Martin Prins

“I-I-I don’t know,” I answered, “Nobody knows.”

“I do,” she said confidently. "Sixteen years ago, I came to know the Lord Jesus as my personal Savior and I received eternal life.” She then got out her Dutch Bible. Together we read...

• About this site

Gais Goeff

• About this site

10 Ways to Read the Bible

• About this site

Foundation Truths of the Gospel

• About this site

Grace Taufeek's Story - "...an ultrasound showed a mass around my spinal canal. I was confused, sad, mad, and scared as I was trying to realize what was really happening. I was quite scared – sometimes even to tears – but deep down, I always had a sense of peace..." (more)

• About this site

Bryon Meyers

• About this site

Were those of whom we read in the New Testament that they were demon-possessed responsible for being in that condition?

Certainly not in every case. In that of the boy in Mark 9:20-22," TARGET="_blank">Mark 9:20-22, his father in reply to the Lord’s question said that he had been thus from childhood. What was true with regard to the other miracles of healing wrought by Christ was probably true of the demon-possessed also, that in some instances the trouble was due to sin on the part of the person concerned, and in others not so. Contrast the warning to the impotent man in John 5:14," TARGET="_blank">John 5:14, “Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee,” with the words spoken of the blind man in John 9.3," TARGET="_blank">John 9.3, “Neither hath this man sinned.”

W.R.

• About this site

PARADISE

Is there any truth in the idea that the Lord, when He arose, changed the place of the Old Testament saints from some Paradise below, to be with Himself in a Paradise above?
 
We may eliminate from this consideration, Enoch and Elijah, who are clearly exceptional. Exactly into what part of the heavenly sphere they were introduced is not revealed. Even did we know, it would tell us nothing about the dead. It is clear, however, that the Old Testament saints did not go at death to be “with Christ,” not for the reason alleged by some, that they were not forgiven, etc., for they clearly were (see Psalm 32:1-2)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 32:1-2), and that on the ground of the work of Christ, yet to be accomplished.

The reason was that as yet there was no Christ, in the Theanthropic sense, for them to be with. He had not yet died and risen nor “brought life and immortality to light, through the gospel,” though ever in the bosom of the Father as the only-begotten Son of God. As for those who died in Old Testament times, such expressions are met with as, “He slept with his father,” “He fell on sleep,” “Descended to the grave,” the idea being that the dead went down into Sheol, the unseen world (Hades of New Testament). See Jacob’s words (Genesis 37:35)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 37:35), where he could not have meant a literal grave, as he believed Joseph devoured, and so, not buried.

In Numbers 16:33" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:33 we read that Korah, Dathan and Abiram went down alive into the pit (Sheol). The case of Samuel (1 Samuel 28" TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:) may occur to some. The Scriptures do not say that the witch brought up Samuel. On the contrary, when she saw the strange apparition, she cried out, presumably in fear. I have no doubt that God in his sovereignty did bring Samuel’s spirit up from Paradise (not his body, for that was buried at Ramah, fifty miles away), for the express object of conveying to Saul the news of his approaching end, On the morrow, Saul and his sons would be with Samuel in the unseen world.

Sheol never** represents the literal grave, but some other word is always used of it, like “Qeber” or “akath.” Psalm i6. to makes it plain that the Lord in spirit went to Sheol, and His body to the grave. That saint and sinner went to one general place, before the resurrection, is clear from Luke 16," TARGET="_blank">Luke 16, where our Lord lifts the veil of the unseen world in the intermediate state. The word there is “Hades.” True the saved were far-off from the lost, there being “a great gulf” fixed between the Paradise of the blessed and the place of torment, but still they were within seeing and speaking distance. Why should this be incredible, even if we had not our Lord’s words for it?

The Tower of London was for a long period in two sections—a royal palace and a state prison. It meant everything, which part a man went to, It was into Paradise that the Lord descended in Spirit, and where He welcomed the repentant thief. Can we suppose that only three days after, He left this trophy of grace behind? Did no benefits accrue to the saints confined there? The resurrection of Christ had mighty effects on the universe—He filled it: on the Church—He bestowed on her His spiritual gifts: on the Old Testament saints—”He led captivity captive,” that is, I believe, He set them free from their cabined and confined condition, and took them to be with Himself, henceforth in the Paradise above. This may throw light on the words in Hebrews 2:14," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:14, “to deliver them who through fear of death,” etc. The word here translated, “deliver,” depotes usually a change of place, a release, a removal. The change did not mean, of course, that they were raised, but translated to be “with Christ” in a new sphere. Thither Paul was caught up, temporarily (2 Corinthians 12:4)," TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:4), and permanently at His decease ”Absent from the body . . . present with the Lord,” awaiting the perfect condition of glory at the resurrection
day. W.H.

