"IF YE WILL INQUIRE, INQUIRE YE."
By Editor
This Inquirers' Department is conducted for the purpose of helping those who are studying the Bible. The answers are oftentimes only suggestive. They are never to be considered infallible, only as they agree with the infallible Word. The writer who may answer them does not consider that his opinion is infallible. He will simply give the best that he has, and plead with the inquirer to search the Word. Such questions only will be answered as, to the editors, seem to minister to the good of the readers and to the mission of the paper. We can not answer repeatedly in the same volume questions upon the same scripture. The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable. No letters are answered which do not contain the name of the writer. It is well always to enclose stamp for reply. Please explain Mal. 4:5 and John 15:18. Are they to be taken literally? Do the names "Elijah" and "Elias" refer to the same person? What relationship did John the Baptist sustain to Elijah and his work? J. W. C. Has not our inquirer made a mistake in his reference to John 15:18? Is it not rather Matt. 11:15-18 or 7:18? The passage in John has no reference to Elijah. (1) The terms "Elijah" and "Elias" mean the same thing. "Elias" is the Greek form of "Elijah." The Revised Version is much better in that it makes names uniform in the Old and New Testaments. (2) John the Baptist was not Elijah. So he himself declares specifically, John 1:21. But Elijah was the type of John the Baptist. This is clearly shown in Luke 1:17: "And he [John] shall go before His [Christ's] face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children," has direct reference to Malachi 4. The work of Elijah was one of thoro reformation against a corrupt union of Church and State centering in Ahab and his idolatrous, unprincipled wife, Jezebel; in John's day, centering in Herod and his corrupt wife, Herodias; in Elijah's day against an idolatrous and backsliding people; in John's day against dead formalism and a backsliding people. In both cases the reform was over the great truths of salvation, loyalty to God's precepts. (3) Both Elijah and John are types of the last great reformation, "before the great and terrible day of the Lord come," when there will be similar conditions in the religious world. In Elijah's day and in John's day the type centered around one person in one small nation and limited territory. The antitype is composed of all God's faithful people in His last message to all the world. 1. One of the great thoughts of the chapter is that we are not judges of our brother, because all shall stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. 2. Another of the great thoughts is that while we do not condemn our brother, we should be very careful not to set before him an evil example, or cause him to stumble. The Lord is not saying that we shall do or shall not do any particular thing, but that we are not to judge other Christian brethren for their course nor cause them to stumble by our own. 3. Verses 15, 16 teach that if our brother is grieved because of the food we eat, we should seek not to offend him; our Christian liberty should not be evil spoken of. 4. Verses 17 and 18 state the great truth that "the kingdom of God is not meat [food] and drink;" we are not saved by such means, but by righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. If these are in the soul, all other things will follow as legitimate fruits, and future deeds will demonstrate the nature of the work in the heart. 5. Therefore let us follow the things which make for peace, the things which will build one another up. Do not allow a mere matter of food to cause trouble. The man who is truly in Christ Jesus, will follow in ways that are pure, seeking only the pure, living only for the pure, neither condemning others nor causing them to stumble. Why did blood and water both come out of Jesus' side? John 19:34. J. C. W. Physically, we are told that the condition of the heart brought out both the blood and water; but to our mind it is more than this, intending the blood for that which cleanses from sin, and the water as symbolical of the mighty life of God in His living Word which gives power to His children to live above sin. These are both great facts which are referred to again and again in Scripture. For the first see 1 John 1:7, "The blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin." For the second, Eph. 5:26, regarding the church, "having cleansed it by the washing of water with the Word." 3349.—The Mother of Jesus
Referring to answer to question No. 3324 in your issue of January 17, you say, "Mark does not mention the mother of Jesus." But is it not so that Mary the mother of James the less, of Joses, and Salome, is the same as Christ's mother? I refer you to Matt. 13:55 and Mark 16:1. W. B. E. Let the three lists of names thus stand:
Matt. 27:56- Mary Magdalene.
- Mary the mother of James, etc.
- Wife of Zebedee.
Mark 15:40- Mary Magdalene.
- Mary the mother of James, etc.
- Salome.
John 19:25- Jesus' mother.
- His mother's sister.
- The wife of Cleophas.
- Mary Magdalene.
It seems to us (1) that neither Matthew nor Mark mentions the mother of Jesus; for if they had, they would have so designated her. (2) All three mention Mary Magdalene. (3) The sister of Jesus' mother is identical with Salome, the wife of Zebedee. (4) Mary the mother of James and Joses, is identical with the wife of Cleophas. James and Joses were common names. It is not uncommon now to find similar names running through several families. As the James and Joses of Matt. 13:55 were only the stepsons of Mary the mother of Jesus, at the most, it does not seem reasonable that she would be named as their mother, and her relationship to her own Son, the important One of all, ignored. The Syriac reads in John 19:25: "His mother, and His mother's sister, and Mary [the wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." Three of these, according to Matthew and Mark, at first looked on afar off. John speaks of Jesus' mother as near the cross, and others joining her later. 3350.—Discrepancy in Time
This has twice before been explained in the SIGNS. See SIGNS of November 15, 1910, question No. 3288. 3351.—Institution of the Sabbath
No; man was created on the sixth day, the Sabbath was the seventh. Do not confuse the two accounts of man's creation — the one in the first chapter of Genesis, a general account of the creation of man as the head of the race; the other in the second chapter, a particular account of Adam and Eve, the first pair, in the Garden of Eden. The first account closes with chapter 2:3. The second account begins with verse 4, and runs to the end of the chapter. 3352.—Author of Civil Government
Who is the author of civil government? H. G. M. In a general sense, God. "The powers that be are ordained of God." See Rom. 13:1-7. It is true that if man had not sinned, there would have been no civil government. But he sinned, became a rebel against the government of God; yet to preserve himself and his posterity against the anarchy of sin, civil government became a necessity. He must perforce borrow somewhat of God's order, that he might maintain existence; and God has ever respected such government, and taught His children so to do as long as civil governments kept within civil bounds and did not usurp the place of God. But God must not be held responsible for man's perversions of government. 3353.—Meaning of "Unclean"
What is understood by the term "unclean" in Rom. 14:14, "I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean"? Yet 2 Cor. 6:17 says, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." J. A. P. We would understand the apostle to be speaking of ceremonial uncleanness, so designated by arbitrary laws or customs. In 2 Cor. 6:17 he is speaking of the morally unclean. We can not believe that the Spirit speaking by Paul is antagonistic to the Lord's instruction through Moses. It is clearly evident that the apostle taught, however, that the ceremonial laws as laws were not binding upon Christians; yet they must not put stumbling-blocks in a brother's way. The Christian rule of eating and drinking is found in 1 Cor. 10:31. It can not be to God's glory to choose that for food which He has once forbidden, evidently on account of its unwholesomeness.