p. 2 | Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Jan 20, 1909

Question Corner

2702.—The First Day of the Week.

Will you please explain Acts 20:7? Did some of the apostles keep the first day of the week as the Sabbath? M. N.

If you will read the text carefully you will note this, that there is absolutely nothing regarding Sabbath-keeping in the text; nor either in the context. The first six verses tell us of the journeys of Paul and how he came at last to Troas where he stayed seven days, then as he was about to leave, he held a farewell meeting with the brethren. Verses 7 to 11 simply give us an account of this meeting. The meeting was an evening meeting, held on what is our Saturday night, for the day began at sunset. Paul preached until midnight, then the young man Eutychus, overcome with sleep, fell from a window and was taken up for dead. Paul restored him again, came up, talked again a long time, broke bread with them, and at break of day departed.

The evident reason for speaking of the meeting is doubtless on account of the miracle that was there wrought. There was absolutely nothing in the record to indicate that the day was a sacred day. The breaking of bread was evidently the meal that was taken together before they left. If it referred to the Lord’s Supper, that did not constitute the day holy, nor establish a custom. The day began, according to the Bible reckoning, in the evening. The remainder of that day was spent by the apostle Paul in travel, waiting until daybreak, and then going across the peninsula to Assos, a journey of about twenty miles. If that first day had been a Sabbath day, evidently the apostle Paul would have observed it with the Christians at Troas, while Luke and the others would have waited for him at Assos; but he used it as a common day for work.

If it is thought, as some speculate, that the meeting was held on Sunday night, there is then nothing to show that the day was kept as a Sabbath, and the breaking of the bread came on what we would call Monday morning.

This is the one text used almost above all others to prove that Sunday is a holy day, but candor must admit that there is nothing in either text or context which intimates such a thing.

2703.—Taking an Oath.

Is it right to be sworn? See James 5:12. or Matt. 5:34. J. K.

These scriptures forbid extrajudicial oaths. There are many people who seem to think their word will not be believed unless they connect with it some oath; such as “I hope to die,” or they swear by the earth, or by their head, or by some saint, or prophet. All these things the Lord tells us are wrong. All extrajudicial oaths are out of place, but when authorities require us to take oath, it is proper for us so to do. Even so Jesus was sworn at the time of His trial. See Matt. 26:63. “I adjure thee by the living God,” was the form of the oath that was put to the Lord by the high priest. Before this Jesus answered nothing, but when the oath was put to Him by the priest, He replied. So we read in Hebrews 6 that the Lord swore by Himself. It is proper on right occasions for the Christian to take oath.

2704.—The Number 666.

Will you please give us proof of number 666 which is on the pope’s crown? J. L. W.

There is no present papal crown extant which bears the words “Vicarivs Filii Dei,” the numeral letters of which aggregate 666 in the Roman notation. That is, using those letters for numbers that have numerical value. That would mean: V equals 5; I, 1; C, 100; I, 1; U, the same as V in the Roman alphabet, 5; I, 1; L, 50; I, 1; I, 1; D, 500; I, 1, making a total of 666. Catholics do not dispute that there was such a crown as that at one time, nor do they at all dispute the title, because they do believe that the pope is the Vicar of the Son of God.

The idea of the 666 is not a new thing. It is a very widely spread belief. There are some who hold that it refers to all antichristian systems, but having special references to these days. The idea did not originate with Seventh-day Adventists at all. It has been presented for many years. The scripture itself does not indicate that it must be on the crown, but in the name; and one of the special titles of the Papacy is “The Vicegerent of the Son of God.” There are those also who find the same values in the Hebrew and Greek words which they hold also apply to the Papacy.

2705.—Creating Evil.

Please explain Isa. 45:7, and Amos 3:6. J. E. G.

The former text reads: “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah that doeth all these things.” The expression in Amos 3:6 is, “Shall evil befall a city, and Jehovah hath not done it?” What is meant here is not evil in the sense of sin, but evil in the sense of judgment. God has ordered that sin shall result in destruction. That is necessary for the very maintenance of the universe. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And it is in God’s plan that that arrangement exists. So in that sense God has created the evil through the judgment which follows.

2706.—Swine’s Flesh.

Is it a sin to eat swine’s flesh, or to touch the swine or its flesh? There are conscientious women who do not use swine’s flesh, but whose husbands use it, and expect them to cook it for them. Would they not be held innocent when brought under the light of Numbers 30? And if it is a sin to touch swine’s flesh, is it not equally wrong to touch the dead body of a human being? See Num. 19:11. Would it not also be wrong to carry a dead body into a building dedicated to God? J. E. G.

