Review and Herald, Vol. 40, No. 24. (11/26/1872)

Review and Herald

Nov 26, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 26, 1872

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT:

By W. H. L.

Or the Sunday, the Sabbath, the Change, and the Restitution.

No. 5.

Nor is this matter at all relieved by the statement found in John 20:26, that after eight days, Thomas being present, he appeared unto them a second time under similar circumstances. For even should we grant that this was on the next Sunday evening—a matter in which there is, at least, room for a difference of opinion—the subject is merely complicated the more, so far as the view of our friends is concerned, since here, a second opportunity, and that a most excellent one, for calling the attention of the disciples to the new character which a once secular day had assumed, was entirely neglected. In this also, as in the first instance, the conversation was of a nature to show that the object of the interview was to give additional evidence (because of the presence of Thomas) of the reanimation of the body of Christ, without any reference to its effect upon the character of the day upon which it occurred. But such silence, under such circumstances, in regard to so important a matter, is in itself conclusive evidence that the change claimed had not really taken place. Furthermore, it will not be urged that more than two out of the five first-days which occurred between the resurrection and the ascension were days of assembly. Had they been—as it had been decided, according to the view of those urging the transition, that the Sunday should not be hallowed by positive declaration, but simply inaugurated by quiet precedent, then the presumption is, that this precedent, instead of being left upon the insufficient support of two Sabbaths out of five, would have been carefully placed upon the whole number. Nor would the precaution have ended here. In a matter vital in its nature, certain it is that the honest seeker after truth would not be left to grope his way through a metaphysical labyrinth of philosophic speculation in regard to the effect of certain transactions upon the character of the time upon which they occurred; or the bearing of certain meetings of Christ and the apostles upon the question as to whether Sunday had assumed a sacred character, when at the same time his perplexity was rendered insupportable by the fact, that the historian states, that like meetings occurred on days for which no one will claim any particular honor.

Take, for instance, the meeting of Jesus with the apostles at the sea of Galilee (John 21), while they were engaged in a fishing excursion. Assuredly, this did not take place on Sunday; else, according to the view of our friends, they would not have been engaged in such an employment. Just what day it was, no one is able to decide; but all agree that its character was in no way affected by the profoundly interesting interview which occurred upon it between the Master and his disciples. If it were, then there is at least one holy day in the week which we cannot place in the calendar, since no one can decide whether it was the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.

If, however, you would have a still more forcible illustration of the fact, that religious meetings, were they never so solemn, can in no wise alter the nature of the hours on which they occur, let me call your attention to the day of the ascension (Acts 1). Here is an occasion of transcendent glory. If the statements in the sacred narrative of events, which transpired during its hours, could only be predicated of either one or the other of the first-day meetings of Christ with his disciples, it would at least be with an increased show of reason that they could be woven into the tissue of a Sabbatic argument. Here are found many of the elements essential to the idea of religious services, of which the instances in question are so remarkably destitute.

In the first place, those who followed our Lord to the place of meeting were intelligent believers in the fact of his resurrection.

In the second place, the assembly was not confined to a mere handful of individuals seeking for retirement within an upper room where they were in the habit of eating, drinking, and sleeping; but it transpired in the open air, where Jesus was in the habit of meeting with his followers.

In the third place, the congregation was made up of persons whom the Holy Spirit had thus brought together for the purpose of becoming the honored witnesses of the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

In the fourth place, it was graced by the visible forms of holy angels in glistering white, who participated in the services.

In the fifth place, Jesus himself addressed them at length, lifted up his hands to heaven, and brought down its benediction upon them, and in the sight of the assembled multitude, steadily and majestically rising above them, he floated upward until a cloud received him out of their sight.

In the sixth place, it is said in so many words, that the “people worshiped him there.”

Now, suppose, for the sake of the argument, that some modern sect should endeavor to transform our unpretending Thursday, which was really the day of the ascension, since it was the fortieth after the resurrection, into one of peculiar dignity, claiming, in defense of their position, the example of Christ, and urging that the course which he pursued could only be satisfactorily explained on the ground that he was laying the foundation for its future Sabbath observance, how would our friends meet them in such an emergency? Deny the facts, they could not, for the record is ample. There would, therefore, be but one alternative left.

