical forgiveness; and personal forgiveness.

As to the first named, though it is a mistake to apply to the conversion of the sinner, the words of 1 John 1:9" TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, etc.,” which have to do directly with God’s children, yet it may be confidently affirmed that no sinner ever received divine forgiveness without acknowledgment of sin in one form or another, tacit or explicit, leading on to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, when revealed. But here it is not so much a confession of particular sins, as of sinnership—”God be merciful to me a sinner.” This corresponds with “repentance unto life,” the result of the Holy Spirit’s work in conviction, without which there can be no true conversion to God.

In the case of the Father’s forgiveness to His erring children, it is conditional on confession of sins; then “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It is perfectly true that God’s forgiveness has already covered the sins in question, but His forgiveness as Father is needed, if communion with Him is to be restored. The confession should be real and full, and at once forgiveness and cleansing follow, though not often realised to the full at once. David was forgiven the instant he confessed his sin in the presence of Nathan, but later he wrote the 51st Psalm. This may correspond to the application of “the water of separation” on the third and seventh days (Numbers 19: 12, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 19: 12, 19).

As for ecclesiastical forgiveness, this is that which is referred to in Matthew 18:18" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23" TARGET="_blank">John 20:23—the “binding or loosing,” the remitting or retaining, of sins, not by ecclesiastical officials, the pretended priests of Christendom, but by the local church. Nothing is said in these passages of the condition attaching to the forgiveness, but the case that arose in the Corinthian Church (see chap. . i), throws light on this, for in the second epistle, the restoration of the offender is recommended by the apostle on the ground of his repentance—”lest perhaps such an one should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow”—and if they forgive him, he (Paul) will forgive also (2 Corinthians 2: 7-10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 2: 7-10). Paul does not appeal to some leaders in the Corinthian Church, but to the Church as a whole. This ecclesiastical forgiveness has been perverted into what is known as auricular confession, and priestly absolution, things, as we believe, totally foreign to the New Testament and Christianity. As for individual forgiveness, there should be from the first a forgiving spirit on the part of the offended person; he must not bear a grudge or count the offender as an enemy, but be ready to forgive (Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18: 15, 21, 22), but he must not express his forgiveness until the offence is acknowledged. To do so would be a subtle way of putting your opponent in the wrong, and be an insult rather than a favour. “If thy brother tresspass against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him” (Luke 17:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 17:3, 4).

William Hoste

• About this site

THE TERM “JEW”

When and how did the name “Jew” originate, and to whom does it apply to-day?

The word is an abbreviation of “Judan” and occurs first in 2 Kings 16:6," TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 16:6, where we read that “Rezin recovered Elath and drave the Jews” thence. A reference back to 2 Kings 14: 21 tells how Azariah, made King by “the people of Judah,” had smitten Elath and restored it to Judah, which shows that Jews and people of Judah are synonymous terms and represented the Southern Kingdom, after the separation of the ten tribes under Jeroboam. After the Captivity, those who returned though no doubt including Levites, Benjamites and representatives of other tribes, were all known as Jews, the Judans being predominant (see Ezra 4:12;" TARGET="_blank">Ezra 4:12; Nehemiah 1:2;" TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 1:2; Nehemiah 4:2)." TARGET="_blank">Nehemiah 4:2).

Only twice in the Synoptic Gospels do we find the word (Matthew 28:15;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:15;  Mark 7:3)," TARGET="_blank">Mark 7:3), if we except a few occurrences of the phrase, “King of the Jews,” but the name is common in John and the Acts. I believe it is a great mistake to meet the British Israel “hypothesis” (which I believe for many reasons, historical and scriptural, to be a complete delusion), by denying any difference between “the lost tribes of Israel” as they are usually and properly termed, and the scattered Jews. Certainly many Israelites had lapsed to the Southern Kingdom, before their captivity by Assyria, under Sargon, but in spite of this the Northern Kingdom of Israel was able to withstand a three years’ siege from the greatest of the then world-powers. We are distinctly told that they were taken captive, except a feeble remnant, and placed “in Halah and Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.”

Considering that these places were far-removed geographically from Babylon, at a distance of 300 or 400 miles to the north, and that the captivity of Israel took place in 721 B.C., that is a century-and-a-quarter before that of Jehoiachin, it is very unlikely that the two captivities mingled or even came in contact. When a thing is lost it is not a bad idea to seek for it as near where it was lost as possible, and probably the representatives of the lost tribes may still exist in or near those parts.

The difference between Judah and the ten tribes of Israel is preserved in the accounts of the final return to the land, e.g., in Isa. ii. Ia, we read of “the outcasts of Israel” and “the dispersed of Judah.” See also Isaiah 27:13;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 27:13; Zepheniah 3:19, and especially Ezekiel 37:16-22," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 37:16-22, where God commands prophetically the two sticks to be taken, one “for Judah and the children of Israel his cQmpanions” (representing those individual members of the ten tribes who had lapsed to Judah and are confused sometimes with those tribes themselves), and the other “For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions” (i.e., the lost tribes). To meet this British-Israel delusion with a defective argument is to strengthen it, for its advocates will surely take notice of it, though they usually leave the sound arguments, which abound against their theory, severely alone.

W.H.

• About this site