Karen Hoy

• About this site

Marta Shutt

• About this site

 Woollen and Linen

• About this site

How to Build a Learning Unit

• About this site

Is going to the doctor a sign of a lack of faith?

• About this site

Foundation Truths of the Gospel

• About this site

• About this site

Please say why the Fourth Commandment is dealt with as being morally different from the rest. It will be agreed that it is wrong for Christians to steal, murder, etc. Why should it not be morally wrong for Christians not to observe the seventh day of rest?

We regard the Fourth Commandment as being morally different from the others, because apart from God’s revealed will for Israel as regards it, no natural conscience could possibly know that it was wrong to work on the seventh day, as is found to be the case by missionaries in heathen lands. The nations round Israel were never put under the Sabbath law, knew nothing about it, and are never held responsible for not keeping it. At least, I know of no place in the Prophets where not keeping the Sabbath is charged home on them.

A Gentile who sets himself to keep the Sabbath is doing himself a wrong, as he is now a debtor to do the whole law. He is taking on himself that which in no way appertains to him. He is going beyond what is written, which is wrong, just as coming short is, too. The Sabbath was a sign between Jehovah and the children of Israel for ever, and was never given to the Gentiles at all (Exodus 31: 16," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 31: 16, i7). All the other Commandments are repeated in substance in the New Testament, but the Sabbath is only referred to in Colossians z. i6, to warn believers not to allow themselves to be placed under bondage in that respect—”Let no man judge you,” etc. A certain modern heretical sect, of which Sabbath-keeping is a distinguishing feature, is so far right, in maintaining that the Sabbath was never changed from the seventh day to the first. The first day of the week, on which our Lord rose from the dead, is not a Sabbath at all; it is the Lord’s Day; though believers, are glad to profit by the usual freedom from secular employment on that day, to occupy themselves with the Lord’s service. The breaking of bread was usually in the evening (e.g. Acts 20" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20: ), because believers were at work all day in those times. Really a fictitious conscience has grown up as regards this question. We ought not to violate our conscience or that of others, by forcing or disregarding it, but to get an enlightened conscience from the Word of God.

W.H.

• About this site

Did Jephthah really offer his daughter as a burnt offering to the Lord? (Judges 11:29-40)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 11:29-40).

To this one would fain be able to reply, as not a few commentators and others have done, with a definite NO. Their reasons and arguments have been so clearly set forth in a recent article elsewhere, that we cannot here do better than enumerate them in the order given. (1) It is pointed out that human sacrifices were expressly forbidden by the Law (Deuteronomy 18: 9-10)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 18: 9-10). (2) In verse 31, the marginal reading “or” (of the A.V., not R.V., as stated) is adopted, as showing that two alternatives were in Jephthah’s mind: “Whatsoever cometh forth . . . shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” And it is remarked that, according to Leviticus 27:4," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 27:4, a person thus vowed might be redeemed for money. (3) The daughter’s words, “that I may bewail my virginity” (v. 37), are taken to imply that this was the real outcome of the vow, that she was pledged by her father to perpetual celibacy; and further proof of this is found in the statement of verse 39, “And she knew no man.” (4) At verse 40 the reading, “talk with”, of the A.V. margin, is given preference to the textual reading, “lament”; and it is suggested that for four days in each year the daughters of Israel went to talk with Jephthah’s daughter. We may hope, if only for Jephthah’s own sake, that this view is correct; but there are difficulties in connection with each of the points mentioned which may not be ignored. If we enumerate these also, we shall perhaps put the questioner and others in a position to form their own judgment as to what really took place. (1) While there can be no doubt as to the Lord’s disapproval of human sacrifices, our passage nowhere states that Jephthah’s action met with His approval; and the question is not what the Law forbade, but what a man such as Jephthah, who had lived for some time among the idolatrous Syrians of Tob, might say and might do. (2) The “and” in verse 31 is the common Hebrew particle which is similarly translated some thousands of times elsewhere; and although there are a few passages in which it is employed disjunctively and rendered, “or,” the wording of its context in such instances usually indicates this, which is not so here. Moreover, the statement, “shall surely be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering,” is not very intelligible, because its being offered as a burnt offering did not mean that it was any less “the Lord’s.” Neither is it easy to understand why Jephthah should expect an animal, rather than a person, to be first out of the doors of his house to meet him on his return from the war. () Why should Jephthah’s daughter require two preliminary months to bewail her virginity, if she was going to have years of a lifetime afterwards to bewail it as much as she pleased? As to verse 39, it may be mentioned that the R.V. reads it, “And she had not known man.” (.) In verse 40, the R.V. rendering, “celebrate,” is probably the most exact of any, especially as the only other occurrence of this Hebrew word in the same form is in Judges 5:11," TARGET="_blank">Judges 5:11, where it is translated “rehearse.” If the meaning be that the daughters of Israel, while Jephthah’s daughter was still alive, went to talk with her, why should they have limited their conversations with her to four days in each year? Some may perhaps attach less importance to these difficulties than others will; but they exist, and must be faced fairly before one can confidently assert that Jephthah did not slay his daughter, but merely compelled her to remain unmarried.

W.R.

• About this site

Why was the veil of the temple torn in the middle when Jesus died?

The tearing, or rending, of the temple veil when Jesus died on the cross was a strong symbolic act of God.  The rent veil shows physically that a believer's access to God is open through the value of the work of Christ.

Matthew 27:50-51" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 27:50-51 is the Bible reference that tells about the veil of the temple being torn:

(50)  And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
(51)  And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.

What was the Temple and its significance?

For centuries the temple was the central point of Old Testament Jewish worship. Many chapters from the books of Exodus and Leviticus give great detail as to how sacrifices were to be conducted, how the priests were to act and dress and what days were to be celebrated.  All of this ceremony centered first on Moses' Tabernacle that was carried through the wilderness journeys and then was reconstructed on even a grander scale in the building of Solomon's Temple.  The central point of the Temple was the innermost room, called the Holiest of Holies, which was hidden by the heavy Veil of the Temple.  Here the Ark of the Covenant was housed.  Only once a year a single priest was permitted to enter to atone for the sins of the people.  The Shekinah Glory of the presence of God filled the room with unapproachable light.

Hebrews 9:1-9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:1-9 gives the New Testament commentary on the innermost sanctuary…

Hebrews 9:1-9" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:1-9

(1)  Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.
(2)  For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place.
(3)  Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place,
(4)  having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.
(5)  Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
(6)  These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties,
(7)  but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.
(8)  By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing
(9)  (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper,

Leviticus 16:11-19" TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 16:11-19 tells of the annual ceremony that was conducted inside the veil.

(11)  "Aaron shall present the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. He shall kill the bull as a sin offering for himself.
(12)  And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from the altar before the LORD, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small, and he shall bring it inside the veil
(13)  and put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is over the testimony, so that he does not die.
(14)  And he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.
(15)  "Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.
(16)  Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.
(17)  No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel.
(18)  Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around.
(19)  And he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel.

How big was the veil?

The veil was an immense piece of heavy cloth.  Accoring to 1 Kings 6:2" TARGET="_blank">1 Kings 6:2  "The house that King Solomon built for the LORD was sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high."  Thirty cubits high would make the veil about 45 feet tall. 

The Jewish historian Josephus claimed that the temple height was raised to 40 cubits (60 feet) tall.  Alfred Edersheim, in his book, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah tells about its thickness.   "The Veils before the Most Holy Place were 40 cubits (60 feet) long, and 20 (30 feet) wide, of the thickness of the palm of the hand, and wrought in 72 squares, which were joined together; and these Veils were so heavy, that, in the exaggerated language of the time, it needed 300 priests to manipulate each."

There is also an apparently false reference in the Ryrie Study Bible in Exodus 26:31-35" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 26:31-35 about what Josephus claimed about the veil.  “Josephus reported that the veil was 4 inches thick, was renewed every year, and that horses tied to each side could not pull it apart." But no such reference can be found in Josephus' writings (see Josephus Wars 5.5.4 for Josephus' original description of the veil).

What is the symbolism of the torn veil?

When the veil was torn open, at least three teachings of Christ became evidently clear. 

First, the atonement ceremony that the priest had to perform once a year was shown to be obsolete.  The sacrifice and shed blood of Christ provided a new way into the holiest of all. 

