Becky MacLeod

• About this site

Sunday School Teacher Resources

• 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

The Moral Glories of Our Lord

• About this site

Bob MacLeod

• About this site

Albert Hull

• About this site

• About this site

DEPARTED SAINTS AND EARTH

Do saints with the Lord “look this way” as the hymn says?

Are they cognisant of what is taking place on earth, as the hymn puts it, “Some one in glory LOOKING this way”?

I do not know any Scripture, which shows that those with Christ are cognisant of what is going on on the earth, or are “looking this way.” Samuel, when called up from beneath, as I believe he undoubtedly was, did not know why, but had to be told the circumstances by Saul (1 Samuel 28:15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:15). He was not “looking this way,” he called it being “disquieted.”

The rich man in Hades did “look this way,” as far as remembering he had five brethren still alive, who, though he could not see them, he instinctively felt were on the wrong road. Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom, and gave no indication of “looking this way” (Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16: From Ecclesiastes we learn that “the dead know not anything” Ecclesiastes 9:5)," TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 9:5), that is, of world happenings; not that they are unconscious, but as v. 6 tells us, they have no more “a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.”

If we take our ideas from hymns, we may get some strange ones; but if we disapprove of a hymn, it is better not to sing it, or else to omit the offending verse, than to tamper with it. It is a serious matter to tinker a hymn, without the author’s permission.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Why does it state in Matthew 27:28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:28 that they put on our Lord “a scarlet robe” and in John 19:2" TARGET="_blank">John 19:2 “a purple robe”?

Are the references to the same garment, and if so, why are they said to be of different colours?

I do not think it is possible to evade the difficulty by maintaining that the reference is to two different robes, for in both cases we read that those who thus clothed our Lord in mockery were the soldiers present at the trial, and the circumstances are the same. But the word translated, “robe,” is not the same in the two passages. That employed by John is quite a general word, rather like our word “garment” or “clothes,” whereas the “Matthew” word is particularly used for an official military cloak. Some such old uniform might, as has been remarked, be easily found by the soldiers in the Pretoria or barracks, and would be scarlet, the usual colour worn by high Roman officials. Here the word for “scarlet” (kokkinë) is a very definite word. The word translated “purple,” on the contrary, is very indeflnite. We might almost say that the “John” word could be adequately translated “bright colour,” while the “Matthew” word gives the exact tint—scarlet. We may add that the word translated, “gorgeous,” in reference to the robe (again another word) in which Herod arrayed our Lord (Luke 23:11)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 23:11), does not specify its colour, but rather its brilliancy; it was probably made of some tissue of metallic lustre. I do not think it the least probable that this was the robe in which the soldiers dressed our Lord; it would be very unlikely that they would have access to that. It seems to have been rather a gift worthy of the acceptance of Pilate, and indeed a feeler for his friendship. Thus are the quarrels of the world patched up in a shallow and unrighteous fashion, but the hatred at the bottom of the heart remains.

W.H.

• About this site

Should a pastor scare his congregation by preaching about Hell?

That depends on why he is doing it and what he is preaching.  Hell is definitely worth preaching about, because it is real.  God's great salvation made possible through the death of Christ on the Cross is a salvation to rescue guilty sinners from going to hell.  If there is no hell to preach, then salvation has no meaning. Thank God that the awfulness of hell is balanced by the wonder of God’s love for us and the miracle of Jesus’ sacrifice for us on Calvary.  Preach one without the other and you have heresy.

Some preachers like to promote their own agenda using the fear of hell to bring their point home.  A great crime is committed by anyone who, for example, would suggest that not attending a certain church or not paying a certain amount of money, or even committing a certain sin the preacher does not like will guarantee that a person will go there.  

When a person says, “Go to hell!”, they are doing exactly that, seeking to make whatever bothers them about someone else worthy of God’s ultimate judgment.  This is called “taking the name (authority) of the Lord in vain”, and God says in the 10 Commandments that that sort of carelessness will not go unpunished (Exodus 20:7)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20:7).

The fear of the Lord who can “destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matthew 8:28)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:28) should sober us up so much that we are most afraid to misrepresent God in the matter.  So let us preach it faithfully, but also fearfully, with reverence and balance and complete biblical accuracy.

Alfred Corduan

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE SEALING
Is the sealing of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation, a sealing on the forehead, seen outwardly, or is it experienced inwardly?

Does not John Bunyan refer to an outward sealing in the Pilgrim's Progress?

The sign of the old covenant was circumcision, an outward mark in the flesh. It is said in the case of Abraham to have been the “seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised” (Romans 4:9)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 4:9), which was of course exceptional, as infants of eight days old have no righteousness. The Lord seals His people as His own by giving them His Holy Spirit. “In whom having believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:13 R.V.; see also Ephesians 4:30;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:30; and 2 Corinthians 1:22)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 1:22). This is not an experience subsequent to conversion, but at conversion; nor is it an outward mark on the flesh, but a spiritual reality, which no doubt will come out in life. John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” is an allegory: that is, a spiritual truth conveyed under the form of a literal story. We should get into no end of difficulties, if we interpreted the figures literally.

Are all sinners, for example, to wade through a literal “Slough of Despond” on their way to the wicket gate? Besides, even Bunyan must be checked by the Word of God, and no less, “experiences” that pious persons claim to have passed through. There is no such thing taught in the Bible, as a Christian “being sealed on the forehead,” and for anyone to claim such a thing is a mistaken pretension, which he should seek grace from God to abandon.

W.H.

• About this site

In what sense, if any, did our Lord confess His people’s sins? Is Psalm 69:5" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 69:5 distinctly applicable to Him? How are we to understand the phrase, “He was made sin for us”? (2 Corinthians 5:21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21).

These questions open out very important points which are spoken of very loosely to-day and which need careful handling. As for the first, I believe it to be far from scriptural to assert any such thing. Hymn- writers have said so, and the saints have allowed themselves at their bidding, to sing wrong doctrine. I have long shrunk from singing the words of J. G. Deck’s, otherwise beautiful hymn,

“Our sins, our guilt, in love divine
Confessed and borne by Thee.”

To confess sins makes them our own, and that the Lord never did. Is it necessary or proper for one paying a debt for a friend, to confess that he incurred it himself? It would be untrue and quite gratuitous and would detract from the favour. The words in question, might be altered to some such phrase as, “All known and borne by Thee.” Our Lord Jesus was always the sinless One, and He suffered vicariously for our sins; but they were always ours, not His “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2: 24)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2: 24). There was always a vast distinction between the Saviour and the sinner, He became surety for sin, but never identical with the sinner. As for applying Psalm 69." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 69. to our Lord—”O God, Thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins (Heb. guiltiness) are not hid from Thee”—it is, I believe, most improper to do so. We must remember that even the Messianic Psalms represent to a certain degree the experience of the writer, but go beyond this to any godly ones, brought low before God, on account of their sins, especially the faithful remnant of the last days. Bearing this in mind, there is much of the Psalm which can be applied to Christ. But it is exceedingly dangerous, in my judgment, to attempt to apply all to Him. Fancy applying such words as above to “Christ the Wisdom of God” and “the Holy One of God”
As for 2 Corinthians 5:21" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21 we can perhaps best see its meaning by negatives, it cannot mean that our Lord became personally that abominable thing called sin. But even had such a thing been possible, it would not have helped us in any way; clearly the Lord was made sin, in such a way as to affect us and cause us to become the righteousness of God in Him. There was only one way to effect this, namely, to take our place, or in other words, be treated as we deserved as an offering for sin. Thus He atoned for sin on the cross, and became our righteousness on resurrection ground.

W.H.

• About this site