p. 251 | SCRIPTURE QUESTIONS by W. H. Littlejohn

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Tuesday, April 21, 1885

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 62, No. 16

SCRIPTURE QUESTIONS.

By W. H. Littlejohn

ANSWERS BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

331.—SABBATH WORK WITHIN THY GATES.

M. J. M.: Should a man allow any person to work on the Sabbath-day on land belonging to himself, and in his possession, he would be guilty of violating that portion of the fourth commandment which forbids us to allow the stranger to do work within our gates on the Sabbath-day. The term gate is applied generally to the opening through which people enter upon any given premises. The owner of a piece of ground, if in full possession of the same, has a right to prevent people from entering thereupon; or in other words from entering his gates. That the term gates as used in the commandment covers all the entrances of the inclosure in which a man’s house is placed, needs not to be demonstrated here; since it would make nonsense of the commandment to interpret it simply as prohibiting labor on the Sabbath in the gateway of one’s premises. The only point about which there is room for difference relates to parcels of ground remote from the homestead. That such pieces of land (as stated above) would come under that portion of the Sabbath law under consideration, must be true; since otherwise no good reason could be assigned for prohibiting work by the stranger on one’s homestead on the Sabbath-day. The reason for the latter prohibition obviously is this: God was anxious that every man should throw his example in favor of complete Sabbath rest by enforcing it on all the territory over which he had the right of control. Such right of control over the land owned by him belongs to every person who has a perfect title to the ground, which he holds in possession to the fullest extent of that word. As, therefore, remoteness of locality does not destroy a man’s right to control his own land, the principle of the commandment would require that he should forbid work to be done upon it on the Sabbath-day, so long as his right to the possession of it remains perfect. In no other way could he show by his own course of action that he insisted that all within his gates (or under his control) should observe the Sabbath law.

Elsewhere I have proved that the leasing of premises takes away the right of possession on the part of the owner so far that he could not rightfully attempt to dictate as to what should be done on them during the Sabbath-day. Such premises have passed out of his control to that extent that they could no longer be said to lie within his gates. This fact is recognized in the law of the State; since it never holds the lessor responsible for any violation of the Sunday statute which may be committed by a lessee.

332.—THE LEAVES OF THE TREE.

A. B.: In Rev. 22:2 read “for the service of the nations,” instead of “for the healing of the nations.” This reading is admitted by the original. (See “Thoughts on the Revelation” on this passage.) As there is to be no disease in the New Jerusalem, it is difficult to see how the leaves of the tree could heal the nations. On the other hand, it is easy to perceive how they might be of “service” in preventing disease, etc.

333.—THEY HEARD, AND YET THEY DID NOT HEAR.

M. L. T.: Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 can be harmonized in this way: the original word translated “hearing” and “heard” respectively in these passages, is sometimes rendered “to hear,” and sometimes “to understand.” Both of these renderings are admissible, and the connection must determine which is to be employed. If our translators had given to this word one of these meanings in one passage, and the other in the other, the difficulty would be obviated; as it is possible for men to “hear” a voice and not “understand” the words spoken.

334.—GREEK WORDS.

E. M.: None of the Greek words which you submit mean “immortal.”