Page images
PDF
EPUB

A. They did not.

Q. Where were their threshing-floors usually situated?

A. Upon some convenient eminence.

Q. Why were they placed upon eminences?

A. That they might be the more exposed to the wind.

Q. How were their threshing-floors prepared? A. They were simply round and level plats of ground, in the open air.

Q. How was the process of threshing performed? A. The sheaves being laid in proper order, a heavy sledge, made of thick boards, and furnished beneath with teeth of stone or iron, was drawn over the straw by oxen, which at the same time, threshed out the grain, and cut or broke the straw into a kind of chaff.

Q. In what language does the prophet Isaiah represent the Jewish nation as a threshing instrument?

A. "Behold, I will make thee a new sharpthreshing instrument, having teeth. Thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them."-(Isaiah xli. 15, 16.)

Q. After the grain was sufficiently threshed, what disposition was then made of it?

A. It was thrown into a pile, to await the blowing of the wind, when the wheat was separated from the chaff.

Q. Can you describe the process of separating the wheat from the chaff?

A. While in its mixed state, the grain, with a fork, or fan, as it is translated in the parable, was thrown forcibly some yards into the air against the wind, which driving back the straw and chaff, allowed the wheat to fall separate on the floor.

Q. What was then done with the wheat?

A. It was gathered into granaries, and preserved for future use.

Q. How was the chaff disposed of?

A. Being of no service, it was usually cast into a fire and burnt up.

Q. What important event did John design to represent by this parable?

A. He designed to represent the impending overthrow of the Jews.

Q. To whom did he allude under the figure of the fan or winnowing fork?

A. To the Roman armies, who, under Titus, were the instruments in the hands of God, to effect this disastrous work on his ancient people.

Q. What did he represent by the threshing-floor? A. The land of Judea.

Q. Who were represented by the wheat?

A. Those who believed in Jesus Christ, when these calamities overtook the Israelites.

Q. Who were represented by the chaff?

A. The unbelieving Jews, who rejected the Messiah and put him to death.

Q. What is meant by the declaration that "he shall gather his wheat into the garner?"

A. In this figure John represents the preservation of the followers of Christ, at the destruction of the Jews.

Q. Were they actually saved at the overthrow of Jerusalem?

A. They were. Observing the signs foretold by the Saviour, they fled from Jerusalem to the city of Pella, where they remained in safety during all the woes which overwhelmed their ill-fated country

men.

Q. What did John represent by the burning up of the chaff with unquenchable fire?

A. He represented the involving of the Jews in great and sore calamities.

1

Q. Did such calamities soon overtake them?

A. They did. The Roman armies overrun Judea, and surrounded Jerusalem-the Jews perished in immense numbers-and the survivors were scattered throughout every nation on the earth.

Q. What is the meaning of the phrase "unquenchable fire?"

A. It signifies a fire that burns without quenching, until all the fuel that supplies it, is entirely consumed.

Q. Does it then necessarily go out of its own accord?

Q. To what should the word "unquenchable," be applied?

A. It should be applied to the manner in which the fire burns, and not to the time.

Q. What does Dr. Hammond say in reference to this phrase, as used in the parable under consideration?

A. He says, the Jews were in the habit of putting "fire to the chaff at the wind side, and that keeps on and never gives over, till it has consumed all the chaff, and so is a kind of unquenchable fire—a fire never quenchable till it hath done its work.'

Q. Does Dr. Lightfoot corroborate the general view we have taken of this parable?

A. He does. He declares that "the main intent of the verse is to show forth the destruction of Jerusalem."

Q. What is Bishop Pearce's testimony on this subject?

A "In this whole verse," he says, "the destruction of the Jewish state is expressed in the terms of husbandmen.”

Q. Does Kenrick make a similar application of the parable?

A. He does, when he says, "In this whole verse, the destruction of Jerusalem is expressed in the terms

of husbandmen.

Which prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans."

LESSON VI.

Parable of the Offending Hand.

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell-fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."-(Mark ix. 43-48.)

Q. Who uttered this parable?
A. It was uttered by Jesus Christ.
Q. To whom was it addressed?

A. To his disciples, who alone were with him at the time, in a house at Capernaum.

Q. What was the Saviour's object in speaking these words?

A. It was to warn his followers of the necessity of casting aside every personal habit or gratification, that could prove an obstacle to their giving themselves up wholly to the service of their Master.

Q. Why would it not be proper to understand the language of the parable in a literal sense?

A. Because it would be attributing to Jesus the doctrine that some will enter upon the spiritual existence of another life, deprived of a hand, a foot, or an eye-than which nothing could be more unscriptural or absurd.

Q. How, then, should we view the language of this parable?

A. As highly figurative.

Q. Why did the Redeemer employ such singular figures, as the cutting off the hand, and plucking out the eye?

A. It was to impress his disciples the more deeply with the truths he desired to communicate.

Q. What did the Saviour mean when he called upon his disciples to cut off an offending hand, and pluck out an offending eye?

A. By these bodily organs, he represents darling sins; and his meaning was, that however much his disciples might be tempted to any improper habit or any indulgence of a sinful character, they should break away from it entirely-although the sacrifice were like the cutting off a hand, or plucking out an eye.

Q. Do bad habits frequently become deeply seated? A. They do; and so much so, that to destroy their power, is like cutting off the hand or the foot of the body.

Q. What is Archbishop Newcome's opinion of the phraseology under consideration?

A. He says, "This is a strong eastern manner of expressing that seductions to sin, and particularly stumbling-blocks in the way of openly professing the gospel at that season, should be avoided at all events.'

[ocr errors]

Q. What do you understand by the words "enter into life," as used in this parable?

A. I do not understand them as referring to an entrance upon the immortal state of happiness, in a future world, for the reason already expressed, that it is absurd to suppose that any will enter there, deprived of an eye or a foot. But in the use of this phrase, I understand the Saviour as signifying an entrance into the belief of his gospel.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »