p. 7 | Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Dec 18, 1901

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 27, No. 51.

Question Corner

1196. Luke 13:32.

What is the meaning of Luke 13:32?

It is our Lord’s rebuke to Herod. The word “fox” is used to show the king’s character,—artful, deceptive, sly, tricky. The verse looks forward to Christ’s death.

1197. Parthia and Rome.

As the Parthians never came under the Roman yoke, why are the Romans called a “world power”? C. H. H.

But the Parthians did come under the Roman yoke during the reign of Trajan, A.D. 115–117. After this Parthia won her independence, but she could never be considered in any other light than a barbarous nation at the best, having no molding power in the world. So China was not subject to Rome. Yet Rome was the great world power, world-wide in its fame, its power, its influence.

1198. Why Was the Serpent Cursed?

Why was the serpent cursed at the fall of Adam? Had it been a person, we could see some reason for it; but it was only used as a medium, and was not a rational or moral being, and therefore not responsible.

The circumstances show that the serpent was a creature which could be greatly used by the devil, and the Lord so changed the creature that it could not be so employed. It was not to punish the serpent as a creature, but to thwart Satan and help man.

1199. The Revised Version.

Why does the Revised Version use the term “meal offering” instead of “meat offering”? It seems as tho the translators of King James’ time and those at the present time differ materially in some places even to the omission of whole verses in several places in the New Testament. Please explain this.

1. Because “meal offering” is better than “meat offering.” “Meat” is understood generally as meaning flesh, and there was no flesh in the offering in question. The principal material used was meal.

2. Differences in translation may be classed under the following heads: (a) Uniformity. The renderings of King James’ Version are much more varied than those of the Revised Version. Sometimes the Hebrew or Greek word is translated by from ten to twenty English words: while several original words are translated by the same English term. The Revised Version is much more consistent and uniform in this respect. (b) Words change. Some English words in King James’ day meant just the opposite of what they do now. For instance, “prevent” now means to hinder; it formerly meant to go before. See its use in the common version and the substitutes adopted in the Revision. (c) King James’ Version was translated from late Greek copies, not by any means the best, and under certain restrictions. Since then various Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, dating back to almost the first century, have been discovered. The Revision has based many of its changes on these. The omissions noted are those not found in these earlier manuscripts. Some of them may be genuine; some, for instance 1 John 5:7 were introduced first evidently as a gloss, and by later copyists incorporated in the text.

1200. Saul and Jonathan.

How can David say that “Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives,” when we know that the Lord had departed from Saul, and that he, Saul, had for a long while been seeking David’s life? Surely there was nothing very pleasant about that, or lovely either.

That doubtless was generally true in all their best days. We know the great mistakes of Saul and their sad consequences, but we know little of the general every-day life. Occasionally we get glimpses. See 1 Sam. 16:21; 20:2.

1201. David’s Character.

Why did David show such a bloodthirsty spirit in 1 Kings 2:9 when in 2 Sam. 16:10 he says the Lord told Shimei to curse David?

We must judge of men’s characters in a measure by the times in which they live. Shimei’s crime was great, even tho David felt so humbled because of his mistakes that he was willing to suffer anything at the Lord’s hand; but, when restored to God’s favor, he felt that it was due to the dignity of law and divinely ordained authority that Shimei’s crime should be recognized. This he did not even undertake to do himself, lest it should be thought he desired personally to avenge himself; but he left it to the wisdom of Solomon, and he truly was merciful. As compared with rulers in his day, David was one of the most merciful of kings.