Question Corner by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Jan 10, 1906

Question Corner

By Editor

From time to time under this head, we will answer pertinent questions, the answers to which we believe will be generally helpful to our readers. Some questions we can not answer here. They are of special interest only to the person who asks them. We will not answer what seem to be mere quibbles or cavils. We do not propose, for instance, to explain, more than once a year, where Cain got his wife. In all cases we must have the name of the questioner. We may wish to write them. To the questions we sign only the initials, or another term, if preferred by the questioner. But we have neither time nor space to bother with unsigned letters or questions. One more thought: "Foolish and unlearned questions avoid."

1760.—Pentecost and Sunday-Keeping.

What has the pouring out of the Holy Spirit to do with the change of the Sabbath? A. M.

Absolutely nothing. If the Lord had designed to honor the day of the week upon which Pentecost that year (Acts 2: 1) fell He would have expressly said so. The very fact that the Scriptures do not mention the day of the week shows clearly that it was not the day of the week that was honored but the antitype of the first-fruits. There are those who contend that Pentecost that year fell on the seventh day; others hold that it was the first day, and that may have been true; but even tho it be true, it has no bearing whatsoever on the Sabbath question. Jesus ascended forty days after His resurrection. He then passed over one first day in absolute silence, for Pentecost was ten days after His ascension. He waited until the next week after in order that the type might be fulfilled, and then poured out His Spirit, not to honor the day of the week, but to fulfil the prophecy of the type. The argument that Pentecost came on the first day of the week is one that has been handed down from the ages of apostasy. It is wholly unbiblical.

1761.—Dip, Immerse, Sprinkle, Pour.

Will you please give the Greek words for dip, immerse, sprinkle, pour? R. G.

1. "Dip" occurs six times in the New Testament, as follows: Luke 16: 24; John 13: 26; Rev. 19: 13; John 13: 26; Matt. 26: 23; Mark 14: 20. In the first three texts it comes from the Greek bapto, "to whelm, that is, to cover wholly with a fluid."—Strong. In the last three texts the word "dip" comes from embapto, to whelm on, similar in meaning to the other. If you will look up the references, you will see that the meaning is practically the same, as the Greek root word is the same.

2. "Immerse" is not found in our common English Bible. Bapto could be properly translated "immerse."

3. "Sprinkle" occurs in the New Testament seven times: Heb. 9: 13, 19, 21; 10: 22; 11: 28; 12: 24; 1 Peter 1: 2. In all these cases it comes from the Greek verb rhantizo, meaning "to sprinkle," or the noun rhantismos, meaning sprinkling, except one, namely, Heb. 11: 28, where it comes from proskhoosis, meaning to pour, a shedding forth.

4. "Pour" occurs thirteen times in the New Testament. In Matt. 26: 7 and Mark 14: 3 it comes from katacheo, "to pour down;" in Matt. 26: 12 and John 13: 5, "pour" comes from ballo, "to throw, strike, send, thrust, pour;" in Rev. 14: 10, "pour" comes from kerannumi meaning "to mingle, pour out (for drinking), fill;" in John 2: 15; Acts 10: 45; and in seven other cases in Revelation 16, "pour" comes from ekcheo, "to pour, to pour forth, to run greedily out, to spill." This is from the same root as Matt. 26: 7.

"Baptize" is itself a Greek word anglicized, or Englished. It should be rendered immerse, dip, plunge.

1762.—Eating Fish.

Why did Christ eat fish if it was not wholesome? If it was good for food then, is it good now? Is the health reform a command of God? If it is, where is it found in the Scriptures? U. I. E.

1. The only reason why we can conceive that Jesus ate fish is that it was one of the best foods that He had to eat just at that time. We presume that it was a comparatively wholesome food.

2. All animal and flesh food was probably more wholesome then than now, and much less diseased. That is, we believe, generally considered to be the fact.

3. Yes; read 1 Cor. 10: 31. That is a pretty good health reform precept, isn't it? It certainly will not glorify God to eat food that will injure our health or render us less susceptible to the finer spiritual influences.