43. Miscellaneous

MISCELLANEOUS Will you please explain the grammatical construction of the first verse of the Bible? The first verse of Genesis 1 is most interesting from the standpoint of grammar. The Hebrew language has three numbers, instead of two as in English. There is the singular, indicating one person, place or thing; then the dual, for two persons, places or things; and then the plural, for three or more persons, places or things. In Genesis 1:1 all these forms appear. The first word, translated God, is Elohim, a plural noun, thus intimating that in some way God is more than one, and even more than two; that He is at least threefold. But the verb, “created,” is a singular verb. Thus we have at the very threshold of divine inspiration an intimation of the trinity and also the unity of God. The word for “earth” is singular. But the word for “heaven” is neither singular nor plural, but dual. This would indicate that the heaven of the original creation was twofold.

How, then, was it that when Paul was caught up into Paradise he found himself in “the third heaven,” as related in 2 Corinthians 12? The answer is that Paradise had been removed from Hades at the ascension of the Lord Jesus, and had become the third heaven far above all other heavens, the place of God’s throne. (See Psalms 68:18; Ephesians 4:8-10.) May I ask you to explain the following seeming discrepancies, etc., so that I may be able to give a reasonable answer to unbelievers?

InExodus 9:6we read that ALL the cattle of Egypt died. In verses 20 and 21 of the same chapter the Egyptians are again seen as having cattle.

We are not informed as to how long an interval there may have been between verses 7 and 8. The Egyptians may have restocked with cattle during that interval by purchasing from the Israelites or the neighboring countries. In there any Scripture which reads as follows: “Weep and mourn at the birth and rejoice at the death”?

No, there is no such Scripture. The only Scripture I recall at all similar to this is Ecclesiastes 7:1-2, which says: “A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one’s birth. It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting; for that is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to his heart.” The book of Ecclesiastes gives the view of human life from “under the sun,” and the above quotation shows that unless there were something beyond the horizon of human reasoning it would be better to the than to be born; better, indeed, not to have lived at all. (Compare 1 Corinthians 15:19.) What was manna, and why was it called by that name?

Manna was the food for the people of Israel which God sent down from heaven every day for 40 years, except on Saturday the sabbath, and enough was sent down on Friday to last over the weekend. It is described in Exodus 16:31 as being “like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.” In Numbers 11:7-8 we read that “the manna was as coriander seed, and the color thereof as the color of bdellium. And the people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil.” The word “manna” means “What is it?” or, as Strong’s Concordance defines it, the meaning is “a whatness.” Manna is a type of Christ as “the bread of life” come down from heaven to the for the life of the world (John 6:35-51). Its very name, “What is it?” is suggestive of Him Who is in His own person a mystery. In Exodus 16:14 it is called a “small” thing, which came upon the dew and was gathered morning by morning. The Lord Jesus is looked upon by the world as a small thing, having no form nor comeliness, and no beauty that men should desire Him (Isaiah 53:2). In His humiliation He must be seen as our Savior, and then we must meditate upon Him, and feed upon Him in order to grow. Manna, however, as the bread of life, is only one of the many symbols of Christ as the believer’s food. He is also symbolized by “the old corn of the land” (Joshua 5:11), the solid food of Hebrews 5:13-14, etc.

I have heard that not all of the book of Daniel was written in Hebrew. Is that true?

Yes. Beginning with the fourth verse of the second chapter, and continuing to the end of the seventh chapter, Daniel was written in Aramaic, the ancient language of Syria, the vernacular of the people among whom Daniel lived at the time of the writing. Is it true that the temple of Solomon was built without any noise? And if so, what is the typical significance of that fact?

According to 1 Kings 6, 7, the temple of Solomon “when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither; so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.” The typical significance of this remarkable statement has to do with the work now going on of constructing the Church which is God’s temple. This Church universal, made up of all those who are born again, is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23) and the temple of God (Ephesians 2:19-22). This temple is graphically described in 1 Peter 2, where Christ Himself is set forth as the great foundation, and the children of God are stones in the building. These children of God have come to Christ, “as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,” and they, “as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up the spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (verses 1-5).

Now all this work, as the work of Solomon’s temple, is going on silently, and is proceeding to a glorious consummation, when Christ will present the Church to Himself, “a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

What is the meaning of “the ribband of blue” in the fringe of the borders of the priests’ garments, referred to inNumbers 15:38?

“Ribband” is the old style spelling for ribbon. Blue, in Scripture imagery, is the heavenly color, and the blue ribbon in the hem of the priests’ garments signified that the servants of God are to be heavenly in their conduct and to walk in a path of separation with God.

Please explainIsaiah 3:18toIsaiah 26:1have heard this refers to automobile tires.

It has no such significance. The word “tires” in the passage refers to a crescent-shaped ornament worn by women on the head. In the Revised Version, in verse 18, instead of “their round tires like the moon,” it reads, “the crescents.” Have we any Scripture to justify us in carrying life insurance policies, or sick and accident policies?

It appears clear to me that 1 Timothy 5:8 covers the matter: “If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” If we have those dependent upon us for support, we should do our utmost to provide for them, not only while we are here to help them, but also after we are gone, or are disabled and unable to care for them.

What does “Zion” mean? The meaning of the word is “Sunny Mount.” It is applied in Scripture (1) to one of the hills in the city of Jerusalem, the other being Moriah; (2) the whole city of Jerusalem; (3) the temple; (4) the hill on which the temple stood (usually called Moriah) as distinct from “the city of David”; (5) the religious system of Judaism; and (5) to heaven. Was the iron that floated (2 Kings 6:5-6) the same material as we know today called “iron”?

I see no reason to doubt it. Is it promised in the Bible that there shall be a universal language?

Yes. In Zephaniah 3:8-9, it is written: “Therefore wait for me, saith Jehovah, until the day that I was up to the prey; for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

“For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Jehovah, to serve him with one consent” (R.V.).

Please tell us something about the book of Lamentations. The full title of the book is ‘The Lamentations of Jeremiah.” Jeremiah was preeminently the weeping prophet (Jeremiah 13:17), and in the five lamentations of this book he weeps continually for Israel, whom he loves and whose sins he hates. The book shows the undying love of Jehovah for His people whom He chastens. “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (Hebrews 12:6). The book of Lamentations is highly poetical, being arranged in a series of acrostics, based upon the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The verses of each chapter begin with the letters of the alphabet in their order, the third chapter having three verses for each letter. See 1:22; 2:22; 3:66; 4:22; 5:22.

What does the Bible say about turning plowshares into swords or turning swords into plowshares? In Joel 3 it is written, “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears.” The context (verses 9-16) shows that this refers to the judgments of the awful Day of the Lord, when the Son of Man shall return to the earth to subdue His enemies and set up His throne (Isaiah 63:1-6; Rev.l9:ll-21). In Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 the opposite picture is presented, pointing to the promise for the last days, when, after subduing His enemies, the Lord will bring in the promised peace. “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:1-5; Micah 4:1-3).

What is the significance of the number forty in God’s creation of mankind in His Word?

Forty is the multiple of four and ten. Four is the earth number: the four winds and four quarters of the earth (Revelation 7:1; Daniel 7:2); Eden’s four streams (Genesis 2:10; Ezekiel 37:9, etc.); and ten is the governmental number: ten commandments; ten talents; ten cities in reward for ten pounds gained, etc. Forty symbolizes earthly governmental testing: the forty days of rain in the flood; Moses’ forty years in Egypt and forty in Midian; forty days on the mount (Exodus 24:18), and a second forty days after Israel’s sin in calf worship (Deuteronomy 9:18; Deuteronomy 9:25); forty years in the desert wanderings, resulting from the forty days’ probation in the searching of Canaan; the forty days’ warning to Nineveh (Jonah 3:4); the forty days of our Lord’s temptation (testing) in the wilderness (Matthew 4:2), etc. Is it true that one of the pyramids in Egypt has great spiritual significance? We hear much discussion concerning it. Please tell us what the Scriptures teach about it.

It is true that there is widespread teaching concerning the spiritual significance of the great pyramids, and it is claimed by those who propagate this teaching that the pyramid is referred to in Isaiah 19:19-20, where it is written, “In that day shall there be an altar to Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Jehovah. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Jehovah of hosts in the land of Egypt.” I have read much concerning this matter, but am not at all satisfied that this Scripture is a reference to the great pyramids. There seems to be no real evidence that the pyramid was ever used as an altar or considered as such. Just what is the altar referred to we cannot tell. For my own part, I am satisfied that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are a quite sufficient revelation for our faith and guidance. Is the doctrine of “the Golden Rule” found in the Bible? If so, where? The words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 7:12 are often referred to as the golden rule: ‘Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” It is by no means a statement of the way of salvation. There is no other way of salvation but to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as one’s own personal Savior and Lord. Those who do this are born again and receive the gift of God which is eternal life.

What was the feast of weeks in Israel? The feast of weeks is described in Deuteronomy 16:9-12. It came between the passover and the feast of tabernacles, the former emphasizing the beginning, and the latter the consummation of God’s dealings with Israel. The passover sets forth redemption through blood, which must be the beginning of all God’s dealings with man. The feast of tabernacles pointed to the regathering of Israel into her own land and to the blessing of God in connection with the kingdom. Between these two feasts came the feast of weeks, occupying seven weeks, during which the people rejoiced in the blessing of God already experienced, and in the anticipation of future blessing. We today who have taken our place under the shelter of the shed blood of Christ are celebrating in antitype our feast of weeks. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:1-2).

I have heard that you taught that there are no benedictions in the Bible except for believers. Is this true?

Yes, it is true. There is no Scriptural ground for the universal custom of pronouncing benedictions upon all present in an assembly, without reference to whether they are believers or unbelievers. It is true that the New Testament benedictions often include the words “you all,” but that is because they are found in Epistles addressed to the Church of God only. As a matter of fact, the New Testament carefully distinguishes between the friends of God and the enemies of God. In 1 Corinthians 16:22 It is written, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha,” which means, “let him be accursed: our Lord cometh.” Let not that man who is treading underfoot the Son of God, making the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and doing despite to the Spirit of Grace—let not that man think that he may receive the blessing of God. The benedictions properly belong to those only “that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity” (Ephesians 6:24).

If you find it convenient I should appreciate it if you would give your understanding of verses 36 and 38 of chapter 22 of Luke’s Gospel. I am unable to harmonize the commandment to buy a sword with the tenor of the other Scriptures of the New Testament. A sword might be useful and perhaps indispensable, to deal with fierce beasts in the way. It is not necessary to assume that our Lord advocated the use of the sword against men. As I write today I am in the heart of Central America, where almost every man one meets on the road, even in this time of peace, bears a machete, a big long knife, not for use against humans, but for various uses in field and forest.

What is the meaning of “Anathema Maranatha” in1 Corinthians 16:22?

