 |  |
Nebuchadnezzar carried with it the ministry of angels, for "the son of God" seen by
Nebuchadnezzar in the fire with the faithful three is interpreted for us as "God . . . . . hath
sent His angel". The "Watcher and holy One" of Dan. 4:, and the "fingers of a man's
hand" of Dan. 5:, in the light of Exod. 31: 18, show angelic ministry. The angel
Gabriel is mentioned in Dan. 9:, and Michael, "your prince", together with Satanic
angels of Persia and Greece are mentioned in Dan. 10: Man could not stand when left
alone. Man could not stand even when hedged about by angel ministry whether the
people be Israel, or Nebuchadnezzar or the Gentile dynasty. Angels looked down from
heaven, in pity, but Christ came down Himself. Angels, if they do weep, may have shed
tears at the fatal folly of man, but Christ not only wept, He shed his blood. Angels
visited man in the guise of men, but Christ became man, was actually born of a woman.
Herein lies the key to open the revelation given in the early chapters of Hebrews. Like
the Good Samaritan, Christ "came where he was" saying, "Lo, I come in the volume of
the book it is written of Me".
Angels may still be ministering spirits sent forth to minister to those who are heirs of
salvation, but "angels and authorities and powers" are subject unto the ascended Lord.
When we come to the dispensation of the Mystery, angelic ministry is entirely absent;
instead of saying, "angels to beckon me", we sing in the language of one of the hymns
used at the Chapel of the Opened Book, London:
"Angels will stand aside,
No one, but Christ beside
Can be our heavenly Guide,
Father, to Thee."
No.11.
"This day have I begotten Thee."
pp. 114 - 117
While angels are called "sons of God", a title endorsed by the translation of
Psa. 97: 7 "Worship Him, all ye gods", by "let all the angels of God worship Him"
(Heb. 1: 6) and other places, no angel has or ever could be called "The Only Begotten Son
of God".
"For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I
begotten Thee?" (Heb. 1: 5).
A number of commentators see in this passage a reference to "the eternal generation
of the Son", a term that defies explanation, and such are also obliged to interpret "this
day" as of eternity. Such an interpretation savours too much of an attempt to bolster up a
creed rather than to give an honest exposition of the terms, and arises mainly out of the
disastrous error of taking the title "Son" back into eternity instead of using the title
"Word" as John does in John 1: 1, and reserving the title "Son" for the incarnation when
"the Word was made flesh". In Heb. 11: 17 Isaac too is called "the only begotten son"
of Abraham, and it would be strange if this title could be used in so essentially different