Miscellaneous

Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught?

The Old Testament, without directly teaching the doctrine of the Trinity, does teach a plurality in the Godhead (e. g., Gen. 1:26; 3:22, where “Elohim” is a plural noun), and intimates a trinity (e. g., Isa. 6:3, etc.). The Trinity is necessarily implied in Luke 3:22. The Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus, and the Father’s voice from heaven declares the divine Sonship. The doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly taught in the baptismal formula, Matthew 28:19.

How do you get 427 years from the Flood to the
call of Abram?

In the genealogical table as given in the King James Version, the dates from the Flood to the call of Abram figure out 867 years. But Acts 7:4 informs us that Abram left Haran after Terah’s death. He was then 75 years old. Terah was 205 years old when he died. This would make Terah 130 years old when Abram was born — a difference of 70 years. Add 70 to 367 and we have 427 from the Flood to the call of Abram.

Would not Ecclesiastes 7:16 prove that it is possible to be too religious?

“Be not righteous overmuch,” refers to scrupulosity above what is written — excessive and strength-destroying fasting, and such like fleshly exercises. The “‘flagellantes” and “penitentes” of Romanist countries illustrate this. See the next verse: “For why shouldst thou destroy thyself?” (Col. 2:16, 17, 20, 28).

Can we say that the Deuteronomic Covenant is an unconditional one in view of such passages as Deuteronomy 30:10?

The Deuteronomic Covenant (Deut. 30:1-9) secures unconditionally the restoration and conversion of Israel. The chapter then goes on to take up the blessing of Israel after its restoration and conversion, and then conditions enter, for all blessing is conditional. Salvation and restoration to Palestine are unconditionally promised. ‘The same is true indeed of the Christian in this age. We are saved under the unconditional covenant with Abraham, but our happiness and spiritual prosperity depend on certain conditions.

Who was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews?

No author is named, so the question is fairly open to investigation. From the earliest times, the Epistle has been variously ascribed, but the greater number of writers accept Pauline authorship; the lesser number think Apollos wrote it. It is a mistake to call it an epistle. It is not a letter. All writers admit the strong Pauline tone of the book. My own conclusion is that it is made up of notes of Paul’s synagogue addresses, taken down by Luke or Tertius or some one of Paul’s amanuenses and revised by him. That accounts both for the Pauline flavor and for the declamatory rather than epistolary form.

Was Abraham a Jew?

No, he was a Hebrew. The name Jew sprang from
Judah.

It is said in your Bible Course that we do not consecrate ourselves. Kindly explain the words ‘‘consecrate yourselves’? in Leviticus.

The words “‘consecrate yourselves” of which you may find many instances in Scripture, means no more than “separate yourselves, — z. e., from defilement. The objection referred to was to the common idea of consecration, so prevalent among young Christians, where they are continually “reconsecrating”’ themselves to God.

What is the difference between soul and spirit?

Briefly stated, the difference between soul and spirit is the difference in Scripture usage, between the words “mind”

and “heart.” The spirit is that part of man which knows, — the intellect, or mind (1 Cor. 2:11). The soul is the seat of the will, appetites, affections, desires.

Is it right for a minister to unite in marriage people who are not Christians?

Most of the states constitute ordained ministers civil officers for the purpose of performing marriages, and marriage is in the eye of the law a civil contract. If, therefore, a minister chooses to unite persons neither of whom is a Christian, it would seem to be within his right. The Scriptures forbid the marriage of believers to unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14).

What is Nicolaitanism, spoken of in Revelation
2:6, 15?

It is the doctrine that God has instituted an order of “clergy,” or priests, as distinguished from the “laity.” The word is formed from two Greek words, niko, conqueror, or overcomer, and laos, the people. The New Testament knows nothing of a “clergyman,” still less of a priest, except as all sons of God in this dispensation are “a royal priesthood.” In the apostolic church there were offices, elders (or bishops), and deacons; and “gifts,” apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). These might or might not be elders or deacons. But late in the apostolic period there emerged a disposition to arrogate to elders alone authority to administer ordinances, and, generally, to constitute themselves a class between God and the people; they were the Nicolaitanes. You will observe that what were ‘deeds’ in the Ephesus, or late apostolic period, had become a “doctrine” two hundred years later in the Pergamos, or Constantine period.

What is the meaning of “communicate”? in Galatians 6:6?

Those who are taught are commanded to support those who teach the Word of God.

What did Paul mean by ‘delivering such an one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” in 1 Corinthians 5:5?