“Anathema” is “accursed,” and “Maranatha” is a word of Chaldean origin meaning “Our Lord cometh.” The sentence is a malediction pronounced upon our Lord’s enemies. While it is a universal custom in our day for the preacher to “pronounce the benediction” upon all present, whether they are all the Lord’s people or not, the custom is contrary to Scripture, whose benedictions are always confined to God’s own people, and whose word for His enemies is a malediction, instead. Compare 1 Corinthians 16:22 with Ephesians 6:24.

What is meant by “the Urim and Thummim” ofExodus 28:30? The words mean “lights and perfection,” and they are believed to be a name for the stones of the breastplate of the high priest. Or it may be that they were stones in addition to the stones of the breastplate. In Leviticus 8:8 we read that in clothing Aaron, Moses “put the breastplate upon him: also had put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.” In some mysterious way not fully revealed the Urim and the Thummim were used in Israel to ascertain the will of God (see Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 33:8; 1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63). Should Christians use the term “sacrament” or “Eucharist” in referring to the Lord’s Supper; or should they speak of “the sabbath” or “Sunday”? or should they use the word “kingdom” as applied to the church? In 2 Timothy 1:13 we are exhorted to “hold fast the form of sound words.” “Sacrament” means an oath, and the Roman soldiers’ oath on enlistment was so called. The Lord’s Supper is in no sense a sacrament. “Eucharist” is not so bad, for it means thanksgiving, and the Supper is a feast of thanksgiving. “Sabbath” is a much misused word; the first day of the week should be called the Lord’s day. And the Kingdom is not the church. The Church is made up, not of subjects to be ruled over in the coming Kingdom, but rather of co-rulers to be associated with Christ in reigning over the kingdom. By “the Church,” of course, I mean only those persons who are really born again. Does apostasy mean to change one’s mind in some religious views, or rejecting Christ as one’s Savior, or lowering His righteousness and raising our own?

It means none of these things. Apostasy differs from backsliding in that a true Christian may backslide, but an apostate proves by his apostasy that he never was really born again. Judas, who was never saved, was an apostate; Peter was a saved man who fell out of communion. The Christian who back slides loses his fellowship and joy and fruitfulness, though he does not lose his salvation, for salvation is the free gift of God, and includes eternal life and eternal security (John 5:24). An apostate is one who, after professing to believe the Gospel, turns away even from his profession. The apostate is described in 1 John 2:19 : ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Their going out from us is a matter of doctrine. Of course, they may go on calling themselves Christians, but no man is a Christian who denies the fundamental doctrines touching the Person and work of Christ “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 1:9-11). Is the apostasy of today well established?

Yes, the apostasy is certainly well established. Whether it is yet fully developed I cannot say.

Why is there no mention made of the Lord’s return in the Apostles’ Creed? Do you not believe that the omission of this fact has helped to increase the doubt and unbelief in this teaching even among saints? Would you consider it correct to say that Satan was responsible for the omission? But there is mention of the Lord’s return in the Apostles’ Creed. Does it not say, “From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead”? Of course, that is not an intelligent statement about our Lord’s return, for it implies a general judgment, of which the Scriptures know nothing. It is a mistake to call it the Aposdes’ Creed, for the Aposdes knew nothing about it and had nothing to do with it. The Creed is supposed to have originated about the end of the fourth century. The saints have no need to be confused, for they have the Bible which they can study for themselves, and it is so clear that the wayfaring man, though he be a fool, need not err therein. Where can I find that Noah was 120 years building the ark? The widespread belief that “die ark was a preparing” (1 Peter 3:20) during the period of 120 years is based upon Genesis 6:3, which says, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” Since it was right after this that Noah was called of God and instructed concerning the ark (Genesis 6:13-14), the assumption is that it did actually take 120 years to huild the ark, because die flood took place 120 years after that time. Will you kindly tall me the meaning ofProverbs 25:27: “It is not good to eat much honey”? The idea is that it is not good to eat too much honey. In the sixteenth verse of the same chapter we read: “Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.” Now read the twenty-seventh verse in full: “It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.” Too much “sweet praise” is not good for us. The Revised Version reads: “It is not good to eat much honey so Tor men to search out their own glory is grievous.”

Honey was excluded from the burnt-offerings under the law of Moses: “No meat-offering, which ye shall bring unto Jehovah, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall bum no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of Jehovah made by fire” (Leviticus 2:11). Leaven is a type of corruption, and, therefore, of course, it would be excluded from any offering typifying the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom there was no corruption. And honey, which is merely natural sweetness, could no more symbolize His perfection than could leaven.

All this throws light upon the true meaning of Proverbs 25:27, which might be paraphrased to read: “It is not good to depend too much upon mere natural sweetness; so for men to search out their own glory is grievous.” Did Nahum in his prophecy (2:3,4) see our automobiles? I should like to have your comment on these verses.

I do not believe that there is any reference to automobiles and other motor-driven vehicles in Nahum 2:3-4. Even the fastest automobiles do not “run like the lightnings.” The immediate reference is to the Assyrian invasion which was only about one hundred years after the prophecy was uttered. But I have no doubt that there is also reference to the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem in the end-time at the close of the period of the Great Tribulation.

What is the meaning of “Selah,” frequently occurring in the Psalms?

It is believed to be a musical sign, similar to what is now called the “rest” sign. It has been variously defined as meaning “pause” or “meditate.” One rather good suggestion is that it means ‘Think of that!”

Why did Jesus employ parables in His teaching?

Jesus Himself gives us the clue in Mark 4:12. He did not begin to do so until His miracles were malignantly ascribed to Satanic agencies. His enemies saw His works, yet closed their eyes to their source and spiritual meaning. They heard His words, for He “spake as never man spake”; yet they were deaf to the life-giving message conveyed. They voluntarily refused to accept the Gospel and at length became morally incapable of doing so. Will you please explain Jude 23? The teaching of Jude 23 is that we must have a care in the work of soul-winning, lest in putting men out of the fire we ourselves shall become tainted with their sins. The work of soul-winning is dangerous business, but it is a good business; for it is written, “He that winneth souls is wise,” and “They that be wise shall shine as the brightest of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever” (Proverbs 11:30; Daniel 12:3).

I thought I once read this in the Bible: “If a man commit an offense, for which the penalty is to be stoned or hung, ye shall take him out at once and execute him, that fear shall sink into the heart of the evil and he turn from his evil.” I forget the book and page, but I think it was in one of the books of Moses. Is such language in the Bible? And if so, when one commits a premeditated brutal crime, is it not wrong to beg for soft punishment, when the evil will not fear but continue in crime and the innocent suffer? Is not the death penalty given expressly for protection of society? And is not one who opposes the death penalty really an enemy of organized society?

Language similar to that quoted in your letter is found in Deuteronomy 13:10-11 and Ecclesiastes 8:11. Capital punishment is based upon God’s covenant to Noah (Genesis 9:6) and it is also approved in the New Testament (Romans 13:4). To set it aside on the plea of mercy is to flout God’s authority as the Ruler of His universe—the righteous “Judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25). Should I as a Christian believe in capital punishment? Since the law was given to the Jews and we are not under the law, why should we observe their customs? The law of capital punishment antedates the Jewish law by almost a thousand years. It is a part of the Noahic Covenant, and it still stands as written: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man” (Genesis 9:6). It has never been abrogated nor modified in any way. It constitutes the distinctive feature of the covenant, establishing for the first time the institution of human government—”the government of man by man. The highest function of government is the judicial taking of life. All other governmental powers are implied in that” (Scofield). Capital punishment therefore is not only permissible, but it is obligatory upon every civil government. The state not only has a right to put a murderer to death, but it has no right to let him live. Capital punishment is an integral and inseparable part of God’s charter of government. The objection is often raised that capital punishment is unchristian. It would be more strictly true to say that it is pre-christian, for it was established of God nearly twenty-five hundred years before the Christian Church, and though for this reason it is not distinctly Christian, it is nevertheless distinctively and absolutely divine.

What is the great objection to short hair for women? I honestly cannot find any Scripture against it, although I have looked up all the references given in my concordance. In my case there are several very real advantages in having my hair short, and I intend to keep it short unless you convince me that I, as a Christian, should let it grow.

You do not need to look up many passages on the subject of bobbed hair in order to find a conclusion as to what a Christian woman at the time of Christ ought to do. 1 Corinthians 11:15 should have settled it for any woman at that time who sought to do the will of God as revealed in His Word: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to hen for her hair is given her for a covering.” And in verse 6 of this chapter we are told that it is “a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven.” It seems clear to me that the regulations at this time concerning long hair for women and short hair for men were based upon God’s plan that a man should not make himself look like a woman, nor a woman make herself look like a man. See Deuteronomy 22:5. The same principle can be applied today, if not the same regulations.

Why is it that there is so much suffering among the people of God?

I believe that your question may be answered conclusively by one verse of Scripture, namely, Colossians 1:24, where Paul speaking of himself says: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.” The Church which is the body of Christ is made up of all those and only those who are born again, and as they are born again, member by member, they are added to that body. So the body of Christ is brought into existence and unto completion by birth. In the natural world birth is accompanied by suffering. It seems to be inevitable that in bringing her child into the world the mother must suffer. She risks her life and sometimes sacrifices it in order that her child may be born. Just so in some mysterious way the body of Christ must be brought to perfection and completion by suffering. God has warned us that in the world we will have tribulation, and this would not be and could not be without His permission. To us it is given in behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake (Php 1:29). Let us humble ourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt us in due time; casting all our care upon Him; for He cares for us. And let us assure our hearts that the God of all grace, who has called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that we have suffered a while, will make us perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle us (1 Peter 5:6-10). Let us always remember that however great the sufferings may be they are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed toward us (Romans 8:18) How long did men live before the flood? The oldest of all was Methuselah, who lived 969 years; then in their order of longevity were Jared, 962 years; Noah, 950 years; Adam, 930 years; Seth, 912 years; Cainan, 910 years; Enos, 905 years; and Mahaleel, 895 years. See Genesis 5:4-32; Genesis 9:29. Was the flood of Noah really universal, or was it confined to that part of the earth inhabited at the time? What is meant by “the great deep,” whose fountains were “broken up”?

1. It is evident, from the record in Genesis 7:19-20, that the flood was universal: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”

2. It is believed by many students that the earth before the flood was enclosed in a globe of vapor, which refracted the rays of the sun, giving practically equal light and heat all over the earth, making it as light and warm at the poles as at the equator, and that this great mass of vapor was the “great deep” referred to in Genesis 7:11; Genesis 8:2. The vapor became condensed into water and this water was precipitated upon the earth, causing rain to fall “upon the earth forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:11-12). From Genesis 2:5-6 it appears that in the primitive creation there was no rain, “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” This precipitation would explain the origin of the rainbow (Genesis 9:13) for there could be no rainbow without rain. Also it would explain the rotation of the seasons, “cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night” (Genesis 8:22), since, by the refraction of light and heat already spoken of, there would be no such rotation.

There are traditions of a universal flood in various parts of the world, including Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, China, Africa, Persia, and among the Aztec and American Indians. But these so-called “corroborations” of the sacred record are not needed by the believer. In capital punishment disapproved in the Bible?

