Your ShelfYour Projects

Untitled article

1%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · January 7, 1868

FromReview and Herald, Vol. XXXI, No. 4

Read the full edition

Report of the Battle Creek Bible Class.

By W. C. G.

VERSES 66, 67. And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; and when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
Ques. What was the occupation of this maid?
Ans. Keeper of the door. John xviii, 17.
Q. What reason had she for looking upon Peter?
A. Probably his manner was such that he attracted attention. He felt much interest in the fate of his Master, and probably some fear as to his own, and must have betrayed some emotion and agitation.
VERSE 68. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
Remark.—Peter here displayed his lack of true courage by his unwillingness to acknowledge his Lord, even to a maid-servant. Notwithstanding his loud protestations of loyalty and fidelity, in which he even declared his willingness to die for his Master, we here see him exhibiting the greatest weakness and cowardice.
VERSE 69. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
Q. Was it the same maid who accused him before?
A. It was not. The account given by Matthew says, “another maid.” Matt. xxvii, 71.
Q. What was Peter’s answer?
A. As recorded in Luke xxii, 58, he replied, “Man, I am not.”
Q. How do you reconcile this with the statement that a maid questions him?
A. The account in John xviii, 25, states that “they said unto him,” &c. Doubtless, several joined in the accusation as soon as she had spoken, and perhaps Peter addressed his reply to a man who might have been more positive than the rest in his assertions that Peter was a disciple.
VERSE 70. And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely, thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
Q. How long after was this?
A. About the space of one hour. Luke xxii, 59.
Q. Who identified Peter at this time?
A. A kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off. John xviii, 26. He was present in the garden when Christ was taken, and doubtless had good reason to remember Peter.
Q. What has Peter’s being a Galilean to do with his being a disciple?
A. Christ was from Galilee; and Peter being also from that place, together with the fact that they were found in company with each other, rendered it more probable that Peter was his disciple.
VERSE 71. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
Q. Why did Peter curse and swear?
A. To make his denial more convincing. He thought surely no one would doubt him if he proved himself unworthy to be a disciple of Christ.
Remark.—Dr. Clarke asserts that this translation is not correct. That the original does not imply that Peter used profanity, but that he endeavored to confirm his denial by a sort of oath.
Reference was made by Bro. Smith to the original Greek, and the definition by Greenfield seemed to sustain this idea. It was remarked that this construction did not help Peter’s case, however, as a denial upon oath was nothing less than perjury, which could not be considered as any better than profanity.
VERSE 72. And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him: Before the cock crew twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
Q. What probably brought the words of Christ to Peter’s mind?
A. The Saviour turned and looked on him. Luke xxii, 61.
Remark.—This look from Christ, full of compassion and tenderness as it was, carried with it such a reproof to Peter’s heart that he then and there bitterly repented of his wickedness, and wept over his folly. We see him here, a poor, weak, trembling culprit, afraid to espouse the cause of his Lord and Master; but in noble contrast with this, we find him shortly after ably defending that cause, and boldly accusing the high priest and others of having put to death the Son of God, and refusing to be silenced in his preaching of Christ and him crucified, even although threatened with the severest penalties. See Acts iv, v. Such a change can a genuine, thorough conversion work upon the human heart.
CHAP. XV, 1. And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.
Q. What was the object of this consultation?
A. To decide how they might put him to death.
Q. Who was Pilate?
A. Governor of Judea, under the Emperor Tiberius. The Jews were subject to the Romans; and as their civil power was taken away from them, they had no authority to put Christ to death, and hence, were obliged to appeal to Pilate.
Q. What prediction was fulfilled in the delivery of Christ to Pilate?
A. That of Christ himself, in Mark x, 33: “They [the chief priests] shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles.”
VERSE 2. And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering, said unto him, Thou sayest it.
Q. Why did Pilate ask this question?
A. Because this was among the charges brought against him by his accusers. Luke xxiii, 2.
Q. What are we to understand by the reply, “Thou sayest it?”
A. This was, in a certain sense, a non-committal answer. While it might be regarded as a tacit assent to the question of Pilate, it can hardly be considered a direct affirmative reply.
VERSES 3, 4. And the chief priests accused him of many things; but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee?
Q. What were these many things of which he was accused?
A. Perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, &c. Luke xxiii, 2. These charges were of a most false and malicious character, and calculated to inflame the mind of Pilate against him.
VERSE 5. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
Q. Why was Pilate astonished?
A. Because Christ made no attempt to defend himself against these charges. Doubtless, Pilate himself knew that many of the charges were groundless, and wondered that he did not make an effort to refute them.
VERSE 6. Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
Q. Was this a custom?
A. It was. Matt. xxvii, 15.
Q. What was its origin and object?
A. Its origin is unknown. We do not learn from secular history that it was a general custom with Roman governors, and are led to infer that it originated with Pilate, and had for its object, the conciliation of the Jews, by granting to them a request of annual recurrence.
VERSE 7. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
Q. What was the character of Barabbas?
A. He had made insurrection and committed murder, and was a robber.
VERSE 8. And the multitude crying aloud, began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
Q. Who were the multitude, and why did they clamor that Pilate should conform to his usual custom?
A. They were probably composed of the common people, who desired the release of Christ, and hoped that Pilate would accomplish this by adhering to his usual custom.
VERSES 9, 10. But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
Q. What other name did Pilate use in connection with that of Christ?
A. Barabbas. Matt. xxvii, 17.
Q. Why did he thus present these two names to them?
A. It was probably the custom for him to nominate two or more, and permit them to choose. As it was his evident desire to release Christ, he doubtless presented the name of an outrageous criminal, in hopes that they would choose to have Christ released instead of one whose liberty was so inimical to society.
Q. What probably influenced Pilate in desiring the release of Jesus?
A. His wife had a remarkable dream, and she besought her husband to have “nothing to do with that just man.” Matt. xxvii, 19.
VERSE 11. But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
Remark.—The chief priests here exercise their influence over the multitude, knowing that their demands would be complied with, and Pilate would release the one whom they requested. The multitude who were thus swayed by priestly influence to clamor for the death of Christ were probably some of the very ones who shouted, “Hosanna to the son of David; blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord,” on the occasion of his entry into Jerusalem.
VERSE 12. And Pilate answered, and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
Remark.—Pilate here makes an appeal to the people, in hopes that they might demand the release of Christ. He is determined to place the responsibility in their own hands, and thus avoid the decision of the case himself.
VERSES 13, 14. And they cried out again, Crucify him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
Remark.—The people are now fully under priestly influence, and their prejudices are swayed so far in the opposite direction as to demand the death of Christ, where before they had wished for his release.

