James Dyck

• About this site

Dale Robbins

• About this site

 The Two Roads Chart

• About this site

Should I be baptized again as an adult if I was baptized as a baby?

• About this site

A mini coloring book and small posters to help the Sunday school teacher tell the story of Elijah ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire.

• About this site

Sunday School Activities

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Was the Cross on which our Lord was crucified the cross as shaped to-day?

Is the word used that for a stake and not a cross, a word only implying that which stands up?

It is true that the first meaning of “stauros,” the word translated, “cross,” in the New Testament, is a “stake” (from “histëmi,” to st nd), and this was occasionally used in executions, the victim being sometimes impaled on it. But this stake, called “the simple cross,” was not the Latin cross, which was in the shape of a T, and had an upright above the crossbar, on which the title of accusation was displayed. This was the form of cross the Romans used, and, on which there seems no room to doubt, our Lord was crucified. Because the cross is found in Babylonian cults is no good reason for denying that the Romans crucified Him on the ordinary Latin cross. We are certainly not to wear a cross or display it on “religious buildings,” but to learn the meaning of Christ’s Cross, and bear our own. W.H.

• About this site

Did Jephthah really offer his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord? (Judges 11:29-40)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 11:29-40).

To this one would fain be able to reply, as not a few commentators and others have done, with a definite NO. Their reasons and arguments have been so clearly set forth in a recent article elsewhere, that we cannot here do better than enumerate them in the order given. (1) It is pointed out that human sacrifices were expressly forbidden by the Law (Deuteronomy 18: 9-10)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18: 9-10). (2) In verse 31, the marginal reading “or” (of the A.V., not R.V., as stated) is adopted, as showing that two alternatives were in Jephthah’s mind: “Whatsoever cometh forth . . . shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” And it is remarked that, according to Leviticus 27:4," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 27:4, a person thus vowed might be redeemed for money. (3) The daughter’s words, “that I may bewail my virginity” (v. 37), are taken to imply that this was the real outcome of the vow, that she was pledged by her father to perpetual celibacy; and further proof of this is found in the statement of verse 39, “And she knew no man.” (4) At verse 40 the reading, “talk with”, of the A.V. margin, is given preference to the textual reading, “lament”; and it is suggested that for four days in each year the daughters of Israel went to talk with Jephthah’s daughter. We may hope, if only for Jephthah’s own sake, that this view is correct; but there are difficulties in connection with each of the points mentioned which may not be ignored. If we enumerate these also, we shall perhaps put the questioner and others in a position to form their own judgment as to what really took place. (1) While there can be no doubt as to the Lord’s disapproval of human sacrifices, our passage nowhere states that Jephthah’s action met with His approval; and the question is not what the Law forbade, but what a man such as Jephthah, who had lived for some time among the idolatrous Syrians of Tob, might say and might do. (2) The “and” in verse 31 is the common Hebrew particle which is similarly translated some thousands of times elsewhere; and although there are a few passages in which it is employed disjunctively and rendered, “or,” the wording of its context in such instances usually indicates this, which is not so here. Moreover, the statement, “shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering,” is not very intelligible, because its being offered as a burnt offering did not mean that it was any less “the Lord’s.” Neither is it easy to understand why Jephthah should expect an animal, rather than a person, to be first out of the doors of his house to meet him on his return from the war. () Why should Jephthah’s daughter require two preliminary months to bewail her virginity, if she was going to have years of a lifetime afterwards to bewail it as much as she pleased? As to verse 39, it may be mentioned that the R.V. reads it, “And she had not known man.” (.) In verse 40, the R.V. rendering, “celebrate,” is probably the most exact of any, especially as the only other occurrence of this Hebrew word in the same form is in Judges 5:11," TARGET="_blank">Judges 5:11, where it is translated “rehearse.” If the meaning be that the daughters of Israel, while Jephthah’s daughter was still alive, went to talk with her, why should they have limited their conversations with her to four days in each year? Some may perhaps attach less importance to these difficulties than others will; but they exist, and must be faced fairly before one can confidently assert that Jephthah did not slay his daughter, but merely compelled her to remain unmarried.

W.R.

• About this site

Had Satan any history previous to his appearing in the Garden Of Eden?

or does the expression in Ezekiel 28" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28 —”Eden the garden of God,” mean the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were?

Such a thought as that Satan fell in the earthly Eden is entirely foreign to the Genesis account, where Satan is presented to us at once as the seducer of man. His fall is always considered in the Scriptures as from heaven not on earth. To rest such a theory as that Satan fell in the Eden of Genesis 2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2, on the words, “Thou wast in Eden,” (Ezekiel 28:13)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13), is like balancing a pyramid on its apex. The word Eden is ‘edhen (from ‘adhan, to be delighted), and simply means a place of delight. It would be like saying that when Paul was caught up into Paradise, it must have been into the garden of Eden, for the same Greek word paradeisos is used there. As there is a heavenly and an earthly paradise, we may believe there is a heavenly as well as an earthly Eden. It is noticeable that “the garden of Eden” does not necessarily mean that the garden and Eden are the same, for in ver. 8 we read, “God planted a garden in Eden”, and in ver. io, “A river went out of Eden to water the garden”; thus the two are distinguished. This garden is never called “the Garden of God”, as in Ezekiel 28:13" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:13 (“In Eden, the garden of God. . . thou wast.”) The Genesis “garden” is rather the garden of man. The description of Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:12-15" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 28:12-15 (for it is surely he) must be taken as a whole, revealing his created glories (v. 12), and the place of delight, perfectly suitable to his nature prepared for him by God. Next his covering is described. The beauty of the place seems to have been rather mineral than vegetable. He was the anointed cherub that coyered (i.e., the throne of God?). “He was in the holy Mountain of God and he walked up and down (same word and mood employed of Enoch) in the midst of the stones of fire.” All this is perfectly foreign to the earthly paradise of Genesis 2." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2. The account goes on—”Thou wast perfect in all thy ways, from the day that thou wast created till iniquity was found in thee.” The earthly “garden of Eden” was prepared by• God for man at his creation, and we have no reason to believe he was long in Eden before he fell. Is it not a fantastic theory that all that we have read in Ezekiel, beginning with “Thou was in Eden . . . till iniquity was found in thee”, must be squeezed into man’s unfallen, sojourn in the garden! We do not make ourselves responsible for speculations attributed to those who believe Satan fell long previously! to man. We do not profess to be “wise above that which is written,” but we regard the theory of Satan’s fall in the Adamic garden of Eden’ as quite untenable and as subversive of all sane scriptural interpretation.
W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

In Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 we read, “Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” and in V. 32, “and the days of Terab were two hundred and five years and Terah died in Haran.” Now, taking 70 from 205, would make Abram 135 years when Terah died, while we know from Gen. 12:4" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 12:4 that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and from Acts 7:4" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:4 that he did not leave Haran till Terah died.

It is not necessary to believe from Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were all born in the same year, but simply that Terah had no children till he was 70, and then had three sons born at intervals. In Genesis 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:32, we have an instance of the same thing, when we read that “Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” and yet Genesis 10:21" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was older than Shem. It is equally clear that Abram was not the eldest of the three brothers. He and Shem are put first because of their importance as the progenitors of the chosen race and the Messiah. It is generally held that Haran was the eldest, born when Terah was 70, and that Abram came into the world 6o years later. This would account for the fact that he and his nephew Lot, son of Haran, seem to have been much of the same standing. Besides, we are distinctly told that Abraham was 75 when at the death of Terah, he departed out of Haran. He was born, therefore, when his father was 130 years of age.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site