Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Jan 21, 1913

"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 The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable.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.

3967 — With Him in Paradise

Please explain Luke 23:43. Is the punctuation wrong in that verse? Should it not read, "Verily, I say unto thee to-day"?

It seems so to us. Rotherham, in his "New Testament Critically Emphasized," twelfth edition, revised, has an extended note on Luke 23:43. We quote in part: "And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say, this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise." It is left for the reader to determine whether the words 'this day' should be joined (a) with the former part of the sentence, or (b) with the latter. In favor of (a) may be urged (1) the fact that 'semeron,' 'this day,' does not always stand first in the clause to which it belongs (see Luke 2:11; 5:26; 22:34; Acts 20:26; 22:3; 24:21; 26:29); (2) that being essentially a demonstrative word, it will bear any reasonable stress which may be laid upon it, whether it be placed before or after the words which it qualifies; (3) that it is far from meaningless if regarded as belonging to the opening words of asseveration ('Thou dost ask to be remembered then: verily thou art assured now. As on this the day of My weakness and shame, thou hast faith to ask, I this day have authority to answer'); (4) that the latter part of the verse is thus left free to refer to the very matter of the supplicant's request ('Thou dost ask to be remembered when I come in My kingdom: thou shalt be remembered then, and with distinguished favor: thou shalt be in My kingdom; shalt be with Me in the very Paradise of My kingdom, in the garden of the Lord. See Isa. 51:3; Eze. 36:35; compare Gen. 2:8; 3:2; Rev. 2:7—in that most central and blessed part of the coming kingdom, of which thou dost believe Me to be the destined King!')" Further, it may be said, the thief did not ask Jesus to remember him when He went to heaven. He had heard our Lord preach, evidently, some of His powerful sermons in which He spoke of His coming again, as He often did, and the thief asked, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," not, When Thou goest to the Father.

The throne of God is in the third heaven, by the Tree of Life. See 2 Cor. 12:2, 4; Rev. 22:1, 2. But the Tree of Life is in the midst of the Paradise of God. But Jesus Himself declared, two days after this, when Mary would worship Him, "Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father." John 20:17. Jesus therefore did not go to Paradise on that day, but He did say to the thief on that day, "Verily I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be with Me in Paradise." Think of the circumstances. Jesus was rejected by His own people, dying upon the cross a malefactor, condemned to death by both Sanhedrin and court. Surely it would seem as tho no one could have faith in Him at that time. It would seem as tho He had no power to promise anything, but the dying thief had faith in his blessed Lord, and our Lord had the authority by faith to promise, "As thou hast asked, so will I give." There is a wonderfully blessed thought, looking upon the text in this way. It shows the simple faith of the thief believing in Jesus because of His character, and it shows the triumphant faith of our Lord believing in His power to save, even tho He were dying upon the cross.

3968 — Selling to the Gentiles

Is Deut. 14:21 still in force? If so, how must I understand James 2:8; Rom. 13:10; Matt. 22:39, 40? If my neighbor is not of my faith, should I give unto him things which I would not partake of myself? P. T. O.

The text reads: "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God." The thought is not that he was to deceive the neighbor, or deceive the alien into buying that which was supposed to be good food. Supposition is that the neighbor would know it, and that the alien would know it. The neighbor, of course, is supposed to be not one of Israel, because it would be just as illegitimate for him to eat it as it would be for the one who owned it. It is quite common among some nationalities to eat an animal which dies of itself. We have known an old-country man in this land to insist on the purchase of a yearling which had died of itself, with the carcass fearfully bloated, altho it is not implied in this scripture that the thing is diseased; but it was a perfectly proper thing to sell to the stranger or to the alien that which they themselves ate, and the condition of which they perfectly knew; and I do not know why that would not be perfectly proper to do to-day. Certainly the principle is a right principle.

Regarding these other texts,—"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,"—if we were the neighbor, and our friend should have meat that he was about to throw away, and which we considered good for food, why, we would think that he ought to treat us just as we would treat him if we were in his place. On the other hand, however, if we knew that meat was diseased, and would cause sickness to himself or his family, of course we ought to refuse it under all conditions.

3969 — Baptized Again

According to Heb. 6:1-6, if Satan should cast down a member of the church of Christ to the ground, how must such a one be renewed again? Could he be so restored as to serve God without a second baptism? P. T. O.

