Q.-What is intended by the different ways in which the likeness of the kingdom of the heavens is spoken of? Y.
A.-In Matt. 13:24; 18:2, it is " became like " or " was likened," these being historical (as others are not) likenesses that the kingdom assumed through the rejection of the Lord and His going on high. The rest (Matt. 13:31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 20:1) were merely likenesses of certain special features at particular seasons; as one case differs by a peculiar comparison with the future (Matt. 25:1).
Q.-Could we have a few words of explanation on the names and surnames of " The Twelve "?
ENQUIRER.
A.-Simon or Symeon (2 Peter 1:1) had the patronymic of Bar, that is, son of Jona or Jonas, (Matt. 16:17; John 20:15-17), and was given by the Lord the name of Kephas (Aramaic), or Petros (Greek)=Stone or Rockman (John 1:43, confirmed solemnly later in Matt. 16:18).
- Andrew is a Greek name (as Philip also in another case) and seemingly answers to the Hebrew Adam. He was Simon's brother and the means of leading him, afterward far more famous than himself, to the Lord, as we read in John 1, before their public call (Matt. 4; Luke 5).
John, " the beloved disciple," was in Hebrew Johanan, " the gift of Jehovah."
James is our English form of Jacob, who, like John, was son of Zebedee or Zabdi. They were surnamed by our Lord (Mark 3:17) Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder.
Philip, of Bethsaida like the foregoing, answers in Greek to the Hebrew name Susi, father of Gaddi (Num. 13:11). It means "fond of horses."
Bartholomew is the patronymic, meaning son of Tolmai; his personal name was Nathaniel (gift of God).
Thomas in Hebrew, like Didymus, means " a twin."
Levi and Matthew were both Hebrew names of the same apostle who wrote the first Gospel.
Jacob son of Alphmus or Clopas (Chalpai) is the second apostolic James.
Jude or Judas, Lebbmus, and Thaddmus are the three names of the apostle who wrote the so called catholic Epistle (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18).
Simon was called Zelotes (Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13), answering to the Hebrew word translated " Cananean," as it should be, not meaning either of Canaan or of Cana, but " zealot," one of that well-known fierce party of Jews.
Judas finally seems designated "Iscariot," meaning man of Kerioth in the south of Judea, alas! the traitor.
Q.-Is the law finally abrogated? Is it correct to say there is no further resumption? Turning to the notes on Heb. 7:18, 19; 8:7, 8, 13, I observe you distinctly affirm on viii. 13, " The cross annulled it, and Jerusalem was its grave." Do you mean the whole law (ritual and moral) of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, as also of the Psalms? If so, how does this acquiesce with Eccl. 3:14, " Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever?" For the law was written by God (Ex. 24:12; 31:18). It might be said, God has the prerogative of so doing, being sovereign. But does this harmonize with His validly declared authority? If the whole law is finally abrogated, what will be the millennial rule? The Psalms, it appears, have not yet received their adequate fulfillment, nor the Prophets either. Thus Ezekiel declares for a modified ritual with an earthly priesthood and a suited temple in the future. Zechariah too informs us of the resumption, especially of the Feast of Tabernacles, which had been laid down in Lev. 23 Isaiah is generally clear that the law will be observed in that day, not only by the people of God in the land, but by the isles waiting for it, and all nations flocking up to the mountain of Jehovah's house in honor of it (chaps 2, and 42. Sm.).
On the other hand Jeremiah clearly speaks of a new covenant made with both houses of Israel in pointed contrast with the old Mosaic one (chap. 31:32). This I find so conflicting that I fail to understand how all agrees, yet I am sure that all is divinely true notwithstanding. And thus I fail to put intelligently together the Lord's priesthood, heavenly and according to the order of Melchizedek, with the sons of Zadok of Aaron's house who are to exercise their earthly functions that day. Ezek. 40:46; 44:15. If I regard the whole law as abrogated, what do these passages teach? If I hold it to be resumed as there and other scriptures imply, how am I to understand Jer. 31 and Heb. 7, 8.? Still I believe all those scriptures and await explanation. W. E.
A.-It greatly helps to see, first, that the heavenly state of things which Christ on high has set up and into which the Christian is introduced, (already in faith, by-and-by in person), calls for that immense and total change which the apostle announces in Heb. 7:12-19; secondly, that even for the earth and Israel in the millennial day the presence of the Messiah and the establishment of the new covenant (not as now with us in spirit only) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah in all its literal force will bring in such a blessed revolution that the prophet justly contrasts it with the Mosaic condition. It will be Jehovah undertaking and thus sure blessing, instead of a test to prove man's weakness and ungodliness. But now, although we died to law even had we been of Benjamin or Judah in dying with Christ, we are entitled to use the law for the conviction of the ungodly who own its authority, as we read in 1 Tim. 1:8-10.