If transactions of this character are of a nature such that they necessarily exalt the days upon which they occur to the rank of holy days, then Thursday is one, and should be treated as such. No line of argument, however ingenious, could evade this conclusion, so long as the premises in question were adhered to. Planting himself squarely upon them, with the consent of modern Christendom, the advocate of the newly discovered holy day, finding the record perfectly free from embarrassments in the nature of transactions which would appear to be incompatible with the notion that everything which Christ and his apostles did was in harmony with his view, if possessed of that skill and ability which has marked the efforts of some modern theologians in such discussions, could weave a web of inference and conjecture almost interminable in its length.

All the facts connected with the meeting could be expanded, and turned over and over, and exhibited from innumerable standpoints, so as to yield the largest amount of evidence possible. Having dwelt at large upon everything which was said and done at Bethany, he might return with the solemn procession to the great city. Having done this, he would not fail to call our attention to the fact that they did not conduct themselves in a manner such as men might have been expected to do under the circumstances on a common day, but that, on the contrary, impressed with the sacredness of the hours which had witnessed the glorious ascension of the Son of God, they immediately repaired to a place of assembly, manifestly for the purpose of continued worship. Again, scrutinizing with polemic eye every syllable of the history in order to extract from it all the hidden testimony which it might contain, his attention would be arrested by these words, “A Sabbath day’s journey.” Immediately he inquires, Why employ such an expression as this—one which occurs nowhere else in the sacred volume? Certainly it cannot be the result of accident. The Holy Spirit must have designed to signify something by such a use of the term in the connection under consideration. A Sabbath day’s journey! What importance could be attached to the fact that the particular point from which Christ ascended was no more than a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem? The expression is not sufficiently definite to designate the precise spot, and must, therefore, have been employed to express some other idea. What was it? Undeniably, it was introduced into this connection because of the nature of the time on which the journey occurred. It was a Sabbath day, and, as such, it was important that succeeding generations should not be left to infer from the account given, that it was a matter of indifference to the Lord how far travel should be carried on such an occasion; but, on the contrary, that he was jealous on this point, and that the expression in question was employed to show that the procession of Christ’s followers, and Christ, himself, bowed reverently to the national regulation respecting the distance to which it was proper for one to depart from his home during the continuance of holy time.

But this line of argument, though plausible in itself, and superior in fact to that which is many times used to support the tottering fabric of first-day observance, would not, we fancy, persuade an intelligent public to introduce a new Sabbath into their calendar. The verdict which even those with whom we differ would be compelled to render would be that which both reason and piety would dictate; namely, that the fatal defect in the logic was the want of a thus saith the Lord.

Passing now from the first six of the eight texts which relate to the first day of the week, let us give to 1 Cor. 16:2, and Acts 20:7, a consideration of sufficient length only to enable us to assign to them the proper place which they should occupy in this controversy. While it will be observed that they present the only mention of the first day of the week after leaving the gospels, and while it is remembered that they are separated from the occurrences there narrated by the space of twenty-six years, it is a remarkable fact that the first of them, if not in itself clearly against the conception of Sunday sanctity, at least, affords no strength for the argument in its favor. It reads as follows: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Cor. 16:2.

Now, bear in mind that the inference here is, that the gatherings spoken of were to be made in the assemblies of the Corinthians, the presumption following that, as they must have been in the habit of convening on the first day of the week, the apostle took advantage of this fact in order to secure the desired collections for the saints at Jerusalem. You will observe, consequently, that the postulate, or assumed point in the discussion, is that the Corinthians were at the church, or place of meeting, when the “laying by,” which was ordered above, took place. If, therefore, this be not true, the whole logical superstructure which rests upon it necessarily falls to the ground.

Let us inquire after the facts. Does the apostle say, Let every one of you lay by himself at the church? or, does he command that his pro rata donation should be placed in the contribution box of the assembly? We answer: There is not a word to this effect. Nor is this all; the very idea of the text is diametrically opposed to this notion. Before the contrary can be shown to be true, it will be necessary to demonstrate that which is absurd in itself; namely, the proposition that what an individual has voluntarily placed beyond his own reach and control by putting it in a common fund, can, at the same time, be said to be “laid by him in store.”

