Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

Jane Aubry - I remember one day in the 1970's playing my guitar, looking up to heaven, and saying, “If there is a God, I want to know Him.” When I met Roger, my husband to be, he told me he was “saved”.  I had never heard the word before.  I had thought we could only “hope” to go to heaven. He told me how he was saved and that was the end of talking about it for a time. more...

• About this site

• About this site

Sunday School Activities

• About this site

 The Encourager

• About this site

Marriage and the Family

• About this site

PRAYER TO THE HOLY SPIRIT
Is it right to pray to the Holy Ghost?

Which Scriptures, if any, can be cited to justify this, either directly or by implication?

It is not according to God’s order as laid down in His Word. The glorious Three in One, though co-equal, co-eternal and co-substantial (that is each possessing the whole Divine substance), are not identical in function and relation, as any thoughtful reader of the Scripture will allow at once. The Father sends the Son, the Son by the Eternal Spirit offers Himself to God, the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Who sends Him forth in the name of the Son. The Father desires worshippers. Such can only come through the Son, and in the power of the Spirit. All these purposes and functions are also the work of the Divine Being in the Unity of His essence.
It is therefore quite beside the mark to insist on predicating of each of the Blessed Divine Persons the same relations, lest we dishonour any One of Them. We pray to the Father and the Son (John 14:13, 14)," TARGET="_blank">John 14:13, 14), but never are we told to do this to the Holy Spirit; nor have we one instance SO far as I know, of any such exercise. Whatever pious ecclesiastics, often governed as much by their feelings as by the Word, may say, we cannot presume to be wiser than God, or to go beyond His Word, or honour Him by going outside what He has revealed. The ultimate divine order is given in Ephesians 2:18" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:18 “For through Him (the Son) we both (Jew and Gentile) have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Are angels always men or are there women angels too?

Angels are neither male nor female since they are spirit beings.  They don't need a body like a human does (Colossians 1:16)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:16). However, they can and do appear to us in human form.  Although not common, there are some examples of angel appearances to people in the Bible.  These are all in the form of men.  Abraham thought he was entertaining three men visitors in his tent in Genesis 18:1-20." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 18:1-20.  Angels appeared to Lot in Genesis 19:1-20." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 19:1-20.  Lot thought they were two men until they started to perform great acts of un-human power.  Zechariah 5:9" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 5:9 mentions two women, but not clearly identified as angels. 

Mark 16:5" TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:5 shows us a young man at the tomb of Christ who was actually an angel.  At the ascension of Christ in Acts 1:10" TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:10 , two men dressed in white appeared to the disciples to tell them that Jesus would return in the same glorious manner some day. These are presumed to be angels sent with a divine message. 

Angels always appear as full-grown adults.  Cherubs are not sweet, valentine card infants with wings.  They are six-winged creatures who guard the throne of Christ (Isaiah 6:1-6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 6:1-6).  John, Isaiah and others who were in the presence of angels, typically reacted in fear and reverence.  

Most references to angels in the Bible say nothing about wings, and in passages like Genesis 18-19," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 18-19, it is certain that no wings were visible.

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

• 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

Am I right in refusing to take the cup at the Lord’s Table because it is not “non-alcoholic”?

That the wine used by the Lord at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was the ordinary wine of the country, nothing but special pleading can deny. The vintage was then long past, so that any idea of fresh grape juice and water is ruled out. At Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11: ), the erroneous idea had crept in that the Lord’s Supper was to be a meal, and each brought his or her provisions, and “one was hungry and another drunken”! How does the apostle meet this scandal? Not by advocating the use of some substitute for the ordinary wine used, but by showing that it was not a meal, but a memorial act, for which a morsel of bread or a sup of wine sufficed. I am not advocating the habitual use of wine as a beverage; on the contrary, but for anyone to refuse to partake of the cup, which the Lord Himself instituted, because it contains wine, which some have abused, seems like setting up himself to be wiser than God, and to incur a serious responsibility.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

What is the difference in Isaiah 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6 between the expressions the “child born” and the “Son given”?

