and to remember of the passage quoted and the whole purpose of the chapter is to provide

the answer. We must now return to the beginning of this epistle and see how and with

what terms these comparisons with angels are introduced. Over against the revelation

given in times past through the instrumentality of the prophets, the Apostle places the

immeasureable superiority of the ministry of the Son. In chapter 3: Christ as the Son is

set over against Moses the servant (3: 6) and Jesus the Son of God is set forth as the

great High Priest Who has `passed through the heavens' (4: 14), and as the Son, He is

consecrated for evermore (7: 28).

We have already learned that angels are called `sons of God', and consequently it may

appear at first reading that the language of the Apostle is a little forced, but we are

dealing with the inspired Scriptures and know before we go any further that no such

conclusion is possible. The contrast between angels and the Saviour is not so much

between One who is a Son and those who are not, but a contrast between those who are

sons by creation, and the One Who is called "The only-begotten Son", for Heb. 1: 5 not

only says "Unto which of the angles said He at any time, `Thou art My Son', but `Thou

art My Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN Thee'."

We must therefore pursue this subject further. Christ is called `The only-begotten

Son' four times in John's Gospel (John 1: 14, 18; 3: 16, 18), and once in the first epistle

(I John 4: 9). When reading these passages we are not conscious of any problem as we

read of the Saviour as the only begotten Son--but the moment we add the final reference

to this term, a problem presents itself.

"By faith Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac; and he that had received the

promises offered up his only begotten son" (Heb. 11: 17). Now it is a matter of common

knowledge that Abraham was the father, not only of Isaac, but of Ishmael (Gen. 16: 15)

and of other children by Keturah (Gen. 25: 1). Unless therefore some factor is implied

though unexpressed, Heb. 11: 17 presents a difficulty. As we discovered, so we find

words employed in the context of Heb. 11: 17 that enable us to perceive something yet

more wonderful in the title of the Lord. Abraham is spoken of as `he that had received

the promise', and of the son whom he offered it had been said `That in Isaac shall thy

seed be called' (Heb. 11: 17, 18). Ishmael was as truly begotten by Abraham as was

Isaac, but Ishmael is called `the son of a bondwoman' but Sarah herself as well as

Abraham was given a promise by the Lord:

Sarah too was peculiarly distinguished by the changing of her name, even as was

Abraham (Gen. 17: 5, 14, 16). It is moreover written that the Lord `visited Sarah as He

had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as He had spoke' (Gen. 21: 1). Sarah was in the

blessed line of the true seed, and so carried the promise of Eden forward towards its goal.