Appendixes
---===---
A. How Sunday Observance Began
B. Sabbath in Matthew 28:1
C. "The Lord's Day
D. Gentiles and Sabbath keeping-A Letter to a Fundamentalist E. The Gamble Theory Examined
F. Admissions That Charges of Fanaticism by 1844 Adventists Are Groundless G. How Long Is Everlasting?
H. Life, Soul, and Spirit
I. "Upon This Rock”
J. How Are Prohibition Laws Related to Religious Liberty?
K. Do Adventists Seek a "Wide Open" Sunday?
L. How to Meet the "Christian Nation" Argument.
M. The Remission of Sins-a Comment on Matthew 16:19.
N. Rome's Claim to Unity in Contrast to Protestantism's Division
1. How Sunday Observance Began
(The following, by Frank H. Yost, appeared as a series of articles in the Review and Herald in 1952, and is reprinted here with his kind permission.)
Sunday observance began in the church in Rome. Records from the dim second century show that it was the leaders of the church in Rome who put emphasis upon it.
The reason they assigned for Sunday observance was that Christ rose upon that day. The observance began under Sixtus, who was the papa (pope) 20 or leader of the church of Rome about AD. 125 (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 24, par. H.)
But this was not at first a weekly observance, coming once each week after the Sabbath, as it was later, and as it is today. It was annual. It came once a year, at the time of the awakening of spring.
In bringing in the practice of Sunday observance the papas of the church in Rome brought about a change in traditional Christian practices of that day.
Very early, Christians had formed the habit of celebrating annually in the spring the memorable dosing clays of Christ's life. Christ was crucified on a Friday, and died about the time the Jewish Passover lamb was being slain. It was just before sunset of the fourteenth day of the Jewish month Nisan, the first month of the Jewish religious year. (Luke 23:46-56; John 18:28; 19:30-34; cf. Lev. 23:4-8.)
It became a tradition among early Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, to celebrate the crucifixion of Christ at the time the Jews were entering their Passover season. The Christians took their reckoning of the date from the Jews, and gathered in homes or in hired halls (they had no church buildings in that early day) at the same time the Jews were gathering for the celebration of the Passover. For this practice there is not a single word of authorization in the Bible.
We are told that this practice began as early as the time of the apostle John.. (Ibid., book 5, chap. 24.) Some Christians apparently kept only the day, the fourteenth of Nisan. Others celebrated the period from the crucifixion to the resurrection. Still others observed the whole time of the Jewish festival, which was the Feast of Unleavened Bread described in Exodus 12:15-20 and Leviticus 23:4-14, and lasted till the twenty-first day of Nisan. (Ibid,, pars. 2,12, 13.)
But in any case the celebration centered on the day of the crucifixion, the fourteenth of Nisan, when "Christ our Passover" (1 Cor. 5:7) died for sinners. It was observed without concern for which day of the week it might be, somewhat as Christmas is celebrated among Christians today, by date and not by day of the week.
It was this custom that the church of Rome undertook to change, by leading all Christians to celebrate, not the crucifixion, but the resurrection; and not on the fourteenth of Nisan, regardless of the day of the week, but always on Sunday, the first day of the week, regardless of the exact date. The church of Rome won in this endeavor, and the reasons are not hard to find.
One reason was anti-Judaism, the ancestor of the anti-Semitism of today. The Jews had always been opposed to Christianity. They rejected Jesus when He was on earth. They brought about His crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. They discredited the fact of His resurrection. They persecuted the New Testament church even to the death, as in the case of Stephen. They led the pagan Roman authorities to persecute the Christians, and indeed told such ugly tales about them that mobs in the cities were incited to bloody violence against the followers of Christ. Tertullian named the synagogues "fountains of persecution.
The Jews and the Romans
But the Christians had cause to dread the Jews for political reasons. The Jews had always been a problem to their Roman conquerors. As the "chosen people of God" they resented deeply being ruled by despised Gentiles, and rebelled again and again. They fought against Herod when he sought to assume the kingship of the Jews granted him by the Roman Senate. They caused the removal of Archelaus, Herod's son (not without cause), as ruler in Jerusalem, and brought about the seating of a Roman procurator instead. Their bitter antagonism toward the Romans becomes dear in the Gospels.
In Acts 18:2 we learn that all Jews were expelled from Rome. In the year 68 their rebellious spirit led them into a furious revolt, which resulted, AD. 70, in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the death of thousands of Jews. From then on the Jews were especially marked as a political problem in the empire. There was another outbreak about forty years later, not so serious or so widespread, but still damaging to any good relations between the empire and Judaism.
About the time Pope Sixtus was beginning to bring about the change in the Christian spring festival, the worst revolt of all broke out. For a period of seven years and over a wide extent of the Roman Empire the Jews rebelled. Thousands upon thousands of them were killed; thousands were driven from the empire. The city of Jerusalem was again completely destroyed. A plow was symbolically dragged over its desolated site, and Roman decrees forbade any Jew again to set his
foot upon the spot. The Romans then proceeded to rebuild the ci4 under the emperor Hadrian as a strictly Gentile city.
Christians in the city of Rome especially dreaded being confused with the Jews. It was known that Christianity had sprung from the Jews and that some of the practices and observances of Christians were like those of the Jews. There was good political reason for Pope Sixtus to lead his church away from a celebration timed to the Jewish Paw over, when lie sought to have the spring festival fall always upon a Sunday, instead of upon the fourteenth of Nisan.
It is worth while to pause here and notice what is written in The Great Controversy concerning the Christians and anti-Jewish feeling and its effect in the Sabbath-Sunday controversy:
"To prepare the way for the work which he designed to accomplish, Satan had led the Jews, before the advent of Christ, to load down the Sabbath with the most rigorous exactions, making its observance a burden. Now, taking advantage of the false light in which he had thus caused it to be regarded, he cast contempt upon it as a Jewish institution. While Christians generally continued to observe the Sunday as a joyous festival, he led them, in order to show their hatred of Judaism, to make the Sabbath a fast, a day of sadness and gloom." - Pages 52, 53.
But for the pope to stress the resurrection day meant that he was stressing the day of the sun. The spring had for ages been a special time for the worship of the sun. Astrologers had named as the sun's day the one coincidental with the Jewish first day of the week, and sun worshipers on this day, as Tertullian tells us, moved their lips in adoration to the sun as they faced the cast at daybreak. (Apology, chap. 16.)
The first hour of the day of the sun was used to reverence the sun, as the first hour of the moon's day was used to reverence the moon; and so on through the cycle of the seven days, for Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn each had a day, with Saturn's day coinciding with the seventh day Sabbath.
Sunday and Sun Worshipers
A converted sun worshiper would not feel out of place at the spring festival, beginning to be urged by Pope Sixtus of Rome, for it fell both at a season and on a day familiar to him as a sun worshiper. The pope's insistence that the resurrection, and not the crucifixion, must be celebrated in spring, and not on the Jewish fourteenth of Nisan, but always on Sunday, the day of the resurrection, put Christians, by an ecclesiastical trick, as it were, in the position of honoring the sun's day.
About twenty years after the time of Pope Sixtus, when Polycarp, the head of the church of Stityrna and famous martyr, visited the church of Rome, he knew no celebration of the resurrection and no honoring of Sunday. He and Pope Anicetus of Rome discussed the question, but they avoided controversy, and each agreed to follow the custom he had been observing. Pope Anicetus declared that his practice went back to the time of Sixtus, and Polycarp said that his went back to the apostles. They agreed to disagree. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 24, pars. 16, 17)
Not so complacent was a later pope, Victor. (About AD. 200) He saw that quiet pressure from Rome in favor of Sunday was not too successful. In his pride of office he ordered all bishops excommunicated who would not follow Rome's plan for the spring festival. At that early day no church recognized the authority of the pope outside of Italy; in fact, the Papal See was not always honored in Italy. But Victor, assuming a general authority which later popes were increasingly to exercise, sought to legislate for all Christendom. And it was in the interests of Sunday. He failed in his plan of excommunication, but not in the respect given to the day of the sun. (Ibid., pars. 9-11)
By then another step in Sunday reverence had taken place. Justin Martyr tells us that about AD. 155:-
"On the day called Sunday there is an assemblage of all who live in the cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets are read so long as there is time. Then the reading having ceased the leader in discourse gives the admonition and the challenge to imitate these good things. Thereupon we all rise together and offer prayer. And as we said before, when we have ceased praying, bread is brought, and wine and water. And the leader in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, as much as he is able, and the people express their assent, saying the 'Amen.' And there is a distribution to each one and a partaking of that over which thanks have been given, and it is sent to those absent by the deacons. And those having means and who are willing, each one according to his choice, gives whatever he wishes. And the collection is deposited at the leader's home, and he himself provides for the orphans and widows, and for those who on account of sickness or for any other reason are in want, and for those who are in prison, and for the sojourning strangers. And in a word, he is a guardian to all those who are in need. And we all in common make our assembly on Sunday, since it is the first day in which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose front the dead on the same day." - First Apology, chap. 67.
Justin wrote this Apology to the emperor, and made a point of telling hint of this Christian act of worship taking place on the day of the sun. He was in Rome when he was writing, and he was describing the weekly Sunday keeping of the church of Rome and the surrounding churches under its influence.
Weekly Observance of Sunday Begins
Just how the step was made from the annual observance of Sunday to weekly worship on Sunday is not clear, but the step was made, and was made in Rome.
Under the guise of honoring the blessed resurrection of our Lord, Rome brought about the honoring of the day of the sun. Wrote E. G. White:
"I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws." - Early Writings, p. 33.
"The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to
change the greatest commandment in the Decalogue, and thus make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself above God. The Lord is unchangeable, therefore His law is immutable; but the pope has exalted himself above God, in seeking to change His immutable precepts of holiness, justice, and goodness. He has trampled under foot God's sanctified day, and on his own authority, put in its place one of the six laboring days." - Ibid., p. 65.
"Roman Catholics acknowledge that the change of the Sabbath was made by their church, and declare that Protestants, by observing the Sunday, are recognizing her power.... The Roman Church has not relinquished her claim to supremacy; and when the world and the Protestant churches accept the Sabbath of her creating, while they reject the Bible Sabbath, they virtually admit this assumption. "The Great Controversy, pp. 447,448.
That the charge here put to the account of the Church of Rome is valid, witness Socrates, skilled historian of the church, writing about AD. 450. He says:
"For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." - Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chap. 22.
In view of Rome's studied endeavor to establish Sunday keeping and put Sabbath observance in eclipse, how displeasing it must have been, then, to Pope Gregory of Rome, AD. 600, to find in his own territory those who were keeping the Sabbath! In book 13 of his Epistles, Letter I, he says, in great bitterness of soul:
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist?"
We can answer Pope Gregory. These were not preachers of Antichrist. They were preachers who would obey the commandments of God and serve Christ, who is the Lord of the Sabbath. In emphasizing the Sabbath they were not advocating a compromised faith but the very truth of Scripture.
The only weekday that is identified in the Bible by a particular name is the seventh day, called the Sabbath. Numerous texts in the Bible use this name. The day is known in history.
The only other day of the week identified in the Bible is the first day of the week, known not by a name but by a number. It is called simply "the first day of the week." This English expression is used to translate a Greek phrase "first, or one, of the Sabbath, or Sabbaths!' Matthew 28: 1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24: 1; and John 20:1 are the texts that tell of the resurrection of Christ on the first day.
John 20:19 uses the expression and states that Christ came to the disciples in their fear and distress on the evening after the resurrection. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 also speak of the "first day of the week." In the first case Paul's farewell discourse to the church at Troas is mentioned. In the other the believers of Corinth are asked to lay by them, that is, in their homes,
an offering on each first day of the week, so that Paul will have awaiting him when he comes to Corinth a gift to send to the needy Christian Jews at Jerusalem.
The use of the word Sabbath to mean "week," the total period marked off by the Sabbath day, is quite commonplace. Besides its use in the texts just given, it is used in the Hebrew for "week" in Leviticus 23:15, 16, where counting seven Sabbaths and an additional day, one is to arrive at the fifty days leading to the feast of first fruits, or Pentecost, which means "fiftieth." The word Sabbaths here must mean "weeks" to give the full tally of the fifty days. Seven weeks, or seven times seven days, plus one day, equals fifty.
Early Use of Sabbath for Week
This same use of Sabbath to mean "week" is found again and again in the writings of Christians as late as AD. 430:
1. In the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, we read of fasting "on the second and fifth days of the week." - Chapter 8. The Greek reads, "second of the Sabbaths and fifth." The date of this document is about AD. 150.
