Karen Hoy

• About this site

• About this site

John Brokaw

• About this site

Printable Scale Model of Noah's Ark

• About this site

Ron Mills' Story - At the age of 22 I started to consider suicide as an answer to feelings of hopelessness. By the time I was 23 I would get brief periods of wondering “is this all there is to life?" I remember going to night clubs after drug use and drinking and just standing amongst hundreds of people and feeling very alone and tired of life. There had to be more to this Life (more...)

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

• About this site

Some say that the word translated, “only begotten”, in such phrases as, “The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:14)," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14), merely means, “beloved,” and should be so translated especially in all passages relating to the Eternal Son—the Second Person of the Divine Trinity.

Do you think this is so?

My own conviction is other, though I know esteemed brethren who maintain it. I doubt indeed if such an opinion would ever have been broached, had it not been for the mistaken notion that to apply such a term as “only begotten” or even “begotten” to our Lord in a past eternity, necessitates the thought of a time before the begetting, and therefore must infringe on the eternity, and therefore on the true Deity, of the Son. This, however, is only so, if we insist on defining and explaining Divine relations by the human, whereas, the latter are the vaguest shadows of the Eternal and Divine: as soon measure the fixed stars with a foot-rule. The same objection applies to the terms “Father” and “Son”. Such terms do imply priority and subsequency in earthly relations, but there cannot be priority or the reverse in the case of Eternal Persons.

The same objection would apply to the epithet, “the Word,” for does not such a term necessitate to our minds a time before the word was uttered, and when consequently the word had no existence? was reading only the other day two writings, one by a denier of the Deity of the Son, the other by a denier of His Eternal Sonship, who both refused to believe, because their minds forsooth could not comprehend the possibility of such things. There must be no unsolved mysteries to this type of person, though one wonders how such can believe at all in the God of Revelation, for surely His existence is beyond their comprehension. Such might also lay to heart the limitation imposed by the Lord Himself, “No man knoweth the Son save the Father.” However, to return to those who, while holding firmly the Eternal Sonship of Christ, yet refuse the term “only begotten,”* and substitute for it “well-beloved.” This is indeed a secondary meaning springing, as we see, directly from the primary, forwho is more beloved than an only child? Now although “only-begotten” is the literal translation of the Greek word, it would be permissible, under certain conditions to abandon this—the etymological meaning—if usage justified it. But if the predominant usage agrees with the original philological meaning, then we must keep to that.

That this is the case here, can, I think, be clearly shown by a reference to our three chief sources of information (not to mention Latin ecclesiastical writers who translate—uni-genitus “only begotten”)—the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint Greek version, and the New Testament. (a) The Hebrew word, “yahidh,” occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, and is translated in A. V.: twice, “my darling”; margin “only one” (Psalm 22:20; 35: 17);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:20; 35: 17); twice “desolate” or “solitary” (Psalm 25:16;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 25:16; Psalm 68:6);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:6); once “only beloved” (Proverbs 4:3);" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 4:3); and six times “only son” (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac; Jeremiah 6:26." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 6:26. Amos 8:10," TARGET="_blank">Amos 8:10, and Zechariah 12: 10);" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12: 10); and “only child” (Judges 2:34," TARGET="_blank">Judges 2:34, of Jepthah’s daughter); and with all these the R.V. agrees. (b) The Septuagint translates the two Genesis, the Proverbs, and the three prophetic occurrences by “beloved,” and the remaining five by “only child” or “son” (monogenës). It may be added that the LXX in their translation of Genesis 22:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2 have, “thy loved son, whom thou lovest,” the tautology of which translation might alone have raised a doubt as to its correctness. (c) In the New Testament the word “mono- genes” occurs nine times: once of Isaac (Hebrews 11:17)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:17)t and thrice of only children (Luke 7:12;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:38), and five times of the Son of God (John 1:14, 18;" TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, 18; John 3:16-18" TARGET="_blank">John 3:16-18 and 1 John 4:9)," TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:9), translated in each case both in A.V. and R.V. as “Only Begotten.” Lest anyone should imagine that this is the ordinary word for “beloved”, when applied to the Lord, I would mention the significant fact that on the two occasions on which the Father bore audible witness from heaven to the Lord as His beloved Son (Matthew 3:17;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17:5), He does not use the word we are considering (monogens), but the ordinary word for “beloved” (agapetos). Surely these two occasions would have been specially suitable for the use of the word “only-begotten,” if the Lord’s Sonship depended, as is falsely taught in some quarters to-day, on His incarna tion.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

As regards our Lord’s burial, is it right to say that, “Burial is a necessary part of our Lord’s vicarious work”?

“The Gospel includes it as we see 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4. Adam being guilty, the judgment of God required that he should return to the earth whence he came. The burning outside the camp of the sin- offering when its blood was taken inside the veil, points to this”

It is important to distinguish between the penal and governmental consequences of sin. The former are defined in the words of the Lord God, “In the day that thou eatest therefore thou shalt surely die.” There is no mention till later of dust returning to dust, if we must take that as the equivalent of burial, though it is more a putting out of sight, than physical dissolution. Nor indeed was physical death the death primarily referred to in the above warning: additional precautions had to be taken to ensure that, namely the prevention of access to the Tree of Life—”Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever (i.e., exist in a sin-haunted body), therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.” Nothing of an outward physical change seems to have taken place at the Fall, but a mysterious moral gulf had appeared between the creature and his Creator; he was afraid of God and hid himself. This was spiritual death.

