QUES. 21.-What is the location of the " tree of life " mentioned in Rev. 22:2? Are there two trees?

ANS.-There is but one tree of life, and (hat is in "the city of God," in the "midst" of its "street," and on "either side" of its "pure river of water of life." But it must be remembered that all these terms are symbols. In God's dwelling-place we shall have eternal life as surely as we have it now; and, as now, it will be in Christ, and hence life in dependence. The "pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb," speaks of the fulness of the Spirit as being still the power of the life. We shall be forever secure against any independence of Christ and the Spirit. C. C.

QUES. 22.-Please explain Matt. 12:40. In a small book by Dr. E. A. Torrey, speaking of Matt. 12:40, he says :The first day of the Passover week was always a Sabbath-no matter what day it came on ; that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday (the preparation of the Passover Sabbath, which came that year on a Thursday); and just as the first day of the week drew on, at sunset Saturday, Jesus arose.

I am not satisfied, and would like to be clear as to it.

ANS -The day of the week on which our Lord was crucified has been made to be Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, by different writers. Luke xxiv 21 would seen) to settle it definitely that the crucifixion could not have been on cither Wednesday or Thursday. The two disciples on their way to Emmaus say, "Today is the third day since these things were done." Had the crucifixion been on Wednesday, that Sunday would have been the fifth day; and if on Thursday, it would have been the fourth day. This compels us, then, to adopt Friday as the day of the week on which our Lord was crucified.

But Matt. 12:40, at first sight, seems to be as definite a statement as Luke 24:21:"So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." But it must be remembered that " a day and a night" is a Hebraism. It is a figure of speech called , synecdoche, by which a part is taken as a whole. Examples are found in Jewish writings. In the Jerusalem Talmud there is an explanation of this figure of speech. "A day and a night together make up a night-day," and "any part of such a period is counted as the whole." Another instance of such a use of this figure of speech will be found in 1 Sam. 30:12 :"For he had eaten no bread, nor drunk water, three days and three nights." According to the Hebrew way of counting, the "three days agone" (ver. 13) would make that day on which David's men found the Egyptian the third day of his sickness. We cannot, then, use Matt. 12:40 as conflicting with Luke 24:21. C. C.

QUES. 23,-In Num. 3:15 God commands Moses to number the Levites, that He may take them instead of the first-born among the children of Israel (ver. 12), the result being-"Gershon, 7,500; Kohath, 8,600; and Mi-ran, 6,200. Total, 22,300." Comparing this with the total number given in ver. 39, viz., 22,000, we find an excess of 300.

That 22,000 is the exact number is borne out by vers. 43 and 46. Can the excess be accounted for?
ANS.-I think a possible explanation of the difference in the numbers maybe in supposing that first-born of the tribe of Levi must be deducted from the total number of the males of the tribe (22, 300). At least it is evident that if there were at the time of the Exodus 300 first-born of the tribe of Levi, they would already belong to the Lord, according to His claim made in Exodus 13:, and so would not be available for an exchange. They could not be substituted for the first-born of any of the tribes. This implies that the tribe of Levi was numerically the smallest of the tribes, which seems to be the fact. C. C.

QUES. 24.-In 1 Chron. 4:-7:the genealogies of the children of Israel are given, the tribe of Dan being omitted, although we get the statement in chap. 9:1, "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies." Why the omission?

ANS.-The principle used by Pauliu Rom. 9:6, "For they are not all Israel which are of Israel," will explain the omission of Dan in these genealogies of the sons of Israel. (See, also, Gal. 3:7.) Dan, according to Gen. 49:16-18, represents Israel in a character in which, and at a time when, Israel is not really Israel. 1 Chron. 2:1-9:1 gives the genealogy of the sons of Israel as being truly such. In type it is Israel according to faith, not after the flesh. Hence Dan's name is fittingly omitted, save in one verse, chap. 2:2. Ezek. 48:1, 2, shows that the tribe of Dan will have its inheritance in the land along with the other tribes in the Millennium. Dan is omitted also in Rev. 7:It is clear, if Dan represents Israel as an apostate generation, no apostates will be sealed for earthly millennial blessing. They will receive the mark of the beast-the seal of the Antichrist-not the seal of God. (See chap, 13:15, 17.) C. C.

QUES. 25.-In 2 Chron. 28:19 we find the statement, "For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel." Why is he here called king of Israel, being, properly, king of Judah?

ANS.-" Israel " is here probably a copyist's error. Several attempts have been made to defend it, but they seem far-fetched. A copyist might easily substitute "Israel" for "Judah." The Septuagint has " Judah," which would suggest the error has been introduced into the Hebrew text since this version was made. C. C.

QUES. 26.-In 2 Sam. 24:and 1 Chron. 21:David numbers the children of Israel by the hand of Joab, the result being given in vers. 9 and 5 respectively. In the former, Israel, 800,000, and Judah, 500,000 ; and in the latter, Israel, 1,100,000, and Judah, 470,000. Why the difference ?

ANS.-The only way to account for the difference is to suppose a copyist's error in one place, perhaps in both. Josephus says 900,000 for Israel, and 400,000 for Judah. The text he had apparently differed both from our present Hebrew text and from the one the Septuagint translators had. C. C.