** Psalm 141." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 141. 7 (though the Authorised Version gives “grave” for “sheol”) is no exception. Bones are not scattered at the grave’s mouth, but buried in it. The idea is rather of bones left unburied, on the brink of Hades—the unseen world, where the owners of the bones had entered. Dr. Tregelles trarilate, sheol here as elaewhere—Hades

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

What is the true sense of Psalm 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 2:7?

There is no verse quoted so often as referring to the Incarnation by deniers of the Eternal Sonship of our Lord. Have they sufficient ground for this?

No, for to do so merely begs the question; it is exactly what has to be proved. The Psalm begins prophetically much later than the Incarnation, namely, with the rejection of Christ, for the apostles by the Spirit quote verse i, as fulfilled in His rejection by “both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel” (Acts 4:27)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:27). The Psalm is divided into four sections:

(1) Verses 1-3—the language of the rebels against Jehovah;

(2) Verses 4-6—Jehovah’s answer of derision and wrath. So sure is His purpose, that it is as if already executed: “Yet have I set My King upon My Holy hill of Zion,” though naturally this purpose did not begin then;

(3) Verses 7-9—the King Himself speaks: “I will declare the decree.” What decree? Would the Lord refer at such a juncture to His incarnation, which to the eyes of men has proved a failure by His rejection? No, it was the Eternal Decree, on which all God’s purposes rest, concerning the Eternal generation of the Son. “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee”;

(4) Verses 10-12 words of the Holy Ghost through David to living kings and judges of the earth, to be wise and serve the Lord NOW, and rejoice before Him. “Kiss the Son* lest He be angry and ye perish from the way when His wrath is kindled but a little, blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.” The word “NOW” shows that this closing section is not prophetic at all, but was, we might say, a lesson drawn by David to his fellow-kings. In the language of to-day, he is turning the occasion to profit to lead them to repentance and reconciliation to the Divine Son. In “NOW” the sense is adversative, in contrast with what has gone before, and with the future reign, when it will be too late to turn. David warns his brother rulers of their present duty. Surely such an appeal, addressed in about 1030 B.C., to kings living at that date, to “kiss the Son,” (evidently a Divine Person, the equal of Jehovah), does bear witness to the Eternal Sonship of Him who was at once the progenitor of David, and later “made of his seed, according to the flesh.” How shallow then are the thoughts of those who deny the relation of the Son to our Lord in the Divine Trinity, on the ground that such a relation is not recognised in the Old Testament Scriptures! How soon, alas, the Scriptures become so far a closed book to those who close their eyes to its teachings!

Now, let us return to the immediate object of our consideration, namely, the words, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” and enquire whether these words do indeed refer to the Incarnation. If so, we should expect to find them addressed to the Lord in the manger, or at any rate that some allusion to them would be found in the herald angels’ annoucement, but we search in vain for any reference to such a thing. All they say is, “Unto you is born this day in the City of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord,” but there is no hint that in that birth, a Divine Person, hitherto unknown, had become the Son of God. Not even do the words of Gabriel to Mary bear this meaning. In answer to Mary’s legitimate question, he makes a double statement:

(1) “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” that is, “the Holy Ghost will become to thee the Divine Agent of thy conception,” or in the words of Matthew i, “Thou shalt be found with child of the Holy Ghost.” But that conception, unlike any other human birth, was to be of One who had already existed in another form, and who, by the fact of human birth, would enter into manhood. Hence we read:

(2) “The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,” that is, a Divine Person shall, at the moment of the human conception by the Spirit, become flesh, or in other words, the Eternal Son will take to Himself perfect human nature in the womb of the Virgin. Hence the words of the Angel Gabriel:
“Therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” To assert that Christ only became “the mighty God” at the Incarnation would be to deny His Deity; to assert that He only then became the Son of God is to deny His person. If the Babe were only Son of God by human birth, then the Incarnation was an exaltation, not a humbling, and must be the predominant truth of the New Testament, though we know that neither our Lord nor His disciples ever grounded their testimony to His Sonship on it. The Lord in the words of Jehovah’s decree, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” goes back to the Eternal truth of Him as the Son. This He was “declared to be with power by the resurrection,” which, as Alford shows, is not less the subject of Romans z, because foreshadowed by resurrections on a lower plane. It does not mean that the Lord became Son at the resurrection, any more than at the Holy Mount, or at the Jordan, but that He was then “declared to be the Son of God with power.” Recognition of His Divine Sonship is repeated again and again, but the relation was Eternal.

