Sketches of Jewish Social Life

• About this site

 Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

• About this site

Suzy Fitch

• About this site

Crossword Puzzle Maker

• About this site

Jason My Child

• About this site

 The Encourager

• 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

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. . . God testifying of his gifts, and by it he being dead yet speaketh.”Hebrews11:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews11:4

Why were Abel and his offering accepted, and Cain and his offering rejected? Does the expression “more excellent” imply that there was something excellent in that of Cain?

The word translated, “more excellent,” is literally “more, “or’ ‘greater,” and is used either of quantity or quality, here clearly of the latter. It does not imply any excellence in Cain’s offering, otherwise we should not read, “but unto Cain and to his offering God had not respect.” Also later God said to him, “If thou doest well (i.e., come like Abel with the slain victim, implying that Cain had not done well in offering his fruit of the earth), but if thou doest not well (i.e., persist in thy refusal of that offering;) sin’ lieth at the door; i.e., croucheth like a wild beast ready to spring. There can be no reasonable doubt that God had revealed to His fallen creatures how they must approach to Him—even by the minhab or approach offering—a lamb of the flock. Clearly this was to be slain, as the expression—”of the fat thereof” shows. Had there been no such revelation, how could Abel have had “faith” to draw near in this way?

I remember years ago seeing a blind Kabyle reading in Braille type by the wayside in North Africa, what I learned to be this fourth chapter of Genesis. When we asked him why God accepted Abel’s offering, he replied, “There was something in it which spoke of the Messiah.” This is true; no doubt that sacrifice was a type of the Lamb of God slain at Calvary, and foreshadowed the bruising of the Kinsman’s heel. Abel confessed himself worthy of death and appropriated the death of the victim in his stead. Cain’s offering was of the same vegetable kingdom as the fig-leaves of the aprons of Adam and Eve, and as the host of flour and water, which the Romanist and Ritualist offer on their “altars,” all of which are bloodless offerings and powerless to remit
sin.

W.H.

• About this site

THE ATONEMENT
It has been stated that Atonement is an Old Testament truth, which has no place in the New Testament, Is this so?

I am surprised that any Christian “apt to teach,” should make such a statement. Perhaps it is owing to the fact that in the one place in our King James Version, where the word “atonement” occurs, it ought to be “reconciliation”: “By Whom we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:11)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:11). This however, does not prove that the truth of atonement is not expressed in other passages of the New Testament, under a different form of words, for which “atone” or “atonement” might be correctly substituted.

The fact is that the atonement of the Old Testament is only a shadow of the truth, and that if we had not the substantial, divine thing in the New Testament, we could not have the shadow in the Old. The Hebrew word for atonement constantly occurring in the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus is the root, “Kaphar,” which primarily means “to cover,” then by a simple transition, it gets to mean that by which alone God can righteously cover sin—namely by full satisfaction being offered to His holy claims, or in other words, by atonement. The word, “atone,” has long since lost its philological, or derived, meaning of “at-one,” for that by which God and the sinner can be “at-one”—the atoning work of Calvary.

This root,”Kaphar,” also occurs in the substantival form,”Kapporeth” (mercy-seat)—the place where the blood of atonement was sprinkled, therefore, one would suggest, better translated the “atonement-seat.” The verb is sometimes translated in our version—”make reconciliation” (e.g. Ezekiel 45: 15, 17;" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 45: 15, 17; Daniel 9: 24)," TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9: 24), “purge” (Psalm  79:9), “pacify” (Proverbs 16: 14)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 16: 14), “appease”—”I will appease him (Esau) with the present” (Genesis 32:20)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 32:20), but in the vast majority of occurrences “atone” or “make atonement.” What then, we may enquire, is the Hellenistic Greek equivalent used in the Septuagint? In nearly every case, “exilaskomai,” or in a few cases simply, “hilaskomai”—which is, we see, the same verb without the preposition “ek”—denoting here “entirely,” “perfectly”—though we need not press this, as “hilaskomai” means practically the same thing, for atonement, if of any value, must be complete. Turning to the New Testament, we find this same root (hilaskomai) employed (and N.T. Greek is much the same as found in the Septuagint) in six passages: In the publican’s prayer we read, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18: 13," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13, lit, be propitiated). As the publican was standing in the temple area—”afar off,” i.e., probably outside and in full view of the altar of burnt offering, we can see no reason to assert, as Alford does, that the publican could not have had any idea of the ground of his acceptance—though he would naturally not know what the lamb prefigured.

Then in Romans 3" TARGET="_blank">Romans 3: 25 and Hebrews 9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9: 5 there occurs the substantival form—”mercy-seat.” In Hebrews 2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2: 17 we have, “A merciful and faithful high priest.. . to make reconciliation for the sins of the people”; and finally in 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2: 2 and 1 John 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:10  the translation is, “propitiation for our sins.” I think it is clear and reasonable that we have in these passages the sense of atonement, applied, except in the case of Hebrews 9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9: 5 and Luke 18: 13," TARGET="_blank">Luke 18: 13, directly to the work of Christ, as the ground on which God can come out to man in grace and the gospel be preached to every creature.

W.H.

• About this site

Why do so many preachers speak of “the destroying angel,” in Exodus 12" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12?

