[All questions to this department will be answered which to the editors will seem to minister to the good of the readers and to the mission of the paper. The same question can not be answered repeatedly in the same volume. The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable. It is well always to enclose a stamp for reply.]
2238.—Sinful Flesh.
In the Sabbath-school Lesson Quarterly I read, "He [Jesus] kept for us God's law while here with us in human, sinful flesh." In the Review for August 1: "God sent His own Son in sinful flesh," etc. What is meant by the saying that He came in "sinful flesh"? Does it mean that His flesh was diseased? Does it mean that He was born like all the race with depraved, sinful nature?
We can only refer our correspondent to certain definite scriptures. In Rom. 8:3 we read, "God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." Gal. 4:4: "But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law." A.R.V. Again in Heb. 2:14, 17, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." "Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Certainly these scriptures are very definite. If Christ was made in all things like unto His brethren, He had the same flesh that they had. There is another expression stronger still found in Romans the first chapter, third verse: "Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." If ever there was a line of individuals which persisted in sinning against God, it was the line which sprang from David. Some of them were wicked above all that were before them; yet Jesus came from that lineage, "according to the flesh," that flesh having its weakness, its longings, its cravings, as did the flesh of every other. "He was in all points tempted like as we are," but with this difference between Himself and the rest of humanity, He conquered and maintained the victory while men allow the flesh to dominate over them. It is one of the most blessed encouragements of the Gospel that Jesus passed thru just what we must pass thru.
I would like to ask a question about Revelation 15, having seen nothing in the papers in regard to the seven last plagues or those who stand on the sea of glass. Is this before the coming of the Lord?
Chapter 13 reveals to us the beast and his image, which will enforce the mark. Chapter 14:9-11 is God's warning against the mark of the beast and his image. These two chapters show that there will be a terrible conflict between these opposing powers and the children of God. Chapter 15:2-4 reveals God's children as victorious. They have heeded His warning and have gotten the victory over the beast and over his image and over his mark. The time of the scene is after the coming of Christ, when His people are gathered home to the New Jerusalem on high. The pouring out of the seven last plagues is previous to Christ's coming. These are mentioned first in verse 1. Then the prophet of God shows us the class who will not be touched by the plagues. Another vision is given in verse 5, which the prophet saw afterward. While the vision came after the one of the previous verses, the event shown is before the second coming of Christ, when probation itself will close and Christ's ministry will cease in heaven, and the seven angels will go out to bring judgment upon the wicked and apostate earth. The pouring out of these plagues and the results are shown in chapter 16, when the wrath of God will be visited to its full. Then comes the second coming of Christ. Rev. 22:11 indicates the close of probation. A little period between that and the coming of Christ, as set forth in verse 12, is the time during which the plagues of wrath will be poured out. See "Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation," if you have access to a copy.
2240.—William Miller a Baptist.
Will you kindly tell me if William Miller was a member of the close communion Baptist Church until his death? I was under the impression that after his conversion he was an Adventist.
We have not the life of Miller at hand, but it is our impression that he remained a member of the regular Baptist Church until his death. He was an adventist in belief, but that was true of hundreds of other Baptists, and is true of many of them to-day, just as hundreds of the Episcopalians are adventists; that is, they believe in the near coming of the Lord.
2241.—The Spirit of Man and of the Beast.
Why is the spirit of man said to go upward and that of the beast downward?
The expression to which our querist evidently refers is found in Eccl. 3:21, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" The spirit is there used in the sense of the life. God receives to Himself the life of those who die, and He will give it to them in the resurrection in the last day. Col. 3:1-3. But in the future life the beast has no part, has no hope, no expectation; its life goes down to the earth, it will not live again.
2242.—Bearing Witness.
Please harmonize John 5:31 with John 8:14. The one text declares, "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true;" the other, "Tho I bear record of Myself, yet My record is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go."