No, indeed. Quite to the contrary, capital punishment is authorized by God Himself in the dispensation of human government committed to Noah and his descendants. In Genesis 9:5, according to the divine decree, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” This decree has never been abrogated or modified and is still in full force.

Why do the Jews celebrate their new year in September instead of January? And why do they place the creation of man 243 years later than the common reckoning?

According to the Jewish calendar the creation of man took place 3,760 years and three months before the commencement of the Christian era. But the year with them is lunisolar and, according as it is ordinary or embolismic, consists of 12 or 13 lunar months, each of which has 29 or 30 days. This makes the embolismic year 384 days, and the ordinary year 354 days. Of course, this would account for the difference between 3,760 years and 4,004 years, as we reckon it.

Prior to the exodus from Egypt the Hebrew year began in the autumn with the month Tisri, which was practically parallel with our September. A new year was established at the time of the exodus in obedience to the command of Exodus 12:1-2 : “And Jehovah spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.’” This was in the month Abib, or as it was later called, Nisan, and corresponded nearly to our April. Therefore, it comes about that the Hebrews have the sacred year, beginning in the spring, and the civil year, beginning in the fall (compare Exodus 23:16; Exodus 34:22). The difference in the Hebrew chronology as placing the creation later than the ordinary Christian reckoning is due to the difference in the length of the Hebrew year as compared with our solar year.

Please tell me what is meant by the mysterious words of Calatians 4:17,18: “They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.” Your difficulty arises from the fact that words, especially in such a fluid language as our English, are often changed in their meaning as time goes on. Our Authorized Version is over 300 years old, and so it is wise to consult the Revised Version in such a case as this. I think you will find real help in so doing, for in the Revision it reads: ‘They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them. But it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter at all times, and not only when I am present with you.” The reference is to the enemies of grace who sometimes profess zeal and affection toward God’s children in order to influence them against the truth.

What is the “little book” mentioned inRevelation 10:8-11?

It consisted of the message revealed to John on Patmos, by which he was commissioned to prophesy, not “before” but “over” or “concerning (see R.V. text and margin) many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings” (verse 11). John’s message was a message of woes and judgments, and in his belly it was bitter, but in his mouth it was sweet because it was the Word of God (compare Ezekiel 2:8 to Ezekiel 3:3 and Jeremiah 25:15-26).

Please explain the words ofRevelation 22:19, “God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” If this does not mean the loss of one’s salvation, what does it mean?

It is a case of mistranslation. The Revisers have corrected it to read: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.” There is nothing in the Scriptures to show that a name once inscribed upon the book of life is ever erased. The verse should be read in connection with verse 14, also in the Revision, where “do his commandments” is changed to “wash their robes.” Literally, verse 14 reads: “Blessed (are) they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and that they should go in by the gates into the city.” The question of the eternal security of believers does not enter into the purview of these verses. Believers are those who have “washed their robes,” and these will not add to or take away from the book. It is not to believers but rather to rebels that God addresses the terrible warning of verses 18 and 19. Though the world may lightly esteem the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ, it is esteemed very highly by God, and He will not tolerate any tampering with it. Will you please explainRevelation 3:5: “I will not blot out his name out of the Book of Life”? I have heard it given as a proof that a Christian can sin away his salvation and be lost. The words mean just what they say: “I will not blot out his name.” It is only by inference that these words could be made to imply “that a Christian can sin away his salvation and be lost.” Such inferences are misleading, and lead to no end of difficulty and confusion among God’s dear people. If we take the statement just as it stands, we have a beautiful assurance of the believer’s eternal security in Christ: his name will never be blotted out from the Book of Life. A somewhat similar passage is found in John 6:37 : “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” The meaning of this is seen in what follows: “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hadi sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seedi the Son, and believedi on him may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (38-40). The believer’s security is not a matter of doubt if only the plain statements of the Word of God are read and believed. Is any one’s name ever blotted out of the Book of Life? and if not, why does our Lord say inRevelation 3:5: “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life”? Does this not imply the possibility of some names being blotted out from that book?

No, there is no such implication. Disfranchisement was a common method of punishment in olden times for those who came into conflict with the constituted authority. Such a man’s name was blotted out from the register of citizens or voters. Let such an one know that there is one place where if his name is written it will not be blotted out.

Again, men were often put out of the synagogues for the name of the Lord. In John 9 the man who was born blind was excommunicated from the synagogue because of his testimony concerning the Lord Jesus. He said: “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.” To which they answered and said unto him: ‘Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out,” that is, they excommunicated him. And when “Jesus heard that they had cast him out,” He at once went looking for him, and “when he had found him,” He ministered unto him and brought him into the full joy of fellowship with Himself. His name had been blotted out of the membership roll of the synagogue, but his name should not be blotted out of the Book of Life. It may be that in these last days many of the children of God will find themselves in conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities. They may be cast out by those authorities, and their names blotted out from the membership roll of earthly churches, but let them be comforted by the words of Revelation 3:5 : “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will NOT blot out his name out of THE BOOK OF LIFE, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.”

What is the meaning of the statement, “For this is my blood of the new testament (or covenant),”Matthew 26:28? To what covenant does it apply? The New Covenant is clearly defined for us in Jeremiah 31:31-34, where, of course, its direct application is to Israel, and its fulfillment awaits a time yet future for the nation. But the language of Jeremiah 31 is quoted in Hebrews 10:16-17, where it is shown by the context that we who have believed, whether Israelites or Gentiles, have entered into the blessing of the New Covenant based upon “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,” by which “offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified” (verses 10 and 14). Are the days of the Genesis Creation 24 hours long? From Exodus 20:11 some believe that the days of Creation were 24-hour days. Since I was not there when it happened, I do not know for sure, but I certainly believe God could do the job in 24 hours if He so desired! Is there anything in the Scriptures against cremation? That is, for the believer? How do you feel about it personally?

I do not know any Scriptures touching this point. Therefore let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. As to how I feel about it personally, I do not like the idea. But that, of course, has nothing to do with the case.

1. Is it right for a Christian to leave orders that after his death his body shall be cremated?

2. Is it right for a Christian who believes in and looks for the coming of the Lord to buy a lot in a cemetery and prepare a grave to be buried in?

1. I should not like to judge the point Such orders are not often given by Christians, but rather by unbelievers who seem to be trying to avoid a resurrection. But it won’t make any difference in either case. God knows how to bring them all forth, whether in the resurrection of life or in the resurrection of damnation.

2. This is another question which cannot be answered, Yes or No. Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind. I like the philosophy of the little boy who said, “I am not looking for the undertaker but for the uppertaker.” Keep looking up!

I recently heard it expressed that while Daniel was in the lions’ den, God took the lions’ hunger from them, or stopped their hunger at that time. Is that the meaning ofDaniel 6:22? The language of Daniel 6:22 is: “My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me.” As to whether the lions were hungry the record does not say. Of course it was perfectly easy for God to take away their hunger, or to leave their hunger with them and yet prevent them from hurting His servant. Nothing is impossible with God! But if the lions’ hunger was removed, it certainly returned in a hurry when Daniel’s enemies were cast into the den (see verse 24). Will you please give proof of the authenticity of Daniel? It is said by some, as you doubtless know, that the book was written by an unknown writer as late as 100 B.C. For answer to this query we pass on the following from the late Dr. W. G. Moorehead:

1. The book claims to have been written by Daniel. In the last six chapters the author uses such phrases as, “I saw in the night visions”; “I, Daniel, alone saw the vision”; “I, Daniel, understood by books,” etc. These chapters are inseparably bound up with the first six. The pertinent question is, Are these statements true? He would be reckless indeed who would impeach the author’s veracity, or charge him with forgery.

2. Josephus affirms that Alexander the Great was shown the prophecies in Daniel concerning himself by the high priest Jaddua, and the conqueror was so delighted that he offered to confer any favor on the Jews. Alexander antedated Antiochus more than 150 years.

3. Daniel and his three companions are referred to in 1Ma 2:49-60, in such a way as to lead us to believe the book was extant when this apocryphal writing was composed.

4. Ezekiel testifies both to the existence and character of Daniel, Ezekiel 14:14-20. In Ezekiel 28:3, there is a manifest allusion to Daniel’s wisdom as a revealer of secrets, “a resolver of doubts.” It seems clear that Ezekiel knew of the prophet’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and of the handwriting on the wall of Belshazzar’s palace. This witness is all the more important because the two prophets were contemporaries, and no one doubts the authenticity of Ezekiel’s book.

5. Our Lord sets his seal to the reality of Daniel’s official character and the truth of his predictions, Matthew 24:15. Christ teaches that this prediction of Daniel still remained to be fulfilled when he uttered the memorable discourse, that is, more than a century and a half after the time of Antiochus.

6. The records of ancient Babylon as deciphered by archaeologists harmonize with the statements of the prophet. In many minute particulars Daniel has been vindicated by modem research. The words of M. Lenormant deserve serious attention: ‘The more the knowledge of the cuneiform texts advances, the more is felt the necessity to revise (correct) the too hasty condemnation of the book of Daniel by the German exegetical school” (La Magie, page 14).

ExplainLuke 14:26.

Dr. Scofield’s footnote is as good an explanation as I know. He says: “All terms which define the emotions or affections are comparative. Natural affection is to be, as compared with the believer’s devotedness to Christ, as if it were hate. See Matthew 12:47-50, where Christ illustrates this principle in His own person. But in the Lord the natural affections are sanctified and lifted to the level of the divine love (compare John 19:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-28).”

I should appreciate some explanation ofMark 10:29-30. Is the promise in verse 30 literally true? Especially as to the houses? No one would want a large number of houses. Just what does this mean?

It should be remembered that in the Synoptic Gospels, meaning Matthew, Mark and Luke, we are not yet on Church ground. Stricdy speaking, the New Testament does not begin with the opening of our Lord’s ministry, but with His death and resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit (Luke 22:20). Thus it will appear that the words “now in this time” as seen in Mark do not refer to our time, but rather to the time of the coming Kingdom. The appointed path of the Christian “now in this time” is one of suffering and rejection (1 Peter 2:19-21).

What are the Seven Dispensations, and where does each one begin in Scripture?

(1) The Dispensation of Innocence, from the creation of man to his expulsion from Eden. (2) The Dispensation of Conscience, from the expulsion from the Garden to the Flood. (3) The Dispensation of Human Government, from the Flood, and still going on; will encf at the Second Coming of Christ, when He, the Stone of Daniel 2, will smite the whole system of human government, destroying all human rule and authority, and taking to Himself His great power, reigning over the whole earth as King of kings and Lord of lords. (4) The Dispensation of Promise, beginning with the Abrahamic Covenant, which is still in force, and which is to be fully accomplished when Christ comes again to earth. (5) The Dispensation of Law, beginning with Sinai, and ending at the Cross of Calvary (Galatians 3:19-25). This was for Israel alone, and is “done away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3). (6) The Dispensation of Grace, beginning with the descent of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, and going on to the Rapture of the true Church, which will be followed by the final apostasy and destruction of the professing Church. (7) The Dispensation of the Kingdom, beginning with the Second Advent of Christ, and continuing for a thousand years; this is the Millennium.

DoesJeremiah 4:23-27mean that there were people on the earth before it was destroyed inGenesis 1:2? Some say there were only angels on the earth, and that the judgment was only a judgment of angels; but in verse 25 it speaks of man. Surely someone had to be on the earth, or there would have been no cause for judgment. The expression “without form and void” of Jeremiah 4:23 is identical with that of Genesis 1:2, and is evidently a description of the earth’s condition resulting from a pre-Adamite judgment which overthrew the primal order, whatever that order may have been. The judgment comes between the first and second verses of the first chapter of Genesis. It is true that Jeremiah 4:25 in the passage you cite contains the word “man,” but it hardly speaks of man, for it says, “I beheld, and, lo, there was no man.” Dr. Scofield’s footnote is enlightening in this connection: “Jeremiah 4:23-26, Isaiah 24:1; Isaiah 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of a divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are no wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezekiel 28:12-15 and Isaiah 14:9-14, which certainly go beyond the Kings of Tyre and Babylon” (Scofield Reference Bible, page 3, footnote 3). Would it be Scriptural for some of our young people, including girls, to visit jails and hold services on Sunday afternoons? I understand these particular jails contain men only. Mother objects.

It might be difficult to show the Scripturalness or unScripturalness of it, except for that little sentence, “Mother objects.” Mother probably has good grounds for her objection, and the words are still in the Book, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1). And even if there were no objecting mother, it might still be wise in the circumstances for men only to go to these jails to minister to men. “All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient.” As God is sovereign, why are so many people permitted to be led astray by false teaching, also by errors in translations of the Bible? We know that the masses cannot translate from the original languages for themselves.

I should say that God as Sovereign has made ample provision for the safety of His own children, and that every one of His children is perfecdy safe from false teachers and teaching, as shown in 1 John 2:20-27. Please read it over thoughtfully and carefully and see how gracious and kind God has been. As to errors in Bible translations, every one is privileged to translate the Bible who cares to try it. But even at that point it is still true that God’s Spirit, the Holy Spirit—the Anointing which we have from above—is our infallible Teacher, and will protect God’s children from apostasy. On the other hand, those who will not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved, God turns over to believe a lie. This is the principle of God’s dealings. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God and to trifle with His truth.

Recently our Sunday school class discussed Leviticus, chapter 10, and our teacher insisted that Nadab and Abihu went down “straight to Hell” because of their sin. Although they were certainly chastened of the Lord because of their presumptuous disobedience, I do not see that there is anything in the chapter to warrant our asserting that they were damned. Their sin and consecration offerings had been accepted, and they had been anointed with both the blood and the oil. When I so argued, I was told in effect I was foolish enough to believe “once saved, always saved.” I should be grateful for your opinion. The record reads that “Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from Jehovah, and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah” (Leviticus 10:1-2). It seems to me that in verses 8 and 9 there is a strong implication that the two priests were intoxicated when they sinned at the altar. Dr. Scofield, in a footnote in his Reference Bible, says that “Fire ‘from before the Lord’ had kindled upon the altar of burnt-offering the fire which the care of the priests was to keep burning (Leviticus 6:12). No commandment had yet been given (Leviticus 16:12) how the incense should be kindled. The sin of Nadab and Abihu was in acting in the things of God without seeking the mind of God. It was ‘will worship’ (Colossians 2:23), which often has ‘a show of wisdom’ ‘and humility.’ It typifies any use of carnal means to kindle the fire of devotion and praise.”

There is a close parallel in the New Testament, where priests (for every Christian is a priest) were judged of God for disorderly and unworthy conduct at the Lord’s Supper. For this cause many of them became weak and sickly, and many even died under the chastening hand of God. And yet they were not lost and they did not go down “straight to Hell”—they were not “condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:23-34, R.V.). A child of God fell into sin likened unto David’s. However, since that time confession has been made to God, and the blood of Christ accepted as the only remission for sin. But Satan continually accuses the soul for this gross transgression, hence robbing the heart of peace and joy. Will you please point out the way of peace for this distressed believer?

First, are you sure that in the beginning there was real conversion, and not merely a “professed conversion”? It frequently happens that in a professed conversion there is no real turning of the heart to God and therefore no regeneration. Let this troubled one examine himself whether he be in the faith. Let him give all diligence to make his calling and election sure. Then when that is setded, and if it is assured that he is really a child of God who has fallen into grievous sin, it follows that by that sin his fellowship with his Heavenly Father was cut off until that sin was fully and faithfully dealt with. The Word is perfectly clear for such a case, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). The human heart is slow to believe all that God says, especially all He says about the blood of Christ God assures us that “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,” that is, if we are frank and candid with Him, not trying to hide anything from Him, but dragging everything out into the light, judging ourselves in His sight, then “we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleansedi us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Satan loves to attack us at this point, and our hearts are apt to listen to him rather than to God, but the Word is written in order that we should by it assure our hearts before Him. “For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things” (1 John 3:20). The whole First Epistle of John should be carefully studied and believed by the backslidden child of God for his complete restoration.

What is the meaning of “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”? The exhortation to every man to “be fully persuaded in his own mind” means that each one of us for himself must study the Word of God until convinced as to what that Word teaches, and then having come to know what it teaches we must obey it. We all need to pray definitely for two things, namely, wisdom and grace. We need wisdom to know the will of God, and we need grace to do that will when we know it. A man was lolled on the railroad. Was it God’s will that he should be killed? Some say his time was up here on earth; others say it was not God’s will that his life was crushed out. We know that God has power to prevent it.

Precisely so! And since God did not prevent it, therefore it was done by His permissive will. There is a vast difference between God’s directive will and His permissive will. No one can know why God permits such a thing to occur as you have described; but that God has a good and righteous reason will not be doubted by any who have put their trust in Him. Have all the heathen at some time had a chance to accept the Lord?

There are many millions of people in the world who have never yet heard the Gospel. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that only one-third of the human race has had the Gospel preached to them, leaving two-thirds in ignorance of it.

Please explain the phrase “grace for grace” inJohn 1:16. The whole verse is truly wonderful: “And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.” The Revisers’ margin reads, “and grace upon grace.” The meaning is “grace corresponding to grace.” It is as a mirror reflects all the loveliness of a beautiful face; there is in the mirror a grace for every grace in the face there reflected. God has already bestowed upon His children the “fullness” of Christ, including a grace corresponding to each grace in Him who is “altogether lovely” (Song of Solomon 5:16). We already have Christ in us, “the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27), and one day Christ will be fully formed in us (Galatians 4:19), and then the glory will be revealed, and “we shall be like him” (1 John 3:1-3). For this revealing of the sons of God the whole creation is eagerly awaiting (Romans 8:19). “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matthew 13:43). Then shall we be presented without fault before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24). Hallelujah! What a Savior! Will you please tell us what our Lord meant by the “greater works than these” inJohn 14:12?

Verses 12-14 should be read together the greater works referred to were to be made possible because our Lord went to His Father, and whatsoever His believing people might then ask in His name, “that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” To bring men to a saving faith in Christ is a far greater work than the so-called miracles (John 6:28-29; compare Proverbs 11:30; Daniel 12:3). John Knox in Scotland and David Livingstone in Africa wrought far greater works than if they had turned water into wine or fed multitudes with a handful of food. Do notJohn 12:40,Romans 9:18andHebrews 3:13plainly show that Christians may be hardened by sin?

No. Christians are not in mind in any of the Scriptures you cite, but rather unbelievers. I do not deny that Christians may be thus hardened; I only say that these Scriptures do not teach it. Even the “brethren” of Hebrews 3:12-13 are Hebrew brethren thus addressed by the Hebrew writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

In2 Chronicles 13:22it speaks of the book of Iddo, or rather the story of the prophet Iddo; also in2 Chronicles 12:15of the book of Shemaiah. In several other places, reading the Bible through, I have come across different other books mentioned which do not seemingly appear in the Bible. Now, are they combined in some other book of the Bible, or what has become of them? Are they really a part of the Bible, or have they never been found? No one can tell who the prophet Iddo was or what has become of the book of Iddo or of certain other books which are mentioned in the Bible but not included therein. It is supposed by some that Iddo’s writings are included in the books of Chronicles. Tradition identifies Iddo with “the man of God” who denounced Jeroboam’s calf altar at Bethel (1 Kings 13). The statement of 2 Chronicles 9:29 may have a bearing upon this point. Others believe that Iddo is the same as Oded, the father of Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:1).

What is the immaculate conception as taught by the Catholics?

I am quoting you a paragraph from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which gives the explanation of the immaculate conception as I have always understood it:

“The dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, as held by the church of Rome, is to the effect that ‘the most blessed Virgin was, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior of the human race, by the singular grace and favor of Almighty God, from the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, preserved free from all taint of original sin.”’

About two years ago I heard a Bible teacher say that Zacharias meant “God’s oath,” and that Mary meant “God remembered His oath.” If this is true can you tell me in what language it is?

I think that you must have confused the name of Mary with that of Elisabeth, Zacharias’ wife. Elisabeth is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Elisheba, and its meaning is: “the oath of God,” or, “God’s oath.” The meaning of Mary is: “bitterness or rebelliousness.” It is equivalent to Mara, the name adopted by Naomi upon her return to Bethlehem-Judah from Moab (Ruth 1:20). She said “Call me not Naomi (meaning, ‘pleasant’ or ‘pleasantness’), call me Mara (meaning, ‘bitter’ or ‘bitterness’): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.” The meaning of Zacharias’ name is: “remembered by Jehovah.” I have no doubt that these names are significant as used in Luke’s first chapter. God had made promises concerning Israel and concerning Israel’s Redeemer; and He had confirmed these promises “by an oath; that by two immutable things (His promise and His oath), in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, berth sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (Hebrews 6:17-20). So there was the oath of God, as indicated by Elisabeth’s name; and in addition to the oath of God, there was God’s memory. He certainly could not make a promise and then forget it. God remembered His promise and His oath, and all this is pointed out or intimated by the name of Zacharias, “remembered by Jehovah.” Are not the leaders of our denominations, who practice unscriptural things and teach the members of various churches wrongly, more responsible than the members?

Undoubtedly; and there is a long score for them to setde in the final checkup. The responsibility of leadership is very great. Will you please explain the meaning ofGalatians 6:17—”From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus”? The word for “marks” is stigrnata, from which we derive our word “stigma.” Paul was a veteran warrior of Christ, and in his body he bore the scars of battle, which, he reasoned, gave him the right to speak as a competent witness of the things he had been discussing.

It is quite apropos that in the mail bringing your letter, or about the same time, there came a letter from a daughter of the late Dr. Charles Frederick Sheldon, in which she related a remark made by her father in reply to somebody’s suggestion that he would be satisfied even to sneak into Heaven through the back door. Dr. Sheldon answered, “Well, that would not satisfy me. When I enter Heaven I want to go in at the front door, with the bands playing and the flags flying, and bearing some scars gained in the good fight of faith down here.” Would you advise the use of the Mizpah benediction in closing a meeting?

