Brian Crawford

• About this site

How to write your testimony effectively - Telling your own story is perhaps one of the most effective methods in sharing the gospel message.  It's Biblical, attractive and effective if done right.  “The problem with some writing isn’t that it’s bad writing. It’s just boring,” - Ginger Kolbaba, managing editor of Marriage Partnership magazine...

• About this site

Stu Thompson

• About this site

Peter Orasuk - "Does life have any real meaning or purpose? Why are we here? In my search for the answer to these questions, I turned to drugs...

• About this site

 Marriage and the Family - Dr. Sandy Higgins explores the roles of parents, raising children, abortion, courtship, the Basis of Christian Living in the Home, God's Pattern Under Pressure, Heartbroken Homes, Being Single, Failing Fathers and other topics from the Bible's point of view.

• About this site

Gais Goeff

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

What is the application of Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45? Is the Bride mentioned in the Psalm Israel or the Church? How are we to understand the expressions, “unto the king” and “unto thee” in Psalm 45:14" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45:14?

In order to fully understand Psalm 45," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45, it will have to be accepted that its principal application, so far as the Bride is concerned, is not to the Church but to Israel. The expressions, “King’s daughters,” “the daughter of Tyne,” and “the rich among the people,” etc., are more easily explained when we think of Israel in her future exaltation above the other nations, and acknowledged as Bride by the Lord, in keeping with His promises of Isaiah 54:5; 62:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 54:5; 62:5; Hosea 2:19, 20," TARGET="_blank">Hosea 2:19, 20, etc., than when we think of the Church. Yet there are, no doubt, one or two expressions, such as, “Forget also thine own people” and “raiment of needlework” (as compared with Revelation 19:8," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 19:8, R.V.), which appear to suit the Church better, although they can perhaps be understood of Israel also.
Of course, some take it for granted that if the Church is the Bride, Israel cannot be; and if Israel is the Bride, the Church cannot be; but this is to lose sight of the fact that the term is figurative, and there is no reason why the figure should not be used of Israel in the Old Testament and of the Church in the New Testament. This is the case with other figures, e.g., Israel is the Vine of the Old Testament (Psalm 8" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 8o:8, etc.), while the Church in union with Christ is the Vine in the New Testament; Israel is the House in the Old Testament, while the Church is the House in the New Testament (Numbers 12:7;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3: 6)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3: 6). Even the term, “Body,” which we usually look upon as the exclusive property of the Church, had been used of Israel in Isaiah 26:19" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 26:19 (where the italics should be omitted).  Moreover, it may be that these early pictures, like the early prophecies of the Messiah’s coming, in which events separated (as we now know) by many years, are joined together as if one—are so worded by the Holy Ghost as to include applications both to Israel and the Church, some details being more suited to the one application, and some to the other. This would be helpful in studying the Song of Songs, of which Psalm 45" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 45 seems to be the germ.
I consider this to be a better way of looking at the matter, than to accept the view suggested in Newberry’s Bible, where he distinguishes two women, the “Queen” (Israel), to whom he applies vv. 9-12, and the “King’s daughter” (the Church) to whom he applies vv. 13-15. I could agree that the Israel aspect of the picture is prominent in the former verses, and the Church aspect in the latter; but I cannot see two separate Brides in the Psalm definitely distinguished from one another.
With regard to v. i, I think that the “unto the King” at the begin- fling of the verse, and the “unto thee” at the end of it, refer to the same person. It is only an example of what is very common in the Psalms, in Isaiah 53," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53, and elsewhere, that is, an abrupt change from speaking about the Lord, to speaking to Him. And this speaking to Him is continued into verse 16, which, as well as verse 17, is addressed to the King, not to the Bride, although in our A.V. it looks as if it were.

W.R.

• About this site

Is the Sermon on the Mount the rule for the Christian to-day?

The question is not, be it noted, whether the principles of the Sermon on the Mount are applicable to us to-day; but was it intended to be the rule of Christian living? Of course, it is part of God’8 Word, and as such, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. So, indeed, is the Law of Sinai, and the rest of the Scriptures, but that does not prevent our drawing dispensational differences, and holding that certain parts do not apply to us primarily or directly. The law is not the Christian’s rule of life, for we are told again and again (e.g., Romans 7:4;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19)" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 2:19) that we have died to the law. It would then be difficult to assert that the Sermon on the Mount, which is the quintessence of the law, is the Christian rule of life. It may be questioned whether many who laud it as a code of morals, and make it literally binding as a rule on the Christian, have a very clear idea of its teaching, or really practise it themselves in any exhaustive way. They seem to have in their mind a dozen or so verses about giving to every man that asketh you, letting a man have your cloak who asks for your coat, going with a man two miles if he forces you to go one, and giving your right cheek to the one who has just smitten you on the left. But this is only a very small part of the Sermon, and if no one has ever perfectly obeyed the ten commandments, it is equally certain that no one has ever perfectly carried out the Sermon which deals with the hidden thoughts of the heart, as well as with acts.

Indeed, when Paul was before Ananias and was unjustly smitten, he did not turn the other cheek, nor did our Lord Himself before Caiaphas, as He certainly would have done, had He laid down the Sermon on the Mount as the Christian rule of conduct. In the new style of teaching, unfortunately too common, heard in our midst to-day, from men who have but a feeble grasp of any distinctive truth or place, it is often the fashion to belittle dispensational teaching. No doubt this teaching has been exaggerated, but that is no reason for denying it its true place.

To understand rightly the Sermon on the Mount, we must under stand the dispensational character of the Gospel of Matthew, and in a less degree of the other Synoptists. It is addressed primarily to Israel; from the first chapter, Christ is offered them as their King—the heir to the throne of David. John the Baptist was the herald of the coming Kingdom, and so the Lord, the twelve and the seventy; and the miracles, which are so prominent in chapters 8 and 9; were the signs of the Kingdom; it was as King that the Lord presented Himself to Israel in chapter 21 (see vv. 4, 5). The Sermon on the Mount comes in its place, as the rules binding on the children of the Kingdom, while the Kingdom is being set up. When the Kingdom was rejected, and the powers of the King attributed in chaps. 9 and i a, to Satan, then the Lord revealed the mysteries of the Kingdom, namely, how the Kingdom would be set up in men’s hearts, during the absence of the rejected King. When the Church is taken away, the testimony of the Kingdom will once more come to the front, and I take it, that during that period, the Sermon on the Mount, will come into very literal force for God’s servants among Israel. It has been alleged, on the other hand, that our Lord in His parting commission told His disciples to teach the converts to observe whatsoever He had commanded them, but that that does not apply to the whole of Matthew is clear, for no one would maintain that our Lord’s words in Matthew 10:5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:5 and 6, about not preaching to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel, should be taught to converts to-day, as a rule for their witness. I only quote this to show that our Lord intends His “Sermon” to be interpreted in the light of subsequent revelation; e.g., “Owe no man anything”; “Whiles it remained was it not thine own?” “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”; “If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well why smitest thou me?”

W.H.

• 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

• About this site

• About this site