"IF YE WILL INQUIRE, INQUIRE YE."
By Editor
This Inquirers' Department is conducted for the purpose of helping those who are studying the Bible. The answers are oftentimes only suggestive. They are never to be considered infallible, only as they agree with the infallible Word. The writer who may answer them does not consider that his opinion is infallible. He will simply give the best that he has, and plead with the inquirer to search the Word. Such questions only will be answered as, to the editors, seem to minister to the good of the readers and to the mission of the paper. We can not answer repeatedly in the same volume questions upon the same scripture. The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable. No letters are answered which do not contain the name of the writer. It is well always to enclose stamp for reply. 3328.—Question of Calendars
Have we any record of the change of calendar in ages past, so as to change the day of the week? There is no record of such change. All important changes in calendars, save that of infidel France, have affected only the year and the month, never the week. There hangs before the writer a chart giving in 160 languages and dialects the following: the name of the week; the order of days in the week; the names of the days in the week. These languages range throughout the Eastern hemisphere, and in several cases from nations which have had no communication with each other. They are pagan, Jewish, Mohammedan, and Christian. In them all, the week is a period of seven days. In them all, the order of the days of the week is the same. In 108 of the 160, the seventh day is known as the Sabbath, or by a term nearly equivalent. Fifty-three of the languages are European, and twenty-six of these call the seventh day the Sabbath. Changes of calendar have been made for the purpose of correcting sun time regarding the year. Russia reckons by Old Style, Julian Calendar; the rest of Europe by New Style, Gregorian Calendar. But the days of the week are the same in each. No change in the great calendars of the world have affected the week or the order of its days. Will you kindly explain Lev. 11:6? According to the Bible Dictionary, as well as the National Encyclopedia, the animal we know as the hare, as well as the one mentioned in the Bible, is a rodent, and not a ruminant, or cud-chewing animal. What conclusion can one come to, or what explanation can you give regarding this? The Companion Bible, which has excellent notes, says regarding the Hebrew word arnebeth, translated "hare" in Lev. 11:6 and Deut. 14:7, that it is "not yet identified;" in other words, it is quite impossible to say to just what animal it does refer. Whatever the animal may be, it evidently refers to a ruminant. Others tell us that it is apparently a ruminant, because of the motion of the jaws, which seems to indicate that it chews a cud. The Septuagint translation renders the word "hedgehog," with the uncertainty of knowing what is meant. We can certainly bring no charge against the Scriptures. 3330.—The Tabernacle, Sanctuary, Priests
Were the tabernacle and sanctuary and priests anything like they are to-day? The description of the ancient tabernacle, etc., may be found in Exodus, chapters 25 to 31. It will there be seen that there is no likeness between that ancient sanctuary and modern churches, tho Jewish synagogs endeavor to retain some of the features. Some of these features are partially imitated by Roman Catholics. The ancient tabernacle was constructed for the purposes of ministration in sacrifices and offerings, all of which passed away when Christ came and suffered and died once for all. Heb. 10:9, 10. The great temple which that ancient sanctuary typified is on high, where Jesus our Lord now ministers. Heb. 8:1, 2; 9:11. 3331.—Sell It unto a Foreigner
Will you help us on Deut. 14:21? The special point is regarding raising swine. According to the passage in question the Lord permitted His people to give or to sell to those of other nations that which they might not use themselves. There is, however, but one thing mentioned—that which dies of itself. Doubtless the same principle would apply to unclean meats, as to that of the swine and the camel. But in selling or giving such meat there must of course be no deception. They sold it for what it was. That is better than meat eaters are often served now. The keeping of hogs raises this question: Is it right for one to make a business of producing and selling that the use of which he believes to be injurious? For ourselves—and we could speak for many others—we could not. We would not wish to engage in business upon which we could not ask the fulness of God's blessing. We would not care to have aught to do with the unwholesome, unclean beast. It is not, however, for us to condemn others. 3332.—Baptized for the Dead
I would like an explanation of 1 Cor. 15:29. I do not understand either the first or the last of the verse. The middle part holds the key—"if the dead rise not at all." The whole chapter is an argument for the resurrection. Jesus died, was buried, and arose from the dead. Verses 1-4. These are the great facts of the Gospel. These great facts are set forth in baptism—death, burial, and resurrection. Rom. 6:3-6. Christ's death is of no avail, or one's faith in that death of no effect,—if He did not rise from the dead. Preaching and faith are both vain. 1 Cor. 15:12-19. Into the death of Christ believers are baptized—"buried with Him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6:4), but in faith of the resurrection. Now what good would this faith in Christ's death do, if there were no resurrection? Why would they be baptized with that in view? The "dead" of the text, it seems to us, is Christ. In reference to His death we are baptized. Through Him, too, are we raised from the dead. 3333.—Eating Swine's Flesh
Is it a sin for saints to eat swine's flesh? Yes, and no. It depends. If one eats it in all the light of the Bible and modern science when he can get better food, it looks pretty much like transgression. If he have no better food than that, as many have found, let him eat it. Swine's flesh is condemned by God's Word, not arbitrarily, but because of the nature of the beast itself. It is unhealthy in itself, and unwholesome for food. In many cases the knife of the butcher barely precedes death from physical causes. That the beast has not changed its nature modern science abundantly proves. The very term "sow," the female of the swine, is in its origin akin to "scrofula." There are thousands who can testify to the benefits of abjuring it as a matter of diet. Why then eat it? In the light of Bible and science and despairing practise, is it not always a sin against physical law? And if eaten to please a perverted appetite, is it not a transgression of moral law? But the soul must decide for himself. But in deciding the only safe way is to follow the Word.