No. The so-called Mizpah benediction is not a benediction at all, but a malediction, as its reading, with context, will make clear. The record, in Genesis 31, shows that at the end of a bitter quarrel Jacob and Laban built a heap of stones between them. They gave it various names including Jegarsahadutha (Chaldee for ‘The Heap of Witness”), Galeed (Hebrew for “The Heap of Witness”), and Mizpah (meaning, “A Beacon,” or “Watchtower”). Then said Laban to Jacob, ‘The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another! . . . This heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm.” It was equivalent to saying, “Let the Lord keep His eye on you when I can’t! You keep on your side, and I’ll keep on my side!” It is surely a queer kind of “benediction.” Why not use a real benediction? There are plenty of them in the Bible.

Please tell me what you understand the intent of the Spirit to be in the expression, “Nor the ‘moon’ by night” inPsalms 121:6. It is easy to see how the intense rays of the sun, in a hot country, might he held as a smiting to be avoided; but now unless, perhaps, the moon (which with the stars are ordained to rule the night) is meant to stand for the “terror by night” which inPsalms 91:5the Spirit assures us shall not reach us, I should not know how to explain the last line ofPsalms 121:6. The following matter from Spurgeon’s Treasury of David explains the effect of the moonlight in oriental countries:

Quoting from John Came, in Letters from the East, published in 1826: “The effect of the moonlight on the eyes in this country is singularly injurious. . . . The moon here realty strikes and affects the sight, when you sleep exposed to it, much more than the sun, a fact of which I had a very unpleasant proof one night, and took care to guard against it afterwards; indeed, the sight of a person who should sleep with his face exposed at night would soon be utterly impaired or destroyed.” A writer, signing himself “C.W.,” in The Biblical Treasury, says: “In the cloudless skies of the east, where the moon shines with such exceeding clearness, its effects upon the human frame have been found most injurious. The inhabitants of these countries are most careful in taking precautionary measures before exposing themselves to its influence. Sleeping much in the open air, they are careful to cover well their heads and faces. It has been proved beyond a doubt that the moon smites as well as the sun, causing blindness for a time, and even distortion of the features. Sailors are well aware of this fact; and a naval officer relates that he has often, when sailing between the tropics, seen the commanders of vessels waken up young men who had fallen asleep in the moonlight. Indeed, he witnessed more than once the effects of a moonstroke, when the mouth was drawn on one side and the sight injured for a time. He was of opinion that, with long exposure, the mind might become seriously affected. It is supposed that patients suffering under fever and other illnesses are affected by this planet, and the natives of India constandy affirm that they will either get better or worse, according to her changes.”

Please explain why Paul changes his pronouns for example, inColossians 2:13he says, “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” And then in the very next verse he says “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Why this change? The answer is that in verse 13, as indeed in the whole passage, including verses 10 to 13, he is referring to the Gentile Christians to whom he is writing; but when it comes to verse 14 he is referring to the Jews who alone had been under “the handwriting of ordinances,” that is, the law of Moses. Paul himself was a Hebrew, and so he says, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us,” which he could not have said of the Gentiles. In Romans 2:14 we are told twice that the Gentiles have not the law. In Romans 6:14 we are assured that sin shall not have dominion over us, for we are not under the law, but under grace. You will find the same change of pronouns in Paul’s other writings; for example, in Galatians 3:23 he says: “But before faith came, we (that is, the Jews) were kept under the law ... Wherefore the law was our (Israel’s) schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” And then in the next verse, referring to all Christians, Gentiles as well as Jews, he says: “For ye are all the children of God (sons of God, R.V.) by faidi in Christ Jesus.” And so on through the whole passage down to Galatians 4:7. These distinctions in pronouns are very important to observe throughout Paul’s writings. In your “Simple Studies in The Revelation” you state that the numerical value of the name of Jesus is 888. How is this result arrived at? Also what is the numerical value of the name Christ? In many languages there are numerical equivalents given to the letters of the alphabet. The idea is familiar to us in connection with the Roman numerals, in which I is used for 1, V for 5, X for 10, L for 50, C for 100, and so on. In the Greek alphabet the first letter, alpha, stands for 1, and each letter stands for a certain number, the last, omega, being valued at 800. The Greek letters in the name of Jesus are: iota, 10; eta, 8; sigma, 200; omicron, 70; upsilon, 400; and sigma, 200. The sum of these numbers is 888. Christos, the Greek form of Christ, foots up 1480, as follows: chi, 600; rho, 100; iota, 10; sigma, 200; tau, 300; omicron, 70; sigma, 200; total, 1480. Adding these two totals together gives us 2368 as the numerical value of Iesous Christos, or Jesus Christ. Did the high priest enter into the holy of holies more than once on the day of atonement?

Yes. For while Hebrews 9:7 says the high priest entered “once every year,” the meaning is evident that he entered upon only one occasion or one day each year. Leviticus 16 gives the order of service for the day of atonement and it shows that the high priest went into the holy of holies once on behalf of himself and his family (verse 12), and again on behalf of the congregation (verse 15).

DoesNahum 2:3-4refer to this present time before Jesus comes in the air, or does it come in the Great Tribulation, or has it already happened in the past?

It evidently refers to the terrors of the Great Tribulation. It is foolish to say it refers to present-day automobiles, which certainly do not “run like the lightnings.”

How do you explain the statement ofActs 17:30: “the times of this ignorance God winked at”? In view ofEphesians 2:12,Romans 2:12andRomans 1:18-20it cannot refer to the salvation of the soul. The words “winked at” should be translated as in the Revision, “overlooked.” The teaching is the same as in Romans 3:25, where again the Revised Version is preferable, and where God is said to have set forth His Son “a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God.” The point is that Christ died for the redemption of transgressions which were under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15), that is, He died for the sins committed by men who lived before Calvary as well as for those committed by men who have lived since Calvary. Those who were saved in olden time were saved through faith in God’s testimony, and to them was imputed the righteousness of God in Christ, and their sins were imputed to Christ, who bore them all in due time on Calvary’s cross.

Please explainLuke 22:14-18. Did our Lord eat the last Passover with His disciples on the night of His betrayal?Mark 14:18would seem to indicate that He did. There are some who say that the Passover lamb was slain at the same hour that Christ died on the Cross. Did Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover before the day appointed, or what do these verses mean? Our Lord ate the Passover with His disciples at the beginning of the Crucifixion day, which was Wednesday, the 14th of Abib. Remember that the Hebrew day began at 6 P.M. rather than midnight; so that Wednesday began at what we would now call six o’clock on Tuesday evening. It is doubtless true that the death of the Lamb of God on Calvary took place at the hour on Wednesday afternoon that the Passover lamb was ldlleain the Temple. Thus our Lord anticipated the killing of the Passover by several hours, in order that He might eat with His disciples before He suffered, which may explain the language of Luke 22:15; but it was nevertheless on the same day, since the day began at sunset die night before. Is there a lamb used now by the Jews in celebrating the Passover?

No. It would be contrary to the Word of God to do so except at the temple in Jerusalem; and since there is now no Jewish temple in Jerusalem, the Passover is celebrated without a sacrifice. Hosea 3:4 is now being fulfilled, and the 5th verse will be as surely and literally fulfilled in the future: “4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:

“5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek Jehovah their God, and David their king: and shall fear Jehovah and his goodness in the latter days.”

“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you” (John 14:27). What is the difference here in the “peace”? Does the former mean the peace that we have with God through regeneration, and the latter, that peace we have because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a part of the fruit of the Spirit? Or are they the same in meaning? Please answer.

I am not sure that our Lord meant to speak of two kinds of peace in that part of the verse you have quoted. The contrast rather is indicated by the remainder of the sentence: “Not as the world giveth, give I unto you.” In other words, the distinction He draws is indicated by the pronoun “my,” His peace—the peace He gives—is not the kind of peace that the world gives. Of course it is true, as we leam elsewhere, that there are different gradations in the peace which He gives us. There is the “peace tvith God” of Romans 5:1, which comes when we are born again and as a result of justification by faith; then there is the “peace of God, which passeth all understanding,” together with the conscious presence of “the God of peace” Himself, which comes as the result of our being “careful for nothing,” and “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving” letting our “requests be made known unto God” (Php 4:6-7; Php 4:9). All this is very wonderful, as is well known by those who have experienced it, and it is something of which the world knows nothing and can know nothing, for it all comes “through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Please explain the meaning ofLeviticus 23:17.

Leviticus 23:17 points to Pentecost. The two wave-loaves are the Jews and Gentiles brought together in one body which is the Church. They were to be baked with leaven because believers have sin in them and are made acceptable only on account of the blood, which was always offered in connection with this Pentecostal feast. The words “they are the flrstfruits unto the Lord” point to James 1:18, where we are said to be a kind of flrstfruits unto Him.

What do you understand byGenesis 4:19-24, especially verses 23 and 24? Was Lantech the first polygamist?

I think it is quite true that Lamech was the first polygamist. The Revised Version has made some important changes in the translation of Genesis 4:23-24. In the Revision it reads: “And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me: if Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.”

Let me call your attention to Dr. Scofield’s comment in the margin of his Bible: “Cain had slain an unoffending man and yet was protected by Jehovah; how much more Lamech, who had slain in self-defense.” This seems to be the true meaning of the passage. When was polygamy abolished among God’s people? Is there any record in the Old Testament that the practice was wrong in God’s sight?

I know of no exact point in the history of God’s people where polygamy ceased to be practiced or was formally abolished. God did not forbid it to man, and in some cases, notably in the case of Jacob, He seemed to let His blessing rest upon it; the nation of Israel came from two wives, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah. In Deuteronomy 17:17, however, God uttered a warning against polygamy on the part of the future kings of Israel: the king must not “multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.” For his wholesale disobedience of this command Solomon brought much trouble upon himself and his people (1 Kings 11:1-4). In the New Testament the rule is plainly laid down that there must be no polygamy among God’s people. The Bishop or Pastor, as well as the Deacon, in the Christian Church must be the husband of one wife only (1 Timothy 3:2-12; Titus 1:6), and the same restriction applies to all believers alike: “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2).

Please explain1 Peter 4:6, “For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

You notice it doesn’t say the men who were dead. It says it was preached to them that are dead. The meaning is that those who are now dead had the Gospel preached to them while they were yet living. The third chapter of 1 Peter has something on practically the same subject, verses 18,19 and 20: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometimes were disobedient, when once die long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” The answer is that Christ went in His Spirit—the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Goo!—the Holy Spirit, and preached through Noah in the days before the flood to those who now are spirits in prison. It does not mean that He has gone to them since they entered the prison and preached there to them. There is mystery about these passages, but this seems to be the true explanation. Who cares more for the things of the Lord, a married or a single woman? Is it the same now as in Paul’s time (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)?

