Notes on Former Queries: Vol. 3, 14; 249; 272; 255; 339; 216

 •  4 min. read  •  grade level: 9
 
Q. 14 B. S., x882, p. 14; and Q. 249, p. 230. — (Luke 7:38,4438And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. (Luke 7:38)
44And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. (Luke 7:44). John 11:22(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) (John 11:2). John 12:33Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. (John 12:3).) Is it possible that this is one and the same person? John says (Chapter 11:2) that it was that Mary who anointed the Lord and wiped His feet with her hair. See Luke 7:3838And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. (Luke 7:38), and John 12:33Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. (John 12:3). Matthew and Mark do not mention this fact, although the time and place in Matthew 26:66Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, (Matthew 26:6), Mark 14:33And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. (Mark 14:3), Luke 10:3838Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. (Luke 10:38), and John 12:22There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. (John 12:2), all correspond: but inasmuch as the incident in Luke 7 precedes that in Luke 10, might it not be that Simon the Pharisee in Chapter 7 is Simon the leper in Chapter 10? There is no doubt there were two separate anointings, but it seems to me by the same person; and might not the boundless love and grace bestowed upon her in Chapter 7 so account for her love and devotion in Chapter 10:39? 89.
Q. 272. What is the iniquity of the holy things? See Isaiah 6;1-7 Job 14:44Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Job 14:4); Job 15:55For thy mouth uttereth thine iniquity, and thou choosest the tongue of the crafty. (Job 15:5). Who that knows aught of his own heart but has deeply felt that his most earnest prayers and best actions need to be purged by the precious blood of Christ, and perfumed by His merits. A. E.
Why does 83 say (p. 232) that the Lord asserts that “the foolish had oil which burned up to the time of His appearing?” It is not said so in Matthew 25 Would it not rather mean that the wicks flickered on for a few moments after they were lighted, and then went out, because there was no oil to feed the flame? C. H. P.
Q. 255. Referring to the remarks on Q. 255 (p. 268), A. J. says: “the good news had now been proclaimed, and these faithful women were therefore suffered to hold Him by the feet.” Why “therefore “? The reason the Lord gave that Mary Magdalene was not to touch Him, was, not that the good news had not been proclaimed, but that He had not yet ascended to His Father. H.
Q. 339.-I do not think there is much difficulty here. Verses 15, 18, 22 and 25 of Genesis 46 give the number of Jacob’s descendents as 70 (33, 16, 14, and 7), but of these 2 were already dead (verse 12), and 3 were already in Egypt, (verse 20), 65 are left, not 66 as in verse 26. You will find however that Dinah is not counted in the 33 of verses 8 to 15-her name is mentioned in verse 15 and she seems to make a 34th. I think it must be so, although the words “all the souls of his sons and daughters were thirty-three” make it a little difficult. Observe it says daughters, and she is the only one named. It does not actually say that Dinah went into Egypt, on the other hand it does not say she was dead. If she were, the 66th member of the family must be sought elsewhere. From 66, the 70 of verse 27 are easily accounted for; Joseph and his two sons make 69, and Jacob himself the 10th, he is not included in the previous verse. Verse 16 specifies 66 “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives. Acts 7:1414Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. (Acts 7:14) includes “all his kindred” in the 75. The difference between 66 and 75 may therefore be taken to be the number of the sons’ (and grandsons’) wives then alive, an assumption which can neither be proved nor disproved from any other passages. H. S. G.
Q. 216. —There is another explanation of the motives of the Pharisees and the Herodians, beside that furnished on p. 239. That the spies of Luke 20:2020And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. (Luke 20:20) were Pharisees and Herodians we gather from Matthew 22 and Mark 12. The Herodians were a party of the Jews who had associated themselves with their foreign conquerors, and had thus become largely Romanized. Creatures of the Court as they were, they were always on the alert to catch any treasonable utterance and carry it to the ears of their patrons. This explains their position here. The Pharisees were the opposite of this. Foreign rule was abhorrent in the highest degree to their patriotic feelings. And whenever opportunity afforded itself, they violently disclaimed against what they considered to be a blot on their national history, backing up their position by quoting Deuteronomy 17:1515Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. (Deuteronomy 17:15). But while they satisfied their consciences in this way, they were careful to avoid the displeasure of the authorities, so they faithfully paid the taxes, &c., though as we have seen under protest. Such were the two parties that united against our Lord. And it seemed at the outset as if they were morally certain to “entangle” Him this time. For if He answered in the affirmative, the Pharisees would accuse Him of betraying the privileges of His country and hold Him up to the Jews as a traitor. If He answered in the negative, the Herodians would have a ground of complaint against Him to the Roman governor. “But the foolishness of God is wiser than men” and our Lord confounds and silences both parties by the wisdom of His reply.