p. 637 | In the Question Chair

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 1, 1901

In the Question Chair.

[Designed for the consideration of such questions as will be of interest and profit to the general reader. All correspondents should give their names and correct post-office address, that queries not replied to here may be answered by mail.]

828.— A MATTER OF HISTORY.

Many times I have been confused by your explanation of verse 14 of Daniel 11. You state that the powers that came against the infant Ptolemy, were Antiochus, King of Assyria, and Philip of Macedon; that this was 200 B. C. But was not Philip of Macedon father of Alexander the Great, and he died about 331 B. C.? How could he then be the father of Alexander, and have a part in the attempted overthrow of Ptolemy Epiphanes, B. C. 200? Please give a little light on this, as it has puzzled me for a number of years. F. W. H., Kanopolis, Kan.

Answer.—The writer of this query undoubtedly noticed that this incident in the history of Ptolemy was a direct quotation from Rollin’s Ancient History, Book 18, Chapter 50. Of the four volume edition of Rollin’s History, published in 1845 by Nafis & Cornish, Philadelphia, now before us, the quotation is found on page 8 of volume 4. If there is any

inaccuracy or inconsistency in the statement it must be referred to that standard historian. But the matter is relieved of all difficulty by the fact that it is not Philip the father of Alexander that is referred to, but Philip IV, a king of later date. See Philip Smith’s History of the World, Vol. 2, page 103, and onward.

829.— COL. 2:14.

Does not Col. 2:14 refer to our sins, inasmuch as it is our sins that are against us, and contrary to us, and that which Christ nailed to the cross, when he bore our sins in his body on the tree? 1 Peter 2:24. D. B. H., Toronto, Kan.

Answer.—The reference in this scripture cannot be to our sins; for we understand that our sins have not yet been blotted out, and will not be till the cleansing of the sanctuary is finished; again it would be difficult to understand how our sins are in any sense “ordinances,” and how they could be called the “handwriting” of ordinances. And more than this, the idea that our sins are what is referred to would hardly agree with the conclusion which the apostle draws from the facts which he states; namely, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” Is it because our sins are blotted out and nailed to the cross that we are not to be judged in meats or drinks, etc.? But there were ordinances under the old dispensation which did pertain to these things, and they were matters of “handwriting” written by the hand of Moses, and written in a book where they could be said appropriately, to be blotted out. Ex. 24:4; Deut. 31:24-26. The writing in this book was blotted out and nailed to the cross. So it seems evident that matters relating to the change of dispensations, are what is referred to as the subject of this scripture, not individual sins in personal experience. Christ bore our sins in His body on the tree, or on the cross, as our offering, not as our priest.