Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

• About this site

Albert Hull

• About this site

Byrne Foreshew

• About this site

Jason My Child

• About this site

Gathering Unto His Name - The New Testament contains a clear pattern for how a church should operate. This book summarizes relevant scriptures to what a church is and how it affects our modern day practices.

• About this site

Don Panchito

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is “Reconciliation” the same as “Atonement”?

No, they are as distinct as cause and effect. Atonement is the ground on which reconciliation becomes possible. Unfortunately the Greek equivalents are not always correctly translated in our version. In fact in the only place (Romans 5:11)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:11) where the word “atonement” occurs in the Authorised Version it is a mistranslation for “reconciliation.” On the other hand, “make reconciliation,” in Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2: 17 would be quite correctly translated, “make atonement” (hilaskomai), as it is the same root and nearly always translated so in the LXX, Greek Version of the Old Testament. This, too, is the word the publican uses in his prayer (Luke 18: 13)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13), and goes much deeper than merely asking for compassion. It might be translated, “Be propitiated by sacrifice.” Some shallow teachers having sufficient acquaintance with Hebrew, to know that Kaphar (making atonement) means primarily “cover,” have thought this was its only meaning and have whittled “atonement” down to “covering,” and asserted that it is a purely Jewish thing. They ignore the fact that the word has a secondary meaning, denoting that by which alone God can cover sin, namely, by making full satisfaction for His broken law. This has alone been effected by the blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus Christ: “He poured out His soul unto death.” The Old Testament has the word again and again but only typically and prophetically; the New Testament alone has the reality (see 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2: 2 and 1 John 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:10— hilasmos, the same root again). Reconciliation becomes possible by atonement, but practical when the sinner turns to God with repentance and faith. The word for “reconciliation” (Katallage) “points habitually,” as Dr. Moule reminds us, “to the winning rather the pardon of an offended King, than the consent of the rebel to yield to His kindness.” ‘Be ye reconciled to God’ would then mean, secure while you can His acceptance.”

W.H.

• About this site

Are we to understand from Genesis 45:5," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 45:5,18 that Joseph actually used divination?

Though divination was common in Egypt, it is hard to suppose that a pious believer in the true God like Joseph should use such practices. Moreover, as one in close touch with God and an interpreter of dreams, etc., what drawing could he have to descend to such heathenish customs?

The cup may very well have been similar to those used for this purpose, but it is noticeable that Joseph only says to his brethren, “wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?” (v. 15), without affirming that he did. It must be admitted that his word through his steward does seem to go further. The true explanation may be that in order to keep up his character before his brethren, as an orthodox Egyptian, so as the more effectually to carry out his deliberate plan for their conviction and restoration, he might feel justified in conveying this momentary impression that he divined. If he did so, it is not commended nor is it specifically blamed. We are aware in reading the Old Testament that even men of God had not the same standards of truthfulness, that are binding on us to-day. The word here for “divine” (nihesh) is translated, “I have learned by experience” (Genesis 30:27)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 30:27), and “did diligently observe” (1 Kings 20:33)," TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 20:33), but generally, “to use enchantments” (2 Kings 17" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 17: I7 2 Kings 21:6)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 21:6). Such divination is strictly forbidden later in the Word of God (see Levticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 19:10)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 19:10).
W.H.

• About this site

What is the correct baptismal formula to use? Is it that given in Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19? In Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 Peter says, “In the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 10:48" TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48 we read, “In the Name of the Lord.” In Acts 16:5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:5 “They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.”

Does Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19 refer to the millennium?

The commission of Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19 was given by the Lord to His disciples before leaving them, as their immediate “marching orders,” and there is no hint that it was intended for the millennium, some far- off future dispensation, or that it was superseded by some other commission. Indeed, who had the right to supersede it? It is shallow reasoning to infer that because the formula of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 is not specifically mentioned in the Acts, it was not used.
Then the formula of blessing in Numbers 6:23-27" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 6:23-27 was never used in the history of Israel, since it is not once mentioned! On the contrary, it was doubtless often used, and so with the baptismal formula of Matthew 28." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28. There are two prepositions used in connection with baptism in the Acts—”en” and “eis.” The first means “in”, and with “the Name” it simply explains the authority for baptism. Peter commands them “in the Name of the Lord” to be baptized (Acts 10:48)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48)—order of the Greek. The “eis” occurs twice: i.e., in Acts 8:16," TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:16, with reference to the Samaritans, and in Acts 14:5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:5 of the John Baptist disciples at Ephesus, in both of which cases special importance attached to the confession of the right name—”into the Name of the Lord Jesus.” But this was in no sense a formula, and we need have no doubt but that the formula of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 “into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Holy Ghost,” was used in every case. What more appropriate for a Christian dispensation, or less so for a future Jewish economy? The “epi” of Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 has to give way to “en,” it is generally agreed. Peter here too refers back to the authority of the Lord for baptizing. And if we are doing something on another person’s authority, should we not carry out that person’s direction to the letter?

