A. Refer to B. S. vol. 2. p. 118, Q. 138, also to Jan. 1833, p. 8, Q. 1.
A. The way in which the narrative is told in 1 Samuel 12, seems to show that the witch was as alarmed and astonished at her success as the king himself. We cannot for one moment suppose that the incantations of any witch could disturb the blessed dead, but we can well see how God allowed Samuel here to appear to Saul, just as in a far different scene, Moses and Elias talked with Christ. (2) Refer to B. S. vol. 1. p. 541, Q. 434, also to B. S. Jan. 1883, p. 8, Q. 1.
A. The “censer” is rendered rightly in the Revised Version margin “altar of incense.” The word θυμιατήριον may mean “censer” but is used by Greek writers of the altar of incense. In Kings 6:22, it is said to be “by” or to “belong to” the oracle or Holy of Holies, but still it was not within the veil, though closely connected by the sprinkling of atoning blood with the mercy seat. It existed in Herod’s temple, as shown in Luke 1:1111And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. (Luke 1:11), and was there in the Holy Place. We can well see the spiritual beauty of our altar of incense being “within the veil” in the most holy place according to Chapter 10, but cannot understand why it is here placed literally there. If we take the word θυμιατήριον to mean censer, we cannot see why the altar is omitted. Will some one explain?
A. The man was seeking to justify himself by keeping the law, and was as yet unconscious of his inability to keep it. The Lord, after explaining its full force, left him to discover his own inability to be saved by his works. (2) The meaning is apparent, wine increasing in value according to its age.
A. Yes. It appears so. (2) Yes. The blood was already sprinkled there, and Moses did not go in as a priest, but in his entirely exceptional position as the mediator of the old covenant.
A. The Lord here quotes from the Rabbinical traditions, which were to the effect that a form of words could absolve a son from his filial duties, as commanded by God’s law.
Q. 151. How could the Sadducees believe in God? In Acts 23:88For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:8), we read that they “say there is no resurrection neither Angel nor Spirit,” and our Lord said “ God is a Spirit?” (2) Could not the Pharisees, at least in a great many things, be compared to the Roman Catholic priests of today?
A. The Sadducees did not believe in life after death, either in the form of angel or spirit. We do not believe they actually denied the existence of angels, as there is no record that they did, besides which their great boast was that they accepted the written law of God which so frequently speaks of angels. It is probable in this case that what the Sadducees disbelieved in were the Rabbinical traditions respecting angels, and also probably they questioned whether in that day they spoke to men. (2) We need not look so far as Romanism to find modern Pharisaism. Probably we shall find it nearer home.
A. Christ is our “peace” offering, and it was this which was here waved. (2) Laying the hands upon another meant frequently identification in the Old Testament. So here, inasmuch as the Levites were in place of the people as an offering to the Lord. In a similar way the man put his hand on the head of the burnt offering in Leviticus 1:44And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. (Leviticus 1:4).
A. The public testimony of God as to the gathering and the journeying of the people. This testimony now gathers God’s people around Himself and makes them go forward. All was done in communion with God in the Holiest. In war too, an alarm was sounded, God’s testimony was proclaimed without fear, and God was with them. If we give a faithful testimony we have nothing to fear.
A. To consider our brother’s, and not merely our own conscience in our ways. We must avoid all occasions of stumbling others. To act otherwise is mere selfishness or worse.
A. It appears to refer to the rite of circumcision. In Egypt the Israelites had largely fallen into the ways of the Egyptians, (Ezekiel 20) and the rite of circumcision had no doubt been neglected (Exodus 4:2525Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. (Exodus 4:25)). (2) Primarily no doubt it refers to the sin of Zion, but, inasmuch as Christ bore all sin on the cross, it certainly may be applied in measure to Him.
Q. 156. Would it not be adhering closer to the scripture if Christians assembled in the evening to break bread?
A. The Lord’s supper was originally instituted as such in connection with the Paschal supper, which had to be eaten between 4 and 6 p.m. Afterward it appears to have been eaten by Christians on the first day of the week (perhaps at first every day). In Acts 20:1111When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11) it was not eaten till day break, and since then the general custom has been to eat it in the morning. The severance of the Lord’s supper, first from the Passover feast (which was only annual), and next from the ordinary supper, combined with the increased facilities afforded, when once the Lord’s day became a day of rest from daily toil, may account for this change. Literally an evening assembly would be more Scriptural, but spiritually it seems fitter that this solemn act should be the first and most prominent event on the Lord’s day.
