Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Apr 1, 1913

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 40, No. 13.

“IF YE WILL INQUIRE, INQUIRE YE.”

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 The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable.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

4034 — “Their Angels”—Matt. 18:10

Will you kindly explain through your paper Matt. 18:10? Inquirer.

The passage in question reads, “See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father who is in heaven.” This does not mean that the little ones spoken of turn to angels, nor does it mean that these little ones are little children: it means they are the humble, teachable disciples of the Lord Jesus, those who are likely to be despised and trodden down in this world. They may be children, they may be women, they may be men, but God counts them among His precious flock, and His heavenly angels are commissioned to have charge of them. “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them.” Psalm 34:7. “Are they [the angels] not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?” Heb. 1:14. These angels are sent from the throne of God: back and forth they go to that throne, and return to minister to those whom they are commissioned to care for. And the thought of the text is that men must not despise those over whom God has such care. These angels, of course, are not human beings, nor the spirits of those who have died,—they are in a class by themselves.

4035 — Beauty and Bands

Please explain Zech. 11:10. I heard it stated that this chapter proved that the covenant broken was the Ten Commandments, which was accomplished at the death of Christ, which was represented by the staff Beauty. A Reader.

We quote verses 7-11, inclusive: “And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me. Then said I, I will not feed you; that that dieth, let it die: and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off: and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the Lord.”

The prophecy is one concerning the time of the first advent of our Lord. This is shown by the 13th chapter, which prophesies His death and burial. The two staves Beauty and Bands represent, as the margin indicates, graciousness and binders, or bands,—God's graciousness in His wonderful love and mercy toward the children of Israel: bands, those laws and rules by which the children of Israel had been bound together. That nation had gone on in their rebellion against God until their very shepherds, the very ones who ought to have upheld the truth and work of God, had proven false. So the prophet, speaking for the Lord, said, “I cut off the three shepherds in one month.” The one month would be thirty days, and the thirty days would represent the work of our Lord in the thirty years that He spent here upon the earth to the time of His ministry. Those three shepherds probably represented the kings, priests, and prophets, the three means by which God held His people together, or, as some think, the priests, the teachers of the law, and the civil magistrates, which practically amount to the same thing. All these were set aside when our Lord came. They had utterly perverted their mission, and the Jews were cast off as a nation. Then to show that, having turned away from Christ Himself, the Lord says: “I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die: and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off.” God would leave them to themselves, as He was forced to, because they rejected Him in putting to death the Lord Jesus. “And I took my staff Beauty [graciousness] and cut it asunder.” No longer would the mercy of God be extended to that nation as such: it had broken away from Him, it had rejected Him, and He could do nothing else but reject them. But the poor of the flock still remained with Him, and they saw the fulfilment of God's prophecy regarding the Jews. God does not break His commandments. They abide forever. Men may break them, men may cast them aside, men may reject them; but the eternal law still remains, and will face all in the great judgment-day.

4036 — Tithe-Paying

If a woman pays tithe of her own earned money, is she to pay tithe of the money her husband gives her to support the family, when he is not a tithe-payer? M. M. M.

Yes, if he is willing. The simple justice of the thing lies right here. If a man is earning the wages and the wife is keeping the home for the man, she is entitled to a part of his wages. She does not go out and earn them as he does, but she helps to conserve those wages in the home. He can have the home comforts of life and at the same time enjoy himself a great deal better than if he were single and had no wife, that is, if the home and wife are what they ought to be, and he is what he ought to be to appreciate the home and the wife. Consequently, a part of that money would belong to her, and she would have a perfect right to tithe that part which does belong to her. We know wives to whom money is given for the support of the household, who tithe that money with the husband's consent. He is perfectly willing. He has confidence in his wife, that it will be used aright. But if a husband were arbitrary regarding it, we do not believe that the Lord would want the wife to act arbitrarily herself, and tithe the money which he feels belongs to him. She certainly has a right to do what she will with her own.

4037 — The Marking of Cain

Please explain what kind of a mark God put upon Cain. I have heard some people say that the mark was that of a negro. If so, what proof have we, and if this mark was not of the negro from whence did the negro originate? E. A. P.

What the mark was that God put upon Cain we do not know. There are all sorts of suggestions. It was not a brand showing Cain's criminality and wickedness. That was not the object of it. Cain feared that after he had committed that awful crime, the very first person that found him would kill him, and God gave him a sign, the revised version has it, “lest any one finding him should smite him.” In that early day it was probably published throughout all the inhabited world, “and Jehovah appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him.” Gen. 4:15. We certainly do know that it was not the mark of a negro, because all of Cain's posterity perished at the Flood. There was only one family saved at the Deluge, according to Genesis 6, 7, and 8, and that was Noah's. Of Noah's family, Ham and his son Canaan inhabited Africa, and from them the dark tribes came, probably from the curse which the Lord put upon Canaan on account of the character which he possessed. See Gen. 9:26-27. From the three sons of Noah and their descendants, sprang all the various nations on the face of the earth.

4038 — Defiling the Man

I have had Mark 7:18, 19 quoted to me many times, and I have longed for a better understanding of it. Will you kindly explain it? E. L. T.

In order to get a proper understanding of the text, read the context. Note first that Jesus was talking to the Jews, and these Jews believed strictly in clean and unclean meats, so that it was not a matter of the kind of meats of which they were talking, but it was a matter of whether Jesus followed their ceremonies or traditions or not.

2. There is no evidence whatever to show that our Lord Himself departed from the law of Moses respecting the meats clean and unclean, but the Jews had piled upon these laws various traditions, that is, of the Pharisees and of the Jews, such as washing of hands diligently, eating and not eating, holding to various traditions of the elders, and they had seen Jesus and His disciples eat with unwashed hands, altho their hands may have been fairly clean. The disciples had not observed the tradition of the elders. The words of our Saviour to His disciples were a rebuke to them,—“Are ye so without understanding also?” What goes into the man does not defile him. It is that which exists in the man himself,—in the heart of the man, that which man cherishes, that which man loves, that defiles. The object of Jesus was to show His disciples and these people that the heart must be cleansed, that the fountain itself must be made pure, for from within—out of the heart of man—proceed fornication, thefts, murders, adulteries, railing, pride, foolishness, etc., etc. If a man has a low, base appetite, that leads him to worship the food that he eats; this appetite is wrong. It leads him to lust after certain things, and he can not be satisfied without these things; but the mere taking of nourishment, altho the hands were not ceremonially clean that conveyed it to the mouth, does not defile the man. Now the expression “This He said, making all meats clean” simply meant this, that the food was not defiled because the man had not followed the ceremonial traditions of the Jews. The word “meats” does not mean necessarily flesh foods. It does not necessarily mean that flesh foods must be connected with them. It is a general term, simply meaning food,—“bromata.” That is, the words of Jesus showed that all food that He and His disciples had eaten, or that might properly be eaten, was clean despite traditional ceremonialism.

4039 — Inquirer; Russell's Sermons.

Regarding the sermons of Pastor Russell, which are sent out as plate matter to the various country papers throughout the United States, usually free, if not always, we have simply this to say, that they contain some truth. He preaches on some things that are greatly neglected at the present time that ought to be preached on by ministers everywhere, but there is connected with these sermons of his an error that is so extremely pernicious, that the sermons are doing vastly more harm than good. The only saving quality there is in this respect is that people can not understand, many times, what he means; but his teaching concerning the person and the work of our Lord Jesus Christ and the age to come is an utter denial of the Word. We have thought, many times, that if sermons like those of Alexander Maclaren, or some of the other great preachers of the world, were only syndicated in the place of these of Russell, how much better the world would be for them. See No. 48 of Words of Truth Series tracts, “False Hope of a Second Probation,” price 2 cents.