I am unable to answer your question. I know only that it is a very dangerous thing to put anyone, no matter how beloved, into the place of preeminence in one’s heart and affections that belongs only to the Lord Himself.

I regularly attend our church and Sunday school, and now they are putting prizes on for the best attendance through the year. I am not in favor of this, as I was brought up a strict Christian from childhood. This is the worst time in my life for prizes, plays, dances, and card playing in and around our church and home. What can be done about it?

It is rather difficult to answer your question without fuller information as to just what is involved in it. Sometimes it would seem to be legitimate to encourage regular attendance in the church or Sunday school by the presentation of a proper prize like a Bible or a good book or something of that land. As for the plays and cards and vices which you speak of as around your church and home, of course these things are to be regretted. God is calling His people to a life of separation from the world and the things of the world. May the Lord Himself guide you in these things that are concerning you so much!

I am requested to have you answer this question: Should we succeed in persuading a young man to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior, and he is soundly converted, but there is no church of any denomination in his community that teaches the fundamental doctrines, what course should he take?

Let him find a church somewhere which is true to God’s Word and put his membership in that church. Then let him keep in touch with the church he has joined, maintaining fellowship with it in prayer and giving, and attending its meetings as frequently as possible.

Many of God’s children are facing this problem in these days of declension and darkness.

Please give me your comments onRomans 8:28-30. The three verses read as follows: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified them he also glorified.” In verse 28 “his purpose” is the great thing. Who can withstand the eternal purpose of God? If salvation were offered to the believer conditionally; if something were left to his faithfulness, or his obedience, or his prayerfulness, then, indeed, the case would be hopeless, for the history of man shows that, whenever he is put under a system of probation, he breaks down. The Law was such a system, and under it life was offered as a condition of obedience: ‘The man which doeth those things shall live by them”; but the Law proved an intolerable burden (Acts 15:10), a ministration of condemnation and a ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7; 2 Corinthians 3:9). In the Gospel all conditions are swept aside, and whosoever will may come. He is only to come, and God does all the rest. Let him come in all his vileness and weakness, and God will not so much as mention either his vileness or his weakness, but will just take him into His loving arms, and undertake for him, and thereafter see to it that all things work together for good unto him. This is His eternal purpose which He purposed before the world was, and of course, with such a salvation, based upon such a purpose, it cannot be otherwise than that all things shall work together for good unto the children of God. The word “for,” in verse 29, has the force of “because,” and it introduces the reason for our assurance that all things are working together for our good. He foreknew us; He also predestinated us to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; He also called us with an effectual calling; and He also justified us, and He has also glorified us. The past tense continues through the whole passage, although the glorification is yet future, for God is able to count things done even when they have not been done. Our glorification is according to His purpose, and nothing is to be suffered to thwart His purpose. Having been foreknown and predestinated and called and justified, we shall also be glorified.

How would you explain the “mist” spoken of inGenesis 2:6? Did this take the place of rain until the time of the covenant with Noah after the flood? Or, otherwise, what would explain the giving of the rainbow as a sign or token of His covenant?

It is obvious that before the flood of Noah there was no rain, and that therefore there had been no rainbow; for wherever there is rain with sunshine there must be a rainbow. There is strong evidence that before the flood the earth was surrounded, or enclosed, in a hollow sphere of vapor, which shielded the earth from the direct rays of the sun and refracted those rays in such a manner as to equalize, or nearly equalize, the heat and cold over the whole earth, making it nearly as warm at the poles as at the equator, and nearly as cold at the equator as at the poles. This hollow globe of vaporized water—”the waters which were above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7)—was perhaps “the great deep” which was “broken up” and precipitated upon the earth in the flood. There are intimations, too, in Scripture that this shield from the direct rays of the sun may be restored in connection with the Millennial glory, “and there shall be a pavilion for a shade in the day-time from the heat, and for a refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain” (Isaiah 4:6, R.V.).

What is the meaning ofGenesis 9:13: “I do set my bow in the cloud”? Was this the origin of the rainbow?

Apparently so. A rainbow, as you of course know, is caused by the sun’s rays passing through the rain and shining upon clouds. But until the flood “the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, . . . but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (Genesis 2:5-6). It is easy to see that to those who had never seen a rainstorm the effect might well be terrifying, and God pointed out the bow in the cloud as a sign of His covenant with man, including the promise that the earth should not again be destroyed by a flood (Genesis 9:12-17).

What would you tell a very intellectual friend who says there is no such thing as a real personal Devil, and who believes babies to be born pure and holy, without sin, and when they become bad it is because of their environment?

I should tell such “a very intellectual friend” to read his Bible. There is no more definite testimony in the Bible to the existence of a personal God than there is to the existence of “a real personal Devil.” And as for babies being born “pure and holy, without sin,” that also is quite contrary to the teachings of the Word of God, which declares that we are all born in sin, and are by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But there is really no profit in debating such questions with intellectual friends who depend upon their reasonings rather than upon the Word of God.

Please explain2 Corinthians 13:5: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” The Revised Version has taken the “s” off the last word, making it read “reprobate.” But what is the meaning of “reprobate”? The Greek word is adokimos, which is dohmos with the negative prefix. The meaning oidokimos is “acceptable,” and it is translated “approved” in Romans 14:18; Romans 16:10; 1 Corinthians 11:19; 2 Corinthians 10:18; 2 Corinthians 13:7; 2 Timothy 2:15. The same word is translated “tried” in James 1:12. The negative form of the word, adokimos, is translated “castaway” in 1 Corinthians 9:27; “rejected” in Hebrews 6:8; and “reprobate” in Romans 1:28; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16; 2 Corinthians 13:5-7. The use of the word in 1 Corinthians 9:27, where it is translated “castaway” in the Authorized Version and “rejected” in the Revised Version, is in relation to service, and Paul is there speaking of his strong desire to avoid the Lord’s disapproval of his service at the end of the road. But in 2 Corinthians 13:5 it is a question as to the standing of these professing Christians in Corinth. Are they really Christians at all? Have they been born again? The Lord Jesus Christ indwells all who are truly born again, but there are many who profess to be His, and who are not truly born again, and will be found unacceptable, disapproved, rejected, when the test is applied. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out demons? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:21-23).

If the question arises as to what this “will of my Father which is in heaven” is, and how we are to do it, the answer is not difficult to find, for, ‘This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us” (1 John 3:23-24). My pastor has repeatedly made the statement that it is extremely flippant and nothing short of sacrilege to say the words, “blessed Jesus” or “dear Jesus” in one’s prayers. His argument is that Christ in His high-priestly prayer, and in every other recorded prayer of His, said, “Father” or “Holy Father.” Then, too, he says that we should not even use the word “Jesus” alone, as that is His human name. As I was thinking about this, I tried to remember some of the prayers I had heard made by Bible scholars—prayers that lifted one into the very presence of God Himself, and I know that in many of those prayers I had heard the word “Jesus” or “blessed Jesus” used many times. I am not sure about it, but it seems that I have heard you use one or the other of those terms in some of your prayers. I may be mistaken, but anyway I thought I would ask you about it. I do think a great deal of my pastor, but his prayers always make me feel that God is a very, very far-off Being, a sort of Potentate set upon a pedestal, and so very, very much higher, and above us, and so all-powerful that we dare hardly even approach Him, and then only with the greatest fear. I do know that we shoidd revere God with every atom of our being, and that He is holy and just and far, far above us in power. But He sent Jesus to the world to show us His love and to provide a new way to come to Him, so that we could come boldly and not be fearful of Him. Jesus ascended into Heaven in His glorified body and is seated there now as a Man, and it seems to me that we can talk with Him as “Jesus,” as friend to friend, and feel very, very close to His heart. We are told that God talked with Moses as a man with his friend, and I think God called Abraham His friend, and if He did that in those very far-off days, it seems that now, in this age of grace, He would want us to come as a friend to a friend. What do you think about all this?

I think I know what your Pastor means, and I agree with him that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of familiarity with the name of our blessed Lord. It is well to remember that He is our Lord, and that as such we should worship and revere Him.

I do not think that you ever heard me addressing the Lord Jesus in prayer at all, for I am always careful to address my prayers to the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus, as we are taught in John 16:23-24. And, too, I try to be careful when I refer to our Lord Jesus at all to be reverent in such reference. I think perhaps that I should agree with your pastor pretty fully along that line.

But, on the other hand, I should disagree with him in his stand that “we should not even use the word ‘Jesus’ alone, as that is His human name,” etc. The same argument is advanced by Sir Robert Anderson in his book entitled, For His Name’s Sake. Of course, we all agree that we ought to be reverent. I confess that I have heard people speaking to Him in prayer and calling Him “dear Jesus” and “blessed Jesus,” when my heart revolted at the apparent lightness of this. But He is called “Jesus” ten times in the first chapter of John alone, and this name is applied to Him by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament some hundreds of times doubdess, and of course no one will accuse the Holy Spirit of any lack of reverence toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is true that God talked with Abraham and Moses and called them His friends, but that is far different from Abraham or Moses talking to God and calling Him their Friend. It is written in the Word that the Lord Jesus is not ashamed to call us brethren. That is beautiful, but I should hesitate to address Him as my Brother. We often hear Him spoken of as our Elder Brother, and it is true that He is our Elder Brother, but I should rather have Him say it than say it myself.

I would suggest that you talk to your pastor about it. It may be that he and you are closer together in the matter than you think. I doubt very much that he thinks of God as “a very, very far-off Being, a sort of Potentate set upon a pedestal,” etc. I think you misunderstand your pastor. Talk it over with him and see if you cannot get closer together than you may now imagine.

What is meant by the righteousness of God and the righteousness of Christ? The righteousness of God, spoken of in connection with salvation, is that righteousness which is reckoned to the believer—”even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe” (Romans 1:17; Romans 3:22). Christ Himself is righteousness, and is made righteousness unto all who put their trust in Him (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Will you explain why, in the Old Testament, so many offerings to God were required, as hundreds and thousands of bullocks and sheep? Did these offerings take away the sins of the offerers?

No, they did not (Hebrews 10:4). But they were “a figure for the time present,” pointing to the time when Christ should die for the sins of the world (Hebrews 9:9, R.V.), including those who lived before that time as well as afterwards (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15). Old Testament believers were saved by faith in the coming One, as we today are saved by faith in the One who has already come. Will you please explain Jude 23? The teaching of Jude 23 is that we must have a care in the work of soul-winning, lest in pulling men out of the fire we ourselves shall become tainted with their sins. The work of soul-winning is dangerous business, but it is a wise business; for it is written, “He that wins souls is wise,” and “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever” (Proverbs 11:30; Daniel 12:3).

Please explainLuke 9:24: “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.”

