Scripture Queries and Answers

1914 32 Q. — Will some of your learned contributors kindly say: —

1. Whether the word "wicked" in the end of Isaiah 11:4, is, in the original, singular or plural?

2. Whether the word "consummation" in Dan. 9:27, is the same as "consumption" in Isa. 10:22?

3. Is "consumption" the same word in Isa. 10:22-23? It is variously translated in the R.V.

Learner

A. 1. — The word is in the singular, though the preceding words "poor" and "meek" are plural. It occurs many times throughout the Old Testament and in both forms. As is well known the singular may be used in a collective sense as well as individually. And here Robert Lowth (1778) would appear to be right in his rendering — "the wicked one." This is confirmed by the fuller light of the New Testament; for "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." See 2 Thess. 2:3-8. The Targum of Jonathan singularly paraphrases it "he will slay the wicked Armillus" — the name given by Jewish writers to a future personage to appear in Rome, and who is to kill Messiah, Joseph's son, but himself to be slain by Messiah, David's son! — thus understanding it of a particular individual.

2. Our English rendering "consummation" in Dan. 9:27, appears here only; but the Hebrew word "kahlah" occurs 22 times and is variously rendered. Isaiah uses it twice only (Isa. 10:23; Isa. 28:22, consumption"), and so also Daniel (Dan. 9:27, "consummation"; Dan. 11:16, "which. … shall be consumed" lit. "and destruction" in his hand). In Isa. 10:22 the word is not "kahlah" but "killahyohn" ("the consumption"); and Deut. 28:65 ("and failing of") is the only other instance of its use. Thus the original words are not exactly the same, though both these nouns are from the same verbal root and are closely allied.

3. The answer to this question has been anticipated in the answer just given — "killahyohn" being the word in Isa. 10:22, and the more general word "kahlah" in verse 23.

1914 48 Q. 1 — Is it permissible for sisters to ask questions at a Bible Reading, seeing it is not an assembly meeting?

Q. 2 — May not sisters be asked to remain at an enquiry meeting, as, though not allowed to speak or take part, they might help by prayer? R.M.H.

A. 1 — If the Bible Reading be of a private character there might be no breach of propriety in a sister asking a question (provided it be not done in the way of "teaching"), but where strangers are present or even many brothers, nature as well as scripture would seem to indicate the becomingness of silence on her part (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

A. 2 — It is a great evil where everything is brought into the assembly. Nor indeed is every brother even qualified to take up matters of investigation. Not all are spiritual or wise, or called to oversight or leadership (Rom. 12:8; Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 11:17; 1 Peter 5:2). We must remember that although it may be a necessary duty, occupation with evil is defiling. And it should be only when all other means have failed to restore, and the person is clearly proved to be a "wicked person" according to scripture, that the assembly is bound to act, and in this every brother and sister is concerned. Matt. 18:15-17 enjoins precedent action to the assembly being made privy, as we see also in the Epistles the various activities of conduct in dealing with what is wrong apart entirely from assembly action.

1914_160 Q. — 1 Tim. 2:1. What is the difference between "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks"? E.P.

A. — One cannot do better than answer in the words of the late Editor of this Magazine:

"Supplication implies earnestness in pressing the suit of need; prayer is more general, and puts forward wants and wishes; intercession means the exercise of free and confiding intercourse, whether for ourselves or for others; and thanksgiving ['giving of thanks'] tells out the heart's sense of favour bestowed or counted on."

For the sake of some who may not have at hand the usual works of reference, we may add that the first (deesis) occurs nineteen times in the New Testament, and is rendered once by "request" (Phil. 1:4); six times by "supplication" (Acts 1:14; Eph. 6:18 bis; Phil. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:1; 1 Tim. 5:5); and twelve times by "prayer" (Luke 1:13; Luke 2:37; Luke 5:33; Rom. 10:1; 2 Cor. 1:11; 2 Cor. 9:14; Phil. 1:4, 19; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 5:7; James 5:16; 1 Peter 3:12).

The second (proseuche), being the more general word, occurs thirty-seven times, and is, throughout, translated "prayer," see margin of James 5:17.

The third (enteuxis) occurs but twice, 1 Tim. 2. ("intercession"); and 1 Tim. 4:1 ("prayer").

Whilst the last (eucharistia), occurring fifteen times, is rendered by "thankfulness," Acts 24:3; "giving of thanks," 1 Cor, 14:16; Eph. 5:4; 1 Tim. 2:1; "thanks," 1 Thess. 3:9; Rev. 4:9; and by "thanksgiving" nine times, 2 Cor. 4:15; 2 Cor. 9:11-12; Phil. 4:6 Col. 2:7; Col. 4:2; 1 Tim. 4:3-4; Rev. 7:12.

1915 140 Q. — I have heard it stated that the opening words of John 13, "And supper being ended," should more properly be, "And being supper time"; also that verse 4 should read, "He riseth and laid aside his garments," for that it was contrary to all Jewish custom to wash after meals, but that they were very scrupulous about washing before meals. May I ask what is the correct rendering of these two clauses? R.C.

A. — In the main, the alleged statement is correct. For neither the genomenou of the Text. Rec., nor the "cena facta" of the ancient Latin version, is a sufficient warrant for the meaning "supper being ended." What was finished was — not the supper, but — the preparation of it.

Two (now printed) texts of our earliest English version of Wiclif, made in the fourteenth century from the Latin Vulgate give "the souper maad," (or, "the soper made") as the later Wicliffite also says, "Whanne the souper was maad." Tyndale was the first (translating from the Greek) to render the aorist participle "When supper was ended," followed by Cranmer, and the Genevan Version of 1557. Similarly Coverdale (1535) also, "after supper."

Probably Beza's change from the "coena facta" of his early editions of the Gr. Test. to "coena peracta" of his last folio (1598), may have inclined the translators of 1611 to Tyndale's view, which was also that of Diodati, who in his excellent Italian Version of 1607 had given "finita la cena," but this was going too far.

Modern Editors of the Greek Text now adopt genomenou the reading of the Sinaitic (firsthand) and Vatican Uncials with two others (LXX.), and this our Revisers render "during supper." it was at the commencement of, or during, supper that, as verse 4 states, "Jesus riseth from supper and laid aside his garments," etc. The feet washing was notoriously before the meal not at the end.

1915 272 Q. — Matthew 12:43, Who is it that walketh through dry places seeking rest and finding none — the unclean spirit or the man? If it is the man how do we find the spirit coming back to the empty tenement, and, with his companions, making his abode there? J.G.

A. — It is the unclean spirit of idolatry which having, since the Babylonish captivity, departed from the Jewish nation, for "many days" (Hosea 3:49) still running their course, will at the close of this present period of grace, return in an aggravated form. For the Jews having rejected the Lord Jesus who came in His Father's name, will receive another who shall come in his own name (John 5:43) — the lawless one whose coming or presence will be according to the working of Satan, with every kind of power and signs and wonders of a lie. The Lord Himself gives the interpretation, of the passage, "Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation" (cf. Ps. 12:7; Matt. 24:34), thus showing "the man" to be representative of the Jews once "possessed," then delivered, and finally in their last stage of continued unbelief, repossessed with the spirit of idolatry in its most egregious form — the reception and worship of the false Messiah, the antichrist!

Q. — Luke 15:11-32. Who is represented by the younger brother? Jew or Gentile? J.G.

A. — The one who repents and returns to God, and is thus given to know the Father's joy in welcoming the poor sinner who comes as he is in all his rags and disgrace, and receives the kiss, the best robe, the ring and sandals, and shares, in his measure, the joy of the Father's heart and house. This we, believing Gentiles, have, in His rich mercy, been given to know; whilst the elder son in his self-righteousness, is like the Jew (Rom. 10:1-3), who remains a stranger to this grace of the gospel, Believing not in mercy to the Gentiles, he refuses it for himself (Rom. 11:30-32) and comes not into the blessing of those who now receive the fulness of the gospel.

Q. — 2 Cor. 12:7-10. Was the "thorn in the flesh" a physical affliction? Does the term "my infirmities" refer to the same thing as the "thorn"? Is the "power" spoken of in this portion, and the "strength" physical power and strength to overcome what was a physical affliction, supposing the thorn to be such? J.M.

A. — The "thorn," in the apostle's case, was a messenger of Satan for buffeting in order to the putting down of the flesh," and as it would seem, was such as made him contemptible in the eyes of others, and produced also physical weakness (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor, 10:10; Gal, 4:13-15), "My infirmities" — or weaknesses of body — became an occasion for the special exercise of divine power and grace enabling him even to take pleasure in weaknesses for Christ's sake. Thus the excellency of the power was seen to be of God, As the Lord assured the apostle of the sufficiency of His grace, and the perfecting of His power in human weakness, so would he rather glory in his (bodily9) weaknesses that this power of Christ may have its dwelling-place on him. The outer man might perish, but the inward is renewed day by day, and he fainted not, Thus our physical weaknesses are triumphed over (not renewed) by spiritual power — "the power of Christ!"

1915 320 Q. — Gen. 3:17. Did God curse the ground as a blessing to Adam and his seed, or as a just punishment for his sin, as it is said, "for thy sake"? In the two following verses it would seem that there was no work before this; whereas in Gen. 2:5 we read "there was not a man to till the ground," and again, in verse 15, "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." Was this work or not? That is, was not the first position of "dressing" and "keeping" of the same character as the later one of "tilling the ground from whence he was taken" (Gen. 3:23)? E.T.

A. — That the ground was cursed because of Adam's sin is what scripture plainly states. That there was no "work" before his fall is not so stated. Man placed in the garden "to dress it and to keep it" shows that it was not God's will that His creature should be idle. But there was no "toil" or "sorrow" connected with such occupation. Now thorns and thistles were to appear, and in the sweat of his face was man to eat bread. Weariness is known, and so also the sweetness of rest after labour. Idleness was one of the iniquities of Sodom (Ezek. 16:49). It had no place in innocency, nor will it be compatible with the millennium (Amos 9:13), when "the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose"; nor may we not add? — with the eternal state (Rev. 21). Labour here is good for all, and in it there is profit. For out of evil God can and does bring good.

It may be instructive to compare the case of Levi as an instance of God making His judgment an occasion of blessing. Gen. 49:7 says, "I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." But in Deut. 33:10 we see how their being thus divided and scattered is overruled for more effectually teaching "Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law." "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."

Q. — Luke 23:45. Why in this Gospel is the rending of the veil noted as preceding the giving up of the ghost by the Lord Jesus, whilst in Matthew and Mark it is given as following Christ's death? W.G.T.B.

A. — Luke not seldom departs from the strict sequence of time, and delights in giving us the moral accompaniments or results of the ways, words or work of the Lord Jesus. Mark more particularly, and, in part, Matthew also, furnish us with the chronological order. But in this instance neither of the three appears to afford definite marks warranting us to say absolutely whether the rending was before or after our Lord's death. The darkness past, and God's holy judgment borne, He could now say, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," and then expire. The truth would not be without Luke's account, which is as necessary for us as the record of the other Evangelists. In the four Gospels we have God's full and complete account of Christ's atoning work.

1915 368 Q. — Rom. 11:28. What is the meaning of this verse? E.P.

A. — The apostle here speaks of Israel who, though ultimately to be saved (ver. 26), are now alas, "enemies" in their attitude to the gospel of God's grace, which goes out in sovereign mercy to the lost, whether of Jew or Gentile.

Under the law, Israel's blessing was contingent on their obedience, but they failed completely, and lost everything, having now neither the land, nor king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor ephod. Yet if God's promises to Abraham are to be fulfilled, Israel must be blessed nationally, "and so all Israel shall be saved," and "out of Zion shall come the Deliverer in that future day."

Meanwhile, we Gentiles are being saved (not as the Jew for earth, but for heaven), and this calls forth the Jew's enmity to the mercy now being shown to the Gentile. For we had no promises, being aliens, and strangers to these covenants. But the gospel is God's power to salvation to every one that believeth. They believe not this gospel, nor the mercy that has made us its objects, else they would know themselves as objects likewise of this same mercy (vers. 30-32). For on the ground of sovereign mercy alone, can there be any real and permanent blessing for the Jew, any more than for the Gentile. Both are shut up in unbelief that God may have mercy on all.

Instead of acquiescing, and themselves believing, they are enemies, "forbidding us," says the apostle, "to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved."

Regarding the election, as God's purpose stands, not of works, but of Him that calleth, they are still beloved for the fathers' sakes, for God cannot forego His purpose, and His gifts and calling are without repentance. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever, Amen."

1914 16 "And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all perception; that ye may judge of and approve the things that are more excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence unto [the] day of Christ." "Inasmuch as ye did it unto Me!" All will come out in that day, and the secrets of our hearts be manifested.

1915 368 If the 24 elders of Revelation 4 represent, as I doubt not, all that are Christ's at His coming for His own, how comforting then to see ourselves safely garnered in heaven before any of the judgments (that follow in the book) are poured on the earth.