Report of the Battle Creek Bible Class.
By W. C. G.
CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS.
The session of Sabbath, Dec. 14, was devoted entirely to the examination of questions, some of which were deferred from last Sabbath, and others were sent in from abroad. The question as to whether Christ, in the institution of the supper, blessed the bread or blessed God, elicited considerable discussion. We were favored on this occasion with the presence of Brn. Waggoner, Hutchins, and others, whose remarks and opinions added much to the interest of the lesson. Considerable light was thrown on the subject by reference to the original Greek. The word εὐχαριστέω, which is here rendered blessed, is defined by Greek lexicographers as signifying “To make requital; to thank, give thanks.” Reference was made to Luke ix, 16, where Christ is said to have blessed the loaves which miraculously fed the multitude, as proof that something was done to the bread in blessing it. Upon reference to the original, however, it was shown that the word there rendered blessed, was εὐλογέω, an entirely different word from that under consideration. Three different versions of the French also render it simply “to give thanks.” In the light of this testimony it was decided that the blessing did not apply to the bread, but to God. To the casual thinker this might seem a trifling question, but when we consider that it involves a common practice, that of “giving thanks,” or asking a blessing at our meals, it becomes more interesting and significant. The question was then raised as to whether the object of “saying grace,” as it is commonly called, would be fully met, without mention being made of the food. Some contended that the food should be the principal thing in view; others, that the blessing was to be craved. The question was then further considered, as to whether the accounts of our Saviour’s anointing, as given in Matt. xxvi, 6, Mark xiv, 3, Luke vii, 37, and John xii, 3, all refer to the same event, or to more than one anointing. Upon a careful comparison of the several accounts, and the consultation of commentators and Bible writers, it was decided that Matthew, Mark, and John, had reference to the same event, while that of Luke was doubtless another anointing. In proof of this it was argued that on the occasion mentioned by Luke, Christ was at the house of a Pharisee, and the woman who anointed him was a sinner, or Gentile, and therefore must have come unbidden, as a Pharisee would certainly not have invited such a class to his own house. But in the accounts given by the other evangelists, it seems that the one who performed the anointing was Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha, the latter of whom served at the supper, while the former sat at the table with Jesus, which could not have been the case had Mary been identical with the great sinner, mentioned by Luke, and the supper at the house of a Pharisee. It was further shown that the account of Luke could not synchronize with those of the others, as the latter took place but a few days before his betrayal, while the former must have occurred quite early in his ministry. Several questions which have accumulated at the Review Office, were presented to the class for examination, and were acted upon as follows: 1. When were the multitude of captives judged who were raised at Christ’s resurrection, and ascended with him? (Eph. iv, 8, margin.) As this was a special resurrection, they must have had a special judgment. There are exceptional cases in many of the plans of God relative to man. Enoch and Elijah were translated, notwithstanding God has appointed a judgment in the future. That appointment is not because he is dependent upon the judgment for his knowledge of man’s worthiness, but to vindicate his righteousness before an intelligent universe. While the general plan of a judgment and a resurrection at Christ’s second coming may concern mankind in general, His omniscience enables him to make special resurrections, or special judgments, independently of them all. 2. Is the business of hop-raising morally right. In the discussion of this question, the first point to be decided, was the uses to which hops are applied. It is indisputably established that, while a very small proportion of the hops raised in this country are used for chemical and domestic purposes, such as yeast-making, dyeing, &c., the vast bulk of the annual crop is sold, either directly or indirectly, to the manufacturers of beer and ale, beverages that are intoxicating and injurious. It was suggested that rye, wheat, corn, and potatoes, are also used in the manufacture of intoxicating drinks. But it should be borne in mind, that only a very small proportion of these are used for such purposes, as they are really the necessaries of life, and indispensable as articles of food, while this cannot be said of hops, as the great demand for this product is caused by their use in brewing, and it is almost morally certain, that nine-tenths of the crop carried to market, will find its way into the distiller’s hands. Probably no one would attempt to defend tobacco-raising on the ground that it might be used for killing vermin, &c., yet that would be similar to the plea that hops may be used for good purposes, when it is clear that nine-tenths of them are used for bad purposes. If the hop-raiser could make sure that all his hops were to be used for other purposes than beer making, &c., he might be clear; otherwise he would be helping on the soul-destroying work of intemperance by contributing to one of its chief supports. These were the ideas, in the main, that were advanced by different members of the class, and upon the question being put to vote, the class, without a dissenting voice, decided that hop-raising as a business, is morally wrong. Another question was introduced, but as the decision of it was deferred until next Sabbath, we leave it until our next report. W. C. G.