2. The so-called Constitution of the Holy Apostles, in book 5, chapter 19, has the expression, "the first day of the week." The Greek reads, "one of the Sabbaths." The date of this document is approximately AD. 300.
3. Gregory of Nyssa in his Oratio II has this: "The Hebrew nation calls the whole seven days Sabbaths. The evangelists use the expression, 'One of the Sabbaths,' indeed, for the first day of the week. The Greek reads, 'one of the Sabbaths,' for the first day of the sevens." Gregory of Nyssa wrote about AD. 390.
4. Tertullian, a Christian Latin writer, about AD. 225, in his treatise On Fasting speaks in chapter 14 of fasting on the "fourth and sixth days of the week." The Latin reads here, the "fourth and sixth of the Sabbath."
5. Augustine, the famous Latin theologian and bishop of North Africa, who died in the year AD. 430, uses the word Sabbath to mean "week." In an Epistle to Casulamus, chapter 3, paragraph 10, he speaks of the "very second day of the week." The Latin reads, the "very second day of the Sabbath." In the same letter, chapter 13, paragraph 30, he speaks of the "very fourth day of the week" and the "fifth day of the week." The Latin reads, the "very fourth of the Sabbath," and the "fifth of the Sabbath." In his commentary on Psalms 80, paragraph 2, Augustine names all the days of the week, calling the first day of the week the Lord's day, and the last, the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath; the other days of the week he calls the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth "of the Sabbath."
Similar use of the word Sabbath to mean "week" is found in John Cassian's Institutes, book 5, chapter 19; in canon 30 of the third council of Orleans, AD. 538; and in canon 9 of the first council of Macon, AD. 581.
There is one other name given in the Bible for a day of the week, and that is "Lord's day." It is the usual name given for the first day of the week after about AD. 200. But it is used only once in the Bible, in the book of Revelation 1:10, written before the year AD. 96. The term is not used in any other literature contemporary with the book of Revelation, whether Biblical or pagan, or before that time.
It was an entirely unique expression up to that time, and for many years after. But the fact that Sunday is called "Lord's day" in AD. 200 does not mean that a hundred years before, John means Sunday when he uses the term "Lord's day" in the book of Revelation. It is not valid to force a late expression or word back into its past to name a practice or interpret a phrase.
Possible Meanings for "Lord's Day"
There are several possible meanings for the expression "Lord's day":-
1. That John was talking about the Christian Era as "the Lord's day." But it seems untenable that John would be informing his readers in indirect style that he was receiving instruction from the Spirit during the Christian Era, when there could be no mistaking that fact. Anyone who would be at all interested in reading what John had written would know that at that time Christ had already been incarnated, had lived, had died, and had ascended to heaven. The application seems without point. Furthermore, the phrase is punctiliar, dealing with specific time.
2. That he was speaking of "the Lord's day" as the day of judgment, the last time when Christ is to bring all things earthly to a close. It is argued that John's visions deal with final world events, and that therefore he was considering himself as living for the moment among those scenes.
But here again applies the same objection as under number one above. Would he not have written that he was in vision "concerning the Lord's day," or that he was being transported "into the Lord's day," had he meant the last days of judgment?
3. That he was speaking of an emperor's day as the "Lord's day." Papyri of the second century found in Egypt show that there were "Augustan," or emperor's, days, hemerai sebastai, which were to commemorate the anniversary of an emperor's birth, of his coronation, or of an imperial visitation to a locality. Such days were celebrated. Was John in vision on such a day?
It seems unlikely that John was using the phrase in question with this meaning. In the first place, no instance has been found of such a day being called a "Lord's day," although the emperor was called lord, and other things pertaining to him were called kuriakos "of the lord." In the second place, it seems extremely unlikely that John would use the word "Lord" as applying to the emperor, even when speaking of a day dedicated by others to the emperors. Christians were well known for acknowledging only one Lord and King. This place they gave to Christ alone, and were in consequence, persecuted as political enemies of the Roman State. They refused to call the emperor lord.
The Meaning of "Lord's Day"
What day, then, is the Lord's day? No contemporary sources outside the Bible give us any help. But, as might be expected, the Bible gives us help. It does not speak of Sunday. It knows the first day of the week only as "the first day of the week," and attaches to it no sanctity.
But is there not a day of which Christ is Lord? Yes, the seventh day Sabbath is so described all through the Bible. It is the day that belongs to the Lord. Jesus Himself so stated when He said, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." Matt. 12:8. What "Lord's day" could there be, of which Christ is Lord, aside from the day, the Sabbath, of which Christ declares He is Lord? None.
The Sabbath is the Lord's day of the Bible. It is, says the Lord, "my holy day." (Isa. 58: 13) It is plainly designated in the fourth commandment: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."
Can we identify this Lord God to whom the Sabbath pertains? Paul says:
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor. 10:1-4.
It was Jesus Christ Himself who did all these things for His people, and who commanded that the Sabbath, the "Sabbath of the Lord thy God," His day, should be kept.
Indeed, Christ being the Creator (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:13-17), it was He who first blessed and hallowed the Sabbath at the close of creation week (Gen. 2:1-3), and who was in "the days of his flesh" (Heb. 5:7) the Lord of the Sabbath. Because He is "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8), He is the Lord of the Sabbath today. The seventh day is the only true Lord's day.
Why did John call it "the Lord's day," an expression not used in just that form up to his time, nor for a century after? We do not know' We are not told. But we suggest that John, knowing the expression then applied to unholy pagan observances, applied a parallel one to the day belonging to his divine Lord: the Sabbath of creation, of the commandments, and of the gospel.
John knew of no "Lord's day" significance for the first day of the week. In harmony with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he mentions with significance only the seventh day Sabbath. In nearly all the sixty times where the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament, there is excellent opportunity for pointing out that the seventh day is superseded by the Sunday, or that the Sunday was to be observed in addition to the Sabbath, if that had been the case, but no word is said to intimate this. Rather, the Sabbath is pointed out as a day of worship, which both Jesus Christ and Paul made use of in that way, as a matter of habit (Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2), and is called the day of which Jesus is Lord (Mark 2:28).
But was not the "first day of the week" called "the Lord's day," or given some other prominence in the writings of men who lived at the close of the apostolic age, or in the decades immediately following? The answer is No, emphatically No.
Eight Sunday Observance "Proof?'
Sunday keeping began in Rome as an annual observance of the resurrection day. BY AD. 150 weekly observance of Sunday had begun in Rome, as attested by Justin's First Apology, written in Rome to the emperor. Justin calls the day "the day of the Sun." He has no other name for it.
But what of the period between the time of the apostles and the time of Justin Martyr? We shall examine all the references that can be found in the writings of the church Fathers referring to the first day of the week, or for which any claim is made of reference to the first day of the week. We shall arrange these references in proper chronological order, beginning with the earliest and continuing our examination to about AD. 200, when Sunday observance is fully established, and the first day of the week is referred to as the "Lord's day."
First Proof
1. The first extra-Biblical reference put forth by Sunday keepers to support the institution of Sunday is a statement by Clement, overseer of the church in Rome about AD. 98. He wrote at that time his Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he urged them to "do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times." - Chapter 40. It is argued that the expression "stated times" indicates Sunday as the proper meeting time. For this there is absolutely no basis.
Second Proof
2. Very much like it is a statement by the Latin writer, Pliny the Younger, a pagan Roman governor, in a letter to his emperor, Trajan, to he dated about AD. 110-112. The ninety-sixth letter in Pliny's tenth book of Letters states that the Christians he was persecuting met for the worship of Christ early in the morning of a "stated" or "fixed" day. Pliny gives no hint as to which day of the week he understands this to be, probably because there was as yet in his day no official system of weeks among the Romans.
The identification of these "stated" days can therefore be made only from reliable Christian documents of this same time. They cannot be identified from later practices. The only inspired documents we have to use for this purpose at this date are the books of the New Testament. It is clear that the only day of worship known to New Testament Christians was the seventh day Sabbath, observed by Christ, by the disciples, and by the apostle Paul. The "stated" days of Clement and Pliny must therefore be the seventh day Sabbath.
Third Proof
3. The next earliest reference used to bolster Sunday observance is one that is quoted so frequently that every student of the question is under ethical compulsion to examine it thoroughly and without bias. The statement referred to is in a letter by a man named Ignatius, called the overseer of the church of Antioch in Syria. According to late tradition Ignatius was taken prisoner by the Roman police during a persecution inflicted by the emperor Trajan, and transported to Rome, where the story has him Put to death some time prior to the demise of that emperor, which occurred in the year AD. 117.
The same late tradition has this martyr writing a series of letters while a prisoner on his way to Rome. The total number of letters attributed to his authorship is fifteen, but all scholars now agree in branding eight of these as gross forgeries. The remaining seven are looked upon with serious suspicion by all scholars who do not need to rely on the writings of Ignatius to support some institution of the church. Even these more complacent students accept only a short form of these seven letters. Of these epistles of Ignatius, Dr. Philip Schaff, of the highest repute among church historians, says:
"These oldest documents of the hierarchy soon became so interpolated, curtailed, and mutilated by pious fraud, that it is today almost impossible to discover with certainty the genuine Ignatius of history under the hyper-and pseudo-Ignatius of tradition." - History of the Christian Church, 2d period, sec. 164, vol. 2, p. 660.
It is a statement in the so-called Ignatian Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 9, that is pressed most hopefully by those who wish to find an early beginning for Sunday observance. So reputable a scholar as the late Dr. Kirsopp Lake makes Ignatius say in this epistle, "No longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord's Day." - Loeb Classical Library, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, p. 205. But the best original Greek manuscripts contain no word "day." Actually the Greek original, in every reliable manuscript, reads, "No longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord's life, in the which also our life has risen through Him and His death." - Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 5, col. 669.
To prove their point, Sunday keeping scholars have actually gone to the length of omitting the word 1ife-from the original, to make possible the insertion of the word "day." But the word "life" is there, and it makes good sense when properly translated, without bias, from the original Greek. The corrupting and misinterpreting of this sentence from the supposed Ignatian epistle is now being followed by many Sunday keeping scholars.
This interesting sentence is now before us. What does it mean? The context shows that this passage, whether truly Ignatian or not, is dealing, not with the day of the resurrection, but with a divine life which, through the risen Lord, enables the Christian to live a life of faith, free from legalism, of which traditional Jewish Sabbath keeping was all too illustrative.
There exists a lengthy interpolation of the Magnesian letter, made perhaps between the years AD. 300 and 400, which distorts this passage to make it apply to days of worship, and to advocate the observance of both the seventh day Sabbath and the Sunday. It is doubtless reading back through the murkiness of this late interpolation that has forced the idea of "day" into the interpretation of this clause. It jeopardizes sound exegesis to work back to an expression from later distortions of it.
There is, as a matter of fact, no reference to a day of worship in the Magnesian letter or in any other of the early letters acknowledged as Ignatian.
Fourth Proof
4. The next supposed "Lord's day" reference is from chapter 14 of an ancient document, to be dated about the middle of the second century, called the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles. This writing is not a product of apostolic hands; its author is not known. The sentence put forward as a support for Sunday keeping has been translated to read, "On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist." - Loeb Classical Library, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, p. 331.
The Greek text is obviously garbled and incomplete, but it contains no word "day." It reads literally, "according to the Lord's (?) of the Lord, coming together, break bread and hold Eucharist." There is no particular reason why the thought of "day" should be forced into this passage. A number of words, appropriate both in grammar and in meaning, could be supplied at the point of our question mark, and make as good sense as "day," or better. The form of the Greek requires a feminine word, and the Greek word entole, "commandment,'; for instance, would exactly fit both sense and grammar. In any case the word "day" (does not occur in the original, and this reference in the Didache is certainly no true support for the institution of Sunday.
Fifth Proof
5. For the next reference we turn to the church historian Eusebius, who wrote about the year AD. 324. He was thoroughly committed to the priestly authority of the bishops of the fourth century, was a defender of the union of church and state effected by the emperor Constantine, and was a eulogizer of this emperor. He was an earnest advocate of Sunday as a substitute for the Sabbath of the Bible. He makes two references that are often quoted as supporting early Sunday keeping. One is in a letter he quotes as proceeding from Dionysius, the overseer of the church of Corinth about the year AD. 170, to Soter, of Rome.
