p. 747 | Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Dec 9, 1913

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 40, No. 47.

Question Corner

WE can not answer repeatedly in the same volume questions upon the same scripture. The name and address must accompany question. It is well always to enclose stamp for reply.

4230 — Is It the Marriage Law?

Is that the marriage law referred to in Rom. 7:1? And if so, would that law require that a couple who were divorced should not marry again as long as both were alive? And if married before that time, would the man have two wives and the woman two husbands?

G. R.

The leading theme in the first part of the seventh chapter of Romans, without question, is the Ten Commandment law, for in the seventh verse the apostle says, “I had not known sin, but by the law.” We do not receive a full knowledge of sin from any marriage law, but rather from the Ten Commandment law. And then, to make it perfectly sure what law he is talking about, he speaks of the commandment against covetousness, which commandment is one of the ten. He uses the marriage ceremony as an illustration, and makes it clear that God’s arrangement of things is for a man and a woman to be joined in marriage for life. Sin is the only thing that breaks the divine order.

4231 — Serving Two Masters

Please explain Matt. 6:24. What is the difference between loving God and holding to Him?

F. A. A.

The text reads: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye can not serve God and Mammon.” Read the text carefully, and you will see that there is no thought in it of contrasting the “loving” of God or the “holding” to Him. The plain truth is stated that we can not serve two masters at the same time. The God of the Bible, and also Mammon, the god of this world, are each seeking for our service. We can not serve both of them. We will either hate the one, and love the other, or else we will hold to the one, and despise the other. The repetition gives practically the same thought, and therefore emphasis is given to the fact that it is useless to try to serve God while holding to and loving the things of this world. God has something better for us than anything Mammon has to offer.

4232 — The Breaking of Bread

Some people infer that the breaking of bread mentioned in Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 27:35, and other scriptures, refers to the holding of the Lord’s Supper. Does this phrase not generally refer to a common custom at a meal?

R. E. R.

You are quite right in your conclusions regarding these texts. The principal object in trying to make it appear that such texts refer to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, is that some excuse may be had for sacredly observing Sunday. For instance, Acts 20:7 says, “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” The claim is made that this breaking of bread there was the Lord’s Supper, and that they had come together on the first day of the week to celebrate that ordinance, and furthermore, that they would not have been celebrating that ordinance on the first day of the week if they had not regarded it as a sacred day. This may sound very plausible, but the text is wanting in several important particulars. In the first place, it does not say that that breaking of bread was the Lord’s Supper. In the second place, it does not say that they had come together on the first day of the week because they regarded it as a sacred day. If the breaking of bread would make a day sacred, then, according to Acts 2:46, referred to in your question, they would have observed every day as sacred, because that text says, “They, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” They continued “daily” in breaking bread. But even if this was the Lord’s Supper which they celebrated, that would not necessarily indicate that it was upon a sacred day. The Lord’s Supper was not instituted on either Saturday or Sunday. They could observe the Lord’s Supper on any day; and they might have done it at this time because of Paul’s departure the next day,—they may have wanted to celebrate it with him before he left them. But even though this meeting recorded in Acts 20 was held in part at least on the first day of the week, there is strong evidence that it was Monday morning before they actually came to the breaking of bread.

The Sunday institution rests upon such a lame foundation that it has to resort to all kinds of devices to give it any semblance of support. The Sabbath of Jehovah has a very explicit command enjoining its observance. The Sunday institution rests only upon inference. And when you begin to build doctrines upon inferences, there is no end to the absurdities that may be promulgated.

4233 — Holy Dancing

Please explain the holy dance, and tell me where I can find it in the Bible.

A. S.

There are a number of texts of Scripture which speak of dancing, but we know of none which speak of the holy dance. In Ex. 15:20 we are told of the women who went after Miriam with timbrels and with dances. Other scriptures speak of the dancing of women. In fact, most of the scriptures which speak of the dance seem to present it as an exercise of joy and transport in which the women engaged. There is one exception, and that is where David danced before the Lord when the ark was returning; but there are no scriptures whatever that will warrant any of the forms of modern dancing in which men and women engage in the dancing together.