The root idea of sin is missing the mark; and the one who misses the mark sins. Sometimes, because of ignorance, God does not count this sin. There are also two kinds of laws implied in this question. One is moral law; the other is physical law. By physical laws we mean those which govern our physical being. Moral law is that which expresses our duties to God and our fellow men. If one eats swine’s flesh, he transgresses physical law because the flesh of the swine is unwholesome. Many doubtless who use it, are not affected by it because of strong constitutions, and yet most of them are, probably unknown to themselves. The flesh of swine is full of corruption, and that corruption affects the blood—the system. Yet on the other hand if one were starving, and that was all the food that was set before him, it certainly would look as though he were justified in eating it.

As to whether it is a sin against God for him to do this, depends on the motive which prompts him. One can eat the best food in the world simply to satisfy perverted appetite, and so make a glutton of himself; that would be sinning. If he ate it ignorantly to give him strength to do the duties and tasks devolving upon him, that would be another question. The transgression of physical law is not always the transgression of moral law. It seems clearly evident that our Lord transgressed physical law again and again in His arduous labors for His people, and finally died upon the cross; laid down His life, literally, in His love for the children of men; but He did not transgress moral law.

Anciently the Lord prohibited the use of swine’s flesh, and called it unclean. It was not made ceremonially unclean because God said so, but He said so because by nature it was unclean; and we have no idea that it has changed its nature yet. Still there are those who eat it; and if a husband desired it, we do not believe that a wife would be accounted guilty if she cooked it for him. There were certain things which brought ceremonial uncleanness. Among those was the touching of a dead body, and yet it was only ceremonial uncleanness. Some had to do this, and the Lord made cleansing easy. The one object-lesson which He wished to make impressive was that death came in consequence of sin. He wanted His people to look back to the cause of these things. There may have been a health reason in that very thing also. Many times people are very careless concerning those who are dead, and the disease of which they died; consequently contagion spreads, and the whole neighborhood becomes affected. It would be well for us, if we would give more attention to the laws which the Lord laid down for Israel. They are among the most hygienic in the world.

As to bringing the dead body of a person into the house of worship; it is usually protected by the embalmer’s art, and would hardly be said to touch the house of worship, and yet we can not help believing that the old methods which they had, were better; that the dead should be buried shortly after their decease. Memorial services could be held just the same if the remains were not present.

2707.—Duty of Women in Churches.

Will you kindly explain 1 Cor. 14:34, 35? A sister would like very much to learn just her duty in reference to this matter. B. B. 865.

There are some things having local application at the time that they were written, which we will never understand and never can understand unless all those things are revealed to us. That may be some time in the judgment, but not now. This scripture above mentioned is one of those. That the apostle did not mean that women should not witness for God is evident from the fact that in this very letter, chapter 11:5, he tells us how women should conduct themselves while teaching or praying. We read in Acts 21:9 of one man who had four daughters who prophesied. We read in Acts 2, that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” And then Paul speaks of those women who helped him in the Gospel; for instance, there was Priscilla, who with her husband Aquila, taught in the church of God, and even taught as eminent a man as Apollos.

Read the last chapter of Romans and see how many names of women occur there. This we may learn from the text: The apostle did not wish any woman to be immodest or forward, or take upon herself that which was outside of her proper line of work. There are some things which are unseemly for men to do, and it is just as true that there are some things unseemly for women to do. But the whole spirit of the Scriptures, and of the writings of the apostle Paul are in perfect harmony with any soul who has been touched by the grace and love of the Lord Jesus Christ telling of that in a proper manner in public.

2708.—Man and the Kingdom of God.

Please explain 1 Cor. 15:50. Paul says, “Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God.” How can Christ be the same Christ if He isn’t flesh and blood? M. E. W.

Our identity does not rest upon material elements, but in character. By “flesh and blood” the apostle evidently means the natural, mortal, human, such as are all the children of earth. Man in that state, in his mortal, dying, fallible state, can not inherit the kingdom of God. A change must take place, and that changes the mortal to immortal. Jesus is the same being that He was here upon the earth, but He nevertheless is changed. When He came forth from the grave He came an immortalized human as well as the Son of God. To us it seems clear that the earth man, deriving his life through generation from sinful Adam, is a being whose “life is in the blood,” as the Scriptures declare; but the second Adam, who will call to life all His sleeping children, is one whose life comes not from blood, but from spirit. The first Adam became a “living soul,” the last Adam a “life-giving spirit.” God bestows His Spirit upon His children who are flesh and blood now; that spirit life is a higher life than the blood life, subject to a higher law; and it seems very clear to us that the immortalized man will be quickened all through and through, body and soul, with the spirit life.