The significant sentence is, " 'To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle.' - Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chap. 23, par. 11. There is no reference in the Bible or in any other writing up to this time showing that any other day than the Sabbath was established as the holy day of the Lord; therefore, there is no reason to apply this reference to Sunday observance, as some do. The day is not, as a matter of fact, identified in the letter.
Sixth Proof
6. The other reference from Eusebius tells us that Melito, overseer of the church of Sardis, wrote about the year AD. 175 a treatise whose title is usually translated A Book Concerning the Lord's Day. (Ibid., book 4, chap. 26.) As a matter of fact, the Greek title as given by Eusebius reads simply A Discourse Concerning the Lord's [P]. The word "day" does not appear in the title, and there is no information given as to what the treatise actually dealt with.
Seventh Proof
7. There is also a forged second-century epistle, the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which in chapter 15 quotes Old Testament condemnations of hypocritical Sabbath keeping and pretends to make them an excuse for Sunday keeping. It seeks further to establish Sunday by setting it forth as the eighth day of the week, and forcing it into line as a continuance of the Jewish principle of the eight-day circumcision. The inconsistency and futility of this argument, often used thereafter, must be patent to all.
It used a Jewish ceremonial requirement, occurring once in the lifetime of the male Jew, as a basis for a supposed Christian festival, expected to occur weekly in the worship experience of all believers. For all this no divine or Scriptural authorization is claimed. The date of the writing of this strange document is not known, but it cannot be earlier than mid-second century.
These are the "authorities" used to establish the observance of Sunday as the-Lord's day" in the second century. There is in none of these references the least foundation for the observance of Sunday. When the original languages are examined they give no basis for the observance of any day of the week as dedicated to God, except the seventh day Sabbath. There is in them no claim of any authorization by the Lord of any day to take the place of the seventh day Sabbath.
Eighth Proof
8. When, then, is Sunday called the "Lord's day"? It is not until the latter part of the second century that there is a datable reference in which Sunday is indisputably called "the Lord's day." In the latter part of the second century there came into circulation a false Gospel According to Peter. No one today believes this document to be from the apostle Peter's hand or dictation, and even when it first appeared it received little credence. But in this false epistle the day of Christ's resurrection is for the first time clearly called "the Lord's day."
From this time on, in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others, the term "Lord's day" is consistently applied to Sunday. "Sabbath" continues to be the term for the seventh day of the week until Reformation times. After that Sunday is frequently called both "Lord's day" and "Sabbath" interchangeably.
How Sunday Was First Observed
Because Sunday has been observed by people in many places, as a day of rest from labor and a day for worship, people are prone to think that Sunday has always been observed that way. But this is not in keeping with the facts of history.
There is no record in the New Testament of the time of day when Christians held their meetings for worship, or of the program they followed in the meetings. There are several suggestions in the epistles as to what Christians should do and not do in meeting, but that is all.
The only meeting of Christians for which the Bible has any detailed description is the farewell meeting of Paul with the church of Troas, recorded in the twentieth chapter of Acts. The meeting is said to have been on the "first day of the week," but it was a night meeting, held because Paul was leaving the next morning after having met with the church for seven days. It was obviously a special service, held at night. Since the dark part of the first day of the week, Jewish reckoning, Precedes the light part of the day, this meeting must have been on what we now call Saturday night. This was certainly not a customary time for meetings of worship among Christians.
The first reference we have as to the time of day when Christians held their meetings is from a pagan source. Pliny the Younger was governor of a province in Asia Minor. In a letter he wrote about AD. 110 he tells of interviewing some who had been Christians twenty five years before. These people told him that Christians met early in the morning of a "stated day," to "sing hymns
to Christ as to a god," to cat together food of a "harmless" kind, and to listen to admonitions to right living. Since there is no contemporary information of stated Christian meetings on any other day than Sabbath, we must conclude that what Pliny called a "stated day" was the seventh day Sabbath.
Why Early Morning Meetings?
The question arises, Why a meeting early in the morning? Some suppose that because Christ's resurrection took place early in the morning, the Christians were meeting at this early hour in order to celebrate that great event; therefore, this must have been a Sunday meeting of which Pliny writes. To contend this is to forget the circumstances of that time. In those early years Christians were an illegal sect. They had no standing in Roman law, and were subject to death merely for being Christians. In fact, the letter of Pliny informs the emperor Trajan that when he finds Christians he puts them to death. We have Trajan's reply approving this.
Here is the most rational explanation why Christians should meet early in the morning. They had no church buildings. They met in one another's homes or in hired halls. Meetings had to be carefully planned, with everything very secret. The Christians would attract the least attention going quietly to the place of meeting, doubtless dressed as though they were going to work, at the hour when others were going to their daily labor.
We have later statements as to how Christians were to keep the Sabbath. They were to be at meetings, and sing hymns, listen to the reading of the Scriptures, hear the instruction of their leaders, meditate on God's creative power and His work for men. The Lord's supper was administered on Sabbath, as later it came to be on Sunday and other days of the week. Sabbath is spoken of several times as a day of rest.
A Description of Sunday Observance
But what of the observance of Sunday? As previously noted, Justin Martyr about AD. 155 gives us the first description of Sunday observance by Christians. He tells of Christians gathering on the day of the sun in honor of the resurrection, listening to the Scriptures and the instruction of their leaders, partaking of communion, giving their offerings, and then adjourning. He says nothing about any abstention from labor by Christians on Sunday at that early date. They went to their daily work, apparently, at the close of the service. Justin says the worship continued "so long as there is time."
Tertullian gives us the first intimation that we have of any postponement of business from Sunday. He states that "only on the day of the Lord's Resurrection ought [Christians] to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business lest we give any place to the devil."
This thought of freedom from solicitude on the day of the sun is repeated by early Christian writers, with emphasis upon the fact that there should be no kneeling or fasting on the day of the resurrection. In fact, in the West, Sunday keeping Christians insisted that there must be fasting on the Sabbath, as well as kneeling.
How much is included in Tertullian's reference to deferring of business out of respect to Sunday is not clear, but even in his day there was a tendency on the part of Christians to begin to abstain from common business interests on Sunday.
A document called the Interpolated Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, the author of which we do not know, but which can be dated probably early in the fourth century, urges Christians no longer to "Sabbatize in the Jewish manner, rejoicing in holidays." "But let each of you sabbatize spiritually, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in rest of body; admiring the artisanship of God, not eating stale things and drinking lukewarm things and walking measured distances and enjoying dancing and plaudits which do not have sense. And after the sabbatizing, let every friend of Christ keep as a festival the Lord's day, the resurrection day, the queen, the chief of all the days." - Chapter 9.
This writer is advocating an observance of Sabbath that will involve a spiritual exercise, but not the strict legalistic use of Sabbath, which was the way of the Jews.
Constantine's Sunday Law
In AD. 321 came Constantine's Sunday law. This decree was not a religious law, that is, it was not passed by the church. It was a civil decree. Without mentioning God, except as the sun be reckoned a god, the decree commanded that everyone abstain from common work on the "venerable day of the sun." Exception was made of farmers who, if necessary, might work on that day to save their crops.
Next the church ruled against labor on Sunday. The Council of Laodicea was a local council which met in the city of Laodicea in Asia Minor some time in the latter years of the fourth century. The exact date is not known. We have the decisions of this council. Canon 29 forbade work on Sunday and idleness on the Sabbath. This is the first official record of church legislation forbidding labor on Sunday.
But canon 16 of the same council makes provision for the reading of the Gospels on the Sabbath. This of course does not mean Bible reading in private homes, because most Christians at that time did not have the Bible in their homes. Books, then all handwritten, were too expensive. When canon 16 calls for the reading of the Gospels by Christians oil the Sabbath, it must mean in meeting. Therefore, the Council of Laodicea is not legislating to do away entirely with Sabbath observance. It is legislating to transfer the abstention from labor from the Sabbath to the Sunday, while still allowing for public worship on the Sabbath.
What does all this mean? It means that at the beginning all Christians were keeping the seventh day Sabbath, and refraining from common business on that day, and using it for worship and spiritual exercises.
Growth of Sunday Observance
In the second century the weekly observance of Sunday was introduced. First it was a matter of meeting in the morning, with an evident resumption of daily occupations the rest of the day. In the third century, however, begins the tendency to refrain from common business on the Sunday,
while at the same time Sabbath is still being observe Emphasis upon Sunday keeping, which began in Rome, becomes increasingly strong, particularly in the West, and presently both Sabbath and Sunday are being kept together on very much the same basis, except that in the West there was to be no kneeling or fasting on Sunday. In Eastern Christendom there was no kneeling in prayer or fasting on either Sabbath or Sunday.
In the beginning of the fourth century, however, Constantine forbade Sunday labor. The Council of Laodicea admonished Christians not to work on Sunday, and forbade them to be idle on the Sabbath. This is in keeping with what Eusebius writes in his Commentary on the Psalms, when he says, "All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath."
Character of Early Sunday Observance
But this was ineffective. Jerome, the famous translator of the Bible, writes at the end of the fourth century in commendation of women in a certain convent who returned from church on Sunday and took up their spinning and weaving. A little later Chrysostom, bishop of the great church in Constantinople, after preaching to his people on a Sunday, dismissed them to go home to resume their daily duties.
This is actually the kind of Sunday observance that has generally prevailed. Repeated Sunday laws by Christian emperors and Christian kings of the West failed to make Sunday a day of reverent idleness. When people were prevented from performing their daily tasks on the Sunday, they used the day for amusement and pleasure. It could not be otherwise when there is no Scriptural basis for the Sunday.
Sabbath Keeping in Early Centuries
Sabbath keeping has always been of a different nature. In the early days the Sabbath was kept by Christians either legalistically, as the Jews were keeping it, or reverently and spiritually. As the Sabbath began to go into eclipse, it must have become increasingly difficult to keep it; therefore, anyone, who would go to the trouble to assert his convictions by keeping the seventh day Sabbath, would seek to keep it in a reverent, spiritual manner.
The Sabbath is Biblical. It is Christian. It did not disappear at the death of Christ. His followers kept "the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56. Paul observed the Sabbath: in Antioch of Pisidia, preaching to the Jews on one Sabbath and on the next Sabbath to the Gentiles (Acts 13:14-16,43-45); in Thessalonica, for three separate Sabbaths and it is recorded that this was according to "his manner," even as it was the "custom" of his Lord [Luke 4:161; in Corinth, where he was for eighteen months observing the Sabbath, laboring the preceding days of each week to support himself. In Philippi he found no place open to him for worship on the Sabbath, and made his way to the riverside, where worshipers of the true God met to pray.
John was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day." And since Christ is "Lord of the Sabbath-(Mark 2:28), and calls the Sabbath His holy day (Ex. 20: 10; Lev. 23.37, 38; Isa. 58:13), the Lord's day must
have been the seventh day Sabbath. (See Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 128, and Acts of the Apostles, pp. 581, 582.)
Sabbath Keeping After the Apostles
After the apostles' day, Christians still kept the Sabbath. This is attested to by many Christian writers, all of them Sunday keepers. Tertullian, who died about AD. 235, held that Sunday should be kept as a day of joy in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. It was his wish that there be no fasting or kneeling in prayer on Sunday. He was displeased to find Sabbath keeping Christians insisting that they should not have to kneel in prayer on the Sabbath day. Here is what he wrote in his essay On Prayer, chapter 23.
"In the matter of kneeling also prayer is subject to diversity of observance, through the act of some few who abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will give His grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else indulge their opinion without offence to others."
Tertullian made it plain that Sunday keeping Christians were not kneeling on Sunday, but it is equally plain that they were going to the churches and kneeling in worship on the Sabbath. Virtually all Christians, it is evident, were worshiping, kneeling or not, on the Sabbath day.
A contemporary of Tertullian, the teacher Origen of Alexandria, though himself a Sunday keeper, is in no doubt as to the virtue of Sabbath observance, and tells just how Christians should observe it. He meant to place this observance of the seventh day by Christians in contrast to Jewish practices when he said:
"After the festival of the unceasing sacrifice [the crucifixion] is put the second festival of the Sabbath, and it is fitting for whoever is righteous among the saints to keep also the festival of the Sabbath. Which is, indeed, the festival of the Sabbath, except that concerning which the Apostle said, 'There remains therefore a sabbatismus, that is, a keeping of the Sabbath, to the people of God [Hebrews 4:91'? Forsaking therefore the Judaic observance of the Sabbath, let us see what sort of observance of the Sabbath is expected of the Christian? On the day of the Sabbath nothing of worldly acts ought to be performed. If therefore you cease from all worldly works, do nothing mundane, but are free for spiritual works, you come to the church, offer the ear for divine readings and discussions, and thoughts of heavenly things, give attention to the future life, keep before your eyes the coming judgment, do not regard present and visible things, but the invisible and the future: this is the observance of the Christian Sabbath." - Homily on Numbers 23, par. 4.
