p. 3 | Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Apr 1, 1897

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 23, No. 13.

Question Corner

“Enquire, and make search, and ask diligently.”

No. 515. The Book of Mormon.

WHAT do you think of the Book of Mormon, published by the Latter-day Saints? Your views on the subject are what I want. W.

There seems to be good authority for believing that it was first written as a romance by an invalid minister, and afterward altered by Joseph Smith to adapt it to his plan. In our opinion the Word of God is much better, and all-sufficient.

No. 516. Heb. 10:26.

PLEASE explain Heb. 10:26: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” S. S. R.

God washes men from their sins by the blood of Jesus. Rev. 1:5. He sanctifies them by the power of his Spirit in his Word. Heb. 10:29. Both of these may be summed up in the life of Jesus Christ, given to the world. The receiving of “the knowledge of the truth” is knowing the cleansing, sanctifying power of the atonement. True knowledge is not theoretical, but experimental. See Heb. 6:4, 5. God has no other means of saving men, no other sacrifice, save Jesus Christ. Now if he who has truly known this in his own life turns from it all, there is no more hope for him. He turns from the only means by which God can reach him. This does not mean that a believer who has sinned can not find pardon; for it is forever true that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John 2:1. Being overcome in sin is one thing; turning away willingly, deliberately, from the known power of God is another. The context of Heb. 10:26 shows that he who turns away after having received a knowledge of the truth turns from the only means by which God can save him. In other words, he wills not to be saved. He who continues to trust, tho he fall, will not be left of God to die.

No. 517. The Two Witnesses.

WHAT is meant by the two olive trees and candlesticks in Rev. 11:3-13? And does not the remaining part of Revelation 11 refer to our day? F. O.

WILL the two witnesses of Rev. 11 be two literal men sent to prophesy before the end? and who are they supposed to be? L. D.

No, not two men; the two witnesses are the manifestation of the two phases of God’s living word in the earth. The 1,260 days refer to the period of the Dark Ages, from 538 to 1798. Rev. 11:14-19 refers to the time of the judgment, beginning at 1844, and ending when the work of judgment is done. We shall have an article within the year on the subject. See “Great Controversy,” chapter 15, and “Daniel and the Revelation.”

No. 518. The Sealed Book.

WHAT is the book written within and on the back side in Revelation 5? Is Ex. 32:15, 16 the key that unlocks that chapter? MRS. L. D.

The book is the book of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The key that unlocks it is the eternal sacrifice and victory of the Son of God. See verses 5-7. We have not time for fuller explanation now; study it in the light of the suggestion. We shall have more to say later.

No. 519. The Matter of Usury.

WILL you please explain Deut. 23:19; Eze. 18:8, 17? Does it not mean to give or take interest on money? A SEEKER AFTER THE TRUTH.

The scriptures above do certainly forbid the taking of usury or increase either upon money or victuals. Should these laws be followed now? That is for each person to answer for himself. In Israel each male had his portion of land. He was not dependent upon the interest of his money. Now many poor men are wholly dependent on the loaning of money. Here is a man that is ill. He has $5,000. His interest on that, at 8 per cent, is $400 a year. He may not be able to live upon less than that. Is it not right that he should receive interest from a brother who is better able to pay it than he is to lose it? Where men have money and can loan it to deserving poor or to the cause of God without increase, we believe they would receive a great blessing if they would thus do wholeheartedly. When we have had money to loan, we have loaned it without interest. When we have borrowed, we have often paid interest. The only way to have it right is for each one to do just right, whatever others may do.

No. 520. Heb. 7:12 again.

A CORRESPONDENT refers to answer to question 490 on Heb. 7:12 and asks, “Does not this [Heb. 7:12] refer to a change in the ministration of the law?” and then speaks of the two ministrations of 2 Cor. 3:6-9, as tho one applied to the Levitical dispensation, and the other to the Christian. He asks, “Is there not quite a difference in the meaning of ‘change of the law’ and ‘change in the law’?”

The fact is that Moses and every other truly justified man had the ministration of the Spirit, and the law written within. The unbelieving knew only that glory accompanying the law in its outward form. The priesthood from the Exodus to the Crucifixion was vested in the tribe of Levi, after the order of Aaron. Jesus came of the tribe of Judah after the order of Melchizedek. The Aaronic priesthood was established by law for that age, till type should meet antitype. Ex. 40:15; Num. 3; 25:12, 13, etc. During that dispensation it was a sin for those of another tribe to minister in the priest’s office. (See 2 Chron. 26:16-19.) But when our Lord entered upon his priesthood, after his humiliation (Heb. 2:14, 17, 18; 5:1-9), out of the tribe of Judah, the priesthood became changed; and “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law; for he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident; for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment [now passed away], but after the power of an endless life,” constituted priest by the oath of God. There is yet more, but we do not see in the light of this how our correspondent can refer the law of verse 12 to the moral law. God’s moral law knows no change, can know no change. It differs with different men solely because of their different attitudes to it. The everlasting or age-lasting priesthood of Aaron antedated the age-lasting priesthood of Christ, whose priesthood began after his identification with humanity. Heb. 5:1-10.

Yes; there is a difference between the expressions “change of the law” and “change in the law.” But change of the law is just what is meant in Heb. 7:12. The law of the Aaronic priesthood passed away then, and gave place to the oath of God. It was not a change in a perpetual law, but a change from one law to another, the expiration of one in the operation of another.