Now, in considering the three-fold quotation of the words in the New Testament, if the Incarnation be ruled out in one case, it must be in all. Acts 13:33" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:33 must refer to resurrection. In verse 23, certainly incarnation is in view, and the word in the best texts is agö= “to lead, to bring.” “God hath raised unto Israel a Saviour.” in verse 30, a general word is used for “raised” (egeiro), the same verb as in verse 22 of David’s appointment as king, but in verses 33 and 34 we have another verb altogether (anistmi), which is found eleven times in the Acts, of resurrection, while the substantive “anastasis” is translated “resurrection” thirty-nine times, out of its forty-one occurrences. As Alford says, “The meaning, ‘raised from the dead,’ in verses 33 and 34 is absolutely required by the context, both because the word is repeated with, ‘from among the dead,’ verse 34, and because the emphasis throughout is on the resurrection.”
In Hebrews 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:5 the reference is not only to resurrection, but to that eternal past, when He, the Risen, Glorified One, had received a name, that of Son, more excellent than angels, by inheritance. He was Son, before He was “appointed Heir of all things,” and before He created all things.
In Hebrews 5:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:5 the subject is Christ’s call to priesthood. This could not be by the fact of incarnation, seeing He was not of the priestly tribe of Aaron. He must first ascend, where another order reigns—that of Melchizedek, “made like unto the Son of God”—the chief point of which likeness, if not the only point, consisting in the fact that His eternity in the past as Son goes equally with His eternity in the future.

Some have attempted to divide the decree into two: “Thou art My Son,” referring to the Eternal Sonship; and “This day have I begotten Thee,” to the Incarnation. To our mind, this seems forced and unjustified by the context. It arises from a fear of applying the word,”begetting,” to the eternal past, but this was Anus’ objection, and can only be justified by applying laws of time to eternal truths. When we can fathom the mystery of the Divine Being without beginning, then we may be able to solve the eternal begetting without beginning. To what “day,” then, does the Spirit of God refer in Psalm 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 2:7? We have been reminded so often of the varied meanings of “day” in Scripture that we hardly need insist on this—indeed it is sometimes used so broadly that the question of time hardly enters into it. This, we believe, is the case here:
“The use of smeron (the Greek word which here in the LXX, as also in the New Testament, is translated ‘to-day’ and ‘this day’) in the sense of ‘eternally’ or ‘in eternity’ is well established (it is found in Philo). Consequently an orthodox reader would understand it:
‘Thou art My Son, I have eternally begotten Thee’ “ (cf. Hebrews 1:5)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:5) This fits in with the New Testament quotations—a testimony in time to a fact beyond time, in the eternal NOW of a past eternity.

W.H.

* That the word here is “Bar” not “Ben” does not invalidate the argument, for as Gesenius notes, Bar is Son in Psalm 2:12" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 2:12 , in the sense of one begotten, and is applied to Jehovah, the King, and Tregelles adds, “that is Christ.” Gesenius goes on to compare the word here, with the more usual word, Ben, in Isa. o. 6. Indeed, here again we must note that the Son was not born at Bethlehem—but given (“A child was born”), that is, the Lord did not become Son by His human birth. He was bom a true human child. The Word became flesh.

• About this site

Why did our Lord, though not partaking of the bread when instituting His supper, drink of the cup?

Can there be some spiritual truth hidden in this?

We think the idea that the Lord partook of the cup (as above) is based on a misunderstanding of the accounts of the Institution, and on a false inference. The misunderstanding arises from the position of the words, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,” in the Matthew and Mark accounts, and the false inference, from the idea that the Lord had necessarily that moment drunk of the cup in question. It is clear from the Luke 22" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22: account that there were two cups, that in the 17th verse which was the passover cup, and the other the cup of the new supper, the memorials of His body and blood. It was to the former (see v. 18) that the Lord’s words, above quoted, refer. The Lord did not Himself partake of the emblems of His death in either kind, as Luke’s account shews.

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