In the Question Chair by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 19, 1901

In the Question Chair.

By Editor

[Designed for the consideration of such questions as will be of interest and profit to the general reader. All correspondents should give their names and correct post-office address, that queries not replied to here may be answered by mail.]

839.—The Use of Tobacco.

In the Editor’s opinion, can the use of tobacco ever be indulged by a professed believer in the message of to-day, and it be no offense against the laws of God and the claims of Christianity? I know of a brother who was in a bad state of health, and although he took special treatment, and lived as near as possible to health reform, yet he got no better. He began to smoke, and in a very short time he has become apparently robust and strong.

R. S., O’Neill, Neb.

ANSWER.— It is the opinion of the Editor that the indulgence in the use of tobacco in any form, by a professed believer in the message, must be a violation of the laws of God and of the claims of Christianity, and hence an offense against Heaven. We used to have a good sister in the Battle Creek church, whose verdict on all such questions was this: “In matters of health, resort to everything reasonable; and when it becomes necessary to resort to that which is unreasonable, then cease to resort.” There is a saving clause in this question. Speaking of the man who resorted to the practice of smoking, the question says: “In a very short time he has become apparently robust and strong.” The query in our minds is whether this is not only apparent, and if the seeds and the power of disease do not remain, and will not exert themselves hereafter, in their full strength, showing that the apparent strength and robustness attained are simply a piece of Christian Science imagination.

840.—The Pale Horse.

“Will you please explain in the REVIEW AND HERALD the meaning of Rev. 6:8, and oblige.

W. H. G., Altamont, Manitoba.

ANS.— This is a record of the fourth seal. There is nothing peculiar about this except the color of the horse, a pale, sickly, unnatural color. The white, red, and black colors of the horses of the preceding seals are natural colors. The rider of this horse is named Death, and hell (hades, the grave) followed with him. So great was the mortality during the period of this seal, that it would seem as if the “pale nations of the dead” had come upon the earth, and were following in the wake of this power. The time of the period of this seal can hardly be mistaken. It must refer to the time when the papacy bore unrestrained sway over Christendom, from 538–1798, or to the time when the Reformers had their work of exposing the corruptions of the papal system well established.

“And power was given unto them”—him, says the margin; that is, the power personified by Death on the pale horse; namely, the papacy.

“The fourth part of the earth,” the territory over which this power had sway. “Sword, hunger, and death, and beasts of the earth,” that is, exposure or torture by these means which causes death; and according to the lowest estimate, over fifty millions of martyrs cry to God for vengeance from under the bloody altars of this power.

841.—Exceptions Taken.

If any one does not agree to the answers given to correspondents in the Question Chair, he is at liberty to state that fact, and to give the ground of his objection, and we are happy to have any do this. We have just heard from one who finds numerous things to take exceptions to on various points. These are questions in REVIEW of June 11, 1901, June 25, 1901, and Oct. 8, 1901. The writer says: “As I read the REVIEW, I am often surprised at positions taken in its pages, especially in the Question department, which show such ignorance of the light given in the Testimonies. I think this paper at least, should be sound, and teach sound doctrine.” This is what we design to have the REVIEW do; and we would say to all correspondents, If you are sure what the Testimonies mean on any point, let that settle the question, regardless of what our answer may be; for if the Testimonies decide any matter, appeal need not be made to us. The only question that can arise is on the construction of the Testimonies.

Here is a case in point: In the REVIEW of June 11, Ques. 804, also in REVIEW of Oct. 8, 1901, Ques. 833, both in regard to the same question,—the power of the Church to forgive sin,—the answer given was that the passage in John 20:21–23, which is made to sustain a fearful heresy in the Roman Catholic Church, recounted a special privilege conferred upon the disciples on that occasion, but was not designed for perpetuation in the Church. They received no charge to transmit that power to their successors in office. This cuts off the Catholic claim entirely. In answer to this, our correspondent, C. G. A., Missoula, Mont., refers to “Desire of Ages,” page 806, next to last par., where “the statement is plainly made” that “Christ charged His disciples to preach the remission of sins in His name among all nations; but they themselves were not empowered to remove ONE stain of sin. The name of Jesus is the only ‘name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.’” Acts 4:12. This is in perfect accord with our answer. Preaching repentance and remission of sin through Christ is a very different thing from pretending actually to remove the guilt of sin, as Catholic priests pretend to do by their ceremonies. To quote further from the “Desire of Ages,” near beginning of paragraph referred to: “To no man, to no body of men, is given power to free the soul from guilt. Christ charged His disciples to preach the remission of sins in His name among all nations.” The difficulty here arises from misconstruing the meaning of the preaching of the remission of sin in His name among all nations. To preach remission of sins in Christ’s name is not to remit them. The Scriptures intimate that God only can forgive sin. Mark 2:7.

Here is another instance: In REVIEW of June 25, 1901, Ques. 810, is a question relating to the food of John the Baptist. Here is the question: “We read in Matt. 3:4 that the food of John the Baptist was locusts and wild honey. Is the word ‘locust’ here the same as that found in Lev. 11:22?”

The reader will notice the scope of the question. It relates to the etymology of the word “locust” as found in Matt. 3:4 and in Lev. 11:22; and here is the answer: “It is the corresponding Greek word. This word refers primarily and exclusively to the living insect called the locust; that is, we find no definition of the word applying to any other object.”

This is all in accordance with the facts in the case, on the subject of which we were treating. We were not ignorant of the statement found in Vol. III, page 62, of the Testimonies, which reads as follows: “John separated himself from friends, and from the luxuries of life. The simplicity of his dress, a garment woven of camel’s hair, was a standing rebuke to the extravagance and display of the Jewish priests, and of the people generally. His diet, purely vegetable, of locusts and wild honey, was a rebuke to the indulgence of appetite, and the gluttony that everywhere prevailed.” In our answer to the question which, as stated above, pertained only to the etymology of the word, we went on to state what customs prevailed in the East, mentioning the locust tree, which bears a pod called by the people “St. John’s bread,” and for sale in the market, and of the dried and powdered locust insects, which are exposed in the market for sale; showing that both the vegetable and the insect are used for food by the people of the East. But there is nothing in the word or its definitions to show which was used; and there was nothing in the question to lead us into a discussion of that subject.