Tainted Money?

QUESTION: Is  it a sin to let or sell a residence to a brewer or a cigar manufacturer or to one of their employees?

ANSWER:  It would be a good opportunity to show your disapproval by letting or selling your house at a sacrifice to some other person. But for me to say it is a sin to do otherwise, I am not prepared; for some one might raise the question whether the grocer would not sin in taking "tainted money" from the landlord, who has let or sold his house to a brewer or cigar-maker; and then whether it would not be wrong for the physician or minister to receive such money from the grocer, etc. etc., like "the house that Jack built." Human interests are so interlaced that there is no end to a boycott when once begun.

— Steele's Answers p. 221.

On Hebrews 12:14

QUESTION: I have difficulties with Heb. 12:14, "Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord." (1) If I insist that holiness is a definite second work, then it follows that only those in whom it has been wrought will see the Lord. (2) If I say that we received a degree of holiness when we were regenerated, then the text loses its emphasis as to the necessity of a second work. (3) Does the text make peace with all men and holiness equally necessary to seeing the Lord?

ANSWER: The "shall" should be "will" as the translation of the Greek denoting simple certainty rather than  a prohibition or a threat. Without purity no man will or can see God, who is perceived only by the pure in heart. The psychologists have not found out that the heart is a more important organ of knowledge than the head. Hence "he who loveth not knoweth not God." In this kind of knowledge there must be a similarity of feeling between the subject and the object, loving what God loves and hating what he hates. No degree of holiness is indicated in the text. Wesley calls attention to the fact "that the term 'sanctified' is continually applied by Paul to all that were justified; that by this term alone he rarely, if ever, means, 'saved from all sin,' and that it is not proper to use it in that sense without adding the word 'wholly,' 'entirely' or the like." The same criticism applies to the adjective "holy" — in the plural "saints," holy ones, and to the noun "holiness," since we have the phrase "perfecting holiness." Hence there is no warrant for quoting this text as teaching that without the second distinctive work no man will see the Lord. Wesley insists that this grace should be preached "always by way of promise; always drawing, rather than driving." This level-headed man gives further advice which is a safeguard against fanaticism: "I would be far from quenching the smoking fax — from discouraging those who serve God in a low degree. * * * I would encourage them to come up higher, without thundering hell and damnation in their ears." This style of promoting Christian perfection was a stumbling block to the writer for more than a quarter of a century. When Moses stood on Mt. Pisgah he didn't throw stones at his brethren on the plain below to get them to climb to those sunny heights. Yet "the not following after holiness," says Wesley, "is the direct way to fall into sin of every kind. The "peace with all men," which we are to follow after, is that which is thus limited by Paul: "If it be possible, as much as in you lieth." It takes two parties to make peace; you are responsible for only one of them.

— Steele's Answers pp. 219-221.

Two Kinds of Wine?

QUESTION: Our pastor in prayer meeting said there are two kinds of wine mentioned in the Scriptures, one intoxicating and the other not, and that the wine our Savior made was intoxicating, and that Bible scholars admit this. Is it true?

ANSWER: The discussion is too long and prolix for the Question Box. See some Bible dictionary, where Dr. Lees argues against your pastor, so far as the O.T. is concerned, while other writers in the same article take your pastor's view. But it is not true that a non-intoxicating wine is mentioned in the New Testament, where the common name for wine is οῖνος (oinos), and the other word, only once used, is γλεῦκος (gleukos), sweet wine. Peter on the day of Pentecost heard the mockers say, "They are filled with γλεῦκος," and he replied, "These are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is only 9 o'clock in the morning." This implies that γλεῦκος was intoxicating, if a man should pour it down his throat all day. Hence if John had used this term in describing the miracle, he would not have avoided the charge which modern tipplers hurl against Christ. When John B. Gough was lecturing in Oxford the students challenged. him to debate. They quoted Christ's first miracle as justifying the drinking of fermented wine. Gough's admirable reply was this, "All the wine that is made out of nothing but water is perfectly harmless, and you may drink it as much as you please." That satisfies the Question Box.

— Steele's Answers pp. 218, 219.

The Gift of Ministerial Power

QUESTION: What is the gift in I Tim. 4:14, "Neglect not the gift, that is in thee," etc.? (2) Also II Tim. 1:14, "That good thing * * * committed to thee"?

ANSWER: The ability to read the Scriptures publicly, to exhort and to teach, which ability had been solemnly recognized by Paul and the elders in his public ordination in which the unction of the Spirit necessary to success is invoked and received by the candidate through faith. (2) This is that spoken of in verse 6, "Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." This gift of ministerial power could slumber, like embers beneath the ashes, unless Timothy should enkindle and quicken it into a flame. A pulpit on fire is a great attraction. If the fire has gone out or is smothered, the pews will soon become empty.

— Steele's Answers pp. 217, 218.

Inheriting the Carnal Mind

QUESTION: If a child's ancestors are all free from carnality for three generations back, how can he inherit the carnal mind?

