Byrne Foreshew

• About this site

 Baptism

• About this site

Bob MacLeod

• About this site

Peter Ramsay - I thought... “Yes I have done some wrong things, but I am not bad enough to go to Hell. There are many people who really deserve to be there – but I don’t."

The very last thing I wanted to do was to let go of the things that I thought earned me favor with God and gave me a special status.

• 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

Jim Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

What is the difference in Isaiah 9:6." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6. between the expressions the “child born” and the “Son given”?

There is an important difference, I believe, and one which the exponents of what they term “the New Light,” as to the Eternal Sonship of our Lord, would do well to consider. Why is the “child” said to be “born,” but the “Son” not born, but “given”? We read in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 that God had been pleased to offer to king Ahaz a sign to confirm his doubting soul, that the line of David would not be superseded by the son of Tabeal, according to the Satanic design of Rezin and Pekah, which would have set aside the purpose of God regarding His future King, who must be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Ahaz had liberty of choice; he might ask for any sign in the depth, that is commensurate with the drying up of the Red Sea, or in the height commensurate with the standing still of the sun in answer to Joshua’s prayer. The king who was continually tempting God by his disobedience, refused this offer: He would not tempt the Lord, he said. Very well, then, the Lord will give a sign greater than any other known so far in the history of the world—the Virgin Birth of Him who was God: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (v. 14). A great effort of unbelief has been made to show that the word,” ‘almãh,” translated “virgin,” should be rather rendered “young married woman.” Such an objection hardly shows unusual scholarship, so much as a lack of common sense; for the fact of a young married woman having a son would be no sign at all. In this verse, in the phrase “a virgin shall. . . bear a son,” the same verb is used as in chap. 9. 6, “a child is born.” Here the Son is viewed as the Son of Mary in the sense of Matthew 1:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25: “She brought forth her first-born Son.” Why then is the “Son” said to be “given” in Isa. 9." TARGET="_blank">Isa. 9. 6? The reason is that there the One born is viewed as the One who had already been Son from all eternity. He could not become that by human birth. The child was born, but God gave His Eternal Son. W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

What will be the nature of the Jewish sacrifices offered at Jerusalem during the Millennium?

They cannot, of course, in any way be connected with sin since Christ has died and “their remaineth no more sacrffice for sin.” Will they be sacrifices of praise and adoration or of remembrance?

Here again we see the importance of dispensational truth—according to the oft-quoted words of Augustine: “Distinguish the dispensations and the Scriptures will agree.” Here, what is quite out of place in the present Church era, will evidently from Ezekiel 43:26" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 43:26 once more be in vogue. After the measures of the altar are given (chap. 43. 13), the ordinances of the altar are laid down, and the sin offering is mentioned again and again (e.g., vv. 21, 22, 25, and Ezekiel 44:27-29)," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 44:27-29), but certainly not in the sense of taking sin away. The Old Testament dispensation was characterised by an altar on which typical sacrifices (a shadow of good things to come) were offered, the present is characterised by a table, on which the memorial symbols of bread and wine are presented, and partaken of, in remembrance of the One Sacrifice of Christ, the only and sufficient ground for the atonement and taking away of sin. But the future millennial age, when the earthly people are once more restored to the place of testimony and blessing, will be characterised once again by an altar of remembrance—on which literal sacrifices will be offered, no longer pointing forward, but backward—and that by earthly priests—the sons of Zadok alone (chap. . 15). So that we see that what is a Satanic delusion to-day:—the pretended offering up again and again of the sacrifice of Christ, will in a future dispensation be renewed in a figurative and memorial sense.

W.H.

• About this site

Does there seem sufficient scriptural warrant for the teaching that “Hades is in the heart of the earth”? (Matthew 12:40" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:40 being cited). In the Old Testament the passage of souls to it is frequently spoken of as a descent.

The word Hades (from two words, “a,” not and, “idein,” to see) means the Unseen world. It never represents “the grave” in the sense of a tomb, but “grave-land,” the place of departed spirits. This was the Greek classical use and there is no proof but that exactly the same sense was carried on into New Testament Greek. Certainly a burial place is not unseen. It is the equivalent of the Hebrew, Sheol. There are rare places, e.g., Psalm 49:14-15" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 49:14-15 where this may seem to be equal to a mere tomb, but with the large majority of cases before us, we may say that even in such, the tomb is viewed as the gate for the particular soul into the underworld. David’s words in Psalm 16" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16 bear out the ordinary meaning:
“Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.” Sheol then was the place where the Spiritual part went; the grave, where alone corruption is seen, where the body was interred. The Annihilationists try to confuse the two; and deny any existence between death and resurrection; but this is Plainly contrary to many Scriptures. “The wicked shall be turned into Sheol” (Psalm 9:17)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 9:17), surely means more than mere burial. “Shall burn unto the lowest sheol” (Deuteronomy 32:22)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 32:22)—graves don’t burn. “Speak to him out of the midst of Sheol” (Ezekiel 32:22)" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 32:22)— so it is not then a place of silence as a grave certainly is. Jacob in Genesis 35," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 35, knew his son Joseph was devoured by some beast and so had not been buried at all, and yet speaks of going down (yaradh) to his son to sheol. This word, yaradh (always to go down or descend), certainly favours the thought that we are intended to conceive of Hades as in the heart of the earth. It is the word used of Korah, Dathan and Abiram “going down alive into the pit (sheol),” (Numbers 16:33)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:33).

The Spirit of Samuel was also seen to ascend, when the witch of Endor, for the first time in her miserable career, was permitted, to her own horror, actually to call up one of the departed, instead of the lying familiar spirit, who usually impersonated them—”An old man cometh up” (1 Samuel 28:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:14). Also in Psalm 55:15," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 55:15, we read, “Let them go down quick into Sheol.” But the passage which may well settle the matter for us is Ephessians 4:9 “Now that Christ ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?” There does not seem to be any real difficulty to those who believe in God’s Word. Naturally those who deny there is such a place as Hades, are unwilling to allow anyone to assign It a location. What they want is that someone should prove it does not exist at all.

W.H.

• 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

• About this site