Conducted by WILLIAM G. WIRTH, 5447 EL VERANO AVENUE, EAGLE ROCK, CALIFORNIA
If you have a question regarding Bible doctrine and Christian living, or on other subjects apropos to the field of the “Signs of the Times,” write out your question and send it in, preferably direct to Dr. Wirth. Anonymous questions will not be answered. Do not become impatient if your question is not answered immediately, for Dr. Wirth has scores of questions in waiting, and yours will be answered in order.
DOES GOD CREATE EVIL?
Mrs. M. F. Hollenbeck of Fall River Mills, California, asks for an explanation of Isaiah 45:7.
In Isaiah 45:7 when God says He “creates evil,” He means He brings trouble, affliction, punishment, upon men for their departing from Him. See also Isaiah 47:11; Amos 3:6. This does not mean that God is the author of evil as sin, as iniquity; for His character is altogether righteous. Says Habakkuk: “Thou that art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that canst not look on perverseness, wherefore lookest Thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest Thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he.” Chapter 1:13; see also, Jeremiah 36:3, 31.
THE SABBATH ON OTHER WORLDS
A San Franciscan inquires as to whether the seventh-day Sabbath is observed on other worlds or not.
It is evident from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3; Exodus 20:8-11 that the seventh day of the fourth commandment was instituted as the particular Sabbath of this world. Whether this seventh day is the Sabbath of “other worlds” in the universe as well as ours the Bible does not reveal. Inasmuch as we human beings are the inhabitants of this earth, and always will be, and the seventh day is an inherent part of God’s order for this earth, and always will be (Matthew 5:5; Isaiah 66:22, 23), what may obtain in other parts of the universe does not affect our obligations on this planet.
Cruden, in his introductory statement on “Tithe,” in his “Complete Concordance,” has these pertinent words:
“There were three sorts of tithes to be paid from the people (besides those from the Levites to the priests. Numbers 18:26, 27, etc.) (1) To the Levites, for their maintenance. Numbers 18:21, 24. (2) For the Lord’s feasts and sacrifices, to be eaten in the place which the Lord should choose to put His name there; to wit, where the ark should be, the tabernacle or temple. This tenth part was either sent to Jerusalem in kind or, if it was too far, they sent the value in money, which was to be laid out for oxen, sheep, wine, or what else they pleased. Deuteronomy 14:22, 23, 24, etc. (3) Besides these two, there was to be, every third year, a tithe for the poor, to be eaten at their own dwellings, Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. Some are of the opinion that this third tithe was not different from the second before taken notice of, except that in the third year it was not brought to the temple, but was used upon the spot by every one in the city of his habitation: So that there were only, according to them, two sorts of tithes, that which was given to the Levites and priests, and that which was applied to making feasts of charity, either in the temple of Jerusalem, or in other cities.”
As to the “wine” and “strong drink” of Deuteronomy 14:26, it is true that the Hebrew originals of these words, yayin and shekar, suggest intoxication. As I have stated on other occasions, we must ever keep in mind that the Hebrews lived in different times than ours. The standards of that day are not the standards of our day. Then it was in accordance with the best social taste to have more wives than one and to possess human beings as slaves. It is not so now.
The social sentiment now is increasingly growing, on the whole, against intoxicating drinks. Prohibition is evidently here to stay and to make the world “drier.” In the days of Israel of the Old Testament, there was no such sentiment as Prohibition. To drink spirituous liquors was the commonly accepted procedure. It would have been strange to think otherwise. Therefore, God had to tolerate this evil as He had to tolerate the evils of polygamy and slavery. It is one of the remarkable proofs of the Bible’s divine authority that, written as it was in the environment of the free use of intoxicating beverages, it advanced the now-accepted principle of the benefits of their nonuse. See Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-32. Here is food for thought for those who would scoff at the Holy Word.
THE QUESTION OF MEATS
As to the expression of Paul: “Asking no question for conscience’ sake” (1 Corinthians 10:25, 27), it must be plain on its face that this by no means shows that we may eat and drink anything we wish. That which is filthy, unhealthful, and vile is divinely disapproved. We need to keep in mind 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20: “Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.” Physically, therefore, we need to do right as we feel we must do spiritually. As Paul again writes: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:31. We shall not go wrong if we abide by this rule.
As M. C. Wilcox well says in his “Questions and Answers,” Vol. I, page 196: “By noticing the context (of 1 Corinthians 10:25, 27) it will be seen that the question was whether it was harmful to eat meat which had been offered to idols. Sometimes, after this meat had been offered to idols, it was placed in the market for sale, and the conscience of some was troubled as to whether it would not be doing homage to idols to eat it after it had been so offered. Now, ‘an idol is nothing’ (1 Corinthians 8:4), and yet there were those who had been idolaters whose conscience would not allow them to eat anything that was offered to idols without injury to their conscience. In such a case the apostle tells us we should not eat, for the sake of him who has such scruples; but it was perfectly legitimate to purchase whatever was found in the market suitable for food, without asking any questions. Of course, this would not be true if the food was evil in itself.”
The fact that in the 27th verse Paul speaks about being bidden to a feast by “one of them that believe not,” or a heathen, does not alter the further fact that Paul, as shown above, is speaking of meat offered to idols. This, unless it was that which was expressly forbidden by command of God as I have shown, comes under the apostle’s “whatsoever is set before you, eat.” If the questioner will read the 28th verse in connection with the 27th, he will have no difficulty in understanding Paul’s meaning.
REMARRIAGE OF THE DIVORCED
E. J. Loftus of Southern California asks concerning our position on the remarriage of divorced persons. His question was inspired by the observations on this page anent this issue in the “Signs of the Times” of June 14, 1927.
If Matthew 19:1-9 is carefully studied, it will be seen that our Lord permits no dissolution of the marriage bond “except for fornication.” See Matthew 5:31, 32. This must obtain in all Christian marriages.
In Matthew 19:9 it is implied that a husband of a guilty wife may marry again, and, by parity of reasoning, a woman divorced from an immoral husband is free to take another husband. Divorce infers the possibility of marrying again. It is sometimes held that Mark 10:10-12 and Luke 16:18 deny remarriage, since they do not mention the exception given in Matthew 19:9. In answer to this, I would say that Mark and Luke, taking for granted the exception of Matthew 19:9, because fornication, in the very nature of the case, is a real dissolution of the marriage tie, simply stated Christ’s pronouncement in a general way. Matthew states it particularly. Mark’s and Luke’s general statement is probably also due to the fact that the law already provided for the punishment of adultery. (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22ff.; John 8:3ff.)
It is to the credit of the Roman Catholic Church that it has so stoutly stood for the “sanctity and honor of the home,” as the questioner says. Protestants can learn much from this papal position. However, it would be too much to say that the Roman Catholic Church alone does this. There are Protestant persuasions that are just as firm in their attitude on defending the marriage relation as are the Catholics. It must be borne in mind, too, that even the papacy, through its Sacred Rota, permits marriage dissolution, under certain conditions, and remarriage.
