QUESTIONS ANSWERED by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 31, 1881

QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

By Editor

1. PLEASE explain in the SIGNS Mark 9:43-48, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." S. H.

We copy the following remarks on this passage from the book entitled, "Man's Nature and Destiny," by Elder Uriah Smith:—

"These passages are relied on with as much assurance, perhaps, as any, to prove the eternal misery of the reprobate. If this language had never been used by any of the inspired writers of the Scriptures, till it was thus used in the New Testament, it might be urged with some degree of plausibility, as an expressive imagery of eternal torment. But, even in this case, it might be replied that fire, so far as we have any experience with it, or knowledge of its nature, invariably consumes that upon which it preys, and hence must be a symbol of complete destruction; and that the expression, as it occurs in Mark 9:44, can denote nothing less than the utter consumption of those who are cast into that fire.

"But this expression was one which was well known and understood by those whom Christ was addressing. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently use the figure of the undying worm and quenchless fire. In their familiar scriptures the people daily read these expressions. Let us see what idea they would derive from them. We turn to Jeremiah 17:27, and read:—"

"“But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.”"

"From this text we certainly can learn the meaning that was attached to the expression, ‘unquenchable fire,’ by the Hebrew people. This fire was not to be quenched, therefore it was unquenchable. But it was to be kindled in the gates of Jerusalem, and devour the palaces thereof. It was therefore literal, natural fire. But how could a fire of this kind, thus kindled, be supposed to be a fire that would burn eternally? They certainly would not so understand it. No more should we. Moreover, this threatening of the Lord by Jeremiah was fulfilled. 2 Chron. 36:19: ‘And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.’ Verse 21. ‘To fulfill the word of the Lord by Jeremiah.’ Thus Jerusalem was burned according to Jeremiah's prediction that it should be consumed in unquenchable fire. But how long did that fire burn? Only till it had reduced to ashes the gates and palaces on which it preyed. Unquenchable fire is therefore simply a fire that is not quenched, or does not cease, till it has entirely consumed that which causes or supports it. Then it dies out of itself, because there is nothing more to burn. The expression does not mean a fire that must absolutely eternally burn, and that consequently all that is cast therein to feed the flame must forever be preserved by having the portion consumed immediately renewed.”"

Both the worm and the fire are presented as the means of the destruction of carcasses; see Isa. 66:24. For very clear evidence of this see also Matt. 3:12; “He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” The fire of the day of perdition of the ungodly will have the same effect upon the wicked that a fire which could not be quenched would have upon chaff. Rev. 20:9, says prophetically of that day: “And fire came down from God out of Heaven, and devoured them.” Malachi says it “shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” Mal. 4:1. Ps. 37:20 says: “The enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.”

This is a very small part of the Scripture testimony as to the effect which the fire of perdition will have upon the finally unregenerate.

2. How do you prove that 1 Tim. 4:3, 4, does not permit the use of every kind of flesh, that of swine included? H. W.

That there is some limitation to this language everybody believes; at least we do not believe that there are any civilized people who hold that every living creature is good for food and was designed to be eaten. Every poisonous filthy reptile is a living creature, and so is man. Are they all good for food? Now we think the limitation is shown in verse 5: “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” The word of God did indeed sanctify or “set apart” certain animals the flesh of which might be eaten; and it expressly forbade the use of others. Swine were among the beasts not permitted to be eaten,—they were unclean. By Gen. 9 we learn that the distinction between clean and unclean beasts did not have its origin in the Levitical law. It existed before the flood. Swine were unclean before the Jews as a people existed. We need no argument to prove to us that they are unclean now.

3. What evidence from Scriptures have we that this is the only world whose inhabitants have sinned?

We are not aware that any such evidence exists.

4. Does Rom. 14:5, 6, prove that there is no day now binding as the Sabbath?

It does not; evidently it has no reference to that subject. Here again we claim a necessary limitation of the language. See the context, “One man believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs.” This shows, as Dr. Edwards well argues in his “Sabbath Manual,” that the subject is not the moral law. Now turn to Ex. 16:4, and we find the term “every day” used where it does not include the weekly Sabbath. They were to gather a certain rate of manna every day, but were not to gather it on the Sabbath. In things of a secular or merely ceremonial nature, as in these two passages, every day does not include the Sabbath of the Lord. J. H. W.