Q. 156.-Would it not be irreverent to partake of the Holy Eucharist otherwise than fasting, and therefore not convenient to have an evening celebration? M. H. U.
A. We find no injunction in scripture to partake of the Lord's Supper fasting. We would suggest that the phrase "Holy Eucharist" is by no means so good an expression to use as the simple language of scripture-the Lord's Supper. The term " Celebration " is still more unscriptural; and we would ask our correspondent whether it is not better, in these holy things, to cleave closely to scriptural language and thoughts, and avoid all terms that have an ambiguous or even a false meaning.
In answer to your correspondent in May No. of Bible Student, (New Queries, No. 145) " What is the meaning of the second Sabbath after the first "?-I would refer you to the only good and full answer and explanation of this obscurely-rendered passage, δευτεροπρώιῳ.
It is "All past time" Almanac, published by the Book Society, 48, Paternoster Row, price 6d.; and has many other important and true elucidations of other chronological passages, &c.. in the Old and New Testament, which are very important, and deserve all attention and praise to the author. G W.
Q. 130. Referring to the answer to this Query, and the rendering of verse 8 in the Revised Version, that the lamps of the foolish were " going out," do you intend the inference to be drawn that the foolish were only professing Christians (i.e. hypocrites), who had not received the Spirit of God? I know that this is the ordinary explanation, and that the statement of our Lord that the foolish had oil which burnt up to the time of His appearing, is stated to be a "structural device" (Brown). But I should like to know how the clear assertion that the foolish had oil can be so summarily treated. 83.
A. We think the word " hypocrites " a little hard; and, as regards the temporary enjoyment of spiritual blessings, in an outward manner, by mere professors, see Heb. 6:4.
Q. 216. Those who raised this question were not actuated by a sincere desire to fulfill the law, but simply and only by the desire to entrap the Lord. (Luke 20:20). The instigators of this foul design presently answered Pilate, " we have no king but Caesar," and that too, in the presence of Him for whom these questioners now professed to entertain such high regard (ver. 21).
That they-the husbandmen of the vineyard-were not altogether in darkness as to who He was, who had so recently ridden in royal dignity into Jerusalem, our Lord's own words, uttered only a little while before this question was asked, proved most conclusively. (Ver. 14). They had long sought to entangle Him in His talk-by pressing this question, they now hoped to succeed. Since, if He was in reality about to assume the reins of government, He would surely commission all Israelites henceforth to pay tribute to Himself, and not to Caesar; and they could accuse Him of having spoken "against Caesar." On the other hand, if He had no thought of taking the crown, could they not accuse Him of having deceived those who had shouted " Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord!"? The Lord " perceived their craftiness," and answered them; in such a manner, that He made their own question tell against themselves, as has been already shown, A. J.
Q. 172. (p. 156). Here are a few facts in connection with this subject. It is positively asserted in John 13:30, that Judas, upon receiving the sop, went immediately out to perform his perfidious errand. This sop was received at the Paschal feast, which, we learn from Matthew and Mask, was followed by the Lord's Supper. The correspondence of the passages, Matt. 26:21-25, Mark 14:18-21, and John 13:18-30, seems to indicate that they all undoubtedly refer to the same event. From the above we would at once conclude that Judas went out after the celebration of the Passover, and before the Lord's Supper.
But though the contrary of this is not even implied in Matthew, Mark, or John, the narration in Luke apparently contradicts the other three on this point. But it is only apparently, we believe. For, first, let it be remembered that Luke does not write in strict chronological sequence in many instances; as may easily be seen from a comparative chronology of the four gospels. Then may we not reasonably suppose that Chapter 22:19 and 22 are inserted in parenthesis? In favor of this, mark that the description of the events during the eating of the Passover continues down to ver. 34. The qualifying phrase " after supper " seems to point to the same view. YOD.
W. H. M.'s explanation (p. 161) does not appear at all satisfactory to me. Truly, the " first mention of rain upon the earth is in Gen. 7:12"; but this is scarcely proof enough that "there was no rain till the flood." Nor does Gen. 2:6 confirm his opinion in my mind. We certainly read there of " a mist going up from the face of the earth and watering the whole face of the ground," but does not this, as has been suggested, refer to the evaporation of moisture, and its subsequent descent as rain? We cannot conceive of a mist going up to water the earth, unless it afterward descends: and why not descend as rain? That copious nocturnal dews were, and are, common in oriental countries, is a well-known fact. See Judg. 6:37-40. But it seems preposterous to suppose that these dews were capable of sustaining vegetable life, feeding large rivers, &c. See Gen. 2:10-14. Why, in Elijah's time, when there was a drought for three years (doubtless there were dews during that period) the water-courses dried up and there was a sore famine in the land. What if the place of drought was world-wide, and the period extended to 1600 years, as W. H. M. would have us believe: God could most certainly have upheld life, or have caused the dews to be heavy enough to do so during that time; but we never find that He acts contrary to, or suspends natural laws, without some great purpose.
Gen. 2:5 cannot be considered, as W. H. M. supposes, a valid objection. For, though it says it had not rained up to that time, it does not deny that it rained after. Further, ver. 4, 5, are a summary of God's creation-work, previously described in fuller detail. The Lord God is spoken of here as the great independent Author of all things: He has made the earth and the heavens, and every herb and plant of the field. But-to mark more perfectly the character of His creation-it is written that every plant was made " before it was in the earth," and every plant "before it grew." Thus vegetation was called into existence in its maturity, and not by any evolutionary method. And further to show yet more clearly the almighty power of the Creator, it is shown that those two agents, rain and tillage, now so often indispensable to perfect vegetation, had nothing whatever to do with the first existence of plants; for "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground " (ver. 5). But God. though He created without rain, immediately sends it, (ver. 6) to sustain the life He called into existence without its aid. This we believe to be the force of the passage in Gen. 2:5, 6.
W. H. M. seems to suppose from Gen. 7:11, that the windows of heaven were then opened for the first time; but this does not seem any more probable from the form of the passage, than the contrary.
Thus we see no reason to doubt that rainbows were seen before the deluge. The difference was: antediluvian rainbows were mere natural phenomena, while the post-diluvian were the guarantee of the fulfillment of God's covenant. Yod.