Furthermore, Mr. J. W. Morton, a gentleman who has given the subject mature reflection and careful investigation, by a comparison of the different versions and the original, has demonstrated the fact that, if properly translated, the idea of the passage is simply that, for the purpose of uniformity of action, and to prevent confusion from secular matters when the apostle himself should arrive, each person should lay by himself at home the amount of his charities according to his ability. We give the following from his pen: “The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression ‘by him;’ and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means ‘in the collection box of the congregation.’ Greenfield, in his lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘by one’s self; i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions—the Vulgate, and that of Castellio—render it, ‘apud se,’ with one’s self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, ‘chez soi,’ at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, by himself, ‘same as German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di sé,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferrara, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘naer sig sielf,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above.”—Vindication of the True Sabbath, page 61.

The simple fact is, therefore, that while the text in question yields no proof that Sunday was then regarded as a day of convocation, it was one which might be encumbered with matters which would necessarily call attention to the pecuniary affairs of individual Christians, and so avoid the necessity of their giving thought to such things when Paul himself should have arrived; thereby preventing delay on his part, and leaving them free to devote their whole time to the consideration of religious themes. Thus much for 1 Cor. 16:2.—W. H. L., in Christian Statesman.

HOPE

Never despair! The darkest cloud That ever loomed will pass away, The longest night will yield to dawn— The dawn will kindle into day.

What if around thy lonely bark Break fierce and high the waves of sorrow, Stretch every oar! there's land ahead! And thou wilt gain the port to-morrow.

When fortune frowns, and summer friends, Like birds that fear a storm, depart, Some, if the heart hath tropic warmth, Will stay and nestle round thy heart.

If thou art poor, no joy is won, No good is gained by sad repining, Gems, buried in the darkened earth, May yet be gathered for the mining.

There is no lot however sad, There is no roof, however low, But has some joy to make it glad, Some latent bliss to soothe its woe.

The light of hope will linger near, When wildest beats the heart's emotion; A talisman when breakers roar, A star upon the troubled ocean.

The farmer knows not if his field With flood, or drought, or blight must cope; He questions not the fickle skies, But plows, and sows, and toils in hope. Then up! and strive, and dare, and do, Nor doubt a harvest you will gather; 'Tis time to labor and to wait, And trust in God for genial weather.

Look to Christ for Strength

Never rejoice in your own strength. A child looking to Christ is stronger than a strong man armed. Be resolute in looking to him alone for strength.

The Coming of Christ.—No. 9.

By S. S. Griswold

BY S. S. GRISWOLD.

We now come to the consideration of Acts 1:11, a passage, supposed by Adventists to be impregnable, as proving the personal return of Christ to this earth. The passage reads, commencing with the 4th verse, “And when he [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”

It is assumed that the above passage incontestibly proves the return of Christ in his material body to this earth; and to call in question that supposed fact is to question the veracity of the text. It is assumed by the Adventists that Christ’s literal body was raised from the dead, that it was this resurrected material body that was seen during his sojourn on the earth after the resurrection, and that it was this self-same material body of resurrected flesh, bones, muscles, blood, viscera, &c., that ascended into Heaven, and which is to return.

That there are serious difficulties attending this view must be admitted even by its advocates. As the resurrected body of Jesus was doubtless clothed, Christ did not appear to his disciples naked, the question may be asked, Where did he obtain the garments he wore after his resurrection? For he was buried in grave-clothes, fine linen purchased by Joseph of Arimathea. These grave-clothes were left in the sepulcher, they were not assumed by Christ at his resurrection. Where, then, did he obtain those garments that he wore after his resurrection? Did Christ borrow, beg, buy, or create them out of nothing? Again, did Christ ascend to Heaven in those veritable garments of woolen, linen, or mixed? and is he now clad in those material fabrics? Again, if Christ’s resurrected body was the same veritable material body that was buried, how came it to pass that Mary did not recognize him after he was risen? See John 20:14–16; so also those two, while journeying to Emmaus. Luke 24:13–34. Again, and why were witnesses chosen to whom Christ appeared, instead of being seen by people generally? Again, why was not Christ visible all the time after his resurrection until his ascension, if he possessed a material body? and how could a material body pass into a room without the door being opened? Again, of what consistency were the bodies of those men that stood by the apostles at Christ’s ascension? also of those angels that were in the sepulcher, and that rolled away the stone from its mouth, at Christ’s resurrection? also of that multitude of the heavenly hosts who sang the natal song of the Redeemer?