"Constitutions of the Holy Apostles"
There is an early document describing Christian Sabbath keeping which is called the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. This document was not written by the apostles, but is evidently a product, of writers, now unknown, in the Eastern Church of the third and fourth centuries. It shows that in the early centuries both the seventh day Sabbath and Sunday were observed by Christians:
"Thou shall observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who, ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." Book 2, sec. 5, chap. 36.
The Constitutions makes provision for Christians to worship God in His house every day, but emphasizes the need of worshipping Him, not only on Sunday, "but principally on the Sabbath- day."
"Assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us and condescended to let Him stiffer, and raised Him from the dead." Ibid., book 2, sec. 7, chap. 59.
In this ancient document is a prayer dedicated to God, which emphasizes both Sabbath and Sunday observance:
"O Lord Almighty, Thou has created the world by Christ, and has appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof, because that on that day Thou has made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon Thy laws. ... He suffered for us by Thy permission, and died, and rose again by Thy power: on which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on the Lord's day, and rejoice on account of Hint who has conquered death, and has brought life and immortality to light. ... Thou did give them the law or Decalogue, which was pronounced by Thy voice and written with Thy hand. Thou did enjoin the observation of the [seventh day] Sabbath, not affording them an occasion of idleness, but an opportunity of piety, for their knowledge of Thy power, and the prohibition of evils; having limited them a& within an holy circuit for the sake of doctrine, for the rejoicing upon the seventh period." - Ibid., book 7, sec. 3.
At least one of the contributors to this document, who pretended falsely to write in the name of Peter and Paul, would have felt much at home with a modern five-day week:
"Peter and Paul do make the following constitutions. Let the slaves work five days: but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's day of the resurrection." - Ibid., book 8, sec. 4, chap. 33.
Evidently the writers of the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles believed in Sabbath keeping. They kept the Sunday, but they did believe in keeping the Sabbath, and advocated it.
Sabbath keeping is further illustrated by an act of the Council of Laodicea, a regional (not general) Eastern council, which met sometime between the years AD. 343 and 381. It provided very definitely, in canon 16, for regular Sabbath worship:
" 'On Saturday [Greek, "Sabbath"], the Gospels and other portions of the Scriptures shall be read aloud.'" - Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 2, p. 310.
Sabbath Observance About AD. 400
Around AD. 400 Sabbath observance was also common among the monks of the church, especially in the East. Cassian tells how they observed the Sabbath. He says:
"Wherefore, except Vespers and Nocturnes, there are no public services among them in the day except on Saturday [Sabbath] and Sunday, when they meet together-at the third hour [nine o'clock] for the purpose of Holy Communion." - Institutes, book 3, chap 2.
Cassian also tells of a hermit whose religious customs show how Sabbath was still being kept: "He constantly put off taking food until on Saturday [Sabbath] or Sunday he went to church for service and found some stranger whom he brought home at once to his cell." - Ibid., book 5, chap. 26.
In a letter which Augustine, the great bishop of North Africa, who died in the year AD. 430, wrote to Jerome, there is evidence of widespread Sabbath observance:
"I would esteem it a favor to be informed by your Sincerity, whether any saint, coming from the East to Rome, would be guilty of dissimulation if he fasted on the seventh day of each week, excepting the Saturday [Sabbath] before Easter. For if we say that it is wrong to fast on the seventh day, we shall condemn not only the Church of Rome, but also many other churches, both neighboring and more remote, in which the same custom continues to be observed. If, on the other hand, we pronounce it wrong not to fast on the seventh day, how great is our presumption in censuring so many churches in the East, and by far the greater part of the Christian world!" - Letter 82, par. 14.
Augustine shows here that the Sabbath was observed in his day in "the greater part of the Christian world." His testimony is all the more valuable since he himself was a consistent Sunday keeper.
Sabbath Keeping Widespread in Christendom
A more remarkable testimony, however, concerning the observance of the Sabbath in the fifth century is that borne by two church historians, Socrates and Sozomen, who died sometime before the year AD. 450. In his Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 22, Socrates says:
"For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this."
His contemporary Sozomen bears in his Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 19, a similar witness:
"The people of Constantinople, and of several other cities, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the next day; which custom is never observed at Rome, or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the
people meet together on Sabbath evenings; and although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries."
These are revealing statements. Practically all over Christendom Christian people were still assembling, as late as AD. 450, in the churches on the seventh day of the week.
No Sabbath Observance in Rome
There were two marked exceptions to this. Two churches had once observed the Sabbath, but, under pressure of tradition, had ceased to do so. Alexandria was one. Here the philosophizing teachers had once presided, and through allegorizing interpretation of Scripture these men had emphasized the keeping of Sunday, as their writings clearly indicate. We see in the defeat of Sabbath keeping a result of their influence, which led the people of Alexandria away from the simplicity of Bible truth.
Rome also, say Socrates and Sozomen, set aside the observance of the seventh day Sabbath. This was exactly in line with the attitude of Rome toward the commandments of God and particularly toward the Sabbath. This church has always been consistent in substituting for the commandments of God the precepts of men. It has done the very thing for which Christ condemned so severely the Pharisees of His day. (Matt. 15:9, 13.) In these two churches the people were led away from Sabbath keeping. In almost all other churches the Sabbath was still observed.
How displeasing it must have been, then, to Pope Gregory of Rome, AD. 600, to find in his own territory those who were keeping the Sabbath! In book 13 of his Epistles, Letter 1, he says, in great bitterness of soul:
'It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist?"
We answer, these were not preachers of Antichrist. They were preachers who would obey the commandments of God and serve Christ, who is the Lord of the Sabbath. In emphasizing the Sabbath they were not preaching a depraved faith but the very truth of Scripture.
---===---
2. Sabbath in Matthew 28:1
[The following, from W. E. Howell, appeared in the Review and Herald of August 10, 1939]
In defending the perpetuity of the Sabbath we have always had to meet certain attempted proofs of its change to the first day of the week, based on certain passages in the New Testament. One of the principal assumptions is based on Matthew 28: 1, of which it is declared that since "day" is a supplied word in the phrase "the first day of the week," it should read "the first of the Sabbaths," that is, the first Sabbath in the succession of Sabbaths alleged to be newly instituted and observed on the first day of the week in honor of Christ's resurrection.
For this they give two reasons: the word day is a supplied word, and the word week in Greek is literally sabbata, the plural of sabbaton, and hence may be rendered Sabbath. Though both these observations are true, the conclusion from them is impossible. The word sabbaton is neuter in gender, and the word first is feminine. Hence to make first mean first Sabbath would violate the most fundamental and invariable rule of Greek inflection-that all modifying adjectives must agree in gender, as well as in case and number, with the noun modified -
As to the word translated "week" in this verse, it is true that it is in the plural form, but the word sabbaton is used freely in either the singular or the plural when denoting a single day. For example, in the account of the Savior and His disciples going through the field and eating corn on the Sabbath, Matthew uses the plural in chapter 12: 1, and the singular in verse 2, Mark uses the plural in both instances in chapter 2:23, 24, and Luke uses the singular in the first instance and the plural in the second, in chapter 6:1, 2 (exactly the reverse of Matthew)-and all tell the same incident. Hence the plural form does not necessarily require plural translation.
Moreover, the plural sabbata is the only term used in the New Testament to designate the week. It is so used nine times. This is very similar to the old Anglo-Saxon way of using sennight (seven- night; it, dialect, sennet) for a week, just as the Anglo-Saxons did, and we (to still use fortnight (fourteen nights) for two weeks.
The only place in the New Testament where "Sabbath" is properly rendered in the plural, "Sabbath days," is in Acts 17:2, where it is said that Paul reasoned in the synagogue three Sabbath (lays. In the Authorized Version it is put in the plural, also in Matthew 12:10; Mark 3:4; and Luke 6:2, in which texts the principle that it is lawful to (to good on the Sabbath is discussed. But this is without reason, and it in put in the singular in all three places in the Revised Version, as it in also, and should be, in Colossians 2:16.
Now in Matthew 28:1, the word "week" is simply the plural of sabbaton, put in the genitive case, which is equivalent to our form of using of the or the possessive. Hence "first" being in the feminine and sabbaton in the neuter, and the two words being in different cases, it could not be made to read first Sabbath. Nor could it be first of the Sabbath, for it would make no sense with the context, and be in conflict in gender. Nor could it be first of the Sabbaths, for that would make it mean first Sabbath of the Sabbaths, and the genders of the two words would be in utter conflict.
The true meaning of this phrase is perfectly expressed by making it read "the first day of the week," just as it does in the King James Version, for first is feminine, and day is feminine in the Greek, and there is harmony. In fact, Luke uses literally "the day of the Sabbath" more than once for "Sabbath day!' It was and is the common practice in Greek up to now to omit day and hour in designating the day of the week or the hour of the day. Just as we do when we say "the tenth [day) of the month" or "ten [hours] o'clock," that is, ten hours by the clock. Although we disregard gender, the Greek faithfully distinguishes the gender, making both day and hour feminine, and in this verse in Matthew first is also feminine; so we know beyond a doubt that day is understood.
Another chief difficulty in interpreting Matthew 28:1 lies in harmonizing the phrase "in the end of the Sabbath" with "dawn toward the first day of the week." The Greek for "in the end" is a
single adverb opse, meaning late. Though this word usually denotes the late or last part of the period of time in question, what Matthew intended it to mean here is made plain by the defining clause that follows, literally: "the (hour) dawning into the first (day) of the week." The base of this clause, "the dawning," is put in the dative form-the usual one for denoting time when. Hence we may read it: "at the dawning of the first day of the week." The supplying of the word hour or day is justified by the fact that the participle dawning and the numeral first are both in the feminine gender (which shows that a feminine noun is understood); by the fact that both hour and day are feminine; and by the additional fact that the Greek commonly omits day or hour in designating a day of the week or an hour of the day.
That Matthew's use of opse sabbaton is intended to mean "after the Sabbath" is confirmed by the three other Gospel writers in defining the time when the women came to the sepulcher. Mark says plainly, "the Sabbath having passed." Luke says: "the first day of the week, at deep dawn" (the dawn scarcely breaking, very early). John says: "the first day of the week ... in the morning, darkness yet being."
That the adverb opse in this connection may be properly rendered after, is confirmed also by the Modern Greek translation, which reads literally, "After was passed the Sabbath, about the breaking of the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene," et cetera.
This interpretation is further supported by Friedrich Blass, Ph.D.. Th.D., Litt.D., in his Grammar of New Testament Greek, in which he says on page 97: "Opse sabbaton Matthew 28A, but not 'late on the Sabbath,' since the next clause and Mark 16:1 show that the meaning must he 'after the Sabbath." In his appendix, Dr. Blass cites two instances in the Life of Apollonius, by Philostratus, a philosopher of the Roman Imperial period (AD. 193-211), in which opse with the genitive has the meaning "after"; namely, opse musterion, "not till after the mysteries," and opse touton, "after these."
From these two considerations we must conclude, either
1. To follow blindly the literal and usual meaning of opse, that it denotes the last part of the Sabbath, and therefore make the passage mean that the Sabbath continued till daylight on the first day of the week, which view would be absurd; or,
2. To interpret opse in the light of its context and of the confirming testimony of three other Gospel writers, and give it the obvious meaning of "after the Sabbath," supported also by the Modern Greek translation, by a Greek, from the original New Testament Greek, and confirmed by other scholars, which is entirely rational.
Hence the keeper of the true Sabbath may be assured that there is absolutely nothing in Matthew 28:1 that indicates a change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week, or that can disturb his confidence in the binding obligation of the fourth commandment in perpetuity.
[In the Review and Herald of July 4, 1940, W. E. Howell further discussed Matthew 28: 1. We quote a part of his article.]
Another inquirer asks regarding the much-discussed passage in Matthew 28:1 concerning the Sabbath and the first day of the week. Someone has called to his attention Young's rendering of this verse, which reads, "On the eve of the Sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the Sabbaths, came Mary."
