To Correspondents

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 8, 1871

To Correspondents.

A. W. Spencer: For an exposition of Rom. 14:1-6, see History of the Sabbath by J. N. Andrews, pp. 183-186, and Both Sides, pp. 12- 14.

Thos. Demmon: We think Paul in Galatians is speaking of that system by which the Jew supposed he secured justification from his transgressions of the ten commandments. And in his effort to expose their error and show them the need of Christ for the forgiveness of sin, he would sometimes speak of the moral law exclusively, as he evidently does in Gal. 3:13.

N. P. Stearns: Do not take so much to heart the divisions that exist in the professedly religious world. The trouble is not in the Bible, but in the use people make of it. Take the teachings of that word without regard to human mysticisms. Interpret it as you would any other book, or rather let it be its own interpreter, the figurative language being explained by the literal, and the literal being understood as it reads. Most of the texts you mention as being urged to prove a return of the Jews were written before their captivity and evidently refer to their restoration therefrom. Others apply to the future introduction of the immortal state. To guard against being misled on the Jew question, always bear in mind one fact: The change that took place in relation to Israel at the first advent of Christ was not the plucking up and casting away of the entire Israelitish tree, but only the breaking off of the unbelieving branches, and the grafting in of the believing Gentiles to supply their place. This is set forth by Paul in Rom. 11, in a manner too clear to be mistaken. And since the days of Christ the Israelitish tree is composed of believing Gentiles and believing Jews; that is, such of them as believe in Christ. There is now no other tree and no other Israel. The broken-off branches, the unbelieving Jews, are entitled to no further promises unless they become again grafted into the tree by believing in Christ. And so whatever scriptures concerning Israel, no matter when written, nor where found, can be shown to have their application this side of Christ, they apply to the spiritual and not the literal seed.

Thomas Hansen: The word “Jesus” in Heb. 4:8, should be translated Joshua. The original word is rendered both Jesus and Joshua; and the context shows that it should here be rendered Joshua.

J. Hoff: For an exposition of Isa. 65:20, see article from Geo. J. Butler in REVIEW, Vol. 35, No. 4.

W. J. Haynes: We think the five verses you name (Matt. 5:39-42) are to be taken as they read, and to be thus acted upon, always, however, under the guidance of a sober and sanctified judgment. Different circumstances will lead us to different actions, though the principle underlying those actions is exactly the same. Christ here lays down a principle. He refers to the practice followed under the former dispensation, of giving an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, &c., and then tells his disciples that if smitten on one cheek, rather than return the evil, they should suffer themselves to be smitten on the other, and if a man’s coat was taken, he should give his cloak also, or if compelled to go a mile, go two, rather than to prolong the strife, or endeavor, as the expression is, to pay a man back as good as he gives. So the giving and the lending, of verse 42, is to be governed by the reasonableness of the request. Suppose a person comes to us representing that his family is greatly in need, and wants the gift or the loan of fifty dollars. We are satisfied that what he has said is correct, but we know also that he has not judgment to make a judicious use of the money he asks. Now while it is our duty, if in our power, to help this man, it may not be our duty to do it in the way he asks, by the gift or loan of money. We may help the family to things they need, and may perhaps be of great service to them by giving them some good advice and counsel. What our Saviour would teach us is, that we are to render assistance to those in need, and do it on the principle of loving our neighbors as ourselves, and not on the principle of receiving as much in return. See Luke 6:35, 36; Rom. 12, &c.

M. J. Church: For an explanation of Rev. 1:7, showing how they that crucified the Saviour can see him at his second coming, see Thoughts on Rev. 1:7, and Thoughts on Daniel 12:2. U. S.

T. E. A.: You should have more fully explained the reason of your question. We do not understand that there is any difference between the Old and New Testaments in regard to the beginning of the day. J. H. W.