Again, if Christ ascended in the same veritable body of flesh and blood that he possessed during his earth life, must not his ascension to, and continuance in, the heavens be a continued miracle, counteracting the law of gravitation, which would have held him to the earth? So, also, must there not be a continued miracle, to sustain him in existence, as respects food? For how can his life be continued without nutriment, if his body is material as prior to his resurrection? In fact, the materialistic view of Christ’s resurrection, must necessarily involve an unending series of miracles. It entirely sets aside the whole course of nature, and resolves the whole into the miraculous. It may also be remarked that, had the ascension taken place either earlier or later in the day, the line of ascension would have been either in an opposite direction in the heavens, or at right angles with the direct line of ascension.

The question, then, is, What was the ascension? Was it the ascending up from the earth of a material body, a body of flesh, blood, and bones, and all its internal viscera, against the law of gravitation, either drawn upward by some higher power, or propelled upward by some force inhering in the body itself? Its rising buoyant on the air could not have been caused by any spirit force within it; for according to the materialistic view, there is no such thing as spirit, hence no spirit force could have sent a body weighing some 150 pounds upward against the force of gravitation, which held it fast to the earth.

What, then, was the ascension? Was it not the passing from the visible to the invisible? and was not its phenomena of being seen rather an effect wrought on the beholders, than on the ascending one? Was not the fact of the ascension in accordance with those laws of spiritual phenomena by which all those angelic appearances mentioned in the Scriptures are to be explained?

The denial by materialists of all spiritual phenomena, is directly in the face of abundant evidence. The facts of spiritual phenomena can be sustained by as abundant testimony, almost, as those of the natural world. The assumption that mind, spirit, does not nor cannot exist, except as an effect of material organism, is contradicted by all past experience, both of science and revelation. It annihilates God as well as angels and men. It necessitates as its legitimate sequence, the blankest atheism. Not that all materialists are atheists, but that materialism, which denies the existence of spirit, except as the effect of material organism, necessitates that consequence. Therefore, although it may be anticipative of what may be said when I come to the consideration of the subject of the resurrection; yet, as the ascension of Christ seems to stand connected with his resurrection, perhaps I may be pardoned in very briefly remarking upon Christ’s death and resurrection.

The death of Christ, then, what was it? Did it render him unconscious of existing, of being? During the time his body lay in the tomb, was not Christ, as to his spirit, alive? Did he not then exist as a conscious, active, acting being? or was all that constituted him a personality sleeping unconscious in the tomb of Joseph? An answer to these questions may, in a measure, determine as to who he was, whether a mere man or a divine man, possessing the duality of divinity and humanity. That he was the latter the Scriptures abundantly show. Hence death could not have been the annihilation of his consciousness or his divine consciousness. The admission would be fatal to his divinity. Christ, then, as to his spiritual nature, did not die, or death did not render him unconscious. For it was while his body lay entombed that he preached to the spirits of the departed dead, as mentioned by Peter (see 1 Pet. 3:18–20) a fact universally believed by the church during the first three centuries, but which materialism, infidelity, skepticism, and rationalism, has almost annihilated.

As the death of Christ destroyed the organism of his body, his resurrection, viz., the egeiro not the anastasis of his body, was its restoration. (Remark. The egeiro or resuscitation of Christ’s body must not be confounded with the anastasis, or resurrection of the immortal Jesus. This distinction will be noticed more particularly when I come to examine the subject of the resurrection generally.)

While, therefore, it may be admitted that the body of Christ was revivified, and thus removed from the sepulcher, and also that he might have so resumed it as to appear in it at certain times, yet it does not follow that all his post mortem appearances were thus in the fleshly body. For had they been, it is difficult to account for Mary not knowing him; also, the disciples going to Emmaus; also the fact of his appearing under a variety of forms or appearances, and his entering rooms without any opening; also his not being seen by the people generally.