The inquirer wants to know whether "eve of the Sabbaths" and "first of the Sabbaths" are justifiable translations. One hesitates to criticize the work of a finished scholar like Dr. Young, author of a well known unabridged concordance. But I think the most kindly way of stating the matter is to say that in this case he has indulged in an interpretation instead of a translation, especially in the second phrase. I know of only one other scholar of standing who gives a similar rendering, and that by basing it on the conjunction of a yearly ceremonial Sabbath with the weekly Sabbath, and concluding that the resurrection occurred on the Sabbath day....
It is true that not infrequently would-be defenders of the Sunday Sabbath use the interpretation "first of the Sabbaths," endeavoring to make it appear that the resurrection day was the first of the new Sabbaths changed to the first day of the week. No one should he confused by such a construing of this notable phrase, though it is a bit more difficult for one who does not read the Greek to expose the error in such an interpretation. It would take a book to say all that deserves to he said on this and related passages in the New Testament but I shall endeavor to make clear in a few paragraphs the essential facts in the case.
Aside from the great preponderance of scholarly translation mentioned above, the reading of the original text itself is our safest guide, if we can accept it without bias.
The Greek word for "Sabbath" in the first phrase of Matthew 28: 1, and the one for "week" in the second phrase, are identical-sabbaton and in the plural. By an idiom of the language, either the singular or the plural of sabbaton may be used for either "Sabbath day" or "week." Out of sixty eight times the word for Sabbath occurs in the New Testament, it is rendered week nine times. In addition to the context as a guide to determining the sense of week, the word itself is preceded by the ordinal numeral first in every instance of the nine but one, in which latter the number is the cardinal "twice." Luke 18:12. It is preceded by the ordinal "first" in Matthew 28:1, and why not translate it week here as in the only other eight instances in which it occurs? There is no just ground for changing the translation in this one instance, from week to Sabbaths, as is done in Dr. Young's and Dr. Knoch's translations.
---===---
3. "The Lord's Day"
[The following is an article by W. E. Howell in the Review and Herald of May 9,1940.]
This phrase, "the Lord's day;" occurs but once in the Bible, in Revelation 1:10: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." One sees it nowadays in the public press and in the name of one or more organizations. In this use it is usually intended to mean Sunday. In the French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese translations of the Scriptures, it is for the most part, though not in all, rendered Sunday. Advocates of Sunday observance often employ this scripture in attempted
support of the keeping of the first day of the week as the Sabbath. What is the true meaning of "the Lord's day" as used by the prophet John?
Though we may not know why John chose to use this phrase instead of one more specific, a little study of the phrase itself and of one or two kindred ones elsewhere will throw light on the question.
The word "Lord's" is a translation of an adjective used in the Greek phrase kuriakee heemera. The adjective kuriakee is derived from the regular New Testament word for Lord, kurios, with a suffix added to its stem. In English we have no suitable adjective form of Lord, since the only one we have, lordly, has come by usage to have a meaning not adaptable to this phrase. The nearest we can come to a proper equivalent is to say "day of the Lord," or as in the text, "Lord's day," meaning a day belonging to the Lord or set apart by the Lord.
There is an interesting parallel in the use of kuriakos in the phrase kuriakon deipnon, "Lord's supper," in 1 Corinthians 11:20. As all know, this is the supper presided over by Jesus just before His betrayal and crucifixion, and ordained by Him to be observed by His followers "till he come." The adjective qualifying "supper" is exactly the same one as used to qualify "day" in Revelation 1:10, and it is not used elsewhere in the New Testament.
In the case of the supper, it was instituted by the Lord's setting the example of how to observe it, and saying to His disciples, "This do in remembrance of me." "I have given you an example, that you should do as 1 have done to you."
In the case of the day, God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested the seventh day." This is the only day God ever set apart by resting upon it Himself, and commanding us to remember to keep it holy. Numerous times after that event as recorded in the Bible, the day is called "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." In other words, it is supremely "the Lord's day," as really as the supper was and is "the Lord's supper."
Again, "the Lord's day" cannot refer to the day of His resurrection, or to a memorial of that day, for the resurrection is commemorated and symbolized baptism, that is, baptism by immersion.
There is also another aspect of the interpretation of the phrase "the Lord's day" that should be noted. Since the discovery of Greek writing in fragmentary papyrus documents and in inscriptions in Egypt and other dry countries, it has been found that the words kurios and kuriakos were in common use among the people at the time the New Testament was writing. The word kurios, in fact, was then, and still is among the modern Greeks, used as equivalent to our title Mr.. But by extension also to head of the house or a business concern or our common use of the word lord as applied to an estate or social status or even to a king or emperor.
When Jesus came in the flesh, it was the most natural and normal thing for His followers to call Him Lord, for so He was, as He Himself declared. Ever since He has been called the Lord without anyone's doubting who is meant. To the heathen of Christ's day, lord naturally applied in
its highest sense to the emperor. Hence it was all the more fitting for Christians to call Jesus Lord, as He was indeed Lord of all, including kings and emperors.
Now kuriakos was in common use as the adjective form of kurios, whether applied to the head of a house or a business concern, or the emperor. So was it equally fitting for Christians to apply it to the paschal supper and to the "Sabbath of the Lord thy God," especially since Jesus Himself declared that He was "Lord of the Sabbath." How consistent, then, for the apostle John to write kuriakee heemera, "Lord's Day" as a designation of the Sabbath of the Lord. How inconsistent And incomparable it would seem for him to say he was in a high state of spiritual exaltation on "the emperor's day"!
Hence without denying that kurios and kuriakos were in common use in the speech of the day. Perhaps no one has better expressed the exaltation of kurios from meaning Caesar to signifying Jesus the King of all kings, than has the eminent Greek scholar, Dr. A. T. Robertson, in his Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, in which he says, on pages 115, 116:
"The fact that these and other terms were used in the popular language of the day gives sharper point to the new turn in the gospel message. The deification of the emperor made Christians sensitive about the words [kurios, kuriakos, and seven others mentioned]. ... The Christians did not shrink from using these words in spite of the debased ideas due to the emperor cult, Mithraism, or other popular superstitions. Indeed Paul often took the very words of Gnostic or Mithra cult and filled them with the riches of Christ. .... The mass of the New Testament vocabulary has been transfigured .... The new message glorified the current koinee [common speech], took the words from the street, and made them bear a new content, linked heaven with earth in a new sense."
Meecham, also, in his book Light From Ancient Letters, pages 118, 119, quoting in part from Kennedy, says of kurios:
"'It was constantly used of characteristically Oriental deities, such as the Egyptian Isis, Osiris, and Serapis. In the first century it was quickly taking its place as the designation of the deified emperor, and thus becoming the central term of the imperial cult.' What Paul did, therefore, was to adopt this current title, and invest it with a deeper and more spiritual meaning. ... Its ascription to the deified Roman ruler was anathema. There was but 'one Lord, Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 8:6). To the writers of the New Testament the risen Christ is, above all else' 'Lord.'"
In conclusion, we may say that although the people of the day might properly say kurios Caesar, the Christians might most appropriately say kurios Jesus. Though the people might say kuriakos logos for Caesar's treasury, the Christians would as logically say kuriakon deipnon for Lord's supper, and kurinkee heemera for Lord's day the only day He ever claimed as exclusively His own, "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."
---===---
4. Gentiles and Sabbath Keeping - A Letter to a Fundamentalist
Some time ago a series of editorials in the Review and Herald commented on certain articles in a religious weekly, which declared emphatically that the Ten Commandments are still in force, but that the Sabbath command has been changed. These articles, incidentally, were Sunday school lesson helps on the Ten Commandments. The Review comments were sent to the writer of the articles, who at that time was the president of a Fundamentalist Bible school. He replied in fine Christian spirit, reaffirmed his belief in the Ten Commandments as the moral standard for Christians, but declared he felt that this "does not strengthen the position of Christians who keep Saturday as the Sabbath." He also restated the position taken in his articles, that it would be necessary to have the seventh day Sabbath specifically enjoined on the Gentiles in order for us to feel duty bound to obey it. He declared that "none of the Gentiles kept the Sabbath day, but they all recognized the other commands as obligatory," and asked the question, "Is there any evidence that the Gentile Christians ever kept the seventh day Sabbath?' Here is a portion of the letter that was sent in reply:
The Text of the Letter
Let me open my letter with a comment on your closing paragraph. You state that though you believe Adventists are in error on various doctrines, this does not prevent your "recognizing their-true faith in Christ as Savior." This is encouraging. Various of our critics, particularly of the Bible Institute type, have, in their zeal, risen to the heights of declaring that Seventh day Adventists turn their back on Christ, are strangers to the gospel. And as if that were not sufficient as an excoriation, they climax it by charging that we make Satan our savior and sin bearer. There is one redeeming feature about such sweeping charges as these-to anyone who knows anything at all of either Adventist theology or Adventist living, such charges collapse of their own top heaviness and absurdity.
Permit me to direct your special attention to my comments on the relation of the Sabbath to the moot question of the Genesis story of creation, which is the battlefield between Fundamentalists and Modernists.
A Strange Silence
Though I have searched Fundamentalist literature diligently, I have never found any comment on the Seventh day Adventist statement regarding the relation of the Sabbath to the primary tenet of Fundamentalism, the belief in the story of our world's origin as given in Genesis. All I am able to find in comment on us is merely general denunciations of us as heretics. And all the while, of course, Fundamentalists bewail the increasing tide of skeptical Modernism in their own denominations, especially in their denominational colleges and seminaries. Meanwhile, whatever else may be our sins and shortcomings, we remain absolutely free from the corrosion of Modernism, even in our colleges and seminaries. We could not become Modernists, which necessitates moving onto the platform of evolution, when every member of the church on the seventh day of every week turns aside from his ordinary labors to worship Him who in six days made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh day.
I conclude from the second paragraph of your letter that you believe that the law of God is the moral standard of life for Christians. This gives us something in common. I suppose that in your reading of anti-Sabbath literature, especially that prepared by Bible institutes, you may have
noticed that the common method of meeting the argument for the seventh day Sabbath is by declaring that the law was done away. It is this antinomian argument that we meet most frequently. Evidently you do not believe this view, which, of course, as you know, and as surely anyone who claims to have any knowledge of church history ought to know, has been denounced as a heresy in Protestantism from the days of Luther onward.
Our Interpretation Ancient
You state that the fact that the Ten Commandments are our moral guide "does not strengthen the position of Christians who keep Saturday as the Sabbath." I conclude from this that you interpret the fourth commandment as did the drafters of the Westminster Confession, who adopted the views of Nicholas Bownde, that "the seventh clay-means simply "one day in seven." The limits of a letter do not permit me to analyze what I believe are patent fallacies and irrationalities that reside in this interpretation. Suffice it to say here that such an interpretation of the plain words of the fourth command was never thought of until three thousand years after the proclaiming of that command on Mount Sinai, for Nicholas Bownde lived at the end of the sixteenth century of our Christian Era.
If the touchstone of orthodoxy be in any sense the antiquity of a belief, as Fundamentalists often suggest by the very emphasis they place on the antithetical term Modernism, then certainly Adventists are the truly orthodox ones in the matter of the Sabbath. I do not say myself that antiquity of interpretation is necessarily the proof of its correctness. But when Adventists are so often charged with preaching new and strange doctrines it is surely pertinent for me to call attention to the historical aspect of our interpretation of the Sabbath command.
Later in your letter you say: "I might add in connection with your comments on the Sunday School Times lesson articles that the point about a command to keep the Sabbath being necessary for the Gentiles was in view of the fact that none of the Gentiles kept the Sabbath day, while they all recognized the other commands as obligatory." Is there any evidence that the Gentile Christians never kept the seventh day Sabbath? Why is it not just as proper for the question to be put in this form? Evidently your answer to the question would be Yes, for you have just stated that "none of the Gentiles kept the Sabbath day." How do you prove this? How lire you sure what they did not do? Do you prove it by what you believe to be the silence of Scripture concerning their keeping of the Sabbath? If so, 1 wonder if you would be willing to allow the validity of the argument from silence in some other areas of theological discussion.
Burden of Proof on Sunday Advocate
The whole burden of proof rests upon you in this matter. If you accept the premise that the Ten Commandments are the Christian's moral standard, then, unless you provide clear proof to the contrary, the conclusion logically follows that the early Christians did keep the Sabbath. Furthermore, even if you could produce contrary proof, which I am confident you cannot, the only logical conclusion then would be that the Gentiles from the outset broke one of the Ten Commandments.
[The matter is presented in this brief form as a logical proposition because the limits of a letter forbid the introduction of extensive historical evidence. Such evidence clearly reveals that
Gentile Christians kept the Sabbath very generally for a long period after New Testament times. After apostolic days Sunday keeping gradually came in along with other apostate practices.]
