Andrew Musch

• 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

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• About this site

The Work of Christ

• About this site

The Moral Glories of Our Lord

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE “FLESH” AND THE “BODY”
Explain the difference between the terms “flesh” and “body”? What is meant by the “redemption of the body”?

If the inquirer can examine, in any good Lexicon of New Testament Greek, or better still, in Mr. Vine’s Expository Dictionary, the great variety of meanings which each of the two words “sarx” (flesh) and “soma” (body) may bear, according to the context in which they occur; he will realise that it would be difficult to reply to his question adequately, within the bounds of this page. And if he can avail himself of a Young’s or Wigram’s Concordance to go through all the occurrences of each word, he will probably glean more help in that way than he would from any formal answer.

The fact is that, as used in some passages, there is little or no difference between the two words; and yet in certain other passages a clear distinction is made between them. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 4:10" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 4:10 we have the phrase, “that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our BODY”; while in the parallel statement of the next verse it is, “that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal FLESH.” Here the two words are practically synonymous. The opposite extreme may be seen in Colossians 2:23" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:23 (R.V.), where one can show “severity” to the BODY, and at the same time be showing “indulgence” to the FLESH.

Taken in its most literal sense, the “body” is the physical or material part of man, viewed as an organised whole (see 1 Thessalonians 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 5:23). The “flesh” is the substance of which this body is to a large extent composed (see Luke 24. 39)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 24. 39). But either word may be used to represent the entire man, as “body” in Luke 20: 36," TARGET="_blank">Luke 20: 36, and “flesh” in Luke 3:6." TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:6.

It is when the thought of evil, either in state or in tendency, is suggested, that a deeper distinction is at times made between the two words. For example, the expression “in the flesh” may be employed as in Romans 7:5" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:5 and 8:8, , of the moral standing of the unsaved, but “in the body” is never so used. The latter phrase may refer to one’s bodily presence in some particular place, as in 1 Corinthians 5:3," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:3, or to the present earthly life of man, as in 2 Corinthians 5:10;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:10; but this is not distinctive of it, for “in the flesh” may also have either of these meanings, as in Colossians 2:1" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:1 and in Philippians 1:24." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:24.
Again, “tendency to evil” may sometimes be signified by the term “the flesh,” especially in such phrases as “after the flesh,” etc.; but “the body” is not so used, except in a few remarkable expressions, “the body of sin” (Romans 6: 6)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 6: 6), “the body of this death” (Romans 7:24)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:24), “the deeds of the body” (Romans 8: 13)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8: 13), and “the body of the sins of the flesh” (Colossians 2:11)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:11).

The body is frequently spoken of as capable of being used for God (Romans 12:1)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 12:1), and so are its members (Romans 6: 12, 13);" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6: 12, 13); but this is never predicated of the flesh (see Rom. 7. 25)," TARGET="_blank">Rom. 7. 25), the members of which seem rather to be those named in Col. 3. 5." TARGET="_blank">Col. 3. 5. Moreover, the body of the saint is called a temple of the Holy Ghost and a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15, 19)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:15, 19), but it is his “flesh” that lusteth against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 5:17). Finally, the saint’s body, having been “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 6:20), awaits its full “redemption” when our Lord Jesus comes again (Romans 8:23)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:23). Then He “shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory” (Philippains 3:21 R.V.); and when He has done so, “WE (not merely our bodies) shall be like Him” (1 John 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:2).

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

Did Samuel really come back when Saul consulted the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28: )?

Attempts have been made to prove the contrary, in order to avoid even the appearance of justifying the practice of Spiritism. But this is a weak argument. We must not manipulate the Word of God even on the plea of defending the truth. That is doing evil that good may come. It is a poor heresy that cannot allege some fancied support in Scripture.

