Search
All questions regarding the Bible and spiritual matters can be directed to the editor. We will do our best to answer them. However, we will not respond to fruitless questions.
Question: Daniel 8:14 says "For two thousand three hundred nights and days; then the sanctuary will be restored." According to history, the number of days in this verse is off by a little bit. According to the Guideline to Exposition published by the Seventh Day Adventists, this verse refers to a long period and concerns the end time. The basis for their theory is verse 17 of this chapter. What actually is right? (Wong, Singapore)
Answer: We must know the difference between interpretation and history in reading Daniel. We must not think that the interpretation of the biblical vision is merely a matter of relating past events. On the one hand, we have to realize that it relates to the past, and on the other hand, it adds something that has not yet happened. Most prophecies have two fulfillments, a contemporary fulfillment and a future fulfillment. History is related to the contemporary fulfillment, while the interpretations of the prophecies are related to the future fulfillment. This is true in the case of this passage. Many of the things that the prophet saw were fulfilled in his days. But many of the things the angel said as an interpretation refer to the future. Therefore, if one only takes care of history or only takes care of interpretation, he is liable to make errors.
Historically speaking, the prophecy of the two thousand three hundred days was fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes (please read the books of the Maccabees in the Apocrypha). The evil days of Antiochus fit in with the two thousand three hundred days. At the end of this period, on December 25 of 165 B.C., Judas Maccabee cleansed the temple.
Interpretatively speaking, this prophecy has to do with the time of the end, that is, the end time. Not only is verse 17 a proof, but verses 19 and 26 also show the same thing. But we should notice one thing: most of the expositions by the Seventh Day Adventists are far-fetched. Although they consider this prophecy to be for the end time (the end time in the Bible always refers to "the day of the Lord" before the Lord appears on the earth, that is, the last of the seventy weeks mentioned in Daniel 9), they say on page 110 of their Exposition on Daniel that the Lord Jesus entered the heavenly Holy of Holies in A.D. 1844 and started the work of judgment. How can this be the end time! Furthermore, this kind of interpretation is absolutely against the gospel and annuls the clear teaching of the book of Hebrews. They take a day as a year and consider two thousand three hundred days to be two thousand three hundred years (p. 103). They quote Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34 as proofs. But they do not realize that these two passages only speak of the things related to these two passages; they have nothing to do with other Scriptures and, in particular, nothing to do with Daniel. In the Bible there is no basis for taking a day as a year. Please read Genesis 7:4, 10; 40:12, 13, 20; Exodus 16; Numbers 11:19-20; Joshua 1:11; Numbers 14:33; and Matthew 12:40. A day is a day; it is not a year. If the Bible considers a day a year, then the Lord Jesus would have been in the heart of the earth for three years!
The word "days" in the "two thousand three hundred days" is not days in the original language but early evening. According to Genesis 1, there is the evening, and there is the morning. Therefore, we know that it refers to a twenty-four hour day, and not a year. The early evening is the time for offering sacrifices in the temple. This means that there will be two thousand and three hundred offerings of the evening sacrifice and morning sacrifice. This confirms the sense conveyed by the Holy Spirit that the day refers to a cycle of night and day.
Historically, this word was fulfilled once in Antiochus. At the end time, it will be fulfilled once more in "the little horn."
According to the prophecy of the seventy weeks, there should be two thousand five hundred and twenty days. Two thousand three hundred days is two hundred and twenty days shorter than two thousand five hundred and twenty days. Probably these two hundred and twenty days will be days for building the temple, and the "little horn" will not desecrate the sanctuary until the two hundred and thirty-first day, and then by the end of this "week," the two thousand five hundred and twentieth day, the sanctuary will be cleansed. We look forward to the Lord's coming to rapture us. We do not look forward to the "little horn." We look forward to reigning with Christ and cleansing the sanctuary together with Him! What a blessed hope!
Question: Daniel 18:15 says, "And when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought an understanding of it; and immediately there was someone with an appearance like that of a man standing before me." Some say that this angel was the Savior. Verse 16 says, "And I heard the voice of a man." They say that this voice was also the voice of the Savior. In my opinion, the angel in verse 15 is Daniel's own angel, while the voice in verse 16 refers to the Savior because only the Savior has the authority to direct Gabriel the archangel. Which interpretation is the right one? Please answer. (Wong, Singapore)
Answer: It is probably wrong to say that both refer to the Savior. The word man in verse 15 is geber in the original language, from which the name Gabriel comes. Hence, the "man" in verse 15 should refer to Gabriel. There is no clear indication as to whose voice it was in verse 16. But to me, it should be the voice of the angel who ruled over the river Ulai, who spoke under God's order.