A. Exodus 26 speaks of two; one in verse 31, the other in verse 36.
Q. 158. Are we to understand from Acts 2:44And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4). that all the disciples were “filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues,” or only the apostles? (2) In the early days of the Church, was the descent of the Holy Ghost always accompanied by the gift of tongues; see Acts 10:44-46; 19:644While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (Acts 10:44‑46)
6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (Acts 19:6)?
A. Certainly: the whole body of disciples were together. (2) Probably, though it does not say so in Acts 8:1717Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:17).
A. One cannot avoid in business &c. contact with the world, both with ungodly and with immoral men, but it ought not to be so in the Church. (2) The apostle here touchingly justifies his conduct by an illustration from home life. He merely stated what was universally true.
A. Certainly, why not? We are not to obey the lusts of sin in our mortal bodies, but the will of God.
Q. 161. Referring to Q. 65 p.85, on Zechariah 3:61 my difficulty is, that I cannot see the distinction here made between the false prophet of v. 3. and the one who says “Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.” E.
A. The alteration from “they” (verse 4) to “he” (verse 5) seems to show that the subject is changed. The passage is a difficult one. The end of verse 5 is sometimes rendered— “Man has acquired me as a slave (or servant) from my youth.” Verses 6 and 7 are clearly Christ, but it is not easy to see, in the mystical language of the prophet, where the transition is. It seems to be at verse 5.
A. Certainly as far as my rights go. Christ may have His concerned, and we can quite understand circumstances occurring where a charge of evil or sin is made, that it would be right for the Christian to answer to the charge.
Q. 163. Explain Daniel 12:22And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2). Is this after the Millennium, and are those who awake to everlasting life, those who are saved after the Church is caught up? Are there more than two resurrections?
A. See B. S. vol. 2. p. 197, Q. 204, also 13.S. Jan. 1883, p. 8, Q. I.
A. It means servants who rightly or wrongly take the place of Christians. Whether they are so or not is seen by their actions, but they are all taken on their profession and treated as servants. (2) There appears to be good authority for the “my” The sense is the same, only with the “my” it seems that God owns as His the righteous one who lives by faith.
Q. 165. Explain Hebrews 11:2020By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. (Hebrews 11:20). Did not Jacob obtain the blessing by falsehood and deceit, and how then did Isaac bless him and Esau, “by faith?”
A. The common and correct explanation is, that John speaks in Roman hours meaning 6 a.m.; Mark in Jewish, meaning 9 a.m.; the Jewish day beginning at 6 a.m.
A. If the land was laid waste all at once, the wild beasts of Palestine would rapidly increase.
Q. 169. If Paul was looking for the coming of Christ at any moment, as 1 Thessalonians 4:1717Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:17), and other Scriptures seem to show, how is it that he made provision for the saints in future? for instance see 2 Timothy 2:2;42And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2). 3, 5; Acts 20:28-3128Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28‑31). Does he not here seem to direct their minds to a time that must intervene before His coming.
A. Paul does make provision for the future, and even foretells what will occur after his death, and that by divine inspiration; hence strictly speaking, he could not be looking to be caught up as we can now, who have no such revelation. Moreover, it is quite probable that the revelation that was made to Peter (2 Pet. 1:1414Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. (2 Peter 1:14)), that he should die and not be changed, was also made to Paul. We have nothing of the sort.
A. The Revised Version makes it clear; “were reputed to be.” No doubt is thrown on the fact.
Q. 171. Was Jephthah’s daughter really sacrificed? I mean killed. The answer to Q. 309 vol. 2. does not make the case quite clear to me.
A. It only seems to mark the progressive malice and boldness of the wicked husbandmen. (2) The older Christian writers generally think he was, the more modern that he was not. We have not however seen any satisfactory explanation of Luke 22:2121But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. (Luke 22:21). We shall be glad to have any further light upon the subject.
Q. 173. In Matthew the Lord’s words are recorded “before the cock crow,” in Mark “before the cock, crow twice” please explain. (2) Matthew 27:99Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; (Matthew 27:9). is there any explanation of the insertion of the word “Jeremy,” the quotation being from Zechariah?
A. They are not contradictory; Matthew may have omitted the word “twice.” (2) One version omits the word “Jeremiah,” but the better explanation appears to be that the division of books containing the prophecy of Zechariah was known by the collective name of Jeremiah, that being the book with which it commenced Q. 174. What was the cause of the change of color of the manna in Numbers 11:77And the manna was as coriander seed, and the color thereof as the color of bdellium. (Numbers 11:7). (where we read it was yellow like the bdellium) from the white which we find was its color Exodus 16?