QUESTIONS.

1. We, as a people, believe the use of swine’s flesh as food to be a violation of the laws of our being, and of the word of God. Under these circumstances, is it right for us, as parents, to keep an article of food for our children that we believe to be wrong to eat ourselves?
After throwing in the necessary qualification, that by children we are to understand those who are under parental control, the class unanimously decided that such a course would be wrong, and that we should scrupulously avoid giving to our children those things which we recognize as injurious and hurtful.
2. Would it be wrong for Sabbath-keepers to manufacture wine from the rhubarb plant?
After a few remarks from Bro. Hutchins, relative to the injurious and even poisonous nature of rhubarb wine, and its evil effects upon the human system, because of the oxalic acid which it contains, the class decided against its manufacture by Sabbath-keepers.
We are happy to call attention, in this connection, to an article on the foregoing subject from the pen of Bro. Waggoner, in this issue of the Review, and would commend it to all who are interested in the matter.
3. How are we to understand the last clause of Matt. x, 23, as taken in connection with verses 5 and 6 of the same chapter?
This question seems to demand an explanation of the expression, “the Son of man be come,” in verse 23. In verses 5 and 6, the apostles are sent only “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel;” and as the verses intervening between these and the 23d verse do not
extend the commission to the Gentiles, they cannot be included in the provisions of the gospel if the expression, “the Son of man be come,” signifies his second advent in glory. It is evident, therefore, that this must signify some other event.
The class were at first divided in opinion as to what that event was. Quite a number were of the opinion that the transfiguration fulfilled it, while as many, or more, believed it to signify the Saviour’s following after the disciples, teaching and preaching in the same cities. This last opinion was supported by several texts of scripture, showing that he did actually follow his disciples after having sent them out.
Reference was had to the original Greek, and it was shown that the word, translated “be come,” has a great variety of significations. Greenfield gives some twenty or more, among which we find “to come after,” “to follow,” “to make one’s appearance,” &c. These definitions were thought to sustain the idea of following after, in the sense of teaching and manifesting himself to the people. After quite an extended and interesting discussion, the question was put to vote, and this latter opinion was sustained by the majority of the class, only three voting against it, they believing it to refer to the transfiguration.
W. C. G.