REMARKS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 25, 1872

As Bro. Griswold claims no exemption for his articles from candid criticism or review (see REVIEW of May 21), we take the liberty to make a few remarks relative to the foregoing article, which, however much they may lack in critical acumen, we design shall be both candid and Christian. On two points we conceive Bro. G. has adopted wrong principles of interpretation, and hence draws erroneous conclusions.

1. We are somewhat surprised to see him referring to the instances of Christ's meeting with his disciples while here upon the earth as his coming again, every instance being counted an advent and counting up in numerical order, as second, third, fourth, fifth, &c. That Christ was personally present here on earth during his incarnation, no Christian will deny. That this may properly be denominated his first advent to this earth, because his first personal appearance among men, will be as readily granted; and that this covered a space of time, from his birth to his ascension, is equally evident. There could be no second coming, or return to this world, till he had been away from this world; and he did not go away from it after once appearing here, till his ascension. He did not go away while he lay in the grave; for he assured Mary in the most positive manner, after his resurrection, that he had not yet ascended to his Father; John 20 : 17; but he announced that he was about to ascend to Him who was the God and Father both of himself and his disciples. And when did he ascend? Forty days afterward. And during that forty days he was seen of his disciples, Acts 1 : 3; he ate and drank with them, Luke 24 : 42, 43; they handled him, verses 39, 40, while he assured them that a spirit, a phantom, that figment of heathen philosophy and the soul of modern orthodoxy, had not flesh and bones as he had; and, finally, one of their number of not a very spiritual turn of mind, even doubting Thomas, put his finger upon the prints of the nails (or was invited by his Lord to do so), and thrust his hand into his side. John 20 : 27.

All these were just as real and literal transactions as any that took place before his crucifixion, or the record is not true; and if any of these constituted the second coming of Christ, then any of his interviews with his disciples before his crucifixion constituted his second coming just as much. But Bro. G. intimates that he shall not admit any such appearance as the record states. Should he deny it, many will perhaps wonder how he would define infidelity.

The ascension of Christ, which terminated the period of the first advent, made his second advent possible, and when he ascended, that second advent was announced. “This same Jesus,” said the angels to the disciples who were gazing after their ascending Lord, “shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Acts 1 : 11. Our Lord himself had previously announced the object of his coming. John 14 : 3. “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also.” When Christ comes the second time, his followers will all be taken into his presence to dwell with him forever. 1 Thess. 4 : 16, 17.

2. As to the prophecies quoted from the Old Testament, while the threatenings which they announced against certain nations and cities, have been fulfilled, their references to the day of the Lord certainly have not been fulfilled; for Paul declared that in his day the day of the Lord was still future. 1 Thess. 5 : 2, 3; and Peter makes the same announcement, and tells us what will take place when the day of the Lord does come; namely, “The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

Why, then, does the prophet refer to the day of the Lord in connection with national judgments? Because those local and limited manifestations of God's indignation against sin, suggested the more terrible and wide-spread judgments and calamities of the great day. So the prophet's eye glances from one to the other, as we sometimes see the peaks of a second range of mountains, immediately beyond the first, without perceiving the broad intervening valley, because from our standpoint the second range is in our line of vision the very next object beyond the first. So the prophet Joel, quoted by Peter, goes right forward from the day of Pentecost which was the opening of the dispensation of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 3 : 8, and the beginning of the fulfillment of his prediction, to the events with which the dispensation shall close.

The doctrine of the second advent is charged with promoting atheism and infidelity. If this is correct, one or both of two things must be apparent. There must be found numbers who have become infidels from having once believed the doctrine, or it must be found that infidels appeal to this doctrine to sustain them in their position. Can those who make the charge produce any evidence of either kind to sustain their assertion? Can a man be found who will declare that he is an infidel, because he once believed the advent doctrine, or one who will defend his infidelity on the ground that such a doctrine has been preached? If he can, let his name be mentioned. But if not, is it not manifest that such charges are made without due consideration?

The greater part of the confusion which exists in the theological world is directly traceable to the mystical or spiritual principle of interpretation, to which we are sorry to see that Bro. G. has committed himself. Language has a literal and figurative sense; and the figurative is always to be explained by the literal; but who can tell what is meant by the spiritual meaning of a word? How can the term spiritual be applied to language? Who can conceive of such a thing? When we look back for the origin of such an idea, is it not traceable to spiritual lunacy?

We are glad Bro. G. admits that language has a natural sense as well as a spiritual sense. Shall we not, then, have the privilege of employing it in its natural sense at least half of the time? For it usually happens that on Bible subjects the spiritual sense is uniformly given, so that the language virtually has but one meaning, and that is the spiritual, leaving it no natural meaning (and we might just as well say no meaning) at all. For if Christ did not appear to his disciples after his resurrection, if he did not show them a tangible body, eat and drink before them, speak to them and ascend up in their sight; and if the day of the Lord has transpired, in which the heavens were to depart as a scroll with a great noise, and the elements to melt and the earth and the works therein to be burned up, and yet nobody has known anything about it, the Bible is in a dilemma which no resort to any spiritual meaning will in any wise relieve; for it will have to be admitted that language has no meaning; and we might as well adopt the ancient hieroglyphics of Egypt, or better still, drop all representations, and confess the utter inability of mankind to communicate ideas either by signs or sounds. We suggest that this very manner of interpreting the Scriptures has done more to foster and strengthen infidelity than all other causes combined.

The Bible being revelations from divine beings (argued Bro. G. last week) its language must have a spiritual meaning. We reply, The human race for whose benefit the revelation was made, not being spiritual beings, any communication addressed to them must be adapted to their condition and have its most plain and natural sense.

We discard alike both the name and idea, whatever it may be, of spiritual interpretation. It is the prolific mother of darkness, corruption, and error. There is no superstition that cannot be defended by it, and no truth of God's word, however clear, that cannot by it be dissipated into nothingness! Farewell to the Bible record of creation, the Sabbath, the law, moral government, and divine providence, the incarnation, the atonement, Christian ordinances, and gospel precepts, and even our hope of Heaven itself, if this prevails!