Let us take the matter a little further. You say that "none of the Gentiles kept the Sabbath day, while they all recognized the other commands as obligatory." This is essentially the line of reasoning of those who declare that the law was abolished at the cross, but that in some remarkable manner this law, which evidently was so faulty and unnecessary as to call for abolition, found itself nine tenths restored in the Christian dispensation. It is this process of reasoning that is employed by antinomians to escape the charge of moral anarchy which is brought against them for their doctrine that the law was done away. Now, I do not say that you subscribe to this. I simply say that your line of reasoning in this particular connection runs parallel to theirs, and so far as I can discover, is here identical with it. But this is not the teaching of the great Protestant creeds. If we are discussing the question of orthodoxy-and "heresy" is the blanket charge against Adventists-then any teaching that the ten-commandment law was abolished at the cross is heresy. Accordingly, Gentiles, in order to square with Protestant creeds, must recognize all of the Ten Commandments "as obligatory."
I might ask further: If the Gentiles did not consider the fourth commandment as obligatory, on what, then, did they base the keeping of a weekly holy day, which you declare was Sunday? If you say they based it simply on custom and the growing practice of the church, then you admit that there is no "Thus says the Lord" behind Sunday. If you hesitate to make this admission, and I would not blame you for so hesitating in view of the thunderings of American and English preachers through the years regarding the awful sin of Sunday desecration, then I would ask you, In what text of Holy Writ do you find a "Thus says the Lord" for Sunday? If you can find such a text, you have done better than any theologian before you. Many theologians admit frankly that there is no command for Sunday keeping.
The Crux of the Matter
If you say, as you did in the Sunday school lessons, that in some way the spirit of the fourth command still holds for those who live in the Christian Era, and therefore they should keep Sunday, I would ask you to elucidate on this point. It is the crux of the discussion. What is there so elusive about this fourth command that we should be asked to view it only in some ghostly, transcendental form? Its language is as plain and as vigorous as that of any other precept of the ten, so plain indeed that men had no difficulty, and certainly no controversy, over the understanding of it for thousands of years.
Who authorized you or any other Christian minister, I ask with all good feeling, to deprive this one precept of the ten of its body and substance?
If you really do believe that the law was done away at the cross, but that nine of the ten were somehow restored, I insist that you give just as literal a resurrection to the fourth commandment if you are going to invoke it in any way in support of a weekly holy day. Why not leave wholly to the Modernists the vaporous doctrine of a spiritual resurrection? To my mind it is a curious thing, this Protestant reasoning, I am tempted almost to say casuistry, that retains on the one side, in some shadowy form, the fourth commandment, in order to have a "Thus says the Lord"
foundation for their weekly holy day. And on the other hand discards the fourth command as abolished, in order to break the force of the seventh day Sabbath argument.
Catholic Church More Frank
In this matter the Catholic Church is more honest, shall I say, than Protestantism; for it makes no endeavor to defend Sunday by reasoning that "the seventh" day means only one day in seven. With all its specious interpretations, Catholicism evidently thought this too unwarranted, in view of the unanimity of interpretation for thousands of years. It frankly states in its catechisms that "the seventh day" is Saturday. Then it defends Sunday on the ground that the church has a right to change laws and to institute holy days. If we accepted this view of the power of the church, we could easily accept Sunday. But we are not Catholics. We are Protestants.
I am not quite sure of your view. I concluded, from the first part of your letter, that you believed unqualifiedly that the Ten Commandments-and of course the fourth must be present in order to make the ten-are the moral standard for Gentile Christians. But the latter part of your letter, which declares that Gentiles did not keep the Sabbath, "while they all recognized the other commands as obligatory," throws me into doubt as to your view.
Therefore, to clear the air, let me ask you directly: Do you believe that the Ten Commandments is in full force, that it is the moral standard for us in the Christian dispensation? If you answer no, we part company right here, I standing with the great Protestant confessions and creeds, and you standing wherever you wish. If you answer that you do believe the Ten Commandments to be our moral standard, I conclude, by simple arithmetic, that you believe in the fourth along with the other nine.
Two Key Questions
Then I would ask you, By what process of reasoning, or rather, by what texts of Scripture do you justify changing what was for thousands of years the one understanding of the meaning of this fourth commandment as regards the day of worship and the purpose of the worship? In other words, How do you prove that the phrase in the command, "the seventh day," which until the sixteenth century AD., was understood by all to apply to the specific seventh day of the week, really refers to no day in particular, merely to one day in seven? And how do you prove that this fourth command, which is based on a certain historical fact, the creation, can be made to apply to another historical fact, the resurrection? Even when the minds of Christians were becoming befogged by strange doctrines and reasoning in the early centuries, the basic distinction between Sabbath and Sunday was evident to them, for the Sabbath was described U the feast of creation, and Sunday as the feast of the resurrection.
New Creation Depends on Old
Perhaps you will say on this second point that the resurrection is the memorial of a new creation, and thus the fourth command applies. But in the articles enclosed with this letter, I have tried to show that such reasoning, though plausible on the surface, is not valid. That the Christian needs to remember and to have absolute belief in the historical creation, the event described in Genesis and quoted in the fourth commandment, before he can have any faith in, or attach any
significance to, the plan of salvation and the work of Christ in the new creation. Instead of the new creation's eclipsing and taking the place of the historical creation, the simple facts are that the new creation owes its significance to the literal, historical creation. Fundamentalists have intoned sufficiently, I believe, on the primary necessity of a belief in the historical creation in Genesis as the true foundation on which all Christian doctrine must rest, to make it unnecessary for me to amplify this point here.
In asking you this series of questions I have no desire to take any unfair advantage of you by the specious procedure of asking questions which a man should not be expected to answer. Instead, I think these are the most relevant questions that could be raised. Let me repeat, the burden of proof in this whole matter must rest upon you who believe in Sunday, not upon us who believe in the seventh day Sabbath. We represent the historic interpretation of the fourth commandment from time immemorial. We have never changed our interpretation. We have seen no reason to do so. If words had one value and meaning in past time, we see no reason why their meaning should be basically changed today. It is for you, of course, who believe that there is a sufficient reason, and a Biblical reason at that, to produce that reason for us.
The fact that virtually the whole Christian world soon turned away from obedience to the fourth command is surely no argument in itself that such a departure is justified. I am certain you would not put it forth as a formal proposition, though it does seem to be the submerged premise in the reasoning of a great majority of first-day keepers. But knowing, as I am certain you do know, how quickly there crept into the church a great variety of false doctrines and perversions of true doctrines, which held virtually all Christendom in their control for long centuries. I am sure that you will not ask me to accept any argument for Sunday based on the early appearance of it in the church and its rapid and widespread adoption. It-is not in church practice but in Bible precept that we as Protestants must find the guide for our lives.
---===---
5. The Gamble Theory Examined
About the year 1900 a Methodist minister, Samuel Waiter Gamble, wrote a book, Sunday, the True Sabbath of God, in which he brought forth a series of astounding claims regarding the nature of the ancient Jewish calendar. On these claims he built an argument against the seventh day Sabbath and for Sunday. The book was brought forth admittedly as an attack on Seventh day Adventists and their Sabbath preaching. We might perhaps dispose of the book with the brief observation that though it was produced for the express purpose of providing Sunday keepers with a new and invincible argument against Sabbatarians, and though the writer of the introduction declared, "It is this or nothing," Gamble's book failed to win scholarly support. Sunday keeping theologians ridiculed unsparingly some of the key claims of the book. However, three reasons prompt me to examine the theory:
1. Though the Gamble book died quietly, with scarcely an obituary notice from the theologians whom it was intended to aid, the shadowy apparition of the theory is invoked quite frequently by the opponents of the Sabbath.
A choice illustration of how the ghost of the Gamble theory enters into important present-day Sabbath discussions, is found in the following quotation from the Lord's Day Leader, official organ of the Lord's Day Alliance:
"Nowhere did God designate the seventh day of the week [as the Sabbath]. It could not have been appointed for the seventh day of tile week without interfering with the law of the Passover. The Passover was a movable feast. It was appointed to be held on the fourteenth day of the month of Abib, or Nisan. It was therefore a calendar date, and not a weekly day. This was the first great Sabbath of the year, and the other Sabbaths followed every seventh day. Now everybody knows that a calendar date, such as a birthday or Fourth of July, cannot fall on the same day of the week two years in succession.
"Now let us be reasonable about this matter, and admit, as all intelligent Jewish rabbis do, that the ancient Sabbaths fell on the seventh day after the Passover, and not on the seventh day of the week, and that in the course of seven years each day of the week was in turn the Sabbath for a whole year. This was the law as long as the Jewish nation lasted." - September-October, 1928.
Of course Sunday law reformers, of all people, find comfort in such a theory as Gamble's, because it enables them to invoke the Sabbath command in favor of Sunday; for is not Sunday a seventh day after six days of work?
2. Two leaders in the recent calendar-revision movement, Moses B. Cotsworth and C. F. Marvin, resurrected the Gamble theory, touched it up here and there, and sent it forth again with such publicity as they were able to command. (Of its relation to calendar revision 1 am not here concerned, of course.)
3. While the mere refuting of a fanciful theory may be rather profitless, though necessary, the discussion of this particular theory furnishes an excellent opportunity to set forth much positive evidence and truth regarding the Jewish annual Sabbaths and the difference between them and the weekly Sabbath.
I shall not attempt to go into all the details of the theory, but confine myself to the primary claims on which it rests. If these collapse, they carry down with them the secondary claims. 21 I shall deal with the theory in terms of its revived form as given out by Cotsworth and Marvin in a thirty-two-page pamphlet entitled Moses the Greatest of Calendar Reformers, published by the International Fixed Calendar League. However, so far as the main arguments are concerned there is no difference between the original and the revived form. On the following page is a reproduction of the calendar which, according to this theory, was given to the Jews by Moses at the time of the Exodus. The claims made regarding it are as follows:
Four Clams for Alleged Mosaic Calendar
1. Moses, at the time of the Exodus, established a solar calendar of 365 days. This calendar consisted of twelve thirty-day months, plus five extra days, three of which extra days were inserted at the end of the sixth month (Elul), and two it the end of the twelfth (Adar). These five extra days, though reckoned as days of the week, were not counted as days of the month.
2. The "seventh day-of the fourth commandment was not the "seventh day" of the week as we understand it today, but simply the seventh day after six days of labor. Therefore, to speak of the days of the Mosaic calendar as Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, et cetera, is not accurate. The specifically mentioned Sabbath days in the Jewish ritual, such as Passover Sabbath, give the key, and the remainder of the Sabbaths in the year are located in the calendar by spacing out six working days before each of them.
3. The fifth day of the third month (Sivan), though reckoned as a day of the month, was not counted as a day of the week. This was the day of Pentecost. It was an "extra Sabbath," similar to the "blank day" of the present proposed calendar. In other words, although the fourth of Sivan was Sabbath, the fifth was not "Sunday," but simply a continuation of the Sabbath of the fourth-a blank day so far as the reckoning of the days of the week is concerned.
4. Now, 365 days equal fifty-two weeks plus one day. But this extra day being eliminated from the count of the weeks, made the year really consist of an exact number of weeks. This caused the Sabbaths always to bear a fixed relation to the month, instead of being the seventh day of a free-running week. Thus every year was an exact duplicate of every other year.
Examine First Link in Evidence
The authors, Cotsworth and Marvin, first endeavor to prove that the Mosaic calendar was solar. This, of course, gave them their foundation for the statement that it consisted of 365 days. Most Jewish authorities hold that their ancient calendar was not solar; but let us grant, for the sake of argument, that it was. What does that prove? Nothing in particular. Our present calendar is solar, but that gives to it no unusual perpetual qualities. However, the reader of the pamphlet is led to feel that when the solar nature of the Mosaic calendar is established, the other features naturally follow. This feeling is strengthened by the fact that Dr. Julian Morgenstern and Prof. W. A. Heidel (whose views on the solar nature of the ancient Jewish calendar are mentioned in the main text of the pamphlet) are listed along with Samuel Walter Gamble, the father of the whole theory, in a footnote entitled "Some Authorities We Quote." A letter was therefore written to both these Hebrew scholars, informing them of the theory set forth in this pamphlet. The letter stated:
"The writers of this pamphlet quote you as one of the authorities in support of the major premise of their thesis, because of your contribution on the calendar of ancient Israel. Your name and the quotations from your work, placed as they are in this pamphlet under the general head, 'Some Authorities We Quote,' lead the general reader to the impression that your researches warrant the ultimate conclusions to which the writers of the pamphlet come. I wish to inquire whether I would be correct in obtaining this impression. In other words, have your researches led you to believe, as do the writers of this pamphlet, that Moses devised a perpetual calendar that placed the Sabbath in a fixed relationship to the month, necessitating the existence each year of an extra Sabbath?'
