To Correspondents by Uriah Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 20, 1875

To Correspondents.

By Uriah Smith

Question. Will you please tell us who Melchisedec was, spoken of in Heb. 7? S. L. Curtis.

Ans. If we could tell who he was, it would destroy his fitness to represent Christ. He was an ordinary man, king of Salem. His being without father, mother, descent, beginning of days or end of life, signifies only that his genealogy is not reckoned among men. He appears for a time upon the stage of action; but who his father was, or mother, his descent, beginning of days, or end of life, nobody knows; for no genealogical record is preserved among men. Hence he is a fit representative of Christ.

A. H. Vankirk: We do not see that any particular importance attaches to the interpretation of the three ribs in the mouth of the bear, Dan. 7:5. It is generally thought to apply to some of the provinces which it specially oppressed, as Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt; and this seems to us more natural than to apply them to Media and Persia, and Babylon; Media and Persia being the beast itself, and therefore not well represented by that which was in the mouth of the beast. But possibly the ribs do not denote any particular portions of territory, but only show the blood-thirsty nature of the Persian power.

T. B. Snow. An exposition of Isa. 65, was republished from Review in Signs of the Times, of April 8, 1875, a copy of which we send you. For the arguments on immortality see the works published on that subject at this Office.

R. Thompson. We have never published a review of the Assembly Shorter Catechism.

G. V. Kilgore. For an exposition of the seven heads of the dragon and beast, and the wounding of one of them, see Thoughts on Revelation, chapters 13 and 17.

Question. Will probation close after or before the seven last plagues of Revelation, please explain Rev. 16:9. Can sinners repent at that time and be saved?

Yours, H. H. P.

Ans. We think probation closes before the plagues are poured out, for the following reasons:—

1. So long as Christ acts as mediator between God and men, mercy is offered. No judgments therefore can be inflicted without mercy till Christ’s work as priest has ended. But the seven last plagues are poured out without mixture of mercy, hence they are poured out after Christ has ceased his pleading, and probation has ended.

2. The angels with the plagues come out of the temple. Rev. 15:6, and when they come out the temple is filled with smoke from the glory of God, and no one is able to enter, or to officiate, therein. But the ministration now going forward in the sanctuary will continue till the work of salvation is ended. Therefore the plagues are poured out after mercy has ceased.

What then is the force of the expression respecting those who watch and keep their garments, under the sixth plague? Verse 15. We understand that by a change of tenses common to the Scriptures, in this case, the present for the past, the language expresses the blessedness of those who had watched and kept their garments up to the time when their salvation was made sure.

Question 1, 2 Kings 8:26 we are told that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign; and in 2 Chron. 22:2 it is said he was 42 years old. Which is correct?

2. There seems to be quite a discrepancy between 2 Sam. 24:9, and 1 Chron. 21:4, in the number that drew the sword. How is it harmonized?

G. L. Holliday.

Answer. In reply to the first of these questions we would say that the English version of 2 Chron. 22:2, is evidently a mistake, as it would make the son two years older than his father. See verse 20 of previous chapter. Dr. Clarke says that the Syriac and Arabic have twenty-two, and that it is probable the Hebrew text so read originally. But as numbers were anciently expressed by letters, it was easy for the transcriber to mistake מ mem, forty, for כ caph, twenty. And if the ancient Hebrew letters were used, the mistake would be still more easy, as the difference between מ mem and כ caph is very small.

In reply to the second question the answer is similar. Dr. Clarke shows very clearly that the discrepancies must have arisen from the blunders of transcribers. U. S.