It seems due to a mistaken idea of what took place on the Passover night, based on a careless reading of the whole passage. Exodus 11:1" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 11:1 speaks of “one plague more.” Exodus 12:13" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:13 refers to “the plague” and ver. 23 to “the destroyer,” but there is no such agent mentioned, either in Exodus, Heb. Ix, or elsewhere in Scripture, as “the destroying angel,” in connection with the deliverance from Egypt. Moses says in chap. II.4—”Thus saith the Lord, about midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt”; see, too, ch. 12. ia: “I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land . . . I will excute judgment”; and v. 23: “For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians, and when He seeth the blood. . . the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you.” God is Light and God is Love—God is at once “Avenger” and “Redeemer,” and neither work does He entrust to an angel, however exalted. It was God vindicating His holy claims against sin, who passed through the land in judgment; it was God who intervened in mercy wherever He saw the blood of His own providing, sprinkled. The two words for “passing through” (‘abar), and “passing over” (paali), are quite distinct. This latter is found again in Isaiah 3" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 3’. : “As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also He will deliver it and passing over (paal) He will preserve it.” That is, He will interpose between the enemy, who, it may be suggested, will then be attacking Jerusalem from the air, and His people.

W.H.

• About this site

Leviticuis 19:28  You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.

Why did the Lord forbid these two practices – cuts and tattoos?  The context of the prohibitions mentioned in Leviticus 19" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19 is to protect the Israelites from heathen practices related to idol worship. 

Notice the other verses mentioned in this chapter.

Other forbidden practices were:

• eating meat in which there still was blood (v. 26a);
• omens and fortune telling (v. 26b);
• hair cuts that were in the style of idolatrous temples (v. 27);
• making cuttings in one's flesh as an expression of mourning for the dead (v. 28a);
• making marks on the body like the pagan people around Israel (v. 28b);
• giving a daughter up for prostitution.  This was probably done, not for the money the trade would have brought to the parents, but likely for the purpose of becoming a "holy prostitute" in pagan temple worship (v. 29);
• not honoring the Sabbath Day (v. 30);
• communicating with spirits (v. 31).

1 Peter 2:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:9  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Ephesians 5:11" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:11  Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

• About this site

• About this site

Is it safe to use Weymouth’s Translation, since it contains such error as is found in the note upon Hebrews10:27" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews10:27 (page 560)?

It has been pointed out that the notes in this version are not by Dr. R. F. Weymouth, but by E. Hampden-Cook, M.A., who is said to have “Edited and partly revised” the work. In my edition of 1910 the very unsound note on Heb. 10." TARGET="_blank">Heb. 10. 27 referred to above is on page 6i6; and it is by no means the only one of the kind; the notes on this subject always being in the interests of what is known as, “Annihilationism” a very serious and growing heresy to-day. This teaching, however, is not confined to the notes, but occurs in the text. Wherever, apparently, the translator (or do we owe these touches to the “part revision” of Mr. Cook?) comes upon the question of the future of the wicked, the same influence can be noted: e.g., Matthew 25:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 25:46 which is translated, “And these shall go away into the punishment of the ages, but the righteous into the life of the ages,” which is the ordinary meaningless and erroneous language affected by the Annihilationist teachers. How this book found its way into my small library, I have no idea; but I neither use it myself, nor would I advise anyone to do so. The Lord’s words apply here, “Take heed what ye hear,” and I am convinced that all this talk about “onian” and “the ages” is everywhere a danger-signal for those who desire to hold fast the whole revelation of God and the
doctrine of Christ.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Was it only at His incarnation that our Lord became

(1) “The Image of the invisible God”; (2) “The Firstborn of every creature”; and (3) “The express Image of His Person”?

I believe that all three expressions were true of Him before then; and this is the opinion of most commentators on the passages, both ancient and modern.
 
With regard to Colossians 1:15-20," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:15-20, it seems to me that the simplest and most useful division of the attributes of Christ contained in these verses, and of the verses themselves, is into two groups.

(i) Those which were true of Him from the beginning (vv. 15-17).
(2) Those which were true of Him from the Cross (vv. 18-20).

In the first of these groups He is “The Image of the invisible God”; in the second He is “The Head of the Body, the Church.” In the former He has the title, “Firstborn of every creature”; in the latter He has that of “Firstborn from the dead.” In each case a reason is appended for the application to Him of these titles. He is “Firstborn of every creature, for by (or ‘in’) Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth.” He is “Firstborn from the dead . . . for it pleased the Father . . . by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself. . . things in earth or things in heaven.”

Now since the reason assigned for the title, “Firstborn of every creature,” is that all things were created by Him, I cannot see how that title, or the one coupled with it, “Image of the invisible God,” can be referred to His incarnation only. Both declare His dignity as Originator and Sustainer of the first creation, just as those in verse i8 declare His pre-eminence in connection with the new creation.

As to Hebrews 1:3," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:3, it is agreed by Mr. Hoste that Christ was always ‘The Brightness of His glory,” and when once this is granted I cannot Conceive how the next clause, “The express Image of His Person,” is to be divorced from its fellow, and referred to something which only became true of Him at His incarnation. Both clauses hang closely united Upon the same participle, “Being,” which precedes them; and if the view mentioned were correct, this participle would be bearing its literal meaning in the one clause, and then would have to be thought of as though it meant “becoming” in the next clause. On the other hand, when we take them together, as is usually done, we get in them an interesting contrast with the two opening expressions of v. x. In time past God spake in the prophets “by divers portions” (a portion now and a portion again), and “in divers manners” (some less clear and some more clear than others). But now God has spoken in His Son, in whom is, not merely a few rays shining out from time to time, but the whole effulgence of His glory; and not merely dim outlines and shadows, but the exact “image” of His substance. And of course it is implied that the revelation thus made is, like Himself, both full and perfect. On this the subject matter of the entire epistle is based. The passage should be read in the R.V., and its connection noted with the word “enlightened” in Hebrews 6:4," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:4, and “illuminated” (same Greek) in Hebrews 10:32." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:32.

William Rogers

• About this site

• About this site