Job was allowed to remain in Satan’s power for a time that the destruction of his flesh might bring him to self-knowledge and humiliation before God, which it did. So with this case. Not given over to Satan for the destruction of the soul, but of the flesh. So even Satan is made to serve a purpose in the kingdom of God.

What was the gift of ‘‘discerning of spirits’? in 1 Corinthians 12:10?

A gift that all Spirit-filled Christians have that makes them able to discern false doctrine, such as taught by Spiritualists, Christian Scientists, Theosophists, etc.

Can you give the quotation concerning various motives in desiring to know, each ending with the author’s judgment upon the motive?

The quotation from Bernard of Clairvaux concerning what you ask is: “There are some who desire to know with the sole purpose that they may know, and it is base curiosity; and some who desire to know that they may be known, and it is base ambition; and some who desire to know that they may sell their knowledge for wealth and honor, and it is base avarice; but there are some who desire to know that they may be edified, and it is prudence; and some who desire to know that they may help others, and it is charity.”

Could Nebuchadnezzar be considered a believer

and therefore a saved man?

Daniel 4:34-37 seems to leave no doubt that Nebuchadnezzar became a worshipper of Jehovah in the true sense of

faith.

Who are “‘the friends of the bridegroom’? in John 3:29?

The Old Testament saints, who, through the sacrifices, were saved by the prospective sacrifice of Christ. See also 1 Corinthians 15:23. John Baptist, the last of the Old Testament saints, is in this class.

How is the word ‘“‘world’’ to be interpreted in the New Testament?

The word “world” in the King James version of the New Testament is in hopeless confusion, because it is used to translate three Greek words which have widely different meanings. In a very large number of cases “world” is used to render the Greek aion, which is a measure or period of time and should be rendered “age.”’ Any good analytical concordance (as Young’s or Strong’s) will show these words and their distinctive meanings; and these can be easily noted on the margin of a Bible.

What is the meaning of ‘Selah’? found in some of the Psalms?

“Selah,” a word which occurs seventy-four times in the Bible, chiefly in the Psalms, is of doubtful meaning. All agree that it was a musical direction to the singers or players in the temple worship. It probably means “pause,” indicating that the singers were to pause while the players went on. It ought to be omitted in the public reading of the Psalms.

What is the meaning of the expression in 1 Corinthians 12:13 — “‘have been all made to drink into one Spirit’”’?

The expression means, made to receive the one Spirit. The figure was used by Christ in John 4:14.

How do the Jews interpret Isaiah 53?

They apply it to their own nation, suffering at the hands of the Gentiles. As to Christ, the vail is still upon their hearts. Not until they see Him will they understand that the suffering Saviour was their own Messiah, and then will they mourn for Him in true sorrow and penitence, the vail being taken away. Thomas and Paul illustrate (1 Cor. 15:8; Rev. 1:7; John 20:27, 28; also see Zech. 12:10).

Is it true that God chastises adults by afflicting their children?

That the sins of the parents are visited upon their children inheres in that law of God which we call heredity no less than in His written Word. It is one of the awful consequences of sin, and is an inevitable result of the solidarity of the race. But the unity of humanity has blessings which enormously overbalance this disadvantage. But this “common lot of man’ is a very different thing from the horrible notion taught by some that the Almighty, to punish a parent, will afflict a child.

When Paul says (Acts 20:22) ‘‘And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem,’’ does he refer to his own mind or spirit, as in Job 32:8, or to the Holy Spirit?

To his own human spirit and not to the Holy Spirit. That this was the opinion of the translators is evidenced by the use of the small “‘s” in all correct copies of the A. V. as well as the R. V. Darby’s translation, the work of the most profound Bible student of modern times, renders the passage, “And now, behold, bound in my spirit I go to Jerusalem.” Probably the question never would have arisen (otherwise than of necessity in the minds of translators and revisers) except for the supposed necessity of vindicating Paul in taking his last journey to Jerusalem. Paul never claimed for himself either infallibility or impeccability.

Was Abraham’s intercession for the city of Sodom, or for the righteous in Sodom alone?

For the city because of the righteous in it. It had not occurred to the friend of God that He might take the righteous out before the destruction. Still, it is interesting to see that the city would have been spared if there had been ten righteous in it.

To whom was Hebrews 13:13 addressed, and what was “the camp” from which they were called to “go out’’?