ANSWER: He is sure to inherit racial rather than personal qualities and tendencies, even after a hundred generations of holy people. The fall of our first parents corrupted the race so that every child, however well born, is more inclined to do wrong than to do right. "Sin is entailed upon me," says Wesley, "not by immediate generation, but by my first parent. 'In Adam all died; by the disobedience of one, all men were made sinners;' all men, without exception, who were in his loins when he ate the forbidden fruit." There are mysteries in heredity which no one can explain. Parents may transmit what they do not possess. By the Salic law a woman destitute of sovereignty can, if her father is a king, transmit sovereignty to her son. It is often the case that two parents whose hair is black have a red-headed child, the color being transmitted from an ancestor a half dozen generations back. "We have," says Wesley, "a remarkable case of this in gardening; grafts on a crab  stalk bear excellent fruit; but sow the kernels of this fruit, and they produce as mere crabs (crab-­apples) as ever were seen." Another view of this subject is the impossibility of transmitting personal moral qualities of an acquired character, such as holiness which is obtained or imparted and inwrought in answer to the person's faith.

— Steele's Answers pp. 216, 217.

The Elders

QUESTION: Who are the elders in James 5:14, "Is any sick among you? Let him send for the elders of the church," etc.

ANSWER: Gospel ministers ordained by the laying on of hands as in Acts 13:3, and especially 14:23, "And when they had ordained elders in every church," etc. A class of exegetes teach that the elders spoken of by James are elderly Christians, and not necessarily ecclesiastical officials. This is not the teaching of the best expositors.

— Steele's Answers p. 216.

On Isaiah 4:5

QUESTION: Explain Isaiah 4:5 "And Jehovah will create over the whole habitation of Mount Zion, and over her assemblies a cloud of smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory shall be spread a covering." (Am. R. V.)

ANSWER: This is a manifest allusion to the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night, symbolizing the Divine glory which shall rest upon the Christian assemblies in "the day or era of the Branch" (verse 2) the coming Messiah, "beautiful and glorious, the Fruit of the land" of Palestine.

— Steele's Answers pp. 215, 216.

On Joel 2:20

QUESTION: Explain this prophecy of Joel 2:20, "And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness," etc.

ANSWER: The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is here predicted, as explained by Christ in Matt. 24:29­ 44, and Luke 21:20-33. Peter also quotes this passage with its context and applies the whole in Acts 2:16­ 20 to the day of Pentecost and to the great changes of things in Palestine, which were soon to follow, and which did occur in about thirty-five years, while some of that generation were still living, as Jesus foretold. In answer to the objection that the language is too strong and too wide in the extent of the calamities predicted, which are seemingly universal, we beg the reader to read Joel 5:10, where the plague of locusts is thus vividly described, "the earth shall quake before them, the heavens shall tremble, the sun, and moon shall be dark; and the stars shall withdraw their shining." See also Amos 8:9, where the chastisement of Israel is thus portrayed, "I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in a clear day."

— Steele's Answers pp. 214, 215.

"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

QUESTION: Explain the words of Christ on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" — Matt. 27:46.

ANSWER: It is said that Martin Luther, after several hours' meditation on these words, exclaimed, "God forsaken of God! I cannot understand it. I cannot understand it." I sympathize with the great reformer. The personality of Christ in whom two natures are blended is unique and beyond our poor philosophy. Still more unfathomable is the unique act of atonement for sin which he was making when this dereliction took place. But we must believe that Christ, "the fullness of the Godhead bodily," ever had the inner consciousness of union with his Father indestructible and that there was no objective withdrawal of the Father and much less was he hurling down the thunderbolts of wrath upon the head of his beloved Son as a vicarious malefactor enduring punishment. Calvary was a scene of suffering but not of punishment. It is reasonable to believe that in the intensity of the unspeakable physical and mental agonies of Jesus, the pain and loss of blood so affected his brain as momentarily to interrupt communion with the skies, that — to use a modern illustration — the receiver of his telephone was out of repair so that the uttered love of the Father was not heard. Dr. A. Clarke inclines to the theory that the word "why" is capable of being translated. thus: "To what kind of men have you left me?" thus reflecting upon the cruel ingrates who were murdering him, rather than on the withdrawal of his Father. There is some ground for this exegesis, but to most Greek scholars it must appear to be strained.

— Steele's Answers pp. 213, 214.

The Work of the Spirit in the Heart

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." — John 16:7 KJV.

I am quite sure that many of my Christian readers will think that I have too highly colored the pre-eminent superiority of the conscious abiding of the Spirit within [over] the visible presence of Christ instructing, assuring and cheering His disciples. They may assert that they have no such experience, and yet they love Christ. I do not doubt their testimony. The difficulty is easily explained. Their experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit is meager and unsatisfactory, because they so little know and honor Him as a person. A person is sensitive when he is spoken of as it and treated as a thing. There may be a faith in Jesus that attains forgiveness, while a faith that claims the abiding Comforter as the Christian's heritage is lacking. He that believes in Christ for all that He has promised, "out of him shall flow rivers of living water." This promise has not become obsolete. There are many modern witnesses to its fulfillment, though the number is not commensurate with the communion roll of the visible Church. Yet by a candid and patient study of God's Word, the ground of faith, and by a self-surrender and self-effacement which put the soul wholly in the hands of the Great Physician with unwavering trust, the utmost stain of evil may be removed, and the presence of Christ be as real as it was to Mary Magdalene.