Elton Fairfield - "I am a Christian."

"I didn't buy that status, nor did I work for it. I was not born into it, even though both my parents are devoted Christians. I am a Christian because there was a moment in my life when I accepted the fact that the death of Jesus Christ was for my sins."

• About this site

Karen Hoy

• About this site

Crossword Puzzle Maker

• About this site

Jesus Tomb

• About this site

 Sketches of Jewish Social Life

• About this site

Martin Prins

“I-I-I don’t know,” I answered, “Nobody knows.”

“I do,” she said confidently. "Sixteen years ago, I came to know the Lord Jesus as my personal Savior and I received eternal life.” She then got out her Dutch Bible. Together we read...

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

DIVORCE
Is it clear from Scripture, as some affirm, that divorced persons can under no circumstances be remarried, till the death of one partner?

This is a question that is often being raised in these days, in which the sacredness of the marriage tie has fallen so low in the eyes of an ungodly world, that divorce is treated as a light thing of no account. We may be sure that God’s thoughts on the subject have not changed since He wrote by the prophet Malachi, “The Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away,” as He terms divorce or “dealing treacherously,” (Malachi 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 2:16). In reply to the Pharisees, our Lord explains that, if Moses suffered (a man) to write a bill of divorcement and put his wife away, it was a permission “for the hardness of their heart,” but not at all according to the original purpose of God, who made man and wife to be one and remain one, as long as life lasted. He concluded with the clear and determinate words: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:4-9)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:4-9).

Are there, then, no circumstances in which God Himself puts asunder what he has joined together? I believe there is one which our Lord points out clearly in Matthew 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:32, and again in Matthew 19:9," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:9, in both of which verses, while emphasising the sacredness of the marriage tie, and the sin of divorce, He does make an exception—”saving for the cause of fornication,” and “except it be for fornication.” When that cause arises and is clearly proved, divorce should take place, and when this is so, it is not man putting asunder what God hath joined, but God himself. If so, then the parties are henceforth as truly no longer married, as though they had never been united, or as though one was dead. The question of the remarriage of the guilty party is not under discussion. We have nothing to do with it, for one guilty in so gross a manner clearly must cease from the fellowship of the saints, and be put away into the outside place; but as for the offended party, I believe he or she is free before God to remarry, though only in the Lord.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

We read in Matthew 13:41" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:41: “The Son of Man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.”

Are we not right in understanding the angels here to be the Church glorified, and made equal to the angels, seeing we read in Hebrews 2:5," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5, “For unto the angels (the angels of chapter 1) hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.”?

No, it would be a great mistake to confound angels with the Church, as this questioner suggests. I do not know of any passage which teaches that the Church becomes angels, or indeed that any saints do. In Luke 20:36," TARGET="_blank">Luke 20:36, where our Lord uses the expression, “equal unto the angels,” it is only as to the question of their immortality (“neither shall they die any more”), that the children of the resurrection (not here oniy the Church) “are equal to the angels.” The next words add a point of blessing, in which these surpass the angels, “and are the children of God,” which the angels are not. I think Hebrews 2:5" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:5 argues rather against, than for, the thesis of the questioner. “The world to come” (i.e., the millennial age) will not be subjected to angels, which is another point of their inferiority to the Church, for that age will be subject to Christ, with Whom God associates not angels, but the many sons whom He is bringing to glory. If the angels are excluded from this rule, how can they be the same as the Church?

W.H.

• About this site

Go to the main Sunday school page for puzzles, lesson plans and other activities for Sunday school teachers.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• 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