QUESTIONS ANSWERED by M. C. W.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · May 13, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 18.

QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

By M. C. W.

A CORRESPONDENT asks the following question: “In Jer. 25:33 I see that the ‘slain of the Lord’ will cover the earth, and understand that this is from the effects of the great battle. Kindly explain how this does not mean the real Christians.” Our correspondent has gotten the wrong idea from the words “slain of the Lord.” It does not mean the slain of the Lord’s people, but those slain by the wrath of the Lord. “For the Lord hath a controversy with the nations, he will plead with all flesh; he will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the Lord. . . . And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth.” Jer. 25:31-33. “But the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.” Joel 3:16.

“Please give through the columns of the SIGNS an explanation of Lev. 7:23. Does this text have reference to the Jewish sacrifices? or are we to understand it as given for reasons purely sanitary?”

Lev. 7:23 reads: “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.” This text is explained by Lev. 3:14-17. This passage defines the fat as referring to those parts of the beast which were wholly fat, —(1) “the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards;” (2) the fat upon the kidneys; (3) and in some cases the fat tail or rump of certain sheep which weighed from fifteen to fifty pounds. The Jews were to eat none of this fat. It was a prohibition which referred to the sacrifices; for the fat was a part of “the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savor; all the fat is the Lord’s.” Verse 16. Outside of sacrifices, however, with the exceptions already named, the fat of flesh was allowed for food. See Deut. 32:14; Neh. 8:10. While this prohibition is not of a sanitary character, any dietary is better which excludes a liberal supply of fat, unless it be the dietary of the Esquimau.

“Will you be so kind as to give your interpretation of the fourth chapter of Job? Who is the spirit spoken of in the fifteenth verse? and what does this spirit mean by the language used in verse 17?”

The fourth chapter of Job is the beginning of the argument of Job’s friends. They held that affliction was always evidence of sin; and therefore Job’s affliction was because he was a sinner, and he did wrong to deny it; that his only proper course was to confess his sins, and God would then pardon. Their advice was good on general principles, but it was wrongly applied in the case of Job. What or who the spirit was, mentioned in verse 15, we do not know. It might have been a good spirit who appeared to Eliphaz in a subsequent vision, or it might have been an evil spirit. Whatever it said, is of no consequence to us. Eliphaz used the words for a wrong purpose, namely, to condemn Job in that which God had not condemned him. The evident meaning of the words of verse 17 is that mortal man, who is a sinner, has no right to make the claim of sinlessness before God, or justify himself before God, when his condition itself condemns him.