It seems to us that it would depend on how far he had fallen away from the Lord. If one had utterly departed from God and joined himself to the world, and had of necessity to go over the same ground that the sinner would go, we see no reason why he should not be baptized. He comes in as a new creature, as a different man. But if a child of God has simply fallen, overcome by temptation, yielded to the sin, has been overthrown by the enemy, but returns, we do not see why a second baptism is necessary. "A just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again." Paul, in speaking of his own experience, says, "Cast down, but not destroyed." The Lord does not call one less His child if he shall happen to fall under the power of the enemy for a little time on the battle-field. He would still encourage him to go on. A wife might fail in her wifely duty to the husband, but still she is married to him. When one, of course, turns utterly away from God, and resists every means that the Lord has of winning that soul back to Him, he will find no place for repentance. He will have no true desire to repent, because the Spirit of God can not impress him. There is always acceptance when there is genuine repentance. The unpardonable sin is the unrepentable sin.

3970 — The Seven Last Plagues

Will the seven last plagues fall upon the infants and small children of the wicked? M. E.

We do not know. There are some things that God has not revealed to us. The Bible preeminently deals with responsible creatures, those who are old enough and have knowledge enough to appreciate their duty toward God. The warnings are to these, the promises are to these. Creatures that are not responsible, God takes into His own hand, and we may be sure of this, that He is too good to prove unkind, and too wise to err. Naturally, it would seem that in the awful perils and diseases of the last days, all small children would hardly survive them, and would probably be carried away by disease before the severe plagues began to fall. What our effort ought to be is to plead with all responsible creatures to make their peace with God. We can safely leave all the children and little ones to Him.

3971 — The Affliction of the Israelites; When Did It Begin?

Will you please harmonize Gen. 15:13 and Ex. 12:40. What time did the Israelites' affliction commence, and when did it terminate? L. R. H.

Boothroyd, the eminent Hebraist, contends that the text in Ex. 12:40 should read as does the Septuagint and Samaritan versions: "Now the time of the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." That is, it includes all the time from the first promise to Abraham to the time when they went out of Egypt. That promise is found in Genesis 12. The 400 years, of course, would begin thirty years later. Upon this Boothroyd has this note: "400 years. This period must be dated from Abraham's arrival in Canaan, from which to the birth of Isaac was twenty-five years (Gen. 12:4, 17:1, 12); Isaac was sixty years old at the birth of Jacob (Gen. 25:26); Jacob was 130 at his going down to Egypt; which three numbers make 215 years, and the same period Jacob and his children dwelt in Egypt (Gal. 3:17)." By this period Boothroyd evidently has in mind the 430 years of Ex. 12:40, because the years which he adds up amount to just that. This would make the 400 years' affliction from the time that Ishmael turned against Isaac, or mocked him (Gen. 21:9), which would be in 1891. There the 400 years began, and ended in 1891, when the children of Israel went out of Egypt. For the beginning of the persecution in Canaan, see Gal. 4:29, 30.

3972 — Is It True?

It is said that Seventh-day Adventists are unscriptural and antichristian in their doctrines; for instance, in abstaining from eating meat. 1 Tim. 4:1-6,—"And commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth." And again in Matt. 6:25, "Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink." T. E. W.

Let us just remark this, that Seventh-day Adventists nowhere command to abstain from meats, nor do they forbid to marry. There are many among them, the vast majority of them, who do not eat flesh foods because they believe that it will glorify God better not to do it. They believe that fruits and grains and nuts and vegetables furnish a better and more wholesome diet. God wants His children to have the best, and choose the best, and eat that which is good, and that is what they are all endeavoring to do. But they have found that flesh foods are diseased, very seriously so according to the testimony of the experts, much more so than in the days of our Lord. Certainly our critics would not have us eat vegetable food that is poisoned; and when we are sure that a great deal of the flesh foods are poisoned by disease, why should they insist that we should eat them? Why are they not willing to allow gospel liberty? Of course we teach these things; that is our duty. We point out the best food; that is our duty; and we do not insist, nor demand, that any one shall follow just what we say. We want every man to be assured in his own mind. Matt. 6:25 has no reference whatever to kind of food, or quality of food. It has reference to this one thing, that the burden of our life should not be our eating or drinking or clothing. It should first of all be what will glorify God. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness."