Larry Perkins

• About this site

 Woollen and Linen

• About this site

Sunday School Activities

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

John Dennison

• About this site

 The Old Nature

• About this site

HOW MANY CUPS?
Is it not as much a departure from the scriptural practice to use two or so cups at the Lord’s table, as it would be to use fifty-two?

Though the unity of the cup is not insisted upon in the Scriptures in the same way as that of the loaf, which in 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: represents the one indivisible Body of Christ, nevertheless it is always “the cup” that is spoken of—the unique receptacle of that which represents the blood of Christ. But even in the case of the loaf, as each member present partakes, the outward unity of the loaf is not preserved. Indeed, even before that, as the brother who gives thanks, breaks the loaf, and for convenience places the portions on different plates, the figure of the unity of the body is in no way affected, as it would be were the loaf originally cut up in in bits. No more would the unity of the cup be, even though it stood on the same ground as the loaf, by being poured into different glasses or cups, for convenience of distribution. It is still “the cup,” each being filled from the one original receptacle. But by the introduction of what is called “the individual cup” for each “communicant,” the receptacles are multiplied and the identity of the wine in them is completely lost and the thought of fellowship hindered. As we practise it, though there be two or more cups, for purposes of distribution, all are filled from the original receptacle and still constitute “the cup”—the communion of the blood of Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

In Isaiah 53:12," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12, who are the “great” and the “strong”, and in what way does God “divide” to the Messiah a portion with them?

Is it not probable that we place overmuch emphasis on these three words, and that we seek to get more out of them than perhaps they are meant to convey? “Divide” seems to suggest to our minds a cutting up into so many definite shares, of which Christ gets His, and certain others get theirs. But what if we use the word “assign” as is done in Darby’s Translation, or render the clause, “I will allot to Him a portion among the mighty”, as Gesenius does in his Lexicon! Either of these is quite correct as a rendering, and at the same time does not tie up our thoughts to an actual division of something into two or more parts. This should make it clear to us that the meaning may be no more than as follows: “I will assign to Him such a spoil as is usually that obtained by the great and the strong; and I will do so in recompense for (“Therefore”) His having suffered in littleness and weakness (as pictured in v. 7, etc.), and for (“because”) His having poured out His soul unto death (middle of v. 12).
Viewed in this way, the words “great” and “strong”, which are both plurals, need not refer to any particular individuals, but to the great and strong in general. Compare how the same two words are coupled together in such passages as Isaiah 8:7;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 8:7; Joel 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2:2 and Zecheriah 8:22; the word “many” in the first and last of these being the same Hebrew word as “great” in our verse.
The translators of the Septuagint, when turning the passage into Greek, rendered the second clause. “He shall divide the spoils OF the mighty”, and left out the “with” of the first clause also; thus suggesting the meaning to be a complete triumph over all His foes, however “many” or “mighty” they were. Various commentators agree with this view of the passage. But whether we take it thus, and think of the great and mighty ones as His enemies, amongst whom He stands out pre-eminent; the basic idea in the statement is much the same—that the One who stooped so low and who suffered so much, has been given a place and an honour beyond all others.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

When Moses in Deutonomy 6:4 says, “Hear, 0 Israel, The LORD our God is one LORD,” are we to understand that therefore Jesus Christ is the only Person in the Godhead?

No, it would be a very serious and fundamental error to do so, upsetting and dislocating the whole revealed truth concerning the Godhead, as it has pleased God to reveal Himself in His Word.

This is the teaching of a certain fearful system of error, which we need not name, but which has, alas, adherents to-day; but I question whether there is one point of God’s revealed truth on which they are sound. It is a false system built on lies.

Moses’ words are perfectly true: “The LORD our God is One LORD,” but in that Unity there are three distinct Divine Persons or Subsistences —Father, Son and Spirit—co-equal, co-eternal, co-substantial (see e.g. Matthew 3:16-17;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 3:16-17; Matthew 28:19;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14;" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 13:14; Revelation 1:4-6," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:4-6, etc., etc.). The last expression means that each glorious Person of the Triune God possesses the entire Divine Substance or Essence. God is Spirit and as such is invisible. “No man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” . . . “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-14)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:1-14). He was “the express image of God’s Person”; “the image of the Invisible God” (John 10:14, 18;" TARGET="_blank">John 10:14, 18; Hebrews 1: 3;" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1: 3; Colossians 1:15)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:15). Only in the Lord Jesus Christ is the Father revealed by the Spirit. Let us not reason about it, but bow and worship. If we do not understand our own tripartite nature, how can we claim to comprehend the Infinite, the “One God in Three Persons”?

W.H.

• About this site

It is being taught in some quarters that our Lord was “God the Son in eternity,” and became the “Son of God in incarnation.”

Is this distinction scriptural?

I do not know where the phrase, “God the Son,” occurs in Scripture, though no serious objection need be raised to it. As a Trinitarian Person He was God the Son, but THEN, too, He was in the relation of Son to the Father, and was therefore Son of God. There are those who deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ, which is a very serious error, but clearly the teacher referred to here admits this important truth.

