p. 1 | A WORLD-WIDE PROBLEM by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · May 14, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 28.

A WORLD-WIDE PROBLEM.

By Editor

PoOR day! It has no fixed home or abiding character. It is more like the cloud than the sun. Sunday keepers call the day in Europe the "Continental Sunday," the "French Sunday," the "Parisian Sunday;" in Scotland it is the "Scotch Sunday;" in England it is the "British Sunday," and in America we have the "American," the "Puritan," the "San Francisco," the "Chicago" Sunday; and now our Australasian cousins are wrestling with the question, "What is the British Sunday?" "This riddle," says the Australasian Star (the leading paper of the Southern Continent), of February 22, "was asked by the premier a few days ago, when a deputation of clergymen exhibited themselves before him, and we propose to answer it more fully and fairly than it was answered on that occasion."

In this answer the Star says:—

"The Sabbath," as we should all know, is the seventh day of the Jews, our present Saturday, the needed time of repose after the arduous labor of "creating," the day of rest ordained for God and man, though not, apparently, for the laws of nature. To that day, and to that day alone, the commandments, the law of Moses, the prophets, and even the evangelists refer, when the "Sabbath" is mentioned in the Bible, as it is in innumerable places and in the most solemn manner. There is no divine command which is more precise, more frequently expressed, or more binding, than the observance of the seventh day, of the Jewish Sabbath; there is none, in consequence, which all clergymen so flagrantly and persistently ignore, and they do so with a perfectly sublime contempt. What is the explanation? Their only answer to the charge is that the observance of the Sabbath—of the seventh day, with all its burdens—was transferred to Sunday. The burden of proof lies with the asserters; and we would ask our reverend teachers—the Protestant clergy of the stricter sort—when, how, or by whose authority this tremendous and startling change was made, and where in the Bible there is any mention of it, or any promulgation of the new law which effected this fundamental revolution. An old rabbi once observed, "The world was created that the Sabbath might be observed." We need not go to that extreme, but we may reasonably suppose that the burdens of the Sabbath would not be transferred to another day without a definite and precise command. . . . The early Christians, probably, observed the Jewish Sabbath for several ages, and kept Sunday, too, not in the Puritan way, but as the Reformed Anglicans kept it under Elizabeth and the Stuarts, or as Greek and Roman churchmen keep it now.

In speaking further about compulsory Sunday keeping, the editor says:—

A divine law we will obey as far as our frailty admits; but a human tyranny, especially one imposed by an interested class, we shall resist. We only resist at present by demanding the authority on which Puritan and straight-laced divines claim to transfer the obligations of the Sabbath, as well as its name, to another day, and to impose those obligations on a Christian people. We know they are wrong about the name; and we now challenge them about the obligations.

We are glad to see these outspoken utterances.

They ought to shame Protestant Christians to return to their Magna Charta, God's word. The Sabbath agitation is world-wide, and the honest in heart will find the truth. If the professed servants of Christ will not preach it, God will stir up secular papers, and stones, if necessary, to do it. Man cannot stop the agitation. In his own heart let him decide the question for God.

The "Parousia" and "Epiphany."

A marked article in a Missouri paper recently sent us has the following paragraph:—

There are two Greek words used in the New Testament to denote the two phases of our Saviour's second coming: Parousia, or presence, without visible manifestation; and epiphaneia, or open manifestation, when the whole world shall see him. The word parousia is used to denote the first stage of his coming, his coming to the "air" before the tribulation, when, "as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the parousia of the Son of Man be." Matt. 24:27.

The above is an error held by many, and we will therefore notice it briefly. The two words are used of precisely the same event. The word parousia means personal presence, that which can be seen. See 2 Cor. 7:6, 7, where the word "coming" is in the Greek parousia. The parousia, or presence, of Titus was visible. See also the word "presence" in 2 Cor. 10:10. The word parousia means simply personal presence. The word epiphaneia (or epiphany for short) means a shining forth, and both words are used of the visible, glorious second coming of Christ. "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness [epiphany, shining forth] of his coming [parousia, personal presence]." 2 Thess. 2:8. Christ was personally present at his first advent, but his divinity was veiled with humanity; but at his presence his glorious godhead will shine forth in all its brightness. For a fuller exposition of this see Bible Students' Library No. 124, now in preparation. Price, 2 cents.

"A Patriotic Catechism."

A copy of the Christian Patriot, published in Tennessee, is sent us containing a "Patriotic Catechism," on which editors are requested "to comment." The "catechism in this number (it is to be continued) presents forty-two questions and answers, in two parts, "Introductory" and "General Principles." The first questions will show its character:—

Q.—1. Does the true Christian love his nation? A.—"He that loveth not his brother abideth in death."

The above answer assumes that the nation is a brother, an individual entity, which is palpable absurdity. It is the duty of every man to love all men, and it is the true Christian who will love all men irrespective of race or nation. And he loves them not as nations, but as individuals. Again:—

Q.—5. How may the Bible be divided? A.—Into two parts; the political part teaches man's duty, and the evangelical part shows God's mercy.

This is worse. The Bible does not teach politics but practical principles. Again, in explanation of 1 Tim. 2:1, 2, he says:—

Q.—32. How should Christians pray for government? A.—The apostle commands us to pray for all that are in authority "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." Q.—33. Explain this last text. A.—Paul commands us to pray and therefore to watch and work that government may do those things and only those things which will make it harder to do wrong and easier to do right.

The object of the writer is doubtless good, but his method will be utterly futile. The world cannot be saved by government, by political creeds or catechisms, by endeavoring to put God in the constitution or by confining his word by putting it into human law. The only hope of the world is personal faith in Jesus Christ. The writer endeavors to make it appear that the theocracy of Israel was a republic, and that Moses was elected by the people. All this tendency to paternalism in government, to union of Church and State, to exalt human government to the place of God, are but evidences of the continual augmenting forces of the last-day apostasy which shall utterly ruin the nations and governments of earth. The duty of the Christian is not to be a politician, but to preach the gospel.