The first, John 5:31, refers to the one who testifies to his mission, who wholly depends upon himself. Such an one as that may be set down as a false prophet, he has nothing to substantiate his claim but his own statement. In the second scripture Jesus does not say that He bears record of Himself. This is the accusation which the Jews made. Verse 13. But Jesus answered, "Tho I bear record of Myself"—if I should do this—"yet My record is true," because He spake the truth. He did not, however, bear record of Himself; but if He did, it would have been true because He is Himself the truth. But He had greater witnesses than that to substantiate His mission, and His witness agreed with that. Verse 18. John the Baptist bore witness of Him, the Scriptures themselves bore witness of Him, and the deeds which God gave Him to do bore witness of Him. Consequently, if Jesus bore witness of Himself, He would not have to depend on that alone; His witness would simply correspond with those who were testifying in His behalf.
2243.—The Soul of Man.
What is the soul of man?
The word is used in different meanings in the Scripture. Its primary meaning is the whole being, the whole creature, "Man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7), that is, a living person. See the use of the word in Joshua 10, over and over again referring to persons; 1 Peter 3:20, "Eight souls were saved by water," that is, eight persons. Sometimes soul means the whole mental organization, the mind. Ps. 103:1, "Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless His holy name." Sometimes it means life, the animal life common to all. This is shown in many passages. Matt. 16:25, 26, "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" In both verses soul and life come from the same word. These three meanings, we believe, will cover the use of the term thruout the Scriptures. When we try to give it simply one meaning alone, we are sure to run into trouble. The spirit in the New Testament is a different word, referring to the spirit-life given of God.
Please explain Matt. 28:1. The dawning here mentioned must be just before sunrise the first day of the week, yet it is in "the end of the Sabbath." It would seem as tho the Sabbath lasted until sunrise.
The Greek expression is usually understood by the commentators to refer to the same time as is in Mark 16:1, "When the Sabbath was past," "late on the Sabbath day." The very best light that we have on it is that which is suggested in Greenfield's New Testament, that the last verse of Matthew 27 ought not to be separated from the first verse of Matthew 28. There is nothing in the original to mark separation. A chapter has been put in there by men. The passage would then read as follows:
"So they went, and made the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch in the end of the Sabbath. As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher."
That is, these women did not come in the end of the Sabbath, but the Roman power sealed the stone and set a watch, at the instigation of the Jews, in the end of the Sabbath. This makes perfect harmony with Mark and Luke.
2245.—The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Luke 16.
Will you please explain the "great gulf" between the rich man and Abraham?
Would say we have not space in this department adequate to explain the parable. We refer our inquirer to a tract by that title, Bible Student's Library, No. 146, price, three cents, at this office, or to the chapter in "Christ's Object Lessons" on that subject. The scripture is not history. It is a parable illustrating conditions between Jews and Gentiles and their attitude toward God. The parable should be explained in harmony with positive, definite expressions of Scripture.
Please explain Prov. 31:6, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."
The strong drink was given simply to allay suffering; such drink was offered to Christ when He was hanging upon the cross, and He would not drink. It was designed as a merciful ministration, even as opiates are given now to alleviate the fearful sufferings of those who may be dying. The latter part of the text simply refers to the cheering of those who may be under almost hopeless discouragement. We are not to judge of the wine of ancient times, which was many times sweet wine and at the most but mildly intoxicating, by the wine of the present day.
2247.—Flowers at Funerals.
What do you think of flowers at funerals, and photographs of the same? Does it not take away from the solemnity of the occasion and rob the living of the memory that they should have by calling their attention to earthly things?
It would certainly seem that even the flowers may be permitted, that the photographing of the flowers at such a time as that could well be dispensed with, and if a photograph should be taken it should certainly be before or after, but never at the time of the funeral. It is certainly a wiser, better custom to bestow our flowers during the lifetime of the individuals than after they are dead. Of course, this is done sometimes in respect to the bereaved ones, as well as to show respect for the dead, but at such times it is a great deal better that such tributes be simple and inexpensive. If sometimes the lavish cost of floral offerings could be made in behalf of stricken families, it would certainly be much wiser. Many funeral notices at the present time expressly request that no flowers be brought.