What do angels look like? Do angels have wings?

The word “Angel” means “messenger” meaning that their job is the identity. Angels take on many forms to accomplish their specific mission.

Hebrews 1:14" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:14 tells us that they are spirit beings, but Hebrews 13:2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:2 says that some have entertained angels unaware of their guests’ true identity. That leads us to believe that angels appear as normal human beings. Abraham met with two men for a meal in Genesis 18:1-19" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 18:1-19 who were actually angels.

However, at other times angels appeared in radiant glory and said “do not be afraid” like the case of Joseph in Matthew 1:20." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:20. Zacharias was struck dimb in Luke 1:12." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:12. The shepherds were afraid of the angels who came from heaven to announce the birth of Christ in Luke 2:9." TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:9.

In Isaiah 6:1-10," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 6:1-10, the Lord is seen in His full glory in the temple. Seriphim fly around the throne using two wings to fly, two wings to cover their feet and two wings to cover their faces.

There is a variety of appearances for angels. They have the ability to change their appearance. Even Satan himself has the capability to appear as an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:14.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did our Lord, though not partaking of the bread when instituting His supper, drink of the cup?

Can there be some spiritual truth hidden in this?

We think the idea that the Lord partook of the cup (as above) is based on a misunderstanding of the accounts of the Institution, and on a false inference. The misunderstanding arises from the position of the words, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,” in the Matthew and Mark accounts, and the false inference, from the idea that the Lord had necessarily that moment drunk of the cup in question. It is clear from the Luke 22" TARGET="_blank">Luke 22: account that there were two cups, that in the 17th verse which was the passover cup, and the other the cup of the new supper, the memorials of His body and blood. It was to the former (see v. 18) that the Lord’s words, above quoted, refer. The Lord did not Himself partake of the emblems of His death in either kind, as Luke’s account shews.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a person be put away for "domestic railing"?

Can a person be put away for "domestic railing"?

It seems highly unlikely that railing against a child would require excommunication. Spousal railing that requires excommunication would be an extreme, but possible case. If all else fails, it may be necessary, but "the more excellent way" would be to deal with the problem at its roots. As frustrating as godly teachers and guides may find it, their spiritual intervention is a first responsibility. The grace that brought salvation to all men taught Cretans to live above their native culture (Titus 2:11, 12)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:11, 12). Hours of opening the Scriptures in the home, applying the lessons of grace, and being physically present will have a preventative affect on patterns of verbal and physical abuse. Better than that, as this promotes a believer’s ever-so-gradual growth in grace, the transforming power of the indwelling Spirit changes hearts and homes. The behavior patterns that come from being abused or from abusive models and years of captivity to sin don’t all vanish at conversion or in the first year after. The Lord has brought the "half-dead" to the assembly to receive care (Luke 10:34, 35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:34, 35; 1 Tim. 3:5)." TARGET="_blank">1 Tim. 3:5). How much better when healthful words (Titus 2:1)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:1) nurse them to abundant life within the assembly, rather than having to carry their sick bed back out to the side of the road where they (and we) once were!

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What do I do if I disagree with the leaders of my church?

What should I do if I am uneasy about a decision of the overseers and don't feel I can go to one of them about it?

Such issues involve two hazardous extremes. One is the danger of the "unapproachable elder." The people of God are not little children to be treated with a "Because I said so" attitude. Saul's rage when questioned by Ahimelech (I Samuel 22:14,15)" TARGET="_blank">I Samuel 22:14,15) was because his actions could not bear the light of Scripture. The other danger is that of the "discontented believer" who views himself (and often he is the only one who does) as the "watch-dog" of the assembly. Absalom's inquiries into problems (II Samuel 15:1-6)" TARGET="_blank">II Samuel 15:1-6) illustrate the work of a man with ulterior motives.

Ideally, spiritual elders will welcome honest inquiries by those who do not understand the scriptural reasons that guided their actions. Ideally, the believer expressing such a concern will be marked by a sincere interest to learn the ways of God. When the circumstances fall short of the ideal, as they do in 3 John 1:9," TARGET="_blank">3 John 1:9, two immutable principles remain clear: (1) wronged believers lose nothing by showing submission; (2) the testimony is God's, not ours: He will maintain the honor of His Name. No situation hinders our bringing the matter to God in prayer and leaving it with Him.

E. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

When did Christ become our High Priest?

CHRIST’S PRIESTHOOD
When did the High Priesthood of Christ begin, at the offering of Himself on the cross, or upon His sitting down at God’s right hand?

