Brian Crawford

• About this site

Tom Bentley

• About this site

Priscilla Van Der Hart

• About this site

Jesus Tomb

• About this site

  I speak in tongues more than you all - A biblical exploration about the gift of tongues. Two pitfalls are pointed out: The dangerous error of counterfeiting the truth and the chilling error of a dead orthodoxy.

• About this site

Julie Kelly

• About this site

Don't have much time to prepare your lesson for tomorrow's Sunday school class?  Perhaps you like reading the Bible story for the lesson, but you don't have time to create an interesting activity.  Then the following fast links will help you create a fast lesson and an activity to go with it. 

• Lesson plans - A fast-start to help you prepare for next class.

• Printable activities - Crafts, foldable paper models, worksheets, PowerPoint and other items to make your lesson more interesting and active.

• Sunday School Puzzle Maker - Create a crossword puzzle or wordsearch in a few mouse clicks.

• or use one of the 325 worksheets already made to get you started fast.

• About this site

Among the various passages where “breaking bread” is mentioned, in Acts and elsewhere, please distinguish, which do, and which do not, refer to the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever difficulty there may be of settling this point in any particular instance, is due to one or both of two considerations. On the one hand, it is clear that the usual Jewish method of eating bread was by first breaking it up into convenient portions; and therefore the statement that a person had “broken bread” might with them signify merely that he had had a meal, with bread as its prominent feature. On the other hand, it also seems to be beyond doubt that in the apostles’ days the Lord’s Supper was often associated with a meal, of which the saints partook in fellowship together; and therefore, when the phrase “break bread” is linked with some other one about taking food, it is open to question whether this, or an ordinary meal only, is meant.

In Acts 27:35," TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:35, and of course in the references in the Gospels to the Lord breaking bread to feed the hungry multitudes, there can be no suggestion of the Ordinance; and to these occurrences I would add Luke 24:30, 35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:30, 35; for although the Lord there took bread, blessed, brake, and gave to the two disciples; and although their eyes were opened to recognise Him as He did so; they could not, even in thought, connect this with the Supper which had been instituted a few days previously; since none but the apostles had been present on that occasion.

Over against these instances we may place Acts 2:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16; as passages in which the reference to the Lord’s Supper cannot reasonably be denied; and we then are left with Acts 2." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2. 46 and Acts 20." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20. II, as the only occurrences about which there may be difference of opinion, In each of these there is an additional word or phrase about the partaking of food; and although in the view of some, this rules out any reference to the Ordinance; it seems to me that its effect is just the opposite. For why, if an ordinary meal, and nothing more, is intended, should the two separate expressions have to be used at all? Either of them, in that case, would have said all that was to be said, without the other.

In Acts 2:46" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46 the significance of the statement appears to be that, while some of the activities of the early disciples could be carried on in the precincts of the Temple, the Breaking of Bread could not; and so it took place in their homes (see R.V.). As for Acts 20:2," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:2, the insertion of “the” (R.V., “had broken the bread”), which is according to the reading of all the most ancient authorities, links the statement with verse 7, and implies that here too the Ordinance is meant; though some may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul’s long address would thus have been given before the Supper, transgressing certain views they hold as to it being out of place for a brother to speak, or even to read the Scriptures, in the part of the meeting which precedes it.

W.R.

• 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

What is the meaning of Isaiah 33:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 33:14?

Most Gospel preachers use it in warning the unsaved but some Bible students hold differently.

I have heard an attempt to interpret “the devouring fire,” and “everlasting burnings,” as God’s burning love, on the ground that the words in v. 15, “He that walketh righteously, etc.,” are an answer to the question of the hypocrites, but it is not an answer at all and the interpretation is purely fantastic. “He that walketh righteously,” etc., describes those who will not dwell “with everlasting burnings,” but “on high” as in v. x6. Why should the sinners in Zion be afraid or the hyprocrites surprised with fearfulness, if they are intended to understand that all that awaits them is the eternal enjoyment of the love of God? No, they get a glimpse of the terrors of a lost eternity and of what awaits them if they pursue their path. It is to call darkness light and light darkness to make V. 14 mean something good and pleasant. I should think only Bible students of the shallowest “Universalist” type could extract such a meaning from the passage. Certainly let evangelists continue to use it as a warning to the ungodly, for that is its legitimate use.

The word “‘akal”—here translated “devouring”—_means literally “to eat,” and is constantly used of devouring or consuming in judgment (Numbers 21: 28;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 21: 28; Isaiah 24: 6;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 24: 6; Isaiah 29:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 29:6). The word for “burnings” is from “yaqad”—and is used in Deuteronomy 32:22;" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 32:22; “and shall burn to the lowest hell,” see also Isaiah 10:16" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10:16 and Isaiah 65:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 65:5; Jeremiah 15:4" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 15:4 and Jeremiah 17:4." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 17:4. It is also used of the burnings of the fire on the altar (Levticus 6:9, 12, 13).

W.H.

• About this site

How many years were the children of Israel in bondage in Egypt?

Genesis 15:13" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:6 indicate that the Israelites  would be afflicted 400 years. Exodus  12:40 states the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years; Galatians 3:17" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:17 states that from the giving of the promise to Abraham to the giving of the law by Moses was 430 years. How can the above Scriptures be reconciled to one another? What does Genesis 15:16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:16 mean?

There is no real discrepancy, but we must note what is said in each case, and take into consideration the universal permission of an occasional use of round numbers. The difficulty of Genesis  15:13 arises from limiting the “four hundred years” to the AFFLICTIONS in Egypt, whereas the expression governs the whole verse, and I feel sure that the earlier expression, “thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,” would go further back even than Egypt, to what characterised the lives of Isaac and Jacob and his sons, even before they went down there. That this number—400 years—then is to be taken in this general and round number way, seems clear from Galatians 3:17," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:17, which dates the 430 years exactly from the promise to Abraham (Gen. xv.) to the giving of the law in the third month of the Exodus (see Exodus 19:1)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 19:1). This tallies with the 430 years of Exodus 12:41," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:41, a verse generally read as though it affirmed that the children of Israel sojourned that period in Egypt, whereas it says that the sojourning (i.e., I take it as including the whole period of their sojournings either in Canaan or Egypt) of the children of Israel (who dwelt in Egypt) was 430 years. That is, they were always characteristically “sojourners.” This is shown, I believe, to be the case in Genesis 15:16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:16, where the Exodus is specified as to occur not 400 years after their arrival, but “IN THE FOURTH GENERATION.” This harmonises with the genealogies of Exodus 6" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 6: , where we learn that Kohath was a son of Levi, and that Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron, was the son of Kohath, i.e., four generations. Notice the ages of Levi (v. 16), of Kohath (v. 18), of Amram (v. 20), which specify this.

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

• About this site