Verse 25 is our Lord’s comment on verse 24: “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole wo rid, and lose himself, or be cast away?’ The man who devotes his time and attention exclusively to himself and to saving his own life is the man who, when he comes to depart from this world, will find that he has lost what he was trying to save. On the other hand, the man who lives the life of self-sacrifice, devoting himself to God, seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and laying down his life for the benefit of others, is the man who, when he comes to the end of things here, will find that in losing his life he has really saved it. Is there anything in the Bible to show that during the last days the summer and winter will be so much alike that it will be hard to distinguish between them? I have always understood that we would have the different seasons. In the covenant with Noah is included the promise that “while the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). Yet, according to Zechariah 14:6-7, it appears that there will be certain wonderful physical changes in the end-time: for “it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark; but it shall be one day which shall be known to Jehovah, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.” Much poetic nonsense has been based upon this verse, whose obvious teaching is that in the time that is coming there will not be darkness during half of each day, but the light will continue through the twenty-four hours. There are indications in Scripture that in the time before the flood of Noah the seasons were far different from now: that the earth was surrounded by a shield, perhaps of mist or vapor, which protected it from the direct rays of the sun and by refraction distributed its light and heat more equally than now over the surface of the whole earth.

It may be that this enveloping shield or covering was what is described as “the great deep” which was “broken up,” thus opening “the windows of heaven” and precipitating the flood of waters hitherto suspended over the earth. This would leave the earth unprotected from the direct rays of the sun, causing extreme heat at the equator and extreme cold at the poles, with all the suffering involved in such extremes. In the time before the flood “Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (Genesis 2:5-6). The removal of die protecting shield at the time of the flood of Noah made it necessary thereafter to water the earth by means of rain. If this explanation is the right one, it would account for the rainbow (Genesis 9:13); for, of course, if there had been no rain before that time there could have been no rainbow. The restoration of the antediluvian shield or covert in the future is intimated by certain of the prophetic Scriptures, such as Isaiah 4:5-6, where it is promised that “Jehovah will create upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: and there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain” (see also Isaiah 60:19-20).

Cannot an unbeliever render any service which God will accept? An unsaved man cannot know God or obey God, or please God (John 3:3-6; Jeremiah 17:9; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7-8). So long as a man rejects the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father will have nothing to do with him, nor will He receive anything from him, whether service or money or any other gift. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:28-29). Is it wrong, do you think, to have given up all service in the church, when such service seemed to have been blessed, to wait on a sick loved one at home, and in fact to give up everything but the home and its work? I just feel that I have neglected spiritual things, but perhaps the Lord desires me to take care of this aged one. I hope I have done right. Your service at home may be the one way in which you may now please God. Pleasing Him is the great thing. You have only one person to please at a time, and only one thing to do. Our Lord, on the cross, committed His mother Mary to the care of His friend John; and it is believed, from probably reliable tradition, that until Mary’s death John was never heard of in public ministry. There can be no doubt that in thus serving the Lord at home John was doing the one thing he could then do in real ministry. To be where He desires, doing the thing He desires, is the one thing worth while. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

Please explain the meaning ofHebrews 10:26-27.

It is characteristic of the Episde to the Hebrews that it abounds in appeals to Hebrews, to whom the way of salvation had been revealed in the Gospel, urging them to obey the holy commandment delivered unto them, namely, to believe the Gospel and be saved. Of course, they were under temptation to remain in Judaism, at least so long as the temple was yet standing, and the bloody offerings continued. The writer of the Epistle, however, continually points out to them that the sin-offering in the temple had lost its value, by reason of the “one sacrifice for sins forever,” which had been accomplished on Calvary. Hebrews 10 is a summing up of the whole matter. The blood of bulls and of goats was never able to take away sin (verses 1-4). In due time the Lamb of God had come to do God’s will in the offering of Himself on the cross (verses 5-9). By this will of God thus done believers are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (verse 10). The priest in the temple, going on with his interminable sacrifices, was accomplishing nothing; “but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected (that is, given perfect rest in the conscience) forever them that are sanctified” (verses 11-14). God’s way of giving rest to the conscience is in keeping with the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:33-34, according to which God does a new work in the believer’s heart, writing in his heart and mind His laws; and as for their sins and iniquities, they have been purged by the blood of Jesus, and He will remember them no more (verses 15-17).

Now comes verse 18, which must be read in connection with verse 26: “Now where remission of these (forgiveness of sins) is, there is no more a sin-offering” (verse 18). Then follows the exhortation for the Hebrew who knows the way, to walk in it and enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (verses 19-25). The alternative is pointed out in verses 26 and 27. If the Hebrew, or any other for that matter, should “sin willfully after” he had “received the knowledge of the truth,” that is, after he had come to know the way of salvation—if he sins willfully in refusing to walk in the way thus opened before him—there remains no more a sin-offering, “but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” In verses 28 to 31 a contrast is drawn between the man who despised Moses’ Law and was stoned to death for thus despising it, and the man who despises the Son of God and treads Him under foot, and counts His blood as a common thing, and insults the Spirit of grace. There is nothing for him but vengeance, and “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Please explain the difference between the soul and the spirit. I have a Scofield Bible, but reading the notes in Genesis and Thessalonians does not make it clear to me. Your question is a difficult one, and I can hardly hope to help you if Dr. Scofield has failed to do so. Then, too, an exhaustive discussion of the subject is hardly possible here. Briefly, however, I will state my own position in the matter:

1. Man has a body. In this he is like all the creation of God throughout the animal and vegetable world. The brutes have living bodies, and so do the trees and plants.

2. Man has a soul. In this he is unlike the trees and plants, but he is like the lower animals. The soul is the seat of the emotions, the passions, the feelings, the desires, the likes and dislikes, the affections, and the will. All these things we have in common with the beasts.

3. Man has a spirit. In this he is unique among God’s creatures. ‘The spirit of man is the candle of Jehovah” (Proverbs 20:27), and it is this that is set aglow when man is born again; and then God’s Spirit testifies with man’s spirit that he is a child of God. God cannot be known by the body, nor by the soul, but only by the spirit. And even the human spirit is incapable of finding out anything about God or of knowing God except by revelation of the Spirit of God. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. .. . But the soulish (so the Greek) man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual discerneth all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man” (1 Corinthians 2:11-15). The believer is spiritual only when he is ruled through his own spirit by the Spirit of God. If he is ruled by his body as dominated by his soul, he becomes a slave to his own affections, appetites, emotions, passions, and therefore is a willful, selfish man. The Word of God is extremely careful to distinguish: between things of the soul and of the spirit even judging “the thoughts and intents of the heart” as to whether such thoughts and intents are spiritual or soulish (Hebrews 4:12). It declares that any wisdom which is not from above and therefore not from the Spirit of God, is “earthly, soulish, devilish” (James 3:15). It asserts that the false teachers of the end-time are “they who make separations, soulish, having not the Spirit” (Judges 19); and that having not the Spirit, they are “none of his” (Romans 8:9). And, finally, it gives us the glorious assurance that when we get our resurrection bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44) they will be no longer soulish (“natural” is incorrect here also), but spiritual: no longer dominated by selfishness and willfulness, but rather under the full and free control of the Spirit of God. Is it true that beasts have souls? The Hebrew word for soul, nephesh, like the Greek psuche, implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from vegetables which have unconscious life. In this sense the beasts have “soul.” But “soul” is not by any means identical with “spirit.” Man has “spirit,” which the beast does not have.

Please explain1 Peter 3:19.

I am passing on to you the answer of Dr. Scofield to a question proposed to him on this verse:

It is interpreted in three ways: (1) It is said that between Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection He went into Hades and offered salvation through His cross to all the wicked dead; (2) that He preached in Hades declaratively—merely announcing the consummation of the predicted sacrifice to those who had rejected the promises during Old Testament times. The objection to the first interpretation is that the context of the verse limits the preaching to a particular class of sinners—those antediluvians who rejected Noah’s gospel. Such favor to a special class of sinners who were warned for 120 years before the flood came is inconceivable. The objection to the second interpretation is that it puts Christ in the position of, so to speak, taunting the irredeemably lost—which is also inconceivable. He might have wept over them; He could never have exulted over them; (3) the third interpretation harmonizes the passage, the context, and the known character of the Redeemer. It is best stated in paraphrase. “Christ was quickened by the Spirit, by which Spirit in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, and the long-suffering of God waited, he preached to those who are now imprisoned spirits,” awaiting the judgment. This is as near to a satisfactory answer as any that I know. I suppose that for full light on the subject we must wait until the morning dawn.

What is meant by the filthiness of the spirit in2 Corinthians 7:1? The answer is to be found in the whole passage, beginning with 6:14. Filthiness of the spirit is fellowship with that which is opposed to God. Satan is a spirit, and a great religious leader; and God’s children are warned against that which is Satanic, particularly in the realm of religion. I believe that Masonry, with all its train of lodgeism, is spiritual filthiness, because it is a Satanic unitarian religious system, opposed to God and His Christ. Beware of it.

Matthew 27:9-10reads: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah 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; and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.” I cannot find this passage in Jeremiah, and the margin of my Bible gives the referenceZechariah 11:12-13. Does this make it appear that the Bible is not without error, and that2 Timothy 3:16is untrue? The Syriac Version of Matthew, which is very ancient, omits the name of “Jeremiah” altogether and simply reads that “It was spoken by the prophet,” not naming any. And therefore some have believed that the word “Jeremiah” has been added by some scribe in the New Testament text.

Others think that the whole volume of the prophets being in one book, with the prophecy of Jeremiah first in the old Hebrew arrangement, the reference was to the book which bore his name. The Jews used to say that “the spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah,” and so they were as one prophet. Also, it has been suggested that the words were spoken by Jeremiah, but written by Zechariah. Or that Jeremiah himself was the author of the 9th, 10th and 11th chapters of Zechariah. In any event it does not affect the truthfulness of the record. We shall find some day that every Word of God is pure. Is there a book called “The Lost Prophecy,” referring toMatthew 2:23, “He shall be called a Nazarene”?

We have no knowledge of a book entitled, ‘The Lost Prophecy.” It does not seem to me that there is such a mystery about the verse as many have suggested. It does not say that the prophets wrote, but only that they spoke, saying, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Doubtless the prophecy had been uttered by more than one prophet, else the plural noun, “prophets,” would not be used. There can be no doubt that the Old Testament prophets see far more than they wrote, and this probably came down as an oral tradition rather than a part of a written document.

From1 Timothy 2:11-12it would appear that only those who suffer with Him shall reign with Him. Do not all Christians suffer in some degree, and are we not rewarded according to the amount of suffering we endure?

Yes, to both questions. According to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 the believer’s rewards are shown to depend upon the abiding character of his works as he builds upon the foundation, which is Jesus Christ Of course, there is a very real relation between the believer’s work and his suffering. No saved person can escape all suffering with Christ. In Revelation 2:26-28 authority over the nations is committed to the overcomer, and the overcomer in Scripture is described in Revelation 12:11 : “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”

I surely believe that if a person is born again he is saved and safe, but cannot see how a person could have time to repent while he is committing suicide, especially some kinds of suicide. People, when they suffer, often say that it would be so much better to be with the Lord, but Paul and Job and so many others did such great good while suffering on earth that I do not see how a person could commit suicide if he were born of God.

