ARE THERE TWO CLASSES MENTIONED THEREIN?
In Review No. 17, present volume, we noticed a little effort of Mr. Wm. Sheldon to disprove the visions of Sr. White, in an attempt on his part to show that they were contrary to the Bible. To do this, he brought up a “sample” of the facts he had to produce, which was, that the visions locate the rise of the two-horned beast, and the image of the beast, down this side of the great papal persecution, whereas John, in Rev. xx, 4, places it previous to, or during, that persecution; for the martyrs back there, were commended for not worshiping the image which the two-horned beast had caused to be made. In reply, we showed that this objection could not be urged when the text was rightly understood; that there were two classes brought to view in that verse; that the expression, “and which had not worshiped the beast,” &c., if strictly translated would read, “and those who had not,” or, “and whosoever had not worshiped,” &c.; that the martyrs were one class, and those who had not worshiped the beast, &c., were another class; and that this worship of beast and image was not consequently placed back previous to, or during, the papal persecution. Let this fact be once established, as it can easily be, and no argument was ever more completely annihilated, than is Mr. Sheldon’s by this. An effort to evade its force was to be expected. Accordingly in the Voice of the West of Oct. 9, Mr. S. comes out on the point; and like a person who feels that he is under the necessity of putting on some kind of an air, claims to be—“somewhat amused” (?) at our article. He then says that in our criticism on the translation we have fairly jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. How we have done it, we will let him state in his own words: “Let us look at the result of this proposed translation: ‘And whosoever had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, . . . they lived and reigned with Christ.’ If there are two classes here brought to view; the one class embracing the martyrs, and the other class including ‘whosoever’ had not worshiped the beast or his image, there is no means of evading the conclusion that there are millions of wicked men, including infidels, Mohammedans, and unconverted Protestants, who have never worshiped the beast, and this proposed translation promises that they shall all ‘reign with Christ’—yes; ‘whosoever’ has stood aloof from papacy, is, by this translation, entitled to live and reign with Christ.”
The changes which he rings on the idea that the “whosoever” must embrace “millions of vile sinners,” shows how immensely satisfied he is with himself for having discovered it! He thinks we are now in the fire, certain, and exclaims in great glee that there is no possible way to “dodge the conclusion, except by abandoning the translation.” Indeed. Let us look at the subject a moment more. We had supposed that in all lines of prophecy embracing a series of consecutive events, the context had something to do in determining the meaning of any particular passage. How is it with Rev. xx, 4? Rev. xix and xx, give us events to transpire in consecutive order. In chap. xix, we have the heavens opened and one coming forth upon a white horse called Faithful and True. He is clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. The armies of Heaven follow him; out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he may smite the nations; and he has on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. We have an angel standing in the sun, and bidding all the fowls of heaven come to the supper of the great God. We have the beast, and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse and against his army—quite a general combination of the wicked powers of earth against the Lord of glory. We have the beast and the false prophet taken and destroyed. Those vast portions of the human race, represented by the beast, the false prophet, the kings of the earth and their armies, are slain and destroyed by the heavenly Warrior. What becomes of the rest of his foes? To leave no room for us to infer that any escape, John adds in verse 21, “And the remnant [all the rest] were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse.” The scenes brought to view in chap. xx, then follow: The Devil is bound, and the first resurrection takes place. In verse 4, the text under consideration, John is viewing this company, of whom he writes, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” Two classes of this company are singled out as worthy of especial mention, the martyrs, and those who had refused to worship the beast or his image. And now when John says, “whosoever had not worshiped the beast,” &c., where are the multitudes of the vilest sinners which Mr. S. says must be included in this expression? Where? They are not to be found. The prophet had just said that they had all been slain, and he tells us in verse 5 that the seal of death had been set upon them for a thousand years. He is viewing only the blessed and holy who have part in the first resurrection, and yet when he says, “whosoever” of this class, had not worshiped the beast, &c., Mr. S., with miraculous discernment, perceives millions of the vilest sinners included therein! He is welcome to all the joy he can derive from such an imaginary discovery. But suppose Mr. S. could here sustain his position, and show that the word whosoever must include millions of vile sinners; he would only be furnishing material for infidelity; for we showed on the best authorities, Robinson, Bloomfield, and Scholefield, that the word ὅστις means “whosoever,” and should be so rendered in Rev. xx, 4; and these authorities he has made no effort to refute. We will now add another: Liddell and Scott define ὅστις thus: “Radical signification, whosoever, whichsoever, any one who, anything which, thus strictly differing from the simple ὅς.” But this word, as used in the text under notice, so far from embracing millions of vile sinners, need not embrace all the righteous except the martyrs; for it is evident on a moment’s thought, that a refusal to worship the beast and his image could not be made a distinguishing characteristic of any class except those upon whom the authority of the beast had been brought to bear, and they had refused to comply with his demands. But Mr. S. makes a further effort to rear up his prostrate theory by saying, “The Greek term ὅστις, rendered ‘which’ in the text, and ‘whosoever’ by the Review, is often used in such connections as to forbid the idea of its meaning whosoever, as in the following instances.” Suppose it is. Unless he can show that Rev. xx, 4, is one of those instances, he might just as well have saved the time he took to state that fact. The passages he cites are 2 Cor. iii, 14, “Which vail is done away in Christ,” and Eph. i, 23, “Head over all things to the church, which is his body.” But if he had looked at the matter a little more critically, he would have seen that in these instances the construction is altogether different from that in Rev. xx, 4. There the compound relative ὅστις is introduced with a conjunction, καί. In the passages he quotes it is not so introduced. And he cannot find an instance in which it is introduced with the conjunction as in Rev. xx, 4, where it has the sense of the simple relative ὅς, referring to a definite antecedent. His criticism is therefore worthless. Our position is sustained. There are two classes brought to view in Rev. xx, 4. In our former article, we referred to his attempted slur upon sister White by his frequent use of the word Ellen; as “the visions of Ellen,” “Ellen says,” &c. He now asks if we slur Daniel by using his given name? Will he tell us what other name Daniel had among his people? If at the present time we had anything to say about Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, or Miss Anna Dickinson, especially in a controversial way, and should be continually repeating, Harriet, Harriet, or Anna, Anna, it would be very apparent that we intended some disrespect, or were ignorant of the first principles of etiquette; nor could we help the matter by a verdant appeal to the customs of society twenty-four hundred years ago.