I have not the slightest doubt that Samuel did really come back and hold intercourse with Saul by the sovereign permission of God. Really, the reappearance of Samuel does not touch the question of Spiritism or justify men in seeking intercourse with the dead. This is implicitly condemned earlier in the very chapter when Saul, as we are told, cut off those who had dealings with familiar spirits—and yet so hardened was he that “he sware to the witch by the Lord saying, As the Lord liveth there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.” He obeyed God, as long as it suited him. When Saul had overcome the witch’s fears, he told her to call up Samuel. She was in no way perturbed at that, for she knew her familiar spirit would be there to impersonate whomsoever was called up, with greater or less accuracy. Samuel being so widely known, would not be a difficult subject for deception. But when she saw the real Samuel rising out of the earth in a spirit-form, rendered visible to her eyes, she cried out. This was something outside her experience and beyond her ken. (1 Samuel 28:12)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:12).

It is interesting to note her description—”I see gods (‘elohim_. mighty ones—sometimes according to Gesenius, used in the singular)— ascending out of the earth.” Clearly the spirit of the departed prophet had taken on a grandeur and majesty befitting a Paradise-dweller, but for purposes of identification, he was seen as he had been known for many years in the days of his flesh, as an old man, clad in his prophetic mantle, and it was in this latter guise that she described him. There was no trickery about this, as there must always be in spiritism whether in the familiar spirit—or in the medium. She was sure what appeared to her was not her familiar spirit. Saul was sure by the description it was truly Samuel. The spirit of Samuel spake like Samuel, going back to the very judgment, which he had been charged to pass on Saul, for his disobedience in the case of Arnalek. What is more, the words of Samuel came true.

God did not let his servant’s words fall to the ground now, any more than when he was alive in the flesh. It really is surprising that otherwise well-taught Christians should be found to question all this.

This consultation of the witch by Saul was the consummation of Saul’s disobedience. He is reproved for enquiring of the witch and not God. He did ask of God in a formal way, but not in the earnest way in which he sought the witch (see 1 Chronicles 10: 13, 14," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 10: 13, 14, where distinct words for the two “enquires” mark this).

W.H.

• About this site

How are we to reconcile the truth that Christ is God and Christ is Man, in one Person, or rightly to estimate what belongs to each?

Again, how could our Lord be tempted in all points, like as we are, sin apart, if, as we believe, sin had no appeal to Him, as it has to us?

It is noticeable that when our Lord affirms that “no one knoweth the Father save the Son,” He at once adds, “and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Why did He not, when affirming as he had just done, that “no one knoweth the Son but the Father” add “and he to whomsoever the Father will reveal Him”? Is it not that there are mysteries in the Union of the two Perfect Natures, Divine and human, in the One Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Father nowhere promises ever fully to reveal? Not only are they too deep for us (we do not even understand our own tripartite being), but it is unnecessary for us thus to analyse His Being. One thing we aught never to forget, our Lord was not a dual personality, that is two Persons, Divine and human, but ONE DIVINE Personality, in equal relation to His two perfect natures. “The Word was God. . . the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:1, 14).

The Modernists, and alas, they have their representatives everywhere to-day, will not brook to be told that there are things their highest powers cannot grasp, and they so attempt to reconcile what has never been out of harmony, and explain what they ought rather to believe.

To some persons a glib bad answer, seems preferable to saying “I do not know.” As we read the Gospels under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is not like chemists, with our test- tubes and reactives analysing all the mysteries of Christ, or like physiologists with our instruments dissecting His Personality, but as disciples and as worshippers.

The human sympathy of Christ is not a mere theory, which we must make real to ourselves by a certain manipulation of His Person to satisfy the logical deductions of some shallow minds, but a blessed reality, which He makes true in our experience when we embrace Him by faith. The effect of this wrought by the Spirit in our souls, will not be some philosophical demonstration that after all “He is altogether such an one as ourselves—sin apart,” but the adoring cry of Thomas, “My Lord and my God.” The question of the temptation of our Lord is not after all so far beyond our grasp, if we remember that temptation is used in two distinct senses in the New Testament: of allurement—’ ‘Every man is tempted when he is drawn aside of His own lust and enticed” (James 1:14)," TARGET="_blank">James 1:14), and of testing —“He was tempted (or tested) in all points,” according to the similitude, “apart from sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 4:15).