I think your confusion comes from a lack of understanding as to the solid foundation upon which the believer’s security is resting. You say that you “cannot see how a person could have time to repent while he is committing suicide, especially some kinds of suicide.” This remark leads me to suppose that you are under the impression that if a believer should fall into sin and then die before confessing the sin he would be lost. But the forgiveness referred to here is governmental or disciplinary forgiveness, and it does not touch the question of a believer’s eternal salvation in any way whatever. When a sinner believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and receives Him as his own personal Savior he is born again and comes into possession of eternal life; and the teaching of Scripture is that this gift is really and truly “eternal.” The believer is now a child of God. If he falls into sin after becoming a child of God, then his fellowship with the Father is interrupted until he confesses his sin and judges himself. When he thus confesses his sin and judges himself, forgiveness is held out to him and his fellowship with the Father is restored. But in case he should the before confessing his sin he would be taken at once into the Father’s presence and live with Him there throughout eternity. “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:31-32).

I should like to have some information from the Scriptures regarding suicide. I have found nothing to advocate such a thing, nor anything against it. In this particular case the man made a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for a number of years, and I know he took an interest in the Lord’s work. I believe that when a sinner accepts Christ Jesus the matter of salvation in settled.

I agree with you perfectly that salvation is the gift of God by grace through faith, and when once received it is forever.

I have no doubt that our loving Father will deal faithfully with His child. No one can tell why a person commits suicide. It is almost unthinkable that such a thing could be done when one is in one’s right mind. But the Lord knows all about that, and whatever sin there is in it is included in the sins for which our Lord Jesus Christ died on Calvary. On the other hand, of course, you never know whether a man is saved or not by the profession he makes. The Lord knows them who are His, but we do not. At any rate, we may depend upon it that the Judge of the whole earth will do right.

What is the meaning of Christ’s words inLuke 22:36, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one”?

We quote from Dean Alford in reply to this question. In discussing the much-controverted passage referred to in Luke, he says that its meaning appears to be, “to forewarn the Apostles of the outward dangers which will await them henceforward in their mission—unlike the time when He sent them forth without earthly appliances, upheld by His special providence, they must now make use of common resources for sustenance, yea, and even of the sword itself for defense. This they misunderstand, and point to the two swords which they have—for which they are rebuked . . . The sword of the Spirit (Olhausen and others) is wholly out of the question in interpreting this command. The saying is both a description to them of their altered situation with reference to the world without, and a declaration that self-defense and self-provision would henceforward be necessary. It forms a decisive testimony from the mouth of the Lord Himself, against the views of the Quakers and some other sects on these points. But He does not warrant aggression by Christians, nor, as some Roman Catholics would have it, spreading the Gospel by the sword.” On verse 37, Dean Alford says: ‘The connection is this: Tour situation among men will be one of neglect and danger; for I myself (see Matthew 10:24-25) am about to be reckoned among transgressors.’ By the very form of the expression it is evident that the sword alluded to could have no reference to that night’s danger, or of defending him from it.” On verse 38, the Dean says: ‘Two of them were armed—either from excess of zeal to defend Him, excited by His announcement of His sufferings during the feast—or, perhaps, because they had brought their weapons from Galilee as protection by the way . . . They exhibit their swords, and supposing them to apply to that night. Our Lord breaks off the matter with ‘Itis enough’—not ‘They are sufficient’;—but, It is well—we are sufficiently provided—it was not to this that my words referred.’ The rebuke is parallel with, though milder than, the one in Mark 8:17—as the misunderstanding was somewhat similar.” Will you kindly explain the meaning ofJames 3:1? Does it refer to the enmity of the world against anyone who in trying to do God’s will?

No. It refers rather to the responsibility of the teacher. The 1911 Bible Translation reads: “My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that we shall receive the severer judgment.” There is a tremendous responsibility connected with the gift of teaching. It is the teacher’s business to expound the Word of God, and woe be to the man who muddles his message and wrests the Scriptures! The judgment against him will be most severe. In his footnote for Exodus 25:1, Dr. Scofield, in discussing the authority for the types of Exodus, very scientifically lays down the Bible’s proofs as to the verity of said typology, and then goes on most logically to state the two fundamental rules to be observed in determining just which person, event, ceremonial, etc., may be considered to be typical (in the Scripture sense of the word). In Genesis 5, 6, in discussing Enoch, Noah, the flood, the ark, Dr. Scofield distinctly speaks of them as respective types. While it is far beyond me to dispute our dear brother’s word on this matter, seeing how exquisitely accurate he has shown himself to be in all his biblical analysis, I must confess that I cannot as yet understand why he did not consider these “types” as having the authority of “analogy, or spiritual congruity, merely,” since I have not discovered any direct statements to the effect that in these instances we have evidence of typology and not simply analogy, etc.

I confess myself to be undoubtedly in error from the start, considering that I do not have time to examine thoroughly all the Scriptural bearings on the subject. For this reason, I have ventured to address you with regard to the matter as one who being thoroughly grounded in the harmony of Scripture cannot but lead an anxious child of God to see the light on these matters, notwithstanding their relative significance. My own rule concerning types and typical study (and I think I am in agreement with Dr. Scofield) is this:

Any person or place or thing taken from the Old Testament and definitely employed in the New Testament in a typical sense is of course a type. There can be no question about that. But there are other types, as Dr. Scofield’s notes intimate. He says: “All types not so authenticated must be recognized as having the authority of analogy, or spiritual congruity, merely.” But you will observe that he speaks of these latter nevertheless as “types.” A rule I have always followed concerning types is this: I have insisted that no doctrine ought to be built on types alone, but that when the doctrine is established by the plain teaching of the Word of God, then it is beautiful and interesting and profitable to find the type in the Word of God which supports that doctrine. In short, we may say there are two classes of types. First, those specifically authenticated by New Testament usage; and, second, those which while not so authenticated are yet so clear as to their “analogy, or spiritual congruity” as to be unmistakably intended for types. Where it says in 1 Corinthians 10:11, “All these things happened unto them for types,” it surely is not intended to limit the type to the things specifically mentioned in the chapter. The words, “all these things,” constitute a general term, inclusive, as I understand it, of many other “things” not specifically mentioned in the chapter. Should people who are not Christians sing Gospel hymns in public, that is, as solos or duets or special numbers? Can such be used by God for His glory? The answer to the first question is No. For what is a person who is not a Christian? He is one who is treading under foot the Son of God, and counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and doing despite unto the Spirit of grace (Hebrews 10:29). How can he do anything that pleases God? He is a man in the flesh, and Romans 8:8 Paul says, “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” And then he goes on to say that the believer is not “in the flesh,” but “in the Spirit.” The answer to the second question is that God is not limited, and therefore He can when He pleases use even such things to His glory. He can use a piece of dirty paper, if it happens to have the Gospel printed or written upon it, and if anyone reads and believes it he will surely be saved, despite the dirt on the paper. Thus an unsaved person might sing or even preach the Gospel, and anyone hearing it and believing it will be saved. But this does not mean that it is right to employ unbelieving singers or preachers, either paid or unpaid, to minister in holy things before God. It is wrong, and contrary to the Word of God. Will you explain the difference between the children of disobedience, the children of wrath and the children of the devil (Ephesians 2:2-3;1 John 3:10); and also the ungodly and the sinner of1 Peter 4:18? There must be a difference between these mentioned by Peter, because of the “and.”

No; there is no difference. All five phrases are just different descriptions of unbelievers. They are all children of disobedience because they refuse to obey the Gospel; they are all children of wrath because the wrath of God rests upon them for this disobedience (John 3:36); they are all the children of the devil because they follow his desires (John 8:44); they are all ungodly because they refuse to conform to God’s will for them; and they are all sinners because they have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). And we ourselves were by nature all these things: we were children of wrath as other. “BUT GOD!” Oh, what a glorious BUT is that! For the great love wherewith He loved us when we were DEAD, He saved us (Ephesians 2:4). Who but God could love a dead thing and bring it to life? Hallelujah! What a Savior! Will you kindly explainGalatians 4:17-18? The Revised Version helps us here: ‘They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them. But it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter at all times, and not only when I am present with you.” It is a needed warning against the enemies of grace, who sometimes profess great zeal and affection toward God’s children in order to influence them against the truth.

InEzekiel 3:20we read about a righteous man turning from his righteousness and committing iniquity. He shall the in his sins and his righteousness shall not be remembered. I always did believe, since I have been saved, that one who is born again will not be lost, but this verse has put a doubt in my mind. Please explain. The context is important Read the chapter, beginning with verse 17: “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and diou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall the in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou wam the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezekiel 3:17-21).

You see, it was a preacher receiving his commission from God, being told what to preach. God is saying in effect, “You must preach what I tell you; and then, no matter what happens to the people, if you have preached faithfully what I tell you, you have delivered your soul.” On the same principle Paul says in Acts 20:26-27 : “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” The life and death referred to in Ezekiel are not spiritual but physical. It is a matter of chastening, as in 1 Corinthians 11:30-32 and 1 John 5:16. Does the wealth of this world belong to God or to Satan? Is it God’s will that some of His children should be poor?

“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” (Psalms 24:1); “Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord’s thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is” (Deuteronomy 10:14). He says: “Whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine” (Job 41:11); “Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine; . . . the world is mine, and the fullness thereof (Psalms 60:10-12).

But, “hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?” (James 2:5).

Riches are far more oftener a curse than a blessing, and poverty has done far more than riches to promote spiritual growth and health.

If you are saved you are rich indeed; and the multimillionaire who is unsaved is a poverty-stricken beggar compared with you. Will you please inform me as to how a just and loving God can sit in high Heaven and see the awful things that are being done these days, and not interfere? Your question is not a new one. God’s people have long faced it, and it is discussed frequently in the Word of God. There is much mystery connected with it, and we must wait for the solution of our problem until the morning comes without clouds, and shadows flee away. In Psalms 37:35-36 it is written: “I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.” In Psalms 73 the same matter is discussed at great length. The Psalmist did not know what to say about it until he “went into the sanctuary of God; then understood” he “their end.” In some way not yet revealed to us, it would seem that the sufferings of this present time are necessary, and we are to remember that they are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed. The proper attitude of faith is to wait on the Lord until the time of setting things right.

Why did the Lord Jesus teach in parables? Are parables and illustrations the same thing? By no means. An illustration is given to reveal truth, but a parable is calculated to hide truth from those who have heard the truth and have refused to obey It. Read carefully Isaiah 6:9-13; Isaiah 28:5-13; Isaiah 53:1; Matthew 13:10-17; Matthew 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10; John 12:35-41; Acts 28:25-28; Romans 11:25-27. (See also answer to question on “Inability to Believe, on page 81.) Please explainGalatians 1:8-9. In this passage God’s anathema is pronounce twice upon anyone preaching another gospel which is not another, thereby perverting “the gospel of Christ” (vs. 6,7). It is solemn language. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”