The true philosophy of his being seen after his resurrection, doubtless was the couching of the spirit eyes of those who beheld him, rather than his having re-possessed himself of his natural body. That at times he might have assumed an earthly form, may be admitted; but that does not seem to have been the usual manner by which his presence was recognized.

There doubtless were good reasons why his body should have vacated the tomb, such as affording proof of his being alive, but that he always, after his resurrection, was possessed of that material body, and that he ascended in it, is not well attested.

Christ’s natural body, like Elijah’s at his translation, was doubtless instantly resolved into its original gases, while he possessed a real spiritual body, the one in which he ascended, a body seen only by spiritual eyes. It was this spiritual body that Stephen saw when being stoned to death. The same was seen by Saul.

The ascension of Christ, then, was not the ascension of a gross body of flesh, blood, and bones, into the heavens; but a closing up of the spiritual eyes of those who beheld it. And it is in this way Christ is to come, in a manner similar to that in which he seemed to go toward heaven.

“The vision was one of those theophanies so oft in ancient times, previous to Christ’s incarnation, vouchsafed to man—during Christ’s pre-incarnate glory which, in accordance with Christ’s prayer [John 17] was similar to his post incarnate glory.”

The only passage that numerically refers to Christ’s second appearing is Heb. 9:28, and that limits his appearance to those who look for him. Why thus limit the appearance to such only as look for him, when if he comes bodily all must see him, nolens volens, for none can help seeing a literal body? Hence this second appearing of Christ, called his second advent, is not the appearance of a material, physical body, a personal appearance, but a spiritual appearance, only to those who look for him, those who love him. Therefore as Christ disappeared from the spiritual perceptions or eyes of the disciples, in like manner he will re-appear to them who look for him, or desire to see him in that spirit world where he went at his ascension, and whom the Heaven must receive during the restitution of all things spoken of by the prophets. There those and those only who look for him, will see the King in his beauty.

That spiritual beings exist, is abundantly proved and established by the Scriptures, also that such beings have been seen and heard, is equally established. To deny or ignore the fact is to take away from the things written in that book. And I here assume that men who have died immediately exist or continue to live, is abundantly taught in the Scriptures. This being the fact, the question is, How are such spiritual beings recognized by mortals? There seems to be but two ways or modes by which a recognition can take place. One is, that the spirit clothes itself with a material covering or body, and thus would be recognized by our natural senses. The other is, the couching of our spiritual senses, by which we could thus recognize a spiritual being. This last seems to me as the more probable. Hence a large portion, if not all, of the appearances of Christ after his resurrection are to be explained in that way. The spiritual eyes, ears, &c., of those witnesses, chosen of God for that purpose, see Acts 10:51, were thus opened, and by that means, saw, heard, and felt him. And the incident related in Acts 1:11, under consideration is thus explained. As the spiritual vision of the disciples gradually closed, Jesus appeared to recede, until he ceased to be recognized by them. Hence in like manner he will come, recognized by the spiritual perceptions of those who look for him, and those only. Scripture abundantly relates instances where spiritual beings were seen and heard by one and not by another, although both could have seen them had they been recognized by the natural senses. The case of Zachariah seeing the angel, while no one else saw him. Luke 1:11–22. The companions of Saul saw the light, but did not hear the voice of Him who spoke, while Saul both saw and heard. Acts 22:9. Other similar cases might be given.

But I will not enlarge. To my understanding, the passage in Acts 1:11, falls far short from proving the personal return of Christ to this earth. On the contrary, it disproves that supposed fact. It is but the last recorded instance of those post resurrection theophanies of Christ which had been occurring since the eventful morn in which he left the abodes of those departed ones who were then living in the spirit world. For Christ rose out from among the dead which were in the hades regions, and once more revealed himself to his disciples, to those who were looking for him.

While, therefore, his body was dissipated or removed from the sepulcher, which was the egeiro, or its resuscitation; the true anastasis or resurrection was his rising out from the vast myriads of departed spirits, who were then residents in the spirit world, and to whom he preached and revealed himself. Thus was the gospel preached to the dead as well as to the living, that Christ might be the Judge of both the quick and the dead. 1 Pet. 4:6. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus, and come quickly.

Continue reading: REMARKS