When we read that “God did tempt Abraham” (Genesis 22:1)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:1) it was in this latter sense. He put him to the test. So Christ was tested by Satan in the wilderness, and proved to be the Son of God; but He was never tempted in the sense of being “drawn away of lust and enticed,” for He had none—He was “holy, harmless and undefiled” (Hebrews 7:26)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:26). “He did no sin” (1 Peter 2:22);" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:22); “He knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21);" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21); “In Him is no sin” (1 John 3:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:5).

I am sadly Convinced that the attempts of modernist teachers to emphasise the humanity of our Lord, on the plea of establishing His power of sympathy with us, is for the most part quite unreal; for, taken as a class, they are a self-sufficient, self-satisfied type of man; but rather, unconsciously to themselves it may be, and we trust it is, they “cast Him down from His excellency,” through undermining His Divinity.

W.H.

• About this site

DID GOD DIE?

Is it wrong to assert that God died on the cross? If so, we must revise some of our hymns, e.g.,

“Save in the cross of Christ, my God,” and “When Christ, the Mighty Maker, dies.”

It is quite possible that some of our hymns (though not perhaps above) need revising; at best they are human compositions, but let it be done by those capable for such work. Not every amateur possesses the poetic gift. Better leave out a hymn, than maul it. Certainly it is quite unscriptural to say that “God died on the cross,” for “God only hath immortality,” and as such of course cannot die, but this does not imply that the One who hung upon the cross was not God, for He was, and Thomas was perfectly right when he exclaimed later, “My Lord and my God.”

Perhaps an illustration will make the matter plainer. We read twice in Psalm 121" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 121 that “Jehovah slumbers not nor sleeps.” Are we then to assert when we read in Mark 4" TARGET="_blank">Mark 4: 38 of our Lord that “He was asleep on a pillow,” that God was asleep, or that He who was asleep was not God? Neither the one nor the other, for both assertions would be false. Hebrews 2:14" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:14 teaches that He who in chapter 1 is spoken of as the Son, the Heir of all things, the Creator and Sustainer of all things, and Who as such possessed Immortality, and was therefore immune from death, did Himself in order to purge our sins “take part of flesh and blood, that through death, etc.” He did not cease to be what He was before; but He became flesh, and so far capable of death, though never subject to death, as we are.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

SAINTS
Will you please explain the meaning of the term “Saints”? Does It apply to all believers?

A saint is one who is sanctified and the root meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words, translated “Sanctify,” is to set apart for a particular Purpose, the nature of which is not specified. It may be good, it may even be bad. Perhaps Psalm 4:3" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 4:3 is one of the best definitions of scriptural sanctification: “But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself. The word, “godly”, being a descriptive title of  the people of God—those who belong to God. Compare Psalm 50:5" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 50:5:
“Gather my saints together unto Me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.” This includes all the people of God. Holiness of conduct is clearly the end in view, but we must not confuse the way and the destination. We get into great confusion if we forget this distinction, that sanctification does not in itself denote a change of character or conduct, but that in some cases it leads to that.

(1) Thus, “sanctify”, is applied to inanimate objects, which cannot experience a change of character—e.g., the gold sanctified by the temple and the gifts by the altar (Matthew 23:17-18)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 23:17-18).
(2) It is applied to unconverted persons, whose character presumably remains unchanged. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and unconverted children by the parents (1 Corinthians 7:4)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 7:4).
(3) It is applied to the Lord who never needed a change of character. “Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world.” “For their sakes I sanctify myself” (John 10:36;" TARGET="_blank">John 10:36; John 17:19)." TARGET="_blank">John 17:19).

Progressive sanctification is the continued response of the believer, whom God has set apart, to His purpose for him. Joseph was set apart by Pharaoh to rule Egypt, so he did not go back to the prison but gave himself to the work. Paul was set apart for God’s service and he was “not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” If God has sanctified us at the moment of our conversion, it is for us to sanctify ourselves, and this will undoubtedly shew itself in our conduct. It is a very sad thing when believers can talk of sanctification and yet are but little sanctified in their ways. True sanctification consists in conforming our ways to what God has revealed in His Word for us. The Scriptures meditated upon are a great means in the hands of the Spirit for sanctifying the people of God (John 17. 17)." TARGET="_blank">John 17. 17).

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site