There is an important difference, I believe, and one which the exponents of what they term “the New Light,” as to the Eternal Sonship of our Lord, would do well to consider. Why is the “child” said to be “born,” but the “Son” not born, but “given”? We read in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 that God had been pleased to offer to king Ahaz a sign to confirm his doubting soul, that the line of David would not be superseded by the son of Tabeal, according to the Satanic design of Rezin and Pekah, which would have set aside the purpose of God regarding His future King, who must be of the seed of David according to the flesh. Ahaz had liberty of choice; he might ask for any sign in the depth, that is commensurate with the drying up of the Red Sea, or in the height commensurate with the standing still of the sun in answer to Joshua’s prayer. The king who was continually tempting God by his disobedience, refused this offer: He would not tempt the Lord, he said. Very well, then, the Lord will give a sign greater than any other known so far in the history of the world—the Virgin Birth of Him who was God:
“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (v. 14). A great effort of unbelief has been made to show that the word,” ‘almãh,” translated “virgin,” should be rather rendered “young married woman.” Such an objection hardly shows unusual scholarship, so much as a lack of common sense; for the fact of a young married woman having a son would be no sign at all. In this verse, in the phrase “a virgin shall.. . bear a son,” the same verb is used as in Isaiah 9:6," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6, “a child is born.” Here the Son is viewed as the Son of
Mary in the sense of Matthew 1:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25 “She brought forth her first-born Son.” Why then is the “Son” said to be “given” in Isaiah 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6? The reason is that there the One born is viewed as the One who had already been Son from all eternity. He could not become that by human birth. The child was born, but God gave His Eternal Son.

W.H.

• About this site

Could our Lord have returned to heaven without going to the Cross?

This idea used to be put forward as a possible suggestion for illustrative purposes. What a wonderful ending to our Lord’s life it would have been had He gone straight up to heaven without dying! but without asserting that this was a possibility. Of later years this supposition has become an affirmation, put forward as though there was a clear “thus saith the Lord” for it. Especially have speculative teachers, who love the sensational, asserted this in connection with the Transfiguration on the Holy Mount. In reality this was the most unlikely moment for such a thing to occur, had it been otherwise within the range of God’s purposes, for such an event is never hinted at in any of the three Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration.

In Matthew 17" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17 this comes just after the Lord’s first clear announcement of His passion: “Jesus began to show unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things”, etc. (Matthew 16:21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 16:21). In Mark 9" TARGET="_blank">Mark 9 likewise the account is preceded by the words of Mark 8:31," TARGET="_blank">Mark 8:31, “The Son of Man must suffer,” etc., and so in Luke 9" TARGET="_blank">Luke 9—the reference to the sufferings in Luke 9:22" TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:22 as a necessity, is followed by a glimpse of the coming Kingdom glory.

Far then from a choice being offered to our Lord on the Holy Mount of returning to heaven without dying, I believe this prophetic view of the coming Kingdom glory was to cheer the disciples in view of the certainly coming Cross. There is an additional fact given us in Luke, namely, the subject on which Moses and Elias conversed with our Lord in the glory —“They spake of His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem.” Certainly Peter tried to turn Him from this purpose in Matt. i6, but was met with a stern rebuke.

The momentous scene in Gethsemane clearly shows, however, that the Lord was a free Agent in redemption. He was under no fatalistic necessity to redeem men, but He was “the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” and He had said to Nicodemus, “The Son of Man must be lifted up.” Later we hear Him saying, “For this cause came I unto this hour,” and “The Son of Man came . . to give His life a ransom for many.” These two sides of truth are seen at Gethsemane. His holy human will rightly shrank from contact with sin, and the Divine abandonment involved; but as a Divine Person His will was able to say, “Nevertheless not My will but thine be done.” When Peter sought by the use of the sword to defend His Master, the latter says, in Matthew 26:52," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:52, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” but immediately adds, “But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

In John 18:11" TARGET="_blank">John 18:11 we have an additional word, “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” which, coming either before or after the other words, gives us the balance of Scripture. It was with “wicked hands”—the voluntary act of murderers—that men crucified and slew Him; but it was also with holy hands that He by a voluntary act, and by the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God (Hebrews 9)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9). He could say with equal truth, “No man taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself,” and “this commandment have I received of My Father” (John 10)." TARGET="_blank">John 10). There was no fatalistic necessity for our Lord to lay down His life, but there was a moral necessity, and it is very unprofitable and unsound specula tio to assert the contrary.

W.H.

• About this site

Is there any good ground for the change, advocated by some, of the word “virgin” In Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 to “young married woman” or “young woman of marriageable age”?

