Question Corner by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Oct 31, 1906

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 32, No. 42.

Question Corner

By Editor

WE receive from time to time questions without the writers' names, and we have said from time to time that we can pay no attention to these. For instance, we have just placed in the waste-basket one signed "A Friend." We are perfectly willing that one should ask a question and sign it "A Friend," but we must have the writer's name as evidence of good faith. We have all that we can possibly reply to, in the paper and out, of those who let themselves be known, not to the public if they do not wish, but to the editors of the paper. We will respect all their confidences, but we must have their names. Questions which we consider will be of general interest or profitable to the paper we will answer in that way; other questions we will answer by letter, always, if stamp is enclosed. We can not promise to reply by letter if it is not. A postage stamp or so is not very much to any one of our readers, but the great many postage stamps required to answer letters of interest only to those who write them amount to quite a sum in the course of a year to the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. We believe our correspondents are willing to do this, but often forget.

1917.—The Sheet Let Down from Heaven.

In Peter's vision a sheet was let down from heaven with all manner of beasts and creeping things contained in it. God said they were clean. Does this nullify the law of clean and unclean beasts in Leviticus 11? S.

God gave to Peter that vision for a specific purpose. Peter thought there was only one race of people on the earth fit for salvation, and that was the Jewish race. God presented before Peter the children of men by the symbol of all those beasts and creeping things. Peter thought they were all unclean, "and a voice said, What God hath cleansed call not thou common." Now what did this mean to Peter? Did it mean that he was at liberty to indulge his appetite in any way he might choose? Did it mean that the Lord said unto Peter, I would have you eat all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things? Let Peter himself say just what it meant. "Unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28. Read both the tenth and the eleventh chapters of Acts and there find the lesson. The distinction between clean and unclean beasts is not an arbitrary distinction which God has made, but exists in the very nature of the beasts themselves; and we know no Scripture whatever which teaches us that their nature has ever been changed.

1918.—Ordinances on the Sabbath.

Is it not wrong to hold the ordinance of feet-washing on the Sabbath on account of the labor connected with it? There does not seem to me the same objection to the Lord's Supper. T. B.

The Sabbath commandment does not forbid work for God. Jesus said, "It is lawful [according to law] to do well on the Sabbath day." He also said, "The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath day and are blameless;" that is, they make that day a day of labor for the service of the temple, but they were blameless in that, because they were doing it not for themselves, but for God. The temple service called for twice as much labor on the Sabbath day as it did on other days. On other days but one lamb was to be offered in the morning and one in the evening, but on the Sabbath day this was doubled. See Num. 28:1-10. As indicated by the Scriptures in Isa. 58:13, the Sabbath is to be kept by "not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words." It is not to be a day of laziness. God has not designed it to be a day of slackness, but of earnest spiritual exercise, which will develop Christians. The bread of God's presence, or showbread, was placed in the sanctuary fresh each Sabbath; so God would have a wholesome spiritual activity on the part of His people. Therefore in the carrying out of the ordinances which God has given there certainly can be no transgression of His other commands more than there was in marching around Jericho when God commanded it.

1919.—Bible Names of the Months.

Will you kindly give through the columns of the SIGNS the Jewish names of the months? I am unable to find them in any works to which I have access. J. E. G.

The Jews had two years—the sacred and the civil. The first year began with the month Abib, or Nisan (Ex. 12:2), corresponding in part to our April; second month, Zif (1 Kings 6:1); third, Sivan (Esther 8:9); fourth, Thammuz (Zech. 8:19); fifth, Ab (Ezra 7:8); sixth, Elul (Neh. 6:15); seventh, Tisri, or Ethanin (1 Kings 8:2; 2 Chron. 5:3); eighth, Bul (1 Kings 6:38); ninth, Chisleu (Neh. 1:1); tenth, Tebeth (Esther 2:16); eleventh, Shebeth (Zech. 1:7); twelfth, Adar (Esther 3:7; 9:27). The civil year began with the seventh month of the sacred year, or Tisri. It began with the Feast of Trumpets. The tenth day was the Day of Atonement, the fifteenth day began the Feast of Tabernacles, followed by first-fruits of wine or oil. See Lev. 16; 23:34; Deut. 16:13. The months nowhere exactly correspond with our months. Tisri corresponded with the last of our September and the first of October, beginning about September 20 and closing, of course, about the same time in October. Their Rosh Hashonah occurred September 20, the Feast of the Blowing of Trumpets, and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) ten days after, or September 29. For further light upon the question read "Practical Lessons from the Experience of Israel for the Church of To-day," by F. C. Gilbert, a Hebrew Christian. That work gives great help in the study of the books of Moses.