Question: Revelation 22:2 says, "The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations." Yet 21:4 says, "And death will be no more, nor will there be sorrow or crying or pain anymore; for the former things have passed away." Why does 22:2 mention the healing of the nations? Since there is healing, there surely must be the flesh, which brings in sickness, pain, and death. In the new heaven and new earth, will we have a spiritual body or a fleshly body?
Answer: In the new heaven and new earth, man will be divided into two classes, the kings and the citizens, just like it is in the millennium. Please differentiate between "peoples" in 21:3 and "son" in 21:7. The sons will dwell in the city; they are the glorified saints throughout the ages. They will have a spiritual body. But the "nations" and the "peoples" will still have fleshly bodies. They will be the ones transferred from the millennium. There will still be the fleshly body, but there will be no death, sickness, etc. Since there is the fleshly body, there will inevitably be weaknesses, even though there will be no sickness and death. The leaves of the tree of life are for "the healing of the nations." By eating the leaves, they will forever be strong on the new earth. For the overcoming believers, they will not eat the leaves, but the fruits (2:7). Praise the Lord!
Question: Revelation 22:15 says, "Outside are the dogs." According to A Commentary of the New Testament, these dogs refer to the evil nature of the sinners. Can sinners still exist then? Will there not be a restoration to the condition of Eden before the fall? Where will sin be? It will surely not be in the cleansed Christians who have passed through all the tribulations and trials. Will not the sinners be thrown into the lake of fire as recorded in the last two verses of chapter twenty? (Wong, Singapore)
Answer: It is true that the dogs refer to the sinners. It is also true that the new heaven and the new earth will be a restoration of the condition in Eden. It is likewise true that sinners will be thrown into the lake of fire, and that there will be no sin in the new heaven and new earth. In the new heaven and new earth, there will only be the saved ones. But you misunderstand this verse a little. If you compare this verse with 21:8 you will find out where the sinners are; they are in the lake of fire. Revelation 22:15 tells us where the lake of fire is; it is on the new earth. The sinners are in the lake of fire, and they are also outside the city. This means that the lake of fire must be outside the city. In the old days Sodom was close to Jerusalem. Therefore, hell should be close to the New Jerusalem. In the new earth there will be a place which is the lake of fire. The lake of fire is an actual place. What a warning this is!
Question: Will the kingdom of the goats go directly into hell? (Lee, Kiangsu)
Answer: According to Matthew 25:41, they should go directly to hell. The "eternal fire" cannot be explained any other way. A companion passage to this verse is Matthew 13:47-50. There it clearly says "the furnace of fire."
Question: How do you explain 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6?
Answer: In order to understand 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, we must first know who the "sons of God" are in Genesis 6.
The "sons of God" are the angels because: (1) The whole Old Testament only mentions the sons of God a few times (in Job and Daniel). Except in this case, where nothing is explicitly said about them, all the other cases refer to angels or supernatural beings. (2) Some brothers say that the "sons of God" were the descendants of Seth, while the "daughters" were the descendants of Cain. If this is true, how could Cain beget daughters only, and Seth beget males only? (3) Seth cannot be apart from the "men" in verse 2. (4) The "sons of God" are versus the "men" in the same verse. This means that they were not men. (5) If we say that the "men" in verse 2 were the descendants of Cain, should not the "men" in verse 1 mean the same thing? (6) In verse 3 the word "also" indicates that those who were of flesh were not limited to men only. "For that he [man] also is flesh." This indicates that there were some who were not men who were of the flesh already. Some brothers argue that angels are not distinguished by sex, and that they neither marry nor are given to marriage. But Matthew 22:30 does not say explicitly that there is no distinction between male and female angels. No clear indication can be found from other Scriptures either. Therefore, we cannot say for sure if there are male and female angels. Even if there is no distinction of sex, does not the Scripture often use the pronoun he instead of she to describe the angels? This proves that at least the angels tend to be masculine. There is then no difficulty in saying that they could marry the daughters of men. Since angels do not have a body, it is even more understandable that they attached themselves to the human body. If our Lord only said that angels do not marry in Matthew 22:30, it would be difficult to assume that "sons of God" are angels. But did not the Lord say, "angels in heaven"? This means that only the angels who kept their place and dared not leave their posts (Jude 6) do not marry; all the others do. Many manuscripts have the words "of God" after the word "angels" in Matthew 22:30. This further proves that those who are not of God are not characterized by such description.
We can now return to our main subject. First Peter 3:19 and 4:6 do not teach that there is another chance for repentance after a man dies. If a man is not saved now, he will never be saved. The "spirits in prison" in 3:19 are not humans. The word spirits in the Bible does not always refer to man. There are two uses of the word spirit: (1) it refers to the evil spirits, and (2) it refers to man's spirit. This expression is continued in the next verse which shows that these spirits were the disobedient ones at the time of Noah.
Therefore, our conclusion is that these spirits are the angels who have sinned. They have left their place and come to the world to marry humans. They did not obey God and were destroyed by the flood; their spirits went down into Tartarus and are waiting for their judgment to come. (The testimony of 2 Peter 2:4 through 5 matches our interpretation. The word hell in the Chinese Union Version is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word is Tartarus, which refers to the heart of the earth.) These angels sinned in the likeness of man. When man sinned against God, the Lord Jesus came to accomplish redemption. Since these ones were in the likeness of man (taking human bodies and marrying the daughters of men), and since they sinned as men did, they could be redeemed just the same way that man could.
According to the above interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19, the meaning of 4:6 should become very obvious. (We cannot interpret the words "those who are now dead" spiritually and consider these ones to only be spiritually dead because: (1) there is no basis for allowing such a spiritual interpretation, and (2) the word "also" rules out such an interpretation. The tone of this word implies something special. It is common and natural to preach the gospel to those who are spiritually dead, and there is nothing special about this. Since it says, "the gospel was announced also to those who are now dead," it implies that these dead ones were special and not men who are dead in sin.) The dead here does not refer to dead men, but to the above-mentioned angels who had sinned. The gospel was preached also, or even, to them. Therefore, it was something special. It is indeed special to preach the gospel to the angels. "Was announced" means that the gospel was preached to them but is no longer preached to them. Christ went to Tartarus to preach the gospel to them once. The result was that their flesh, the body to which they attached themselves at the time they sinned, was judged "according to men." (The expression "according to men" further proves that they were not men, but were only judged according to men.) Their spirits, "the spirits in prison" will live according to God. Therefore, after Christ preached to them, they believed and were saved. However, they are still detained in Tartarus until the coming day (2 Pet. 2:4).
Question: Are the two men in Revelation 11 two of the three from among Elijah, Enoch, and Moses? If so, will they be changed the same way as that which is described in 1 Corinthians 15? (Lee, Kiangsu)
Answer: Maybe. There is no clear Scripture telling us that Enoch was changed. Elijah was taken up to heaven with his garment (see 2 Kings 2:13); it seems that he did not change either. When the Lord resurrected, did He not leave the linen in the tomb (John 20)? On the mount of transfiguration, they did not shine as the Lord did.
Question: Does Moses have a body of resurrection? (Lee, Kiangsu)
Answer: No. He only has a "soulish body." In Luke 16 we see that after the body dies, one still has eyes (v. 23) and a tongue (v. 24). These are parts of the "soulish body." (The two preachers in Revelation 11 are two of the three. According to my knowledge, when the Lord was on earth, He raised up three persons from the dead. Do not these three die again later? Perhaps between resurrection and a changed body, there will still be a temporary separation [death]. Nevertheless, after 1 Corinthians 15:52, they will surely be in incorruption and immortality. But there are differences as to the other experiences.
Although Enoch and Elijah were taken up, they did not reach heaven (John 3:13). It is possible that their body was not totally a body of flesh. It may be that they only possessed the kind of body like the three who were resurrected by the Lord had.)
Question: Is there a difference in time between 1 Samuel 20:25 and 34? (Lee, Kiangsu)
Answer: There is no difference in time. Both are in the past tense. Perhaps on the first day Jonathan stood, while on the second day, he sat at the table and hence "arose."
Question: How do you reconcile Judges 14:15 with verse 17?
Answer: Judges 14:15 should be "it came to pass on the fourth day." The internal proof is as follows: verse 14 says, "they could not in three days expound the riddle." Therefore, this must be the fourth day. Otherwise, verse 14 should say, "they could not in six days expound the riddle." The external proof is that both the Septuagint and the Syriac versions say "the fourth day." This is an error in the manuscript and does not affect the divine inspiration in any way.
Question: Some have said that "the virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 can be translated woman. Is this true? (Lee, Kiangsu)
Answer: Virgin in Hebrew is ha-almah. In the New Testament, the Greek word is parthenos. Isaiah was written in Hebrew. The root of this word came from alam, which means hidden, enclosed in the inner chamber; therefore, it means a virgin. This word is used in the Old Testament seven times (Gen. 24:43; Exo. 2:8; Psa. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; S.S. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14). Although there is another word more specific than this one, betulah, that word can mean either a young girl or a virgin. (The above is quoted from Wordsworth's Companion Bible.) In Hebrew the word ha refers to something unique and is a definite article. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 clearly says that it is a virgin. Although the Jews consider Matthew wrong in translating Isaiah 7:14 to be parthenos, yet the Septuagint was translated by the Jews themselves, and the Greek Old Testament also translated this word as parthenos.