It should be noticed that in any case, a person is not saved by being batpized correctly or incorrectly.  Baptism is for a believer who has already received Christ as his savior.  See the other questions below regarding salvation and baptism.

W.H.

• About this site

Question:

In one of my daily devotional readings, the main scripture cited was Job 9:32-33." TARGET="_blank">Job 9:32-33.  The conclusion was made that Job did indeed have an advocate, an intercessor between him and God, just as we do, in the person of Jesus Christ. 

I am confused by that, and my questions is this...why did Job state that there was no one to act as a daysman (advocate) between him and God if there actually was such an advocate?  How could Job know about this advocate and if he did, why would Job not call upon Him? 

There is plenty of evidence of Jesus in the OT, but is there evidence that Jesus advocated for man even before coming to the earth as a substitutionary sacrifice for man's sin, to pay our debt once and for all?  If so, could Job have known about Him?  Is this a question of chronology or of the lack of oral or written evidence to which Job had access, or perhaps was it a lack of seeking knowledge on Job's part? 

I am confused why the devotional would state that Job had the same advocate as we do, if he either did not know or knew and did not call upon Him.  Can you help with this?

Answer:

This is a very insightful question.  It seems that Job was either saying that no mediator existed among men to help or perhaps that the type of mediator he was talking about is different than the mediator that we normally think of in the person of Christ.  

Here are some comments from Alber Barnes Notes on the Bible that are an answer to your observation...

Neither is there any daysman - Margin, One that should argue, or, umpire. The word daysman in English means ” “an umpire or arbiter, a mediator.”

The word as used by Job does not mean mediator, but arbiter, umpire, or judge; one before whom the cause might be tried, who could lay the hand of restraint on either party. who could confine the pleadings within proper bounds, who could preserve the parties within the limits of order and propriety, and who had power to determine the question at issue. Job complains that there could be no such tribunal. He feels that God was so great that the cause could be referred to no other, and that he had no prospect of success in the unequal contest. It does not appear, therefore, that he desired a mediator, in the sense in which we understand that word - one who shall come between us and God, and manage our cause before him, and be our advocate at his bar. He rather says that there was no one above God, or no umpire uninterested in the controversy, before whom the cause could be argued, and who would be competent to decide the matter in issue between him and his Maker. He had no hope, therefore, in a cause where one of the parties was to be the judge, and where that party was omnipotent; and he must give up the cause in despair.

It is not with strict propriety that this language is ever applied to the Lord Jesus, the great Mediator between God and man. He is not an umpire to settle a dispute, in the sense in which Job understood it; he is not an arbiter, to whom the cause in dispute between man and his Maker is to be referred; he is not a judge to listen to the arguments of the respective parties, and to decide the controversy. He is a mediator between us and God, to make it proper or possible that God should be reconciled to the guilty, and to propose to man the terms of reconciliation; to plead our cause before God, and to communicate to us the favors which he proposes to bestow on man.

That might lay his hand upon us both - It is not improbable that this may refer to some ancient ceremony in courts where, for some cause, the umpire or arbiter laid his hand on both the parties. Or, it may mean merely that the umpire had the power of control over both the parties; that it was his office to restrain them within proper limits, to check any improper expressions, and to see that the argument was fairly conducted on both sides. The meaning of the whole here is, that if there were such an umpire, Job would be willing to argue the cause. As it was, it was a hopeless thing, and he could do nothing more than to be silent. That there was irreverence in this language must be admitted; but it is language taken from courts of law, and the substance of it is, that Job could not hope to maintain his cause before one so great and powerful as God.

---- follow up comment

 I did find this very thought provoking and helpful!  I do see that what Job said showed an incomplete understanding of Who God really is...and his language not only revealed that, but I can see where it would be offensive to God.  What I took away from this is that there is no one above God who could ever have plead Job's case.  He, as we, actually have no case, no matter what Job thought, no matter what we think.  God is God and no one decides His judgements for Him.  He and He alone makes the ultimate judgement.  Even Jesus, fully God, could not make a judgement on the Father.  Jesus interceded for us with God, but in He did not mediate as such.  God, in His sovereign mercy, pardoned us, albeit at great cost to Himself, but the terms were unilateral.  We do not "make a deal" with God in the sense that God concedes to any of our terms.  The terms are presented to us by the One who has power over life and death and it is for us to concede, or rather surrender, to His terms.  For those of us whose name is written in the Lamb's book of Life, the handwriting is that of God, not ours.  

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

The Bible character Sampson is one of the great heros of the sunday school lesson colleciton.  Here are some resources that you can use to teach Samson's life, Samson's faith and his mistakes.

See the lessons section for a kick start on what you should include in your sunday school lesson.

See the sunday school activities section for ideas on printable projects, power points and classroom activities to go along with the sunday school lesson.

If you wish to search the KJV Bible for any scripture passage click here .

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site