Hebrew Scholars Reply
The essence of Dr. Heidel's brief reply is found in this one sentence from his letter: "Messrs. Marvin and Cotsworth have quite absolutely misrepresented my views." Dr. Morgenstern's reply is quoted in more detail:
"The Hebrew Union College
"Cincinnati, Ohio
January 30, 1929. Office of the President.
"My Dear Mr. Nichol:
"Replying to yours of the 24th inst., I am very happy to be able to assure you that Messrs. Marvin and Cotsworth have used my name in their propaganda for the new calendar entirely without my authorization and knowledge, and that the quotations from my article on 'The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel' apparently altogether misrepresent the facts with regard to the history of the calendar of ancient Israel which 1 have been able to establish....
"Certainly I did not advance the thesis 'that the ancient Jews lived under a fixed or perpetual calendar devised by Moses, which caused the Sabbath always to recur on the same days of the month each year, instead of being an institution related only to the week, as we now have it.' On the contrary, I showed in this article that, at various times in the history of ancient Israel, different calendar systems were employed. That up to approximately 621 BC the old Canaanitish calendar, a purely solar calendar, taking cognizance of the days of the solar equinoxes, was employed in ancient Israel. Then from about 621 to a time somewhat later than 400 BC, another calendar, apparently a lunar solar calendar, was employed, based apparently largely upon some Babylonian model. It apparently took no cognizance whatever of the Sabbath, which continued as a weekly institution, falling upon any date in the month, regardless of any considerations other than that the Sabbath came every seventh day. At some time after 400 BC, the calendar at present employed by the Jewish Church, also based upon Babylonian antecedents, was instituted. This also makes no effort to co-ordinate the Sabbath with any particular days or dates in the month.
"I showed likewise that at some time, probably in the third century BC, an attempt was made to introduce into ancient Israel a calendar similar to that which Mr. Cotsworth is championing. With particular attention given to the coincidence of the Sabbath with the year divided into thirteen months of twenty-eight days, and with a particular date in each month, probably the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty eighth days. This calendar is employed as the basis of reckoning in the books of jubilees and Enoch, two Pseudepigraphical writings which were never regarded as authoritative. This calendar, however, was never recognized as official by Judaism and never came into actual use. Furthermore, Moses himself had no connection whatsoever with any of these calendars. It is clear, therefore, that the above named gentlemen have either not troubled to read my article carefully, or, if they did, have not understood it or have not wanted to understand it. Certainly, the facts which they state and the conclusions which they drew from them are altogether unwarranted by my article.
"I trust that this gives you the information which you desire.
"Very sincerely yours," [Signed]
Julian Morgfnstern, "President."
Comment on this letter is superfluous. Let us therefore examine the next point.
The pamphlet authors declare that Moses inserted a leap week every twenty-eight years to serve the same purpose as our quadrennial leap day. The only "proof' cited in behalf of this is that Moses was too wise a statesman not to have done so, and that unless he had done so, "his wonderful calendar system" would have collapsed. The only point certain is that the "wonderful calendar system" of the authors will collapse without the leap-week feature. There is no proof in the world that Moses employed it.
Next Link Examined
The next link in the chain is the claim that Moses divided his calendar into twelve thirty-day months, with five supplementary days that could be inserted between the months where needed. Unless he did thus divide the months, the theory could not be made to work. In other words, unless he followed the Egyptian division of months, the theory collapses. But again we are confronted with an assumption, for the authors simply assume that he did, and proceed to build a towering structure upon the groundless assumption, which in turn, rests upon the equally groundless assumption that Moses employed a leap week.
We come now to the examination of a passage in Exodus 19 which is brought forth as evidence for this alleged Mosaic calendar. The first text they quote, including the bracketed phrase, is: "In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day [that is, the third day] came they into the wilderness of Sinai.... And there Israel encamped before the mount." Ex. 19:1,2, A.R.V. The bracketed phrase in this verse is inserted by the calendar authors.
They then quote a portion of the tenth and eleventh verses, which reads as follows:
"Jehovah said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments, and be ready against the third day; for the third day Jehovah will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai." Verse 10.
They are endeavoring by these texts to support their contention that Pentecost came on the fifth day of the third month (Sivan), as their reconstructed calendar shows it. Their argument in brief is this:
1. That according to Jewish tradition the law was proclaimed from Mount Sinai on Pentecost; in other words, that Pentecost is a memorial of that great event.
2. That the Israelites reached Mount Sinai on the third day of the third month.
3. That the three days mentioned in verses 10 and 11 of Exodus 19 should begin with the third day of the month, thus causing the last of the three days of sanctification. The day when Jehovah came down and delivered the law, in other words, Pentecost-to come on the fifth day of the third month, as their calendar places it.
Let us now examine these three propositions. Even if it be granted that "the same day" means the third day of the month, the conclusions of the authors do not necessarily follow. They must still prove that the words of Jehovah to Moses to sanctify the people "to-day and tomorrow," as given
in verses 10 and 11, were uttered the very day that the Israelites reached Mount Sinai. Unless they can do this, their third proposition collapses. But no proof can possibly be given for this claim, and every presumption is against it.
Questionable Methods in Chronology
If the whole passage from the first verse to the eleventh is read, it will be noted that after the Israelites reached Sinai, Moses went up into the mount (verse 3), and communed for a time with God. How long, we know not. Next, that he descended from the mount (verse 7), and told the people what God had said to him. How much time this consumed, we know not. Next, that Moses reported to Jehovah what the people had said (verse 8), and that following these communications the Lord made a statement concerning the sanctifying of the people "against the third day." The Scriptures do not divulge how much time elapsed in connection with these conversations, and it is only unwarranted assumption that would declare that the whole passage must bear the date of the first verse, whatever that date may be.
If that sort of assumption is to be employed in determining the dates of events, we can quickly bring the Gamble theory into hopeless straits by turning to the sixteenth chapter of Exodus. There we read that the Israelites entered the wilderness of Sin on "the fifteenth day of the second month." Verse 1. The next two verses immediately declare that they murmured, craving the flesh pots of Egypt. Then immediately follows the statement of Jehovah (verse 4) that He "will rain bread from heaven," and that "it shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily." Verse 5. Then Moses declares to the people that "in the morning" the people will have "bread to the full." Verses 7, 8. Then follows the story of how "in the morning" (verse 13) the people saw the manna lying on the ground, and gathered it up. Then, that "they gathered it morning by morning" (verse 21) until the "sixth day" arrived, when Moses informed them, "Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy Sabbath unto Jehovah" (verse 23).
Chronology Turns Against Them
Now, if we are to date this whole passage in terms of the date given at the head of the narrative-"the fifteenth of the second month-we would conclude that the Israelites murmured the very day they arrived in this wilderness. And that the phrase "in the morning" applied to the very next morning, namely, the sixteenth. But if the sixteenth be the first of six days of gathering manna, then the sixth day, on which they gathered twice as much, would come on the twenty- first and the Sabbath on the twenty second day of that second month. A glance at the accompanying calendar will illustrate this clearly. But it will also reveal that the authors have listed this twenty-second day in a "work day column." Thus according to the very rule that they have followed in trying to establish their point in the nineteenth chapter, we can bring their calendar into confusion by the incidents related in he sixteenth chapter.
Now, let it be made clear that we do not necessarily hold that on the morning immediately after the fifteenth day of the second month, the manna began to fall. The contention is that it would be as logical to maintain this as for the authors to maintain the position they take on the nineteenth chapter, and that by thus employing this principle in both chapters. For a principle of
chronological interpretation ought to be able to work in more than one chapter-the theory is brought into confusion.
Phrase Wrongly Interpreted
But we do not grant that "the same day" means the third day of that third month. Jewish scholars explain that in the Hebrew "the same day" is an indefinite phrase, and cannot properly be forced to refer back to the "third month." Unbroken Jewish tradition has understood "the same day" to mean the first day of that month.* Thus the Gamble theory advocates are in the peculiar position of accepting Jewish tradition in order to establish the first of their three propositions, namely, that the law was proclaimed on Pentecost, and rejecting Jewish tradition in order to establish the second point, namely, that the Israelites reached Sinai on the third day of the month. This is really quite an unusual situation.
Christian commentators are generally in agreement with Jewish scholars in regard to this passage, at least as regards the point that nothing definite can be understood by "the same day." One typical quotation is given. Lange, in his critical commentary on the Old Testament, thus observes:
"The same day." According to the Jewish tradition this means on the first day of the third month, but grammatically it may be taken more indefinitely at this time.'" - A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, by John Peter Lange, translated by Philip Schaff, vol. 2, of the Old Testament, p. 69.
* Rabbi Hyamson offers the following comment:
'In the third month. The Hebrew word hodesh means also 'new moon. 'Hence Exodus 19:1 might he rendered 'on the third new moon [first day of the third month]. On this day they came to the wilderness of Sinai.' For this rendering of hodeth compare 1 Samuel 20:18. 'And Jonathan said to David, Tomorrow is new moon.'"
We come now to the main part of the Gamble theory, which may be summarized in four propositions:
1. The Sabbath command simply means six days of work followed by a seventh day of rest.
2. The annual Sabbaths are Decalogue Sabbaths.
3. Counting "seven Sabbaths" from the Passover Sabbath on the fifteenth of the first month (Abib) brings us to the fourth day of the third month (Sivan). But the "morrow after the seventh Sabbath," Sivan 5, being Pentecost, which was also Sabbath, gives us an extra Sabbath, and this must be placed in the "Sabbath column" in the calendar.
4. Now the command to work six days is just as mandatory as the command to rest on the seventh, therefore the double Sabbath of the fourth and fifth of Sivan must be followed by six days of work before the next Sabbath. This results in giving us a blank day so far as the week is concerned. And this, of course, results in eliminating the one day over fifty-two full weeks in a 365day calendar year.
Propositions 1 and 2
Let us examine first, propositions 1 and 2. What does the Bible say concerning the nature of Pentecost? We read, "There shall be a holy convocation unto you; you shall do no servile work." Lev. 23:21, A.R.V. It is because of this statement that the calendar authors place Pentecost in the "Sabbath column" of their calendar, "since it could not by any rational procedure, be put in any one of the workday columns."
With this as our guide as to which days should be placed in the "Sabbath column," let us now consider some other scriptures. We read:
"In the first month [Abib], on the fourteenth day of the month at even, is Jehovah's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto Jehovah: seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. In the first day you shall have a holy convocation. You shall do no servile work." Verses 5-7.
Because of this the fifteenth of Abib is placed in the "Sabbath column." But the next verse declares, "In the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall do no servile work." Identical language is employed to describe the nature of the "first day" and the "seventh day" of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Now if the fifteenth day is the "first day" of the feast, the twenty-first is the "seventh day" of it. And if the fifteenth belongs in the "Sabbath column," then the twenty-first belongs there also. But the Gamble theory does not place it there. Why? No explanation is given.
Day of Atonement Destroys Theory
Come now to the seventh month. On the strength of the command that the first, fifteenth, and twenty-second days of the seventh month were to be holy convocations to the Lord, in which "no servile work" was to be done, these three days are placed in the "Sabbath column." But the tenth day of that month, the Day of Atonement-that day which was a "Sabbath of Sabbaths," to translate literally the original, on which not only "servile work," but "any manner of work," was forbidden under penalty of death-is placed in a "work-day column." Now if Pentecost, on which only "servile work" was prohibited, "could not, by any rational procedure, be put in any one of the work-day columns,-no possible sophistry can justify placing the Day of Atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month, in "any one of the workday columns." The endeavor to avoid this irresistible conclusion serves only to reveal more clearly the desperate plight in which this Atonement Day Sabbath places the Gamble theory. The calendar authors strive to show an analogy between the choosing of the Passover lamb on the tenth of the first month and the Atonement Day on the tenth of the seventh month. Their objective is not quite clear, but their attempted analogy is absurd. When it was read to Rabbi Hyamson, he threw up his hands in a gesture of horror and disgust. For to all devout Jews Atonement Day holds a place far above all other annual Sabbaths, and is above analogy to any other activity of the year.