Hebrews 10:19-22" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:19-22

(19)  Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
(20)  by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
(21)  and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
(22)  let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

The famous quote from Jesus in John 14" TARGET="_blank">John 14 is a reference to our ability to speak directly to our heavenly Father. John 14:6" TARGET="_blank">John 14:6  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Second, the pathway into the very presence of God is opened once and for all for both Jews and Gentiles. The Temple was strictly off limits to any Gentile worshipers ever since its grand opening.  But the death of Christ created a new unity between the two groups as stated here in Ephesians.

Ephesians 2:11-22" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:11-22

(11)  Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
(12)  remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
(13)  But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
(14)  For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
(15)  by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
(16)  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
(17)  And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.
(18)  For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
(19)  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
(20)  built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
(21)  in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
(22)  In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Third, the opening of the Holiest of All revealed to the priests and to the whole world that the Shekinah glory had left the Temple.  Jesus spoke on several occasions about the abandonment of the Temple by God.

Luke 13:35" TARGET="_blank">Luke 13:35  Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"

Luke 13" TARGET="_blank">Luke 13 refers to a coming time of judgment against Israel in which the city, the temple and the land would be plundered and abandoned during a period of exile.  It can be assumed that the priests repaired the torn veil and continued their empty rituals, but the torn veil showed the world that God had already abandoned the place.

Conclusion

 Sin has always been an obstacle for man to approach God since Adam was exiled from the Garden of Eden.  God chose to dwell among his people in the Holiest of Holies from the time of Moses to Christ but with severe restrictions.  One priest, once a year, could come to the Holiest of All with the blood of an animal to cover his sins and the sins of the people.  But when Jesus died, he completed the requirements of the sacrifices once and for all.  The rending of the temple veil was physical evidence that the way was opened forever and for all people.  We now approach God with the boldness of one who carries the value of the blood of Christ.

• About this site

• About this site

Are we to Suppose that the injunction to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:4) holds good to day?

If not, how quote verse 6 to justify capital punishment? Or does 1 Timothy 4:1-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:1-5 allow us to eat all things even blood, so long as we give thanIs?

Sometimes we have to complain that the divisions of the chapters in our Bible cut the sense, but in this case the division between Genesis 8" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 8: and 9, though it may seem awkward, is really useful to the right understanjing of the passage. God’s covenant with man, guaranteeing him from a recurrence of the deluge “while the earth remaineth,” with an uninterrupted continuance of harvests, seasons and diurnal changes is contained in the two closing verses of ch. 8. This is known as the Noachian Covenant. In Genesis 9:1-7" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:1-7 we have God’s blessing on Noah, accompanied by (1) a promise, V. 2 (2) a provision, V. 3; (3) a prohibition, v. and (4) a penalty, VV. 5, 6, in which penalty was embodied the entrusting of govermuent into the hands of men.All this, however, was apart from the covenant, which is unconditional, and which is brought up again in vy. 9-12, thus: verse 9—its universality; 9-I I—its perpetuity, V. x2—its token, the rainbow.

As for the prohibition and penalty attaching to the blessing, we should not know whether they were perpetually binding on man or the children of God, apart from the rest of the Scriptures. As far as I can see, the penalty attaching to murder has never been abrogated and is binding to-day as a governmental act, on rulers to whom God has entrusted the sword for executing justice on evil doers, especially murderers. As for the prohibition to eat blood, it held, as we know, under the law (see Leviticus 17:10-11)," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 17:10-11), and in the Acts period Acts 15:20)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:20), but has, I believe, been abrogated for us, not only by such a Scripture as the questioner quotes; but by such a verse as 1 Corinthians 10:25" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:25: “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake.” The heathen knew nothing of slaughtering after the Jewish method, so as to be sure of draining off the blood of the animal.

According to this verse, therefore, a believer might eat whatsoever was put before him, asking no question for conscience sake. Then it does not say, “But if any say unto you, This has the blood in it, eat not,” for that question we may infer was of no importance, but rather, “This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not” (v. 28). It is perfectly clear then that the injunction not to eat blood does not apply to Christians to-day. ‘rhe prohibition in Acts 15" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15 really has nothing to set against this, as things were then in a transition state, and the Corinthian Epistle had not been written.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site