Suzy Fitch

• About this site

Is going to the doctor a sign of a lack of faith?

• About this site

Creation - A series of ten messages by Norman Crawford on what the Bible says about the origins of the earth.  In the series, Mr. Crawford examines the definitions of "science", assumptions about uniformity, the basis of faith, the Gap Theory, fossile dating.  This series was taped at a weekend conference in Canda.

• About this site

Shad Sluiter

• About this site

• About this site

Stephen Vance

• About this site

Is preaching the same as prophesying?

I presume the questioner is referring not so much to prophesying in the sense of foretelling, as to prophesying as forth-telling. Certainly foretelling the future was not exactly preaching. Forthtelling was a distinct gift in the primitive Church, enabling those who possessed it to communicate direct revelations from God. It was one of the sign- gifts, and was necessary to the Church in the absence of the complete Canon of Scripture. It was a miraculous gift, and was a sign to believers (see 1 Corinthians 14:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:22). “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (verse 3).

Apostles and prophets were foundation gifts and exist no longer to-day, except in their work in the Holy Scriptures, which they were used to give us. Preaching is a very broad term. Probably the man who prophesied preached, but to-day the term is applied to delivering an address to believers or to proclaiming the Gospel. We have the gifts of evangelist, pastor and teacher with us still, but neither of them is to be confounded with this gift of prophecy.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Can we know from the Scriptures who are the three shepherds of Zecheriah 11:8?

It would be too much for anyone to affirm that there is no light in the Scripture on any point mentioned therein. All anyone can say is that he has no light. The incident of the three shepherds forms part of a prophetic Scripture, referring to the closing days of Israel’s history. As shepherds they would be responsible rulers of Israel, but their names are not indicated here, but no doubt this prophecy will shine out clearly when it is fulfilled. In the meantime students of prophecy, as has well been said, are not called to try to be prophets.

W.H.

• About this site

THE PROTOCOLS
What are the Protocols?
The word is derived from the Greek: prötos, first, and kolla, glue, and originally meant the first leaf glued to a papyrus roll. This bore the year of the king ruling at the time, and thus dated the roll. Reading the other day of the discovery of some papyri, the words occurred:
“They found a stray leaf close by which was supposed to be a protocol of one of the papyri.” Later the name was applied to the original copy of any writing, e.g., a treaty, and then it came to mean the rough draft of any transaction.
As showing the importance of these dated “protocols,” the following facts are of interest. The Higher Critics have sought in their general attack on the Old Testament Scriptures to unsettle the Biblical dates of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel. “Their scholarship makes it impossible (!) to believe it otherwise.” “All (!) scholars are agreed” that these books could not have been written in their place, as we have them. Such persons as are described in the two former books did not exist, and two Greek words for musical instruments* in the book of Daniel most probably bring its date down to the second century instead of the sixth, in which it claims to be written (!). However, in 1904-1907, some papyrus rolls written in Aramaic by Jews of Jeb were discovered in the island of Elephantine or Jeb, in the Nile, opposite Assouan, all dated with the names of Persian Kings of the fifth century, B.C.. In these occur the names of Biblical persons such as Sanballat and the high priest, Jehoiada, and his son, Jehohanan, and also three Greek wordsf more unlikely in their character to be found, than the two Greek words occurring in Daniel. These flimsy papyrus-leaves, preserved in the dry sand of Egypt, are found to negative the premature conclusions of the critics. Daniel belongs to the same epoch.
The word “Protocol” has come rather prominently before the public in late years in connections with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a book purporting to be records of a world-wide conspiracy engineered by Jews. This work has proved to the satisfaction of very many to be a forgery by enemies of the Jews. It is, however, still used by Anti-semites on the Continentt (e.g., in German schools to-day) to stir up race- hatred against God’s earthly people.

William Hoste

• About this site

Do the two loaves of Levticus 23:17 represent Jews and Gentiles?

And why were they “baken with leaven,” which speaks of what is evil?

The feast of Leviticus 23:15-21," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 23:15-21, called in Deuteronomy 16:10," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 16:10, etc., “The Feast of Weeks”; in Acts 2:1," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:1, etc., “The Day of Pentecost”: and in Numbers 28:26," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 28:26, “The Day of the First-fruits”; is doubtless, as C. H. M. expresses it, “a type of God’s people, gathered by the Holy Ghost, and presented before Him in connection with all the preciousness of Christ.” This being so, the presence of leaven in the two loaves is, as he further says, “because they were intended to foreshadow those who, though filled with the Holy Ghost, and adorned with His gifts and graces, had nevertheless evil dwelling in them.” But the leaven was not burnt on the altar to God, either in this case or any other (see v. 20). That the number “two” may represent the elements, Jew and Gentile, out of which the Church is formed, seems reasonable enough.

W.R.

• About this site

• 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

• About this site

Had the Lord Jesus Christ, a spirit, a soul, and a body, as a perfect Man, together with, yet different from, His being God?

This is no unnecessary matter for consideration, for not only is the Deity of Christ attacked to-day, but also His true Humanity, and that in circles where one might hope for better things. This arises partly from ignoring the labours of God’s servants in the past, especially in the first centuries of the Christian era, which we cannot afford to do. God overruled the early attacks on the Person of His beloved Son to consolidate and define the truths of His Deity and Humanity, and we owe a debt of gratitude to those whom He raised up to “contend earnestly for the faith.”

One truth which emerged as Scriptural from these conflicts was what is known as the “Hypostatical Union,” that is the union in the Lord Jesus Christ of two whole and perfect natures, the Divine and the Human, in equal relation with One Divine Person, the Eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father. We cannot penetrate this mystery for “No man knoweth the Son but the Father;” we believe what is written. However, even the Arian heresy of the 4th century turned to the furtherance of the truth. The Arians taught the quasi-Godhead and quasi-Manhood of Christ. For them He was neither perfect God, nor true man, but something less than the former and more than the latter; and the spiritual element in His manhood (i.e., the spirit and soul) was replaced by His imperfect Godhead. The Arian controversy was a matter of life and death. Anus was a popular soft-spoken man and exercised a notable influence, as such men do to-day. However, the truth prevailed, and the Godhead of Christ, of the same substance as the Father, was established on a firm Scriptural basis, but His Manhood remained undefined.

It was the heresy of Apollinarius of Laodica (in Syria), an earnest opponent of Anus, that led to this. He taught that in the manhood of Christ the rational soul was lacking, and was replaced by the Godhead. This is virtually the error taught in some circles to-day. It was proved to be entirely unsatisfactory and unscriptural. If Christ were truly man, He must have been in possession of all that constitutes complete humanity—spirit, soul, body, will, etc. Indeed, His own words testify to this: “This is My body”; “My soui is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”; “Father . . . not as I will, but as Thou wilt”; “Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit.” (Matthew 26:26, 38, 39;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:26, 38, 39; Luke 23:46)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 23:46). Thus the words, “The Word became flesh”, imply something much more than that a Divine Person took a body, which might have meant little more than a Theophany of the Old Testament, but rather that He entered into manhood, that He became incarnate as truly “born of a woman,” a virgin, with all that perfect unfallen humanity implies. He was not less man, because sinless; not less experienced in human joys, sorrows, affections, weariness, hunger, pain, because truly God; not less capable of death, because not liable to death.

He was, moreover, not a dual Personality, as Nestorius of Constantinople taught (430 A.D.), but one Divine Person, in equal relation with His dual natures. As man, He is able in all points to sympathise with His people’s infirmities; as God, He is able to succour them.

W.H.

• About this site