Crossword Puzzle Maker

• 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

Debby Stickfort

• About this site

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

Foundation Truths of the Gospel

• About this site

Ann Wielenga

• About this site

Why is Joseph’s genealogy given in Matthew's Gospel, instead of that of Mary, seeing that Joseph was not the father of the Lord Jesus?

There are, as is well known, not one but two genealogies of Christ in the Gospels. In Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: His royal descent is traced from Abraham, through David and the kings of Judah, down to Joseph, His legal, though not His actual father. But in Luke 3" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3 His natural descent is traced from Mary’s own father, Heli, through a different branch of the Davidic family up to Adam. The phrase, “Being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” which is parenthetically inserted in Luke 3:23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:23, really answers the questions asked above. For since He was supposed, or legally reckoned, to be Joseph’s son, it was necessary that there should be what might be called an official genealogy, through him to David and Abraham, as well as that through His mother, in order that all objections to His claim to be “Son of David” should be silenced. In Matthew’s Gospel Joseph is prominent, and in Luke’s, Mary, not merely in the genealogies, but in the entire narrative, which in each case is as it should be, in view of the Jewish character of the former, and the Gentile character of the latter.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Is there anything wrong, when seeking to defend the real Deity and true humanity of our Lord, in making use of the statement, “He is very God of very God, and very Man of very man?”

The words, “very God of very God” were inserted in the creed of the Nican elders and teachers at the council of Nica in A.D. 325," TARGET="_blank">D. 325, for whose faithful contending for the faith we may well thank God. They were intended to safeguard the true Deity of Christ, in opposition to the soul-destroying heresies of Anus, which denied it. They affirmed that the Son, though truly said to be the only begotten of the Father, is no less truly God—co-equal, co-substantial, and co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit. The creed, like every human writing must be tested by the Word of God. In this case, I judge, the expression in question to be quite legitimate and laudable. But the expression, “very Man of very man,” stands on other footing. It does not, for one thing, occur in the Nicene creed, nor, as far as I know, in any other, and in my judgment ought to be avoided. It is an attempt to express “the secret things” of the Incarnation, but seems to ignore the part the Holy Spirit had in the conception—”That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” We must and do insist on the true humanity of our Lord, but without attempting to define how it was produced.

W.H.

• 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

POLITICS
Is it right for a Christian to give a vote to a candidate in a Parliamentary Election?

We certainly have duties to perform to those who occupy positions of rule in our midst, one is to obey the laws they make. If I do not, I shall get a bad conscience and I shall pay the penalty. “For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually on this very thing.” So I must pay taxes, and rates, and custom dues when I enter the country (see Romans 13:5-7)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:5-7). Then I am enjoined to pray “for Kings and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:2). I am, moreover, to “honour the King” and indeed all to whom honour is due, but as far as entering into the political contests of the country, I see no directions in God’s Word, and I believe the whole thing is alien to our position as “strangers and pilgrims” in the world. If it be retorted, “What would become of the country, if all believers were of this Opinion?” my reply is, it would become neither better nor worse by such a Contingency, but the believers would become much better. What Wordly associations would they be spared! What unequal yokes with the ungodly! “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the gospel,” or pray that God may overrule. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” which cannot be said of the political work of a righteous man; the only effect of which is to shear him of his locks, and bereave him of his joy and testimony.

“Our citizenship is in heaven.” “As the Father hath sent me into the world, even so I send you.” All agree that the Lord did not enter into political movements. He was not sent for that,—are we? All the various political combinations will never succeed in really making the world better, for there is a factor, they do not recognise, and certainly cannot neutralise sin. It is a solemn thought that when at last all political differences are sunk, and the whole world cemented in one great alliance, it will be in deadly, open opposition to God and His Christ.

W.H.

• About this site