But I believe it is unscriptural to limit the expression “Son of God” to incarnation. To the Son He saith, “Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever,” and to the Son also, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth” (Hebrews 1:8-10)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:8-10)—uttered to the Lord centuries before His incarnation. I doubt if the Sonship of Christ is ever made to depend on His incarnation. He was CALLED the Son of God’ in incarnation, because He was the Son of God before incarnation (Luke 1:35)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:35), just as the “Son given” is called “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God,” because He was all this before being “the child, born” of the virgin (Isaiah 9:6)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 9:6). The above teacher has been referred to as to the phrase this question is based on, and he replies that what he intended to be printed was, “Christ was God the Son in eternity, and became the Son of God as Man,” which seems only to mean that personally He was unchanged, but now as Son of God He entered into Manhood and became changed in condition.

W.H.

• About this site

“ONE SHALL BE TAKEN”
What is the meaning of Matthew 24:40" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24:40?

When our Lord uttered His great prophetic discourse as recorded in Mark 13," TARGET="_blank">Mark 13, Luke 21" TARGET="_blank">Luke 21 and here in Matthew 24," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 24, He was addressing the disciples, not as members of the church, which did not then exist, but as representing the godly remnant of Israel, “the people made ready prepared for the Lord” by John the Baptist. The disciples had not ceased to be Jews by receiving Christ; that would have been a strange result of receiving the National Messiah. They were better Jews than ever, in fact, the only true Jews. Now, the first coming of Messiah, in humiliation and the second in glory—”the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow”—formed the staple theme of the Old Testament prophets (see Isaiah 10;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10; Isaiah 11;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 11; Isaiah 25" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 25 and Isaiah 25:9;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 25:9; Daniel 7:9-14;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 7:9-14; Zechariah 14:1-8)." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 14:1-8). In all these places, except Isaiah 53," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53, it is the coming in power and great glory of the Son of Man to the earth in connection with the deliverance of Israel that is in view, not His coming to take them away from this scene, but to set up His Kingdom for their blessing under His own beneficent sway. In 1 Thessalonians 4" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4 quite another character of deliverance is in view—a preliminary stage of the Second Coming—not revealed in the Old Testament, but a mystery displayed in the New, which provides for a deliverance of a large number of saints by resurrection, transformation and translation from this scene, in view of the judgment and tribulation about to occur on the earth. These will be “caught up to meet the Lord in the air” (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). To anyone who will carefully read the synoptic chapters referred to above, with the Old Testament passages quoted there and also i Thess, 4, there ought not to be much difficulty in settling to which stage of His Second Coming our Lord was referring in His prophetic discourse. There it is the “Son of Man” (6 times repeated) Who is coming, as in Daniel; it will be a coming in an evil day, as in the days of Noah, see Isaiah 10" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 10 and 11; in connection with Israel, as in Zechariah 14." TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 14. The answers to the three questions asked seem very clear. The two will be in the field at the coming of the Son of Man in glory; one shall be taken away from this world in judgment, the other left in this scene for Millennial blessing.

W.H.

• About this site

Is the name Jesus enough to refer to Christ or does he have a fuller title like "Lord Jesus Christ, Emmanuel,  King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Father of Eternity"?   These, and many more titles, are not sufficient to capture the fullness of him who is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Colossians 1:15." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:15.

Last names, or surnames, were not used in Jesus' time. It wasn't common in Europe for people to use them until the middle ages.

Surnames were initially based on who the father was (Mike Thomson), the occupation that one had (Mike Miller), or what town a person lived in (Mike Berlin).

Jesus might have been named Jesus bar Joseph, Jesus Carpenter, Jesus Nazareth if they used surnames. Yeshua bar Yosef (Aramaic name form) of Nazareth (Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth).

A common way to refer to Christ is to use the three, short, but descriptive titles "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ".  There is no one single formula used in the Bible.  The appropriate name is used in all situations to emphasize something about Him.  Sometimes, the name Jesus is used to emphasize his humble birth and earthly life (Acts 9:27;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 9:27; Acts 19:15;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:15; Acts 21:13;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 21:13; Acts 26:9)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 26:9).  

Jesus is his earthly name, used to emphasize that he is the Savior (Matthew 1:21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:21).  The Bible refers to him as simply Jesus in many of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Certainly they show no respect to him for using his earthly name.  He is referred to more fully in the epistles as Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  

The name of Christ is "one who is anointed" by God which has the idea of being chosen or the Promised One.  John 4:25-29" TARGET="_blank">John 4:25-29

 John 4:25-29" TARGET="_blank">John 4:25-29

(25)  The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things." (26)  Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he." (27)  Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, "What do you seek?" or, "Why are you talking with her?" (28)  So the woman left her water jar and went away into town and said to the people, (29)  "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"

He is Lord, in the full sense in that he is God.  Acts 2:36" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:36

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. 

Shad David Sluiter 

• 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

• About this site