Hebrews 13:13 was addressed to Jews while the temple was yet standing and Judaism in full organization. Judaism was “the camp,” and the allusion is to the act of Moses (Ex. 33:7), the significance of which, as every Jew knew, was that for the time God had departed from the midst of His earthly people. To build upon this a doctrine of separation from the churches is to build a doctrine upon mere inference and analogy — a method never defensible, and which is responsible for most of the errors in theology.

What is the process by which a doctrine is formulated from the Scriptures?

The doctrine of Scripture is to be ascertained by a fair construction of all the passages bearing upon the given subject. If, concerning the ultimate fate of Satan, Ezekiel

28:19 stood alone, one would be warranted in teaching his annihilation. But Revelation 19:20 with Revelation 20:10 teach the eternal conscious torment of Satan. The earlier teaching in Ezekiel must be construed in harmony with this final word if it may fairly be done. A reference to Ezekiel’s phrase, “And never shalt thou be any more,” shows a very simple harmony. From verse 13 the Spirit speaks of the earthly activity and manifestation of Satan. The natural construction, therefore, is that the obscure phrase quoted predicts the end of his long and pernicious dealing with the race of men.

The imperative rules of interpretation are: (1) Never use an obscure passage to contradict a plain and definite one. (2) All the passages must be so interpreted as to make all stand. (3) Interpretation must take account of the progressive method of revelation. Much is difficult and obscure in the Old Testament which is comparatively cleared up in the New (see Heb. 1:1, 2, in the R. V.).

Is the chronology of Daniel in relation to the crucifixion correct?

As to the chronology of Daniel in relation to the precise time of the cutting off of Messiah, it is to be remembered, first, that Daniel 9:26 is obviously an indeterminate period. The date of the crucifixion is not fixed by it. The cutting off of Messiah is only said to be “after the three score and two weeks.” Remember also that three decrees concerning Jerusalem are recorded, — that of Cyrus, B. C. 536 (2 Chr. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1, 8); that of Darius, B. C. 521- 486 (Ezra 6:3-8), and that of Artaxerxes in his seventh year, probably B. C. 458 (Ezra 7:7). Artaxerxes, in his twentieth year, B. C. 444, gave permission for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, and probably that is the decree from which the first seven weeks, or 49 years, run. Quoting from a note in the “Scofield Reference Bible,” page 915: — “Prophetic time is invariably so near as to give full warning, so indeterminate as to give no satisfaction to mere curiosity (cf. Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7).

Is there any warrant for saying that Judas repented after his betrayal of Christ?

Not with the heart, else he would not have gone “‘to his own place,’ which we must believe to be the place of the lost. Jesus Himself said that Judas was “a devil.”

What is it to know Christ “after the fiesh’? (2 Cor. 5:16)?

An intellectual belief in the historical Christ, which is distinct from “believing on Him.” The latter implies trust, dependence. Intellectual belief does not bring salvation, as belief with trust does to those who truly, with the heart as well as the mind, believe.

Please explain Jesus’ treatment of the woman in
Matthew 15:21-28.

Addressed by a Gentile as son of David, He makes no reply, for a Gentile has no claim upon Him in that character. When she addresses Him as Lord, she obtained an answer (see Rom. 10:12, 18).

What is the teaching referred to as “the kenosis”?

The doctrine of ‘‘the kenosis’ is variously stated by those who hold it, but all of them agree that Philippians 2:7, R.V., teaches that our Lord so “emptied himself” that He did not know whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch, or whether Deuteronomy was a forgery, or a veritable product of inspiration. The teaching of the passage really is that being en morphe — 1. e., wearing the external appearance of God, He counted not that appearance a prize to be grasped, but emptied Himself of it (Phil 2:6, 7). The kenotic theory is modern and owes its appearance in Christian polemics to the necessity which lies upon the critics of getting rid of the testimony of Christ to the authority of the Old Testament.

How are we to distinguish between the terms ‘‘disciple” and ‘‘apostle”’?

It is not always easy to make a distinction. The apostles were often called disciples, but the distinction was not of great importance. Some powers were exercised by the apostles as such. For example, to Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, and to all of the apostles, the power of communicating the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands so long as the gospel was preached only to the Jews, but as the apostles had and can have no successors, the distinction soon ceased to be of any vital importance. John 15:27 is adduced in connection with our Lord’s statement, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now, and the promise that when the Holy Spirit should come they should be taught all things, as tending naturally and strongly to show that the Spirit was to speak through these commissioned men, and historically there is ample confirmation of that interpretation, for through those men the New Testament was written.

Is there a passage in the New Testament which settles conclusively the question of divorce?

The New Testament teaching as to marriage and divorce is not to be gathered from any single passage, but from the harmony of them all. This is admirably done in the Westminster Confession, chapter 24, sections i-vi. There is a shameful and unscriptural laxity in the United States in respect of marriage and divorce. It threatens not only the spirituality of the churches, but the very integrity of society. But these evils are not to be cured by an extra biblical strictness, but only by a steadfast demand that this most vital of all human relations shall be regulated neither by lust nor by Pharisaism, but by the mind of God as revealed in the Scriptures.

Please explain 1 Corinthians 3:17: “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.”’

It is to be interpreted literally. The “temple of God” here is the church. There were false teachers among the Corinthians who not only lived loosely themselves, but advocated licentious practices in the church; and any who so corrupt, pollute, defile the church of God, is in danger of destruction.

Were the tabernacles of Exodus 33:7 and 40:2
identical?

No. The former seems to have been that tent over which the pillar of cloud and fire had rested, and before which the primitive patriarchal sacrifices, afterward superseded by the Levitical sacrifices, were offered.

What did Christ mean by “they shall be your judges”? in speaking of Beelzebub in Matthew 12:27?

The Pharisees were quick enough to resent any implication of Satanic power so far as they and their sons were concerned, but on the ground they were taking, 2. e., that Christ cast out demons by Beelzebub, their own sons would adjudge them inconsistent; for if the power to cast ‘out demons is Satanic, then whoever exercises such power is in league with the source of that power. In the following verses Jesus proves from whence His power came — from God, not from Satan.

For what purpose was the Urim and Thummim?

The Urim and Thummim, meaning “lights and perfections,” were connected in some way, not clearly expressed, with the ascertainment of the divine will in particular cases. What they were or what became of them is not known.

Why was God angry with David for numbering the
people?

Counting on the numerical strength of his army rather than on the power of God. 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1 should be read together. God allows Satan to influence His servant David because of his lack of faith, and fleshly expedient. For similar cases see 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 1 Timothy 1:20; also Job.

In Philippians 3:6 where Paul speaks of being ‘‘blameless as touching the righteousness of the law,”’ what did he mean?

By blamelessness as touching the law, Paul meant that when he had sinned under the law, he had always brought the required offering.

Have we any proof that Adam was a saved man?

The proof that Adam was saved is two-fold — the evidence of his faith in calling his wife Eve, “the mother of all living,’ solely upon the promise of God and before he had ever seen a child (Gen. 3:15); and the symbolical act of God in clothing him with coats of skins (Gen. 4:21). Adam’s attempt to clothe himself miserably failed, as self-righteousness always does — then God clothed him (Phil. 3:5-9; Luke 18:10-14).

Is the book of Job allegorical, and where is it to be placed chronologically?

The book of Job is to be regarded as historical, pre-Mosaic, patriarchal. As to proof of the historicity of Job himself, see Ezekiel 14:14, observing that it is the Lord God who makes the declaration. The early date is established by internal evidence. There is no mention of the law, nor of Moses, nor of the Levitical sacrifices, nor of the Exodus. The length of life is patriarchal; sun worship is mentioned, but not idols; riches are reckoned by cattle;

MISCELLANEOUS nh ae,

the head of the family is the priest; there is no allusion to a Hebrew, or to Jerusalem, or to the tabernacle or temple.

Of what significance in Scripture is the number
“forty”?

In several instances it seems to signify the fullness of testing. Moses spent forty years on the backside of the desert (cf. Acts 7:23 with Ex. 7:7). The children of Israel wandered for forty years in the wilderness. Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days and nights. How significant that each of these times of testing occurred in the wilderness! So with our times of testing. Again, for forty centuries before Christ the world was under probation, etc.

What is the meaning of “‘He went and preached to the spirits in prison’? (see 1 Peter 3:19)?

It is interpreted in three ways: (1) It is said that between Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection He went into Hades and offered salvation through His cross to all the wicked dead; (2) that He preached in Hades declaratively — merely announcing the consummation of the predicted sacrifice to those who had rejected the promises during Old Testament times. The objection to the first interpretation is that the context of the verse limits the preaching to a particular class of sinners — those antediluvians who rejected Noah’s gospel. Such favor to a special class of sinners who were warned for 120 years before the flood -came is inconceivable. The objection to the second interpretation is that it puts Christ in the position of, so to speak, taunting the irredeemably lost — which is also inconceivable. He might have wept over them; He could never have exulted over them; (8) the third interpretation harmonizes the passage, the context, and the known character of the Redeemer. It is best stated in paraphrase. ‘Christ

. was quickened by the Spirit, by which Spirit in the

ro 4 days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, and the long suffering of God waited, He preached to those who are now imprisoned spirits” awaiting the judgment.

What book of the Bible would you recommend for
a young convert just beginning Bible study?

First Thessalonians. That epistle was written by Paul to young converts. It should be deeply studied. Afterwards give your young converts a course in Galatians to establish them in the doctrines of grace; following with Philippians, which presents right Christian experience. After this, take up Luke and John.

What became of the tabernacle after the temple
was built?

It is not recorded. The ark of the covenant, and “all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle,’ were carried into the temple (1 Kings 8:4). In the Revelation (11:19) the ark is seen in heaven. The temple which was standing in our Lord’s mortal life was built by one of the Herods on the site of Solomon’s Temple.

How are we to understand Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 12:16 — ‘being crafty, I caught you with guile’?

They should be read as an ironical exclamation. The whole context, as Hengstenberg, Meyer, and other exegetes point out, is “bitterly ironical.” The Corinthians, caught in the snare of Judaizing teachers who deny Paul’s apostleship and impugn his motives, have “compelled” (verse 11) him to justify himself. So he reminds them that the “signs of an apostle were wrought among them”’ in three ways — ‘in all patience, in signs and wonders, and in mighty deeds.”” Moreover, his purity of motive was shown by his refusal to be burdensome to them. Then (verse 16) follows the exclamation. Doubtless the apostle quoted some accusation of the Judaizers. It was a way of saying, “Though I could work miracles among you, and though my way of life showed me to be absolutely disinterested, yet they dare to say that I descended to craftiness and guile to make converts.”” The accusation is absurd.

Are the days of Genesis literal days of twenty-four hours?

The usage of Scripture warrants the common present-day belief that lengthened periods are meant (2 Pet. 3:8; John 5:25, etc.). On the other hand, the power of God warrants one in believing that the work apportioned to each of the creative “days” could have been accomplished in days of twenty-four hours.

Does the word “replenish”? in Genesis 1:28 have any bearing on the question of an inhabitation of earth prior to the creation of Adam?

The theory in question rests mainly on the verse referred to. There are, we think, insuperable objections to the theory of a previous inhabitation of the earth by human beings. The arguments for an occupation of the earth by angels prior to the creation of man, are, however, extremely convincing. It should be added, that opinion on these questions are within the liberty of faith, since there is not so clear a teaching upon them as warrants a dogmatic assertion.

Is not the giving of teas, suppers, etc., a sinful way of raising money for the Lord’s work?

Church “teas,” “suppers,” etc., for the raising of money are not explicitly forbidden, and therefore cannot be called “sinful.” But they are contrary to the spirit of Scripture, and would be wholly unnecessary if 1 Corinthians 16:2 were obeyed. Such expedients do not tend toward spirituality and the church which allows them becomes the butt of the ungodly. A converted hand in its own pocket is the biblical means of “raising’’ money for the Lord.

If Israel’s distinctive blessing is earthly, will not Abraham, Jacob, David and all godly Israelites have to remain on earth at the resurrection to enter into their inheritance?

The fact that the distinctive promise to Israel is of earthly blessing and prosperity does not require that Abraham, Jacob and David should, “at the first resurrection, remain on the earth in the enjoyment of earthly blessing.” The men named have all had great earthly blessing. It should be remembered, too, that the earthly blessings were not unconditionally promised to Israelites just because they were Israelites, but only as they should be obedient (see Deut. 28).

What was the light of John 1:9, “which lighteth
every man that cometh into the world”?

The light of conscience, which is given to every man, and which makes him morally responsible. This conscience is spiritual as coming from God, but must not be confounded with the new birth, which comes to those who, seeing the true Light, Christ, believe on Him and thus follow the light of John 1:9. The standard by which God will judge those who have not received a knowledge of Christ is revealed in Romans 1:18 to 38:19.

Are not the rewards of the Christian now sufficient without his seeking future ones?

Upon the subject of rewards the Scriptures are imperative, and we must not only bow our minds under the authority of the Word, but find in these rewards the incentive which Paul found in them. Consider how intense his language is in Philippians 8:18, 14; 1- Corinthians 9:24-27; how triumphant his assurance in 2 Timothy 4:7, 8.