A. It does not say it was yellow, but like bdellium. No one knows what this was; some think a pearl is meant, others crystal.
A. Yes, speaking exactly; or generally, the day of the Lord.
Q. 177. One of your previous answers says “There is therefore no Scripture to show that the ark took any long time in building.” Is this correct? I have referred to three or four Bibles and I find by the margin the command to build the Ark was given in or about 2448 B.C., and they entered the ark 2349 B.C. This giving 99 years. The command to build the ark is given in Genesis 6:1414Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. (Genesis 6:14), and the particulars for building the same in verses 15 and 16—whereas the fact of Noah’s sons being married comes in the 18th verse, and I cannot see one word to prove that they were all married before God commanded Noah to build the ark, and further if we were to accept your correspondent’s idea on this point how would you reconcile that with Peter 3:20. — “When once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was a preparing.” Where would the long suffering come in, if only a short time was occupied in the preparing? As to “Lamech living to within five years and Methusaleh till the very year of the flood,” I cannot see that that proves anything. —My desire in raising this point is if possible to arrive at the truth.
A. It seems that you consider the building of the ark probably extended over about 120 years, that being the time that the longsuffering of God (1 Peter 3:2020Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:20)) is generally supposed to have waited, and in support of this you quote the chronology which fixes the time at about 99 years; and that further you disagree with the statement that there is no Scriptural proof that the ark took any long time in building. We will first of all consider on what grounds the idea of its taking 120 years rests. The chronology is arranged with obvious exactness to support the idea of 120 years. Thus in Bagsters’ large Bible we find verse 14,c. 2469, Chapter 7:1, B.C. 2348, an amount of exactness which if reliable would settle the question. It is clear, however, that this chronology does not so much represent the dates when these events occurred as the relation between them according to a preconceived theory based on verse 3. Our present question is, Is this theory true? We may therefore consider the chronology only as representing probably Archbishop Usher’s opinion. The second objection that the command was in ver. 14, and that Noah’s sons are not named till ver. 18 does not appear of much value, if the whole was spoken on the same occasion, and we think every careful reader of ver. 13-21 will see that it is one continuous address. It is therefore clear that when God ordered the ark to be built He spoke of Noah’s sons as being- already married.
Now if we are to accept (not Bagsters’ chronology but the word of God) not one of them was even born at this time, for the flood came in Noah’s 600th year, and he was 800 years old before he begat his three sons. The reason of his being so advanced in age is obvious when we consider how desirable it was that his sons who had to re-people the earth should still have a long span of life before them when they came out of the ark. Now these three sons were probably born at different times. Japheth therefore would not be born till considerably less than 100 years before the flood, and the language of ver.18 (plainly fulfilled in seems to spew that even Japheth was then married. The youngest marriage hitherto recorded is that of Enoch at 65 years, the average age (excluding Noah’s) being a little over 103 years. If we allow that Japheth was born 5 years after Shem and married at 65, this brings us to within 30 years of the flood. In reference to verses 3, 4, 7 it must be remarked that they were addressed to no one. Verse 3 too is in direct contrast to ver. 13. There God yet gave man 120 years (some think the verse means his days were shortened to 120 years henceforth), in verse 13, the end of all flesh had at last come, and the most apparent reason why even this was announced to Noah was to give him time to prepare an ark for the saving of his house. The whole language of the passage (esp. ver. 17) is as speaking of a near event. The passage in 1 Peter 3:2020Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:20) speaks of the longsuffering of God waiting, and 2 Peter 2:55And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:5) speaks of Noah as a preacher. If we accept the fact that 1 Peter 3:1919By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; (1 Peter 3:19) means that he preached by Christ’s Spirit to those spirits, afterward in prison for their disobedience to the message, this plainly limits the time of the longsuffering here alluded to, to a period subsequent to Genesis 6:1414Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. (Genesis 6:14). There is no mention of 120 years.
A. You will find that this is the case in Chronicles with other Kings beside Abijam. The Kings give us the general and public history of Israel in connection with God’s government, Chronicles rather the history of the same period, under the aspect of the blessing and grace of God in connection with the house of David, exhibiting only such faults as require to be known to understand the grace.
A. Probably, in its fullness. (2) It means having left the faith, being led away by false science. Instances of this are very common now.
A. Because ten among the Jews formed a company, hence ten virgins, &c.