I believe “virgin” can be shown to be the true rendering, along several lines of proof. It is significant that those who propose this change are mostly of Modernist tendencies. Such men deny the miraculous in general, and would gladly get rid of the Virgin Birth of our Lord, and create a discrepancy between Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23 and our verse. Gesenius, the well-known author of the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, a man with a strong Modernistic bias, says, “The true meaning of ‘almäh, (“virgin” in Isaiah 7:14)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14) is a girl of marriageable age, with no special reference to her unspotted virginity, which is expressed,” he affirms, “by another word, bethulah”; but that moral purity is surely taken for granted, unless definite proof is alleged to the contrary. He adds, “almãh is used of a youthful spouse recently married”; but the only place he quotes to prove this is the verse in question, Isaiah 7:14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14, where he wants to rule out the other meaning, and thus begs the question. He also
quotes Canticles 6. 8 to prove his point, but as virgins (‘almöth) are distinguished there from wives and concubines, we may ask what they do stand for, if not for unmarried girls of unspotted character? Gesenius admits, moreover, that his word bethfflah is sometimes clearly used of a woman newly married, e.g., in Joel i. 8. If that word had been used in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 he might still have found a loop-hole, and have quoted Joel to show that even “bethfflãh was not conclusive. God, however, has raised up to oppose Gesenius a man of equal scholarship, namely, Dr. S. P. Tregelles, of humble evangelical faith, and also of European reputation as a Hebraist. He translated Gesenius’ Lexicon from the German, and has added notes in brackets to neutralise, where necessary, the bias of the Lexicon. The following note by Dr. Tregelles occurs under “‘almãh”: “Gesenius’ object in view in seeking to undermine the opinion, which would assign the signification of virgin to this word, is clearly to raise a discrepancy between Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23. Nothing which has been stated (i.e. by Gesenius earlier in the article) does, however, really give us any ground for assigning another meaning.. . . ‘Almãh in the Punic language signifies virgin.
The absolute authority of the New Testament is, however, quite sufficient to settle the question to a Christian.” We may refer here to the words of Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is by interpretation, God with us.” The Evangelist uses the ordinary Greek word, “parthenos,” for “virgin,” used too in Luke 2:27," TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:27, of the Virgin Mary. The Greek Version, the Septuagint, does sometimes translate the word “‘almãh” otherwise than by “parthenos,” but here in Isa. 7. 14," TARGET="_blank">Isa. 7. 14, where as Tregelles points out “it must to their minds have occasioned a difficulty,” they translate by the same word that we have in the Gospels. We may suppose these learned Jews—the translators of their own Scriptures—knew at least as much of Hebrew and Greek as Modernist scholars. Matthew does not appear to have quoted from the LXX, so is an independent witness. We do not, however, in any case, need even the authority of God-fearing scholars. This is a question in which “a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err.” Let us look at the other occurrences of the word, “‘almãh,” in the Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 24:43" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24:43 of Rebecca—the prospective wife of Isaac. The other word, “bethülãh, occurs in verse i6, as we might say “virgin” or “maid” indiscriminately. Miriam, in Exodus 2:8," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 2:8, is called an “‘almh,” and she was clearly not a young married woman, but a maiden. This suits, too, in Proverbs 30:19." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 30:19. Canticles 10:3 seems to demand the sense of virgins, as also chap. 6. 8, as we have seen. Psalm 68:25" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:25 we may take as neutral; we cannot affirm the damsels to be virgins, though they might have been. Then there is another consideration. The name to be given to the child—”Emmanuel,” “God with us”—goes a long way to justify the translation of “virgin” by our Translators and Revisers, as such a birth demanded extraordinary concomitant circumstances. The context, too, favours the same conclusion. Jehovah had offered Ahaz any sign he might choose to ask—”in the depth or in the height” above, that is anything comparable with the drying up of the Red Sea or the Jordan, or on the other hand, with Joshua’s long day. When Ahaz refused, the prophet replied, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. “Behold a* (literally “the”) virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” Clearly God’s sign would be something extraordinarily arresting. How else would the Eternal Son of God enter into manhood except in the womb of a Virgin? The birth of a son to a young married woman, far from being an arresting sign, would not be a sign at all, but the most atural of events.

W.H.

• About this site