But it would be absurd to suppose that these crowns are material circlets of gold, like an earthly monarch’s crown; 1 Thessalonians 2:19 would disprove that: Paul’s Thessalonian converts will be his eternal crown of rejoicing. So, of each of the crowns: they stand for great results of service, ministry, suffering, etc., because in the gaining of them character is grown, Christ is apprehended, fellowship is deepened, and the whole being fitted for the great service and kingly offices of the eternal state.

Again, we go against Scripture when we say that our rewards are now as we go along. Paul’s word is: ‘“‘Henceforth”... “in that day.” Christ’s word, “Behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be.”

What is the meaning of the conflict between the two seeds of Genesis 3:15?

Enmity was declared between the two seeds. The promise of redemption is contained in the last clause: “It (the seed of the woman) shall bruise thy (Satan’s) head (seat of power and dominion), and thou shalt bruise his (Christ’s) heel.” On the cross Christ was wounded by Satan, but not vitally. It only hindered His onward march for a time.

Is there any scriptural proof that Judas was excluded from the Lord’s Supper?

The proof that Judas was excluded from the Lord’s Supper (though not from the Passover feast) is found in a comparison of the four-fold account. John 13:1-30 gives the order of events up to the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It is as follows: (1) The Passover is eaten, verses 1, 2; (2) the feet-washing, verses 3-17; (3) the exposure and departure of Judas, verses 18-30. Certainly up to this point there has been no Lord’s Supper. Turning then to Matthew 26:20-25 we find that the Lord’s

Supper was not instituted till after the conversation about the betrayer, and John has shown us that the end of that conversation was the departure of Judas. John does not give the institution of the supper, but Matthew and Mark do, and both put it after the conversation about the betrayer. The following passages read in order, give the complete order of events: (1) John 18:1-17; (2) John 13:18-29 with Matthew 26:21-25; (8) John 18:30, 31; (4) Matthew 26:26-29.

How can we be a “sweet savor unto God” — in them
that perish (2 Cor. 2:15)?

We preach Christ to a mixed audience, — some accept, some reject, some saved, some perish, but we are, in so doing, a sweet savor unto God and our service acceptable and our reward sure, whether our hearers accept or reject our message of salvation.

What was Moses’ sin in striking the rock twice?

God told Moses to speak to the rock, and his sin lay: (1) In disobeying God’s command by striking the rock. (2) In presumption and self-aggrandizement: “Must we fetch you water out of the rock?” (8) Because of the preceding, he destroyed the type of Christ which God intended the rock to symbolize. Christ by one sacrifice, gave the water of life to His people (Hebrews 9:28). A second striking of the rock would, typically, signify that one atonement was not sufficient in God’s purpose and plan, but that Christ must needs suffer again.

Is it not difficult to know on what one should take a firm, sure stand in these days?

No, it ought not to be, since the Holy Scriptures give that foundation. No one who bows his whole being in obedience to the Bible has ever been put to shame, or made shipwreck of life.

Please explain Ephesians 4:8: ‘‘When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.”

“Captivity” refers to the powers of darkness and death, which were conquered by the atonement and resurrection of our Lord. The “gifts” may be found in Ephesians 4:10-12. But in His ascension Christ transferred “paradise’ to the third heaven, with all the souls of the redeemed of past ages.

What does Paul mean by referring to the commandments in 1 Corinthians 7:19?

Paul refers to the commandments in an illustrative way merely. He by no means intends to set aside such unqualified declarations as Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:19; 8:10, 24, 25; Hebrews 7:18, 19. The distinction is that under grace the Holy Spirit produces zn the Christian that perfect righteousness which the Jew vainly tried to produce in himself by obedience to the commandments (Romans 8:2-4; Galatians 5:22, 23).

In Exodus 4:24 why did the Lord seek to kill
Moses?

Moses had failed to observe the ceremony which was the sign of God’s covenant in not having his son circumcised (Gen. 17:14) and if he continued in disobedience, must be punished. However, his wife, by her obedience, averted his punishment.

Could Job 2:9 be translated “‘Bless God, and die’’?

The same Hebrew word, barak, is translated in the Authorized Version both “bless,” and “curse,” though not in the sense of execration, as in other Hebrew words translated ‘“‘curse” (see ‘““Young’s Concordance’). In the passages in Job (1:5; 2:5, 9) where barak is used, it is obvious that the word “bless” could not apply, but rather “to bid farewell to,’ as the word “curse” in these cases should be understood to mean.