1920.—Casting Out Devils.

Jesus cast out devils. These devils asked to be permitted to enter the swine. It seems they talked; how could this be? Have persons these devils now? S. B. S.

The proper term is not devil but demon, as in the American Revised Version. There is but one devil mentioned in the Scripture, diabolos, the devil; the others are demons or the angels or messengers of the devil. These were once among the angels of light, but they fell. Rev. 12:7, 8; 2 Peter 2:4. These, of course, are spiritual beings, and when men utterly turn from God and yield themselves to the influences of Satan, the demons come in and possess the men. When the demoniac of the miracle attempted to talk, the demons used his organs of speech, they talked through him. When the man himself would have cried out for mercy to Jesus, the demons made him say, "What have I to do with Thee, Jesus the Son of the Most High God?" They tried to make that man identify himself with them, but Jesus broke the power of Satan and set the prisoner free. Yes, there are persons to-day just as truly possessed of demons as there were in ancient times. A few months ago we published an article in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, written by one in heathen lands, which gives clear evidence that all the characteristics of the New Testament times are manifest among those possessed of demons in heathen lands to-day; and we have the same things manifest at times in civilized lands.

1921.—Saved During the Three Angel's Messages.

Please tell me, will there be none saved during the Third Angel's Message but the 144,000? A. D. A.

We suppose that by "during the Third Angel's Message" the questioner means during the time that the great threefold message of Revelation 14 is given to the world, from 1844 onward. Yes, we believe there will be many thousands saved during the time of the giving of that message apart from the 144,000. There are thousands upon thousands who are and have been living up to all the light they have had, who never have seen, nor will see until eternity shall dawn, the light that shall shine upon and develop the 144,000. These will be saved by virtue of their faith in Christ. The 144,000 are those who are saved out of the very remnant, those to whom special light is coming, who have developed a certain character. They at least will be ready, prepared for our Lord when He comes. Whether there will be others besides the exact number is an open question. In the general reckoning all through the Bible of the number of God's people, it is the men who are numbered. It does not mean that women are excluded, but they are not among the definite numbers. The real object with every soul should be that he shall be ready for the Lord's coming and that he shall do just as much as he can to tell the glad tidings of that event to others that they also may be prepared.

1922.—The Lord's Choosing. Jer. 3: 14.

What is meant by "one of a city and two of a family"? Does it mean that there will not be a whole family saved? A.

By family in the above text is not meant simply families as we now designate them, but families in Israel, great divisions of the tribes. They might include many local families. The expression would indicate that not all would heed God's call to return and repent of their backslidings; but if they would not return, the Lord promises that He will gather out all those that do, however small their number. There may be but one in a city, there may be but two in a family which has several cities, yet the Lord would save them. It does not preclude any in a family, it does not for a moment teach that we should cease in any way to labor for all members of the family. It is the Lord's promise to even a few that the salvation of those who truly turn to Him is not in any way dependent on the salvation of a city or any number of professed followers of His.

1923.—Dates of Certain New Testament Books.

Will you kindly give me the probable dates of the four Gospels, the Acts, and the Revelation? S.

It is impossible to give the exact dates. It is to some extent a matter of question; but the general agreement among conservative scholars as given in Smith's Bible Dictionary and in the Oxford helps, and others, is as follows: Matthew between the years 50 and 60; Mark, 63 to 70; Luke 58 to 60; who probably wrote the Acts in 62 or 63; John, 70 to 83; some as late as 97, 98; the Revelation, written down near the very close of the first century doubtless between the years 95 to 97. This is fixed by Domitian's reign, who banished John to the Isle of Patmos, and whose reign closed in 97.

1924.—Voting for Prohibition.

Is voting for prohibition wrong? A.

It may be and it may not be; it depends altogether on the motive, the method, etc. Certainly it would be a grand thing for the whole land if the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors were prohibited. And when one places his protest against it in the form of a ballot as a man ought, certainly there is nothing wrong in it. It is the very proper thing to do.