MISCELLANEOUS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 11, 1870

Questions Considered.

WILL you please explain through the REVIEW the first verse of the sixth chapter of Romans? A. L. E.

The bearing of this text seems obvious. Notwithstanding the apostle has directly stated, chap. 3:31, that the law is not made void through faith, some are so blind to the just relation of the law and the gospel that they seem to think that if sin gives occasion for a display of grace, then the greater the sin the greater the grace, and of course, in their limited views, we should continue to sin in order to call forth more grace, or “that grace may abound.” This idea the apostle most decidedly negatives in this text. We should remember that “to obey is better than sacrifice,” and that, though God delights in mercy, he abhors sin, and will ever “be just” even in justifying the believer. The gospel was never given as a means whereby men should become free to transgress the law of God, but as the means whereby transgression should be put away. 1 John 3:4, 5; Heb. 9:26; and the rebellious be reconciled to God; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 5:1; 8:7. J. H. W.

The apostle says the Son of God never took on him the nature of angels. How, then, can he be the archangel? S. D.

The apostle, in Heb. 2:14–17, is speaking of the Son of God in his incarnation only, and not in regard to original nature, or office. For, if you refer these texts to his original nature or office, how can you then refer them to the seed of Abraham? Paul is speaking of what “he took” on him, not of what he possessed before he took it on him; nor yet what he may have by virtue of his original nature or office in connection with what he took on him. It is quite consistent with Paul’s reasoning that he should have been the archangel before he became the seed of Abraham; and that, when he should become glorified with the Father with the glory which he had before the world was, John 17:5, he should be the archangel still.

So much for the question. But we think there is some direct proof on this point. (1) Michael is called “your prince,” Dan. 10:21. (2) He is said to “stand up,” Dan. 12:1, which expression is used in that book as the equivalent of reigning. (3) The voice of the archangel wakes the dead; 1 Thess. 4:16; and again it is directly said the voice of Jesus will wake the dead. John 5:27–29. The term “archangel” does not necessarily imply an angelic nature, but rather the chief or prince of the angels. J. H. W.

Will you please give me some light on Dan. 12:7? The point in my mind is, “That it shall be for a time, times and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” Has this been fulfilled? If so, when did it commence, and when did it end? J. B. G.

The person standing between the banks of the river who utters this solemn oath is evidently Michael. Compare Dan. 8:16; 10:21; 12:6, 7. The period of “time, times, and a half,” is sworn to in Dan. 12:7, yet no starting point nor termination is there given. But if you will turn to Dan. 7:25, you will find that this period covers the time that the saints are in the hands of the little horn. That is to say, it begins with the supremacy of the papal power A. D. 538, and ends with the loss of its dominion in A. D. 1798. But the oath of the angel recognizes the fact that there is a space of time after the loss of the papal dominion before these things are finished.

Who are the “sons of God” mentioned in Job 1:6?
What was the object of their meeting?
In what time in the history of our world did Job live? C. L. D.

The beings spoken of in this text are probably the same as those mentioned in chap. 38:7, where reference is undoubtedly made to the angels.
The object of these meetings is not revealed in the Bible.
The time in which Job lived is uncertain. Learned men do not agree on this point; some think he was contemporary with Moses; others that he lived at a later date.