The same Bible chapter that tells us the first, fifteenth, and twenty second days of the seventh month are Sabbaths, tells us also, and in more emphatic language, that the tenth day of the month is a Sabbath of Sabbaths.
Must Surrender Another Claim
Furthermore, with this tenth day of the seventh month allowed to come in a "work-day column," what becomes of the interpretation that "the command to work six days is just as binding as the one to rest on the seventh"? How could a man put in six days of labor between the eighth and the fifteenth of that month, seeing he must wholly abstain from work on the tenth? Simple arithmetic prevents that. Now if the Sabbath commandment does not here demand six days of work following a Sabbath, then how can it be made to demand it in connection with Pentecost? But if the demand be surrendered, then the whole argument based on the "extra Sabbath" at Pentecost collapses. In other words, if during the seventh month a man need work only four days between the Sabbath of the tenth and the Sabbath of the fifteenth, why is it necessary that during the third month he must work six days following the Sabbath of the fifth (Pentecost) before he can have a Sabbath day's rest again?
Therefore this marvelous calendar cannot be made to operate successfully, even when we accept the premises set forth by the authors themselves. This is truly a most remarkable situation. Propositions 1 and 2 cannot be held at the same time.
Into what confusion would those ancient Israelites have been brought had they attempted to employ the premises of this Gamble theory to the understanding of the Sabbath commandment!
Yes, and what confusion is brought to the Sunday advocates who believe these annual Sabbaths are Decalogue Sabbaths, and that the fourth commandment simply requires rest on a seventh day after six days of work.
Only One Escape From Confusion
The only escape from this confusion is to reject propositions 1 and 2 as false, and to return to the age-honored interpretation of this whole Sabbath question. This interpretation is built upon certain historical facts:
1. That "from time immemorial," as the Encyclopaedia Britannica phrases it 22 there has existed a unit of time measurement called the "week."
2. That this time unit is distinct and altogether separate from the month or the year.
3. That the Jewish nation, throughout its history, employed this time unit, which was finally adopted by the whole civilized world.
4. That "the seventh day" of the Sabbath command has always been understood by the Jewish people to mean the seventh day of the week.
No facts of history are better substantiated than the foregoing. When we understand "the seventh day" in the commandment to mean the seventh day of the week, we have an interpretation that will harmonize with both history and the Bible.
Propositions 3 and 4
Now, what of the claims made in propositions 3 and 4? First, let us dispose briefly of the assertion that in the Sabbath commandment, work on the six days is as definitely commanded as
rest on the seventh. If the authors conscientiously believe this to be the true interpretation, they ought to raise their voices against the trend toward a five-day work week.
We have already discovered the impossibility, during the first and seventh months, of obeying a command to work six consecutive days. But, worse still, a man who thus interpreted the commandment could never take a day's vacation during the six-day period. Happily for all concerned, the word shall, in the phrase "six days shall thou labor," does not necessarily indicate a command. It may simply indicate permission. The Hebrew word allows of either. Context and usage determine the meaning. A comparison of various scriptures, coupled with the united and uninterrupted sense in which not only Jewish but Christian scholars have understood the term, leaves no doubt that the word shall is simply permissive. We are permitted six days in which to work.
"Sabbath" Has Various Meanings
Applying this rule of context and usage-the proper rule to employ in examining words-to the term Sabbath, brings us to grips with the underlying premise of this whole theory, the proper meaning of the word Sabbath. The assumption of the Gamble theory is that the word has only one meaning, and in harmony with this belief the word Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is applied to the annual Sabbaths.
But if mere similarity of words is sufficient proof of similarity of thought, then confusion would arise on every side. Take the word day, for example. We employ it sometimes to mean twenty- four hours, and sometimes to mean simply the light part of the twenty-four-hour period. Again, we may use it wholly in a figurative sense, as, This is the day of opportunity. But there rarely need be any doubt as to the meaning intended. The context, the setting, makes it clear.
As a Biblical illustration, take the word law. It may mean the moral, civil, and ceremonial commands contained in the books of Moses. By extension it may mean the whole of Moses' writings, as in the phrase, "the law and the prophets."
Such illustrations from either the Bible or everyday life might be multiplied indefinitely. Only confusion can result from a failure to remember that a word may have more than one rigid and restricted definition.
Summary of meanings
When we examine the term Sabbath in this fashion, we discover, as might naturally be expected, that it has more than one meaning. The Hebrew lexicons reveal that:-
1. The word Sabbath has as its root meaning, "rest from labor."
2. The term is used primarily to denote the day of rest from labor at the close of the weekly cycle-the sense in which the word is used in the Sabbath commandment.
3. By extension, the term is used for the annual feasts, such as the Passover Sabbath, etc.
4. The term is used also to mean a week, as in the phrase, "seven Sabbaths shall there be complete." Lev. 23:15, A.R.V. The use of the word in this sense naturally grew out of the fact that the Sabbath coming at the end of each week marked off these seven-day units.
There are more senses in which the term may be used, but these are sufficient for the problem before us. (See page 236 for further comments on the value of the word Sabbath.)
Just when one definition should be employed, and when another, is no more difficult to determine than with numerous other words.
With these various definitions of the word Sabbath before us, let us examine the pivotal text of this whole theory, the text on which proposition 3 is built:
"You shall count unto you from the morrow after the (Passover] Sabbath [the fifteenth of the first month, Abib], from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave-offering; seven Sabbaths shall there be complete: even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall you number fifty days!' "You shall make proclamation on the selfsame day [that is, on the fiftieth day, Pentecost]; there shall he a holy convocation unto you; you shall do no servile work." Verses 15,16,21.
View Held by Sadducees
Viewing this scripture historically, we find that two interpretations have been held. About two thousand years ago there existed for a limited period a Jewish sect called the Sadducees. They held that the word Sabbath in these texts should be understood to mean the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments. This was one point of controversy between them and the Pharisees, who represented the accepted interpretation that has come down to out day. Because of this, the Sadducees contended that the count of the fifty days should not be begun on the sixteenth of Abib, which was "the morrow after the [Passover] Sabbath" of the fifteenth. But that the count should begin on the day that followed the first Decalogue Sabbath in Passover week. For example, if Passover Sabbath came on Thursday, they held that "the morrow after the Sabbath" was the following Sunday, because it was "the morrow after" the Decalogue Sabbath. According to their interpretation-which was held by a very limited number and for an equally limited period-Pentecost would always come on Sunday.
But the Sadducees did not therefore believe in breaking the weekly cycle. Their interpretation forbade allowing even the name Sabbath to be coupled with the Passover or any other annual Sabbath. To them, the word itself as found in the fourth commandment was wholly apart from, and above, contact with annual feasts. When they came to the week end at the close of the seven- week period after the Passover the Sadducees rested from all labor on that seventh day Sabbath and "servile work" the first day of the next week, which, according to their reckoning, was Pentecost. And when the seventh day of that week arrived, they kept Sabbath again. This was no more difficult for them to do than it is for a present-day devout Sabbath keeper to rest from labor on Saturday of one week, take a holiday on Sunday of the next week, and then rest again from labor the next Saturday.
How Jewish Scholars Translate the Passage
But when we turn to the now universally accepted understanding of these texts by all Jewish scholars, we find the Gamble theory demolished with equal completeness. This interpretation renders the phrases "seven Sabbaths" and "the morrow after the seventh Sabbath," as "seven weeks," and "the morrow after the seventh week." For Jewish authorities have never confused the Decalogue Sabbath with annual Sabbaths, and accordingly have understood that the term Sabbath can have different meanings. For example, if Passover Sabbath came on Wednesday, the fifty-day count would begin on Thursday of that week, and Pentecost would come on Thursday of the seventh week. Thus there would not even be a doubling up of Sabbaths at Pentecost time. Therefore the passage fails to give any support to the Gamble theory.
Furthermore, let us repeat, the translation of Sabbath as "week" in this passage is not based upon the view of some few Hebrew scholars who have a particular theory to maintain, but represents the translation that has been employed through all the centuries by all Jewish scholars. With the exception of the limited period when the small sect of Sadducees held a differing view. And is today the translation employed by both Orthodox and Reform rabbis.
In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament completed in the second century BC, the word Sabbath in Leviticus 23:15, 16 is translated by the Greek word hebdomas, meaning "week."
Indeed, no other meaning than "week" could consistently be understood for the word Sabbath in the phrases "seven Sabbaths" and "the morrow after the seventh Sabbath," in Leviticus 23:15, 16. For the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 16:9, 10 reads thus: "Seven weeks shall thou number unto thee: from the time thou begins to put the sickle to the standing grain shall thou begin to number seven weeks. And thou shall keep the feast of weeks unto Jehovah." The Hebrew word translated "week" in Deuteronomy 16 cannot be translated "Sabbath." Therefore, the only way to make Leviticus and Deuteronomy harmonize is to give the meaning of "week" to Sabbath in the passage in Leviticus 23. This, as we have already learned, may properly be done.
Furthermore, it is an interesting fact that the Jewish people use not only the word Pentecost to describe the feast day that comes fifty (lays after Passover, but they call it also the Feast of Weeks.
Directly bearing on this point is a letter received from Dr. Cyrus Adler, president of Dropsie College, Philadelphia, and an outstanding Hebrew scholar. It was written in response to a request for his views on this question.
"The Dropsie College
"For Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 'Philadelphia, "January 31,1929.
"Dear Mr. Nichol:
"I am in receipt of your letter of January 25.I have not the pamphlet of Dr. Marvin and Moses Cotsworth before me, although I think I saw it some time ago. There is no warrant for their theory that there was an extra Sabbath in connection with Pentecost. If you desire to see the Jewish normal interpretation of these verses, I would refer you to the translation of the Bible
issued by the Jewish Publication Society of Philadelphia in 1917. I give these verses herewith: 'And you shall count onto you front the morrow after the day [Hebrew, Sabbath] of rest, front the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving. Seven weeks shall there be complete; even unto the morrow after the seventh week shall you number fifty days; and you shall present a new meal offering unto the Lord.'
"This represents a very old controversy. According to the Jewish tradition, the Biblical commandment to offer the omer 'on the morrow after the Sabbath' was interpreted by the rabbis to refer to Passover, so that it means that the seven weeks should begin to be counted from the first day after the beginning of Passover. There was an early interpretation that it should begin on the first day after the first Sabbath during Passover, which would make Pentecost always fall on Sunday. This sectarian view has completely disappeared.
"But what I would point out to you is that even this sectarian view in no way favors the idea of a wandering Sabbath, it rather emphasizes the word 'Sabbath' so that it could not be used even for another holiday. I can say to you most emphatically that whatever perturbations there have been concerning the Jewish calendar from the earliest period down, the one central feature was always to maintain-the week of seven days without any interruption whatsoever.
"Very sincerely yours, "[Signed]
Cyrus Adler."
Essentially the same analysis of this passage in Leviticus is given in a long letter from Dr. H. S. Linfield, of the American Jewish Committee, New York City. After examining all the Bible texts employed by the calendar authors, he concludes his letter thus: "An examination of each passage has convinced the writer that there is not a shred of evidence in support of any of the claims made by the joint authors."
Significance of Double Feast Days Today
One small piece of corroborative evidence on this double-Sabbath argument remains to be demolished. After declaring that in ancient times the Jews kept such a double Sabbath, the authors add this persuasive item of news: "The significant fact remains, that through traditional usage the Jews generally continue to observe two days at the feast of Pentecost." In reply I inquire: If at the present time a devout Jew can observe two days at Pentecost without breaking the cycle of the week, why could he not have done so anciently?
The fact is that when the Jews were dispersed from Palestine, they began the custom of keeping two days in connection with each annual Sabbath-excepting Atonement Day-for fear that in their calculating of the new moons they might have made an error in determining the beginning of a month. (The explanation for the failure to observe the two days in connection with Atonement Day is that it would have necessitated forty-eight hours of complete fast.) By the time a calendar had been agreed upon by the "Dispersed" throughout the world which was somewhere about the fourth century AD, the custom of celebrating two days for each annual Sabbath had become so firmly established that it was retained by most Jews. This second day that is kept in connection
with each of the annual Sabbaths is described in Hebrew by a phrase which, translated literally, means: "The second day feast of the exile." This is a familiar phrase in Talmudic lore.
An Argument for us
Therefore, for the purposes the authors intended, "the significant fact of the double Sabbaths now kept by Jews in various lands has no significance. Instead it has a significance on our side of the