QUESTION CORNER

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jul 2, 1902

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 28, No. 27.

NOTE.—We wish those who ask questions to take particular notice: (1) Only such questions will be answered here as we believe to be of general interest and information. (2) We can not undertake to explain from four to a dozen scriptures, as in one sentence we are often requested to do. (3) Do not ask to “explain” a certain text or passage. State clearly the point in question. (4) Give full name and address, not for publication unless desired, but as evidence of good faith, and to give us the privilege of replying by letter if deemed best. (5) Unsigned communications of any kind find the quickest way to the waste-basket. (6) It is always well to inclose stamp. (7) “Foolish and unlearned questions avoid,” also those that minister to mere curiosity. (8) Study the Scriptures yourselves.

1251. Dealing with Captives.

Will you please express an opinion on Deut. 21:10-14. Is the permission granted in verse 14 in harmony with the principles of justice? G. T.

Was not this dealing far better than that of slavery? The Israelite was not permitted to use the captive as a thing of lust, but to make her his wife; if he could not get along with her, he might not sell her as a slave (see R.V.), but must let her go free, even as an Israelite woman. See Deut. 24:1. God did the very best He could do with that nation, and always does the best He can do with every nation, without destroying their free will. The laws He gave through Moses were so much better than the heathen around Israel knew that they were as America of a hundred years ago compared to barbarous China or Turkey. They were light and salvation to those in darkness, leading on to still greater light.

1252. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Was there anything evil in the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did this tree represent the character of Satan? If not, will it be restored to Eden again in the new earth?

INQUIRER.

1. If there was anything evil in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, how could God call all that He had made “good” and “very good?” Gen. 1:25, 31. If it had not been good, it would not have been planted by the Creator.

2. It, being “good,” could not be a representation of the character of Satan. It was not mere eating that brought the curse upon man, but it was disobedience, placing himself out of harmony with God. That tree was taken as a test of man’s loyalty.

3. It would seem that when God restored all things, He would also restore that tree. Why He did not wish man to eat of it at first is clearly evident; He wanted man to learn God’s goodness and character, and his own duty, by faith in God’s word. When man’s character is tested, why should he not eat of that tree, as of the tree of life?

1253. Satan’s Access to Other Worlds.

Did Satan ever have access to other worlds to tempt them? and has he the same power now?

That he did have access to other worlds and has not access now, since our Lord was raised a triumphant Conqueror, seems clearly evident from Rev. 12:9-13. When Christ conquered for man, Satan was cast out into the earth, and the heavens rejoiced because he was cast down.

1254. “Commanding to Abstain from Meats.”

Seventh-day Adventists teach that we are in the “last days,” and the second coming of Christ is near, and they point out signs to show that this is true. But now according to the Bible there was to come, in the last days, a certain class of people, “commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Tim. 4:3-5. Now if we are in the last days, and the coming of Christ draweth nigh, who is fulfilling this prophecy? Seventh-day Adventists are the only people, so far as I know, that teach that anything is unclean; therefore they must be the ones that are fulfilling this prophecy.

GARFIELD THOMPSON.

This is sent in as a question, but it really comes as an accusation. Yet we wish to give him, and others similarly troubled, some light on the question.

1. We are in the last days; everything shows that to be the case.

2. The text in question does not say “the last days,” but “in latter times,” or, as the Revised Version, “in later times,” in times subsequent to the apostles’ days,—abundantly fulfilled in the man-made fasts commanded by superstition throughout the Dark Ages to the present.

3. The word translated “meats” means food of any kind, not necessarily flesh meat. So we use it in speaking of the kernels of nuts; so the English farmer still uses it in speaking of the food for his horse. Verse 5 modifies the “every creature,”—that which is sanctified or set apart by His Word, and by prayer. What does this say, the Word that was, when Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy? The only Word of authority then known was the Old Testament Scriptures.

4. Seventh-day Adventists believe that when God called the swine, for instance, unclean (Lev. 11:4-8), and elsewhere makes the distinction between the clean and unclean beasts, He knew the nature of the beasts. Knowing it, He told it to His people. We know of no reason for believing their nature to be changed. But when God sent His servants to the great Gentile world, sunken in the most depraved customs, ignorant of many things, surrounded with insuperable difficulties, He would not load them down with ceremonial observances which could not be borne. He removed the prohibition for the sake of the weak, but the nature of the beasts still remains, and the lessons remain. And many Christians believe this.

5. But Seventh-day Adventists command NO ONE to abstain from food. They teach what they believe to be the best kind of food, what will build up good, healthy bodies, clear minds, and clean hearts through God’s grace; but they command nothing. Every soul can do as he wishes.

Now, does our querist wish to find something against the people he has mentioned? or does he wish to tarry by the fleshpots and eat pork, snakes, snails, etc.? If he does, he has the privilege; that is, if he can get them, and all else is agreeable. No one, so far as we know, will prevent it. We believe in religious liberty. But, nevertheless, there is ever so much better food than flesh food.