If I were to ask, at what point in the record given us in the 8th and 9th chapters of Leviticus did the high priesthood of Aaron begin, I should probably receive various replies. Some possibly would tell me that he was high priest from the very beginning of the first day of the eight mentioned in these chapters, when he was put forward, before the congregation (chap. 8. 2-5), as the one God had “called” (Hebrews 5:4)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:4) for the position. Others might say that his priesthood should be reckoned from after the bathing, and clothing, and anointing, and offering (including that of the ram of consecration) on that first day had been completed. Others still might think that only at the end of the seven “days of consecration” (chap. 8. 3) could he be called high priest; while some perhaps would suggest that his priesthood did not effectively begin until he commenced to act on the people’s behalf during the transactions of the eighth day (chap. 9. 15). If I got these replies, could I say that any of them was entirely wrong? I do not think so.

Let us then see what the Hebrews epistle has to tell us about the beginning of the High Priesthood of Christ. In Hebrews 9:11," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:11, after a description of the ministry of the Old Testament high priests, we read, “But Christ having (R.V.) come a High Priest . . . entered in . . . having obtained eternal redemption.” Here the expression “having come a High Priest” seems to suggest that, right from the commencement of His Activities in connection with obtaining redemption, He was acting in priestly character; and definitely so, before He “entered in.” Then in Hebrews 2:17" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 2:17 we get, “It behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become (see Greek, or Newberry) a. . . High Priest . . . to make propitiation (R.V.) for the sins of the people.” In this passage His becoming High Priest is made consequent on His having been made “like unto His brethren,” and yet it was as High Priest that He made propitiation for sins. Again, in Hebrews 6:20" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:20 (R.V.) we read, “Whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a High Priest”; which appears to imply that His “entering” followed immediately upon His becoming Priest. Next, in Hebrews 5:10," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 5:10, after having “learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (this, in light of Phil 2:8" TARGET="_blank">Phil 2:8 surely including His death), and after having thus been “made perfect”; He is then “named (R.V.) of God a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek,” probably in the sense that there was a proclamation of His Priesthood at His ascension. Lastly, in Hebrews 8:4" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 8:4 we are told that His Priesthood is not “on earth,” and in Hebrews 7:26" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:26 that it is in a sphere where He is “separated (R.V.) from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.”

In view of all this, would I be safe in setting down as wrong: (1) the person who says that when Christ offered up Himself He was Priest as well as Sacrifice; or (2) the person who tells me that His Priesthood is part of the outcome of His death; or (3) the person who states that for the exercise of His Priesthood, He required to be where He now is, in the heavenly Sanctuary? In each case, I do not think so.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the living bread from heaven, the same as the bread of the church communion?

Is Paul’s reference to the body and blood of Christ related to John 6:53-56" TARGET="_blank">John 6:53-56?

In John 6:53" TARGET="_blank">John 6:53 and 54, eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood are necessary and sufficient conditions for having eternal life. That is describing what took place once; at the moment of conversion, we took the death of Christ to ourselves and received all its benefits. In verse 56, feeding on Christ and His death is characteristic of all who are saved. This, linked by some to Israel’s initial and continued eating of the Passover, is individual. "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Corinthians 5:7)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:7). Our redemption is individual, as is our appropriation of the Lamb. The annual Passover shares the feature of remembrance with the Lord’s Supper, but, although instituted at the Passover, it does not replace the Passover or fulfill it.

At the Lord’s Supper, the assembly unitedly blesses and partakes of the cup and bread, thus expressing the blessings they share. Being a corporate act, it is therefore distinct from what the Passover expresses and from the personal communion of which the Lord speaks in John 6:56." TARGET="_blank">John 6:56.

In addition, John 6" TARGET="_blank">John 6 speaks of eating in a spiritual sense, 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10 of eating physically.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What principles does a Christian violate by voting in a state referendum?

What principles does a Christian violate by voting in a state referendum on issues like allowing gambling casinos or legalizing abortion?

Voting, in and of itself, is neutral. If voting involves the believer in the political system, this seems to violate the principle of separation (Ephesians 5:11;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 6:14-18). As our Lord Jesus, we are not "of the world" (John 17:16)." TARGET="_blank">John 17:16). He refused to be drawn into politics (Matthew 22:17-21)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:17-21). By our lives, we are to be salt, exerting a preserving influence on the world (Matthew 5:13)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:13). By our prayers, we are to effect good in government (1 Timothy 2:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:2). It is an admission of failure to have to use the voting booth to do what neither our lives nor prayers are doing.

On the other hand, a referendum, as stated by the question, may not involve entanglement in the affairs of this life (2 Timothy 2:4)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:4). Suppose a politician, for example, took a poll of neighborhood opinion and stopped at a Christian’s door. Responding would hardly violate the principles mentioned above. The same can be said of voting in a referendum.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the parable of 10 virgins mean?

Will you please interpret the Parable of the Ten Virgins?

As in previous parables (cf. The Wedding Garment, Matthew 22)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22), the Lord Jesus stresses in this parable the need for keeping watch for His return (see 24:42, 44) as well as His rejection of unreality when He does return. Like the man without the wedding garment, the five foolish virgins represent those who expected to be in the kingdom but had never properly prepared. Although Paul uses the imagery of a chaste virgin in reference to the assembly at Corinth, the Church which is His body is seen as a unit (His Bride), not as friends attending the wedding or wedding supper, therefore the Rapture is not likely in view. Since this is part of an answer to the disciples' question in chapter 24:3 regarding the end of the age and the coming of the Son of Man, it would seem that this parable points to the advent of the Lord Jesus as King of kings, coming to establish His kingdom. During His public ministry, the Lord Jesus was often confronted by those in Israel who felt that, as a result of their natural links with Abraham, they held privileged ground (John 8:33)." TARGET="_blank">John 8:33). His warning to them will have its dire fulfillment at His coming when many "children of the kingdom" will be cast into outer darkness (Matthew 8:12)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:12).

E. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do all people go to God at death?

Do all spirits at death go to God?

Numbers 16:22;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:22; Numbers 27:16;" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 27:16; Job 34:14, 15;" TARGET="_blank">Job 34:14, 15; Ecclesiastes 3:21;" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 3:21; Ecclesiastes 8:8;" TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 8:8; Ecclesiastes 12:7." TARGET="_blank">Ecclesiastes 12:7.

When are the spirits of the unsaved dealt with?

It is a good thing to “purge our references.” I am not sure for instance whether Numbers 16:22" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:22 or 27:16 proves that “all spirits go to God.”

The expression in Job 34:14," TARGET="_blank">Job 34:14, however, “gather unto Himself man’s spirit,” describing dissolution, certainly favours the belief that at death all spirits go to God.

So in Eccl. 3." TARGET="_blank">Eccl. 3. 21 the word “upward” points the same way. Eccl. 12." TARGET="_blank">Eccl. 12. 7 is very distinct that “the spirit returns to God Who gave it.”

Hebrews 12:23" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 12:23 refers only to the spirits of just men. I do not think there can be any question that the spirits of all men are “dealt with” at death, as regards their final destiny, but the measure of reward or punishment awaits a later day. Lazarus of Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16 was at once comforted; the rich man was at once tormented, but at the great white throne he will be judged according to his works.

Paul knew for himself, and so did the saints in general, that “to depart” was “to be with Christ, which is far better” (Philippians 1:23)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:23). But I know no Scripture which describes this as having “gone to God,” and I think the propriety of anyone publicly pronouncing on the spiritual destiny of any man, who has died without giving satisfactory proof of repentance, may well be questioned. Certainly it is gravely wrong to speak of one who has led an ungodly life, and died without visible repentance, as “this our brother,” and assert he is now “at peace.” We may not affirm that such a one is saved, but is it within our province to affirm that such a one is lost?

God alone searches the beart and knows what has passed between a soul and Himself at the last. To anyone who had not heard what passed between our Lord and the repentant thief, he was clearly a lost soul, but we know that grace intervened and snatched him as a brand from the burning. Even of Judas, whose sin was manifested and his awful death a matter of common knowledge, Peter refrained from saying anything more than that “he went to his own place.” This, though it left no doubt of his fate, was said among the Lord’s disciples. As far as we know the apostles never referred to the traitor in public.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How does one decide who is an overseer?

How does one decide who is an overseer?

The Lord decides (Acts 20:28)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28), but the oversight guides (Hebrews 13:7," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:7, AV margin). No man decides this for himself, yet he must be sure in God's presence that this is God's will for him.

The oversight (1 Timothy 4:14," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:14, a single unit, "presbytery") is not a secret society nor does it make independent decisions. Its responsibility is to determine God's will through His Word and to lead the assembly in fulfilling it. Overseers guide the assembly in recognizing men whom God has called and to whom He has entrusted the care of His people in that assembly. The man demonstrates the characteristics given in the Scriptures (1 Timothy 3:1-7;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6-9). His activities and the course of his life express a care for fellow-believers and for the truth of God.

Overseers continually watch for evidence of this work of God, not limiting their search because the number of overseers is sufficient and not rushing it because the number of overseers is depleted. They allow God to do His work on His schedule.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu