7. Q.-How can one reconcile {vi 24133-24138}Matt. 27:3-8 with {vi 26939-26943}Acts 1:15-19? The first says Judas hanged himself, the second that he fell down and burst asunder; again, the first says the Chief Priests and Elders bought the field, the second that Judas bought it himself. E. J.
A.-In Matthew, the bare fact that Judas hanged himself is stated; in Acts, the manner of his doing this, with its effect, is given. He evidently destroyed himself by hanging from a tree (the sign of being cursed), falling some distance in doing this. This tree, I gather, was in the field subsequently bought by the Priests and Elders. Being bought with his own money the possession of it is attributed to him. The verb used in the original is the same as used in Matt. 10:9, "provide," and Luke 18:12, "possess," and signifies to acquire by any means whatever.
S. Q.-Is it scriptural to say that Jesus is crowned now? does not Heb. 2:9 refer to His priestly office?
J. M. H.
A.-The distinct statement of Heb. 2:9 is that Jesus is crowned now, though "all things" are not as yet put under Him. This has reference to royalty and not priesthood. A crown forms no part of purely priestly garments.
Q.-What do you consider the meaning of the 19th and 20th verses of 1 Peter 3? J. W. T.
A.-You will find our thought on this subject in the August number of last year, page 224.
Q.-Will you explain the difference between suffering with Christ, and suffering for Christ? A. H.
A.-Suffering with Christ is what is necessarily involved in our being Christians. Every believer suffers with Christ, and simply because he is Christ's. Possessing Christ as his life, and having His Spirit in him, he cannot evade the suffering that belongs to the Christian position. It is what is spoken of in Rom. 8:17, where the suffering with, and being glorified with, go together; the one depends on the other, and cannot be separated from it. Suffering for Christ is what comes upon us in connection with devotedness to Christ; hence the more devoted any are to Christ and His interests, the more they have to suffer for Him; this is privilege and not necessity, being given to us- "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake." (Phil. 1:29.) It is the kind of thing we read of in Acts 5:41, where Peter, and those with him, "departed from the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name."
Q.-What is meant in Rev. 17:8, "The beast that was, and is not, and yet is;" and what time is it that the beast "is not"?
A.-The beast referred to here we consider to be the Roman Empire. It "was" in the time of the Lord; it "is not" now; and "will be" by-and-by, before the Lord comes, so as to be the special subject of His judgment then. The beast "is not" now at this time, for at present there is no Roman Empire, though there is a king at Rome. Compare Rev. 17 with Dan. 7 "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom," it says in verse 23, and this kingdom, the Roman Empire in its restored condition, makes war with the saints and continues until "the Ancient of days " comes.
Q.-What is the difference between the unity of the Body, and the unity of the Spirit?
A.-The unity of the Body is the indissoluble bond in which saints are unity to Christ and one another by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. A unity that God keeps and that nothing can break or enfeeble. The unity of the Spirit is the practical realization and display of the unity of the Body according to the Spirit's power. This unity the saints are enjoined to keep, and it can be and has been broken.
Q.-Is it not possible for a true Christian to be lukewarm- apart from the professing mass of Christendom which will end in apostasy- without being an apostate; and is there not a difference between "apostasy " and "having a form of godliness, but denying its power"? I. P. P.
A.-A true Christian may become worldly and lack warmth of affection for Christ, but to be "lukewarm" is a distinct state of soul that has no real link with Christ. It is mere profession devoid of all love for Christ, and brings His complete and final rejection. "Having a form of godliness but denying its power " is what leads on to apostasy, but apostasy is the open denial and throwing off Christ altogether, even in name. There are individual apostates now, but the apostasy, or "falling away," referred to in 1 Thess. 2:3 is future, and does not take place till the Holy Ghost has gone, then the whole professing church will become apostate.
Q.-Is there scriptural authority for putting away a person from the Lord's table simply for long absence? J. W.
A.-If any one willfully, and without justifiable reasons, long absented himself from the Lord's table, and refused remonstrance, such an one, we think, should certainly be named as no longer in fellowship; but we should hardly say, "be put away," as he is already away from the table by his own act, and it would be a question of receiving him back upon repentance, if he again desired to break bread.
Q.-Is it scriptural for the one who breaks the bread at the Lord's table to do so before giving thanks?
W. P.
A.-We do not think that scripture lays down any rule as to this. The Spirit of God might lead to the bread being broken before the giving of thanks; and looking to the fact that what the breaking of the bread represents is retrospective now, instead of being anticipative, as it was when the Supper was instituted by the Lord, a good reason might be given for breaking the bread before giving thanks, because what is given thanks for is Christ given in death for us, and redemption accomplished. Still, the scriptural order given in Luke 22, and repeated in 1 Cor. 11, after the Lord had ascended to glory, is plainly that of giving thanks before breaking the bread.
Q.-Some time since there were gospel meetings held in a village about six miles from this; several professed to see the place of separation, and took their place outside system, and a little while ago they began to break bread. Would it not have been more in keeping with scriptural order for it to have been given out here that they purposed breaking bread before commencing to do so? J. C.
A.-Without knowing all the circumstances of the case in question, it is difficult to give an answer to your inquiry. It looks like not recognizing the unity of the Spirit, but this may have proceeded from ignorance that anything was involved in their not previously communicating with the saints near them, already gathered to the Lord's name on the ground of the one Body. The godly and scriptural way would certainly have been to have sought your fellowship in setting up the Lord's table, and in this way the practical unity of the Spirit would have been maintained. C. W.