p. 2 | Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · May 17, 1910

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 37, No. 19.

Question Corner

"IF YE WILL INQUIRE, INQUIRE YE."

This Inquirers' Department is conducted for the purpose of helping those who are studying the Bible. The answers are oftentimes only suggestive. They are never to be considered infallible, only as they agree with the infallible Word. The writer who may answer them does not consider that his opinion is infallible. He will simply give the best that he has, and plead with the inquirer to search the Word. Such questions only will be answered as, to the editors, seem to minister to the good of the readers and to the mission of the paper. We can not answer repeatedly in the same volume questions upon the same scripture. The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable. No letters are answered which do not contain the name of the writer. It is well always to enclose stamp for reply.

3126.—Various Questions on Observance of Days

Will you please explain the following passages? Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-11; Matt. 12:1-8; Matt. 23:16-25; Rom. 14:1-6; Acts 20:7. (1) Do not the first four condemn our making a hobby of the letter of the law? (2) Does not Rom. 14:1-6 justify the keeping of any day of the week sacred? (3) Does not Acts 20:7 make it certain that the disciples held their meetings on the first day of the week, that they came together for the very purpose? N. W. M.

1. Mark 2:23-28 is not setting the spirit against the letter, but the truth against tradition. The disciples were not breaking God's law; they were simply breaking Jewish tradition. Note the parallel scripture in Matt. 12:1-12, in which Jesus says, “It is lawFUL to do well on the Sabbath day.” That which is lawful is in perfect harmony with law. In all our Lord's work He never broke the Sabbath law. He did only that which was lawful. He interpreted the law. The trouble was that He did not follow Jewish tradition; and this is true also of the two passages which follow in Luke 6 and Matthew 12. The same may be said of Matt. 23:16-25. It was Jewish tradition still against God's law. It was straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. It was demanding that men should follow their traditional punctilios regardless of their character. Our Lord rightly divides regarding these things in the 23rd verse. While we ought not to leave undone the smallest things in the way of duty, yet we must not omit the weightier matters of the law—judgment and mercy and faith. These are the first things; all these other things should follow in harmony with these great principles.

2. Rom. 14:1-6 is not given as a code of morals which we should follow at all. That is not the object of the chapter. The object of that chapter is to show that no man is judge of his brother. The apostle has before told us in this very epistle—which was not divided up when he gave it, but consisted of one letter—that we do not make void the law through faith, but we establish it (Rom. 3:31), and that those who are in Christ Jesus fulfil in themselves the righteousness or requirement of the law (Rom. 8:4). Consequently they do not break it; they love the law. It is a part of their being; yet there would be found brethren who differed in minor things. There would be some who would hold to old traditions, to ceremonial sabbaths, to yearly feasts. Some could eat in one way, and some could not.

The one thing, the one great central thought of Romans 14, is that man is not the judge of his brother. It is God alone who is to judge us. So he that regards the day—any day that he may be observing, such as the feasts of the Jews—regards it to the Lord. He that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it, and doesn't see any necessity for keeping it. There is no license in the text. Let the one who thinks there is license in the chapter, take home to his heart verses 12, 13, 21, 22. “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.” The Sabbath is founded not on man's conception or imagination, but by the Word of God.

3. Regarding Acts 20:7, evidently the disciples did come together on that first day of the week, in part to break bread. Paul had been holding meetings with them. He must use the light part of that very Sunday in going on his journey; he could only have one more meeting with them; therefore he calls them together on that first day of the week in the evening preceding the day; does it in order that he may give them farewell instruction and may celebrate with them the Lord's Supper before he leaves. The occasion is special all the way through. The first day of the week began with Jewish time in the evening, and the apostle shows how he regards the day, by going on his journey as soon as it is light, spending the rest of the day in travel while the disciples were going round the promontory with ship.

But if we should reckon according to Roman time, the breaking of bread did not occur on that first day of the week, because it was not until after midnight that they broke bread; for we read that Paul talked till midnight; Eutychus fell out of the window and was taken up for dead; Paul brought him to life; talked a long while and broke bread and departed. The incident would not have been recorded at all probably if it had not been for the notable miracle wrought on that day. It is utterly unscriptural and illogical to build on an account of one meeting a lifetime custom, regardless of any precept, and especially when we have the great eternal law of God observed and ratified by our Lord Jesus Christ as a rule of conduct.

3127.—The Sabbath

Have you absolute proof that the record of time has been correctly kept since Christ was on earth? and are you sure that Saturday is the original Sabbath of Christ's time? What books could I get that would give me information on the subject? G. A. B.

First, there is no question whatever over any change in the days of the week between our Lord's time and this time. This is shown by the records of all nations,—nations separate from each other; nations connected with each other. It is shown by a record of eclipses which goes back to hundreds of years before Christ. There is absolutely no question among scholars as to this. Again, the Jews scattered in every nation on the face of the earth have kept the seventh day from that time to this, and there is no question among them as to the correct day. These things show clearly that the week is the same as it was in the days of our Lord. Of course the Sabbath and Saturday are not synchronous. The Sabbath begins at sunset Friday night and closes at sunset Saturday night, while Saturday begins at midnight Friday night and closes at midnight Saturday night. Consequently one is not a synonym for the other in actual point of time.

Secondly, regarding books, see the “History of the Sabbath,” “The Lord's Day the Test of the Ages.” The latter little pamphlet, costing but ten cents, shows clearly that the original Sabbath has been preserved all the way through. Before us as we write this note, hangs a chart of the week. That chart of the week has the days of the week in 107 Eastern languages and dialects, and the name of the week and of the days of the week in 53 European languages and dialects. In all these languages there is perfect agreement as to the week and the order of the days of the week, and in 108 of the 160 languages the seventh day is known by the name of the Sabbath or by its equivalent.

3128.—Wearing Long Hair

Please give me some light on the following scriptures: Num. 6:1-13; 1 Cor. 11:4; Acts 18:18. R. N. S.

The first scripture refers to a special ordinance concerning vows among a class called Nazarites, those who wanted to especially separate themselves to the Lord for a time or for life. The wearing of long hair would have a twofold purpose. It would keep one in remembrance of his own vow; it would also show to others that he was performing some sacred pledge to the Lord, and lead the good to sympathize with and help him. It was no custom that the Lord demanded of His people however. It was purely voluntary. One could take the vow or not.

Acts 18:18 seems to refer to a different vow from that of the Nazarite. Alford says that Josephus gives a description of a somewhat similar vow where the hair was shaved thirty days before the sacrifice. We have but this one scripture referring to that and the similar rite by Josephus.

1 Cor. 11:14 clearly indicates that it is not the business of men to wear long hair in the way that women do. The glory of woman is her hair. Not so with men. Even Absalom, with his wonderful abundance of hair, cut it at least once a year.

The expression in the last text, however, refers to hair which is dressed and arranged in a way natural to women, and therefore does not have application to long hair in general. We have nothing in the Scripture which is binding upon any man as to whether he should wear his hair long or short. Common ordinary usage, however, and that which would make for good common sense, it seems to us, would be to wear his hair in the ordinary way as men do. It at least would be much more comfortable and cleanly. In all probability in ancient times men did not cut their hair so frequently as they do in these days. Whether our Lord wore long hair or not as under a perpetual Nazarite vow, we do not know; and inasmuch as it is not essential, it is not needful that we should know, or the Lord would have revealed it.

3129.—The Birthright

Will you please explain what Jacob and Esau represented, and also what the birthright was in Genesis 27? J. W. R.

First, Esau and Jacob were types of two different classes. Esau was the type of a purely worldly man who lived simply to gratify his own flesh, so much so that he was willing to sell his birthright for a mess of pottage. Jacob represented what might be called an unconverted man, and yet one who was longing to know God's will and to do it, and who in a great measure appreciated what the birthright meant. When he became converted his name Jacob was changed to that of Israel. The birthright held generally these three things: the double portion—that is, to the one who possessed the birthright the double portion of property was given—double that of any other child; (2) the rulership in the family; and (3) the priesthood. It also included in this case the one through whom Christ was to come, and consequently the salvation of the race in a measure. Jacob appreciated all these. Esau was willing to barter them away for mere temporary advantage and indulgence.

3130.—The Evening of the First Day

Please explain how Christ could have met the disciples on the evening of the first day of the week, according to John 20:19, if that evening came the first part of the day. W. H. S.

There is no trouble in understanding this at all if we will but consider the simple fact that there were two evenings recognized in the Scriptures. See Ex. 12:6, margin, “between the evenings”; the first evening beginning with the declining of the sun at what we would call 3 o'clock in the afternoon; the second evening beginning at sunset, when the evening or night part of the day began.

The disciples met together evidently before the day closed, or between the evenings. When our Lord reached them, that first day may have been passed and the next day may have begun. In all probability that was the case.