In verses 16 to 19, the governmental consequences of the Fall are detailed quite distinct from death. The Christian is saved from the penal consequences of sin whereas he often has to know its governmental consequences. I believe the former were exhausted at the cross as the words, “It is finished,” declare, and as the rending of the veil proves. The Lord before breathing out His spirit was now no longer forsaken of His God for He commends it to His Father.

But as the writer Mr. J. T. well says, “The forsaking would not have been a public matter, had not our Lord uttered the cry.” So the death of the body was the outward and visible sign of that other death which had the much deeper significance of separation from God. I am surprised that Mr. J. T. should understand the meaning of the burning of the sin-offering outside the camp in Lev 4" TARGET="_blank">Lev 4 as burial. The word for “burning” is “araph,” representing Divine judgment; it is Christ’s suffering under God’s righteous judgment, outside the camp.

It is difficult to conceive our Lord Jesus as under Divine judgment when with reverent and loving hands He was laid in Joseph’s tomb. We may remark that His grave with the rich man was not a penalty for sin, but, “because he had done no violence neither was there any deceit in His mouth.” It is perfectly true that Christ’s burial is an eloquent testimony to the complete setting aside of the old man; but could it be said that our Lord was buried vicariously? I trow not. It is part of “the truth of the Gospel,” but as far as I remember, is only once referred to by an apostle in any public address in the Acts, which seems to show that it is not a significant part of the Gospel for the unsaved. But the Gospel is very great and extended, and has a close application to the believer. Perhaps we would be right in saying that the cross is the refuge for sinners, the sepulchre, the receptacle for the old man— Signified by baptism; and “in Christ” risen, the residence of the new man.

W.H.

• About this site

"They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: ‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ Hosanna in the highest!’

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey”

• About this site

It is not good to stereotype all Jews or all Muslims as being hateful or even distrustful.  It is also important to note that not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs.  There are Arab Christian minorities that still live in the middle eastern countries.  There is, however, a long history of conflict, terrorism, war and bloodshed between the Muslims and the Jews.  Why is that? Does the Bible give us any insights?

The Beginning of the Family

The roots of the Arabs and the Jews can be traced back to their father Abraham.  Abraham had a son, Ishmael, through his slave-wife Hagar.  Later, he had his second son, Isaac, through his wife Sarah.  Isaac, the son promised by God became the father of Jacob, later renamed Israel, and then Isaac became the grandfather of 12 sons of Israel who are the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel.  Ishmael left home and became the father of the Ishmaelites, who are the Arab peoples.  

Genesis 16:1-16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 16:1-16 and Genesis 21:1-21" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 21:1-21 tell the story of how these two groups began.  Since Sarah was not successful in getting pregnant, she offered Hagar to Abraham to become his concubine.  The seeds of conflict were sown in the fact that Abraham had two women.  The desire of God was never that a man would have more than one spouse.  Genesis 2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2 and Jesus words in Matthew 19:4-5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:4-5 tell us that the pattern of marriage is found in Adam and Eve – one man and one woman.

Before the birth of Ishmael, the Angel of the Lord said

“He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."  (Genesis 16:11)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 16:11).

Islam

Islam was founded in 610 A.D. by conquest and subjugation of infidel religions.  Many Arabs are of the Muslim faith.  Jews, as well as other faiths, who refuse to submit to Allah, can be and should be destroyed, according to Islam.

The Qur’an teaches that Ishmael, not Isaac, was born as the son of promise.  It also teaches that God tested Abraham by asking him to offer Ishmael, not Isaace, as the Bible says, as a sacrifice. Teaching that Ishmael was the chosen son of promise, the Arabs become God’s chosen people.  The rise of Islam has increased this conflict between the two groups who both claim to be God’s people.

Modern Conflict

The Jews occupied the land of Israel since the time of Moses to the time of Christ.  In AD 70, the Roman army put down a rebellion and obliterated most of the Jews living in Israel, scattering the survivors to all parts of the Empire.  In 1948, the Jewish homeland was established as a new country on this piece of ground.  However in the middle of the 20th Century, Palestine was occupied by Arabs. The formation of the Nation of Israel has united Arabs of many countries in a common hatred of the Zionists who established Israel as a country on land they believe was stolen from them.  Conflict has simmered, and sometimes erupted into open war over the question of who owns the land. 

The original story in full...

Here is the Bible’s story about the origins of Abraham’s two nations…

Genesis 16:1-16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 16:1-16  Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar.  (2)  And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.  (3)  So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.  (4)  And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress.  (5)  And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!"  (6)  But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.  (7)  The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.  (8)  And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai."  (9)  The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress and submit to her."  (10)  The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude."  (11)  And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction.  (12)  He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."  (13)  So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me."  (14)  Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered.  (15)  And Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael.  (16)  Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site