WITH OUR INQUIRERS by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Dec 9, 1908

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 35, No. 19.

WITH OUR INQUIRERS

By Editor

2666.—The Revelation.

Rev. 1:1 declares: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass." All the things shown to John, that is in the book of Revelation, were to be fulfilled after his day. Yet Seventh-day Adventists, for instance, have Rev. 12:1-4 fulfilled before John died, over three score years. Therefore, should not the Revelation begin to be fulfilled after it was revealed to John, the servant of God, to fulfill the above word of God?

Our correspondent has drawn wrong conclusions from the expression found in Rev. 1:1. God's revelation refers to the past as well as to the future, and the prophecies, almost invariably, while predicting the future, connect it with the past. Revelation 5 is one of the keys to the book. It presents the Gospel as a book which was open to the world, and must of necessity begin at the time when it was especially revealed through our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore in that 5th chapter of Revelation, Jesus is represented as a Lamb slain; but this took place seventy-five years perhaps before John wrote the book. Yet it was a necessary part of the Revelation in order that the prophecy might show the connection between the past and the future. So it is with the twelfth chapter.

Take the letters to the churches, and there is constant reference to the things of the past. Take the revelation of the Lord Himself; the One who is, and who was, and who is to come. Take His own words regarding Himself: "I am He that liveth and was dead." All these past things are given to show the connection of the future with them, to show that God's word and God's plan are one. So when we have the beast power of Revelation 13 revealed, it begins with the composite beast, made up of the symbols of Daniel 7.

2667.—The Keeping of the Sabbath Day.

What shall we say or how shall we conduct ourselves when neighbors not of our faith call to visit us upon the Sabbath day? What we desire to know and do is not in any wise to offend our neighbor, and still honor God.

Of course this question could be answered in the very briefest form with the simple words, "Live a Christian." We can understand how timid souls would feel on such occasions as these, and more than likely the tendency would be to yield to worldly conventionalities rather than to do just what seemed to be duty. But if neighbors visit you on that day, that is a day that you have more leisure to talk with them. Why not tell them so? Say, I am glad that you have come, for now I have time and opportunity to talk with you upon a subject which is very near to my heart, which has brought great blessing to me, and I am sure would to you if you could be led to look upon it as I do. You have an opportunity to talk with them over Christian subjects; over the neighbor's own soul's welfare.

Of course if they are disinclined to talk about this, say nothing in conversation that would in any wise be wrong to say on the Sabbath. One of the great tendencies among Christians everywhere is to grieve away the Spirit of God by light and foolish conversation on the Sabbath day. Of course if the neighbor did not wish to talk about any religious things or good things, while a Christian should be very courteous and kind, it still is easy to show that common, ordinary worldly conversation is distasteful. While they may not enjoy Christian conversation, at the same time they will go away from your house with the feeling that you are true to your faith. They may be inclined even to sneer at your narrowness, but let trouble come, and then they will feel that you are one who can be depended upon. Let God be first, all other things secondary. But use the gifts and blessings and opportunities He gives so as to win others to Him.

2668.—How Long the Law? Luke 16:16.

This verse seems to state that the law was until John only. Will you please explain?

So this verse is sometimes interpreted, yet the same ones who interpret it thus will tell us that it extended to the cross and was done away when Jesus died. That is, altho it was until John only, still it had vitality to last three years longer and expire at the cross. An argument that proves too much proves nothing. The simple meaning of the text is seen if we supply the ellipsis, common in English language, and all languages. "The law and the prophets were preached until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." The great burden of the preaching before John's day was the law and the prophets, but when John came, the Gospel of Christ took a new burden. The Master was soon to appear. That is the entire thought of the text.

Paul tells us in Gal. 3:19 how long the law is to exist. It was given because of transgression, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. That promise is the promise of the everlasting inheritance. The coming of that Seed is the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to take to Himself His great power and reign, and the law lasts still to condemn sin and teach the way of righteousness until the Lord Jesus shall come again. It will no longer then act as a reprover of sin, but it will be found in the hearts of God's children from thence forward and forever, written there by the Spirit of God. Heb. 8:8-10.

2669.—The Prophet Esaias.

Will you please tell us why the book of the prophet Esaias is left out of the Bible? It is referred to in Matthew and other places.

The book of the prophet "Esaias" is not left out of the Bible. Esaias is the Greek form for Isaiah. We do not wonder that many souls are puzzled because of the difference in names in the Old and New Testaments. The American Revised Version has corrected all this, so that there can be no question between the names of the Old Testament referred to in the New.

We will mention a few other names, which may help our readers. For instance Hosea is referred to in the New Testament as Osee (Rom. 9:25); Joshua, as Jesus (Heb. 4:8); Elijah as Elias (Matt. 17:3); Elisha as Eliseus (Luke 4:27); and there are other names which undergo changes. The Greek used a different pronunciation of these names than the Hebrew, and therefore spelled them differently, and our translators used the Greek form rather than the Hebrew, very unwisely it seems to us.

2670.—The Psalms.

Will you please tell us why we do not use God's Book of Psalms for His sole praise?

Probably for the simple reason that the Spirit of the Lord in people impels them to praise Him in their own language sometimes, and these words seem so fitting that others use them also. The Psalms were not all composed at one time. The 90th Psalm was a Psalm of Moses, as stated in the title. Many of them were written by David; quite a number by Solomon; still later others by Asaph; and Daniel and Ezra may have written others; for some were not written till the time of those worthies.

The Psalms were generally used in the early church. They may have been exclusively used; they were the ones which the church found set to music; but we do not see any reason in Scripture why the church of God should not use other praiseworthy hymns for the service and worship of God. The great danger lies, of course, in teaching wrong theology through hymns. This should be always faithfully guarded.

Another reason, perhaps, which has led to the use of other means of praise, is the fact that the Psalms, which were truly poetic, are not written in rhyme, a more natural expression for Anglo-Saxons perhaps than the blank verse form, which lends itself better to anthems. Of course we do have the Psalms written in metrical form, but in many cases, the more modern hymns are preferable to the metrical Psalms, which men have had to put in their own words after all; and that is all that many of the modern hymns are, words of Scripture expressed in rhyme. Still, we feel, as our inquirer implies, that it would be a great deal better if we sang more of the grand old Psalms of God's Book.

2671.—How Were They Written?

Will you please explain Ex. 32:15, last clause? Were the Ten Commandments written on each side of the tables of stone, or just on one side? It would certainly seem from Ex. 32:15 that the tables "were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables." This includes verse 16.

This is said of the tables which the Lord first gave to Moses, and which Moses broke. Presumably the others were like them, and the writing was similar. Deuteronomy 10 seems to indicate that this was the case. They are usually represented as being written upon one side only. The reason why this is done, is that the artists wish to show only the two tables, and at the same time place the Commandments where they can be read, and so the artistic conception has placed the commandments on one side of each of the tables. Of course, so far as this is concerned, it is immaterial as regards the law itself. The manner of writing, however, is as given by the Scriptures.

2672.—The Yoke. Acts 15:10.

What is the yoke Peter refers to in this verse?

It is the great burdensome round of ordinances which the Jews had made out of God's law and ceremonies by their Pharisaic interpretations. They had so perverted it that it had become an intolerable burden.