Peter Ramsay - I thought... “Yes I have done some wrong things, but I am not bad enough to go to Hell. There are many people who really deserve to be there – but I don’t."

The very last thing I wanted to do was to let go of the things that I thought earned me favor with God and gave me a special status.

• About this site

Bob MacLeod

• About this site

Ron Mills' Story - At the age of 22 I started to consider suicide as an answer to feelings of hopelessness. By the time I was 23 I would get brief periods of wondering “is this all there is to life?" I remember going to night clubs after drug use and drinking and just standing amongst hundreds of people and feeling very alone and tired of life. There had to be more to this Life (more...)

• About this site

"Take the Challenge"

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

 The Encourager

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• 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

How are we to understand the words in Matthew 2:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 2:23 “He shall be called a Nazarene”?

Some connect them with the Nazarite vow, but how did that depend on living in Nazareth?

The exact words quoted are not to be found verbatim in any particular Old Testament Prophet, and the evangelist does not assert so much, but only, as it seems, that the sense of his quotation “was spoken by the prophets.” The phrase cannot refer to the Nazariteship of the Lord, because His consecration was not on the line of the Jewish vow of the Nazarite. He was not a Nazarite in the literal sense, and had He been, that would not have depended on His living in Nazareth. Indeed, this interpretation may be ruled out, for the words both in Hebrew and Greek are different—that for Nazarite being “Nazir” or “Nazeiraios,” whereas an inhabitant of Nazareth is generally “Nazöraios” or else (e.g., Mark 1" TARGET="_blank">Mark 1: 24 or Luke 4:34)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 4:34) “Nazarênos.” Some have thought the reference is to Nazareth, as a despised place, which would tally so well with our Lord’s name of Nazarene, which certainly conveyed the thought of reproach. However this may be, the more probable interpretation seems to be that which connects the words of Matthew with such a passage as Isa. ii. i, “There 8hall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Netzer (Branch) shall grow out of his roots.” The name “Nazareth” is probably derived from Netzer, from the bushes and shrubs which were a feature of the landscape, a fact that would thus recall the prophetic name.

W.H.

• 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

Are we to believe that God the Father has angels (Revelation 3:5)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3:5), Christ some (2 Thessalonians 1:7)," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1:7), and Michael some (Revekation 12:7)?

Or are they all the same?

Though we recognise in the Scriptures that the Divine Persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial, that is that each possesses the whole Divine essence in the Unity of the Godhead, we equally see distinctions between the Persons, and differences of relation and function; also conditions of subordination between them for mutual purposes, and this not only since the Incarnation, but eternally and necessarily so by the Divine law of their Being. Thus the Father is revealed as Source—the Fountain of all things. He originates, He purposes, He is the Creator of all things. He is the Father of Spirits, and therefore of the angels, who belong to the spiritual creation, so that they may with the utmost propriety be termed “The Father’s angels.” Then on the other hand, the Son was the Agent in Creation—”All things were made by Him,” including “all things that are in heaven,’ and in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him” (John 1: 3;" TARGET="_blank">John 1: 3; Colossians 1" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:i6). He, too, is said to be “Head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:10)." TARGET="_blank">Colossians 2:10). In such phrases are inclusively described “the innumerable company of angels—the general assembly” (Hebrews 12: 22, 23)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12: 22, 23). These may then be equally called Christ’s angels. To say that they are the Father’s and not the Son’s, or the Son’s not the Father’s, is to ignore our Lord’s words, “All that the Father hath are Mine” (John 16: 15)," TARGET="_blank">John 16: 15), or “All Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine” (John  17:io). That is, even when the Father is said to give anything to the Son, it does not cease to be the Father’s. In the cases cited above— Revelation 3" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 3: , the Lord is speaking of His Father and naturally He speaks of the angels in relation to Him (His angels), but in 2 Thessalonians 1: 7," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 1: 7, the Spirit is describing the return in glory of the Son, and here the angels are spoken of, as we should expect, as His angels, because related to Him. But we do not for that conceive of the angels as divided into two companies, the Father’s and Christ’s. The case of Michael’s angels is very simple and quite distinct. They are not his in the same sense as above, but they are the angels put under his command for a certain purpose. Michael is five times mentioned in the Bible—thrice in Daniel 10:13" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 10:13 “One of the chief (“the first” of marg.) princes”; v. 21, “your prince”; and Daniel 12:1" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 12:1 , “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” Then in Jude 1:9" TARGET="_blank">Jude 1:9 as “the archangel”; and lastly, in Revelation 12" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12: 7 as the leader in the war in heaven, when Satan and his angels (those who followed him in his fatal choice), will be cast down. Satan is always the bitter enemy of Israel, God’s earthly people, and Michael, the archangel (he is the only one so named) is specially seen as opposing him, and is, as leader of the angelic hosts, called to fight against him. In this sense they are Michael’s angels, that is, under his leadership. W.H.

• About this site

• About this site