W.T. —New wine and old bottles (Matt. 9:14-1714Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? 15And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. 16No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. 17Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. (Matthew 9:14‑17)). The verses deal with the contrast of law with grace. The Lord brought in that which was not an improvement of the old order of things, but what was quite new. Law and grace are so different, that they cannot be mixed without spoiling each other. Patching the old garment of legal ordinances with the new gifts of grace only make matters worse. All things must become new. So with new wine in old wine-skins: the joys under the new covenant are altogether incompatible with the principles of the old covenant, which made men groan rather than rejoice. It is important to be quite clear that there is a total difference between law and grace, and that they cannot in any wise be amalgamated. Galatians 5:44Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4) shows how the “rent is made worse.”
C.M. —Young Christians and Music. We read your letter with sympathetic interest. The warning is needful and timely against allowing music or any other pursuit to be a snare for the heart and to cool the ardor of one’s love for the Lord. As you say, “It is a very easy thing to find an excuse for what we want to do.” The subject of sacred concerts has already been referred to in these pages (B.M.M. for April last, page 96).
A.R. —What is the “royal bounty” typical of (1 Kings 10:1313And king Solomon gave unto the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatsoever she asked, beside that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty. So she turned and went to her own country, she and her servants. (1 Kings 10:13))? We cannot say. Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba whatever she asked for and, in addition, gifts that were in keeping with his regal splendor and extraordinary wealth. Does not this remind us of Him Who always gives us “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think”?
Restoring that which He took not away. SR. (New York) writes: — “Will you permit me to call attention to the answer to a question in your Magazine (August last, page 192) as to Psalms 69:44They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. (Psalm 69:4)? Do you not think that in this psalm we have the trespass-offering aspect of our Lord’s death? We had defrauded God, and He, taking our place in grace, paid back that which we had taken away — yea, and added a fifth part thereto. This is singularly beautiful and suggestive, and seems to me to present an important side of divine truth as to the atonement. While the presence of enemies is noted, as it is also in Psalms 22, is not the thought prominent that He is dealing with God about our trespasses and their consequences?”
We print our correspondent’s letter, though we are unable altogether to endorse his remarks. The special feature of this Psalm seems to be the Lord’s sufferings from man, followed (22-28) by judgment on His adversaries, while in Psalms 22 The expiatory side is followed by world-wide blessing (22-31). The phrase in question consists of the most general terms, so that it is difficult to say positively what is particularly referred to. If the restoration was to God, and not to men as stated in reply to the first querist, it would include the whole of Christ’s life and death wherein He rendered to God everything man failed to give, and more beside. This, of course, takes in the thought of S. R.
A. T. — “Power on her head because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:1010For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:10)). Please explain. The apostle here gives an additional reason for women covering their heads. The angels ought to see godly decorum among those who are redeemed (comp. 1 Cor. 4:99For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. (1 Corinthians 4:9); Eph. 3:1010To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, (Ephesians 3:10); 1 Peter 1:1212Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. (1 Peter 1:12)). “Power” means the sign of woman’s subjection to authority which is a veil or covering (Gen. 24:6565For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. (Genesis 24:65)). The case you mention (if we understand the circumstances aright) where the only brother present declined to close the Sunday School with prayer himself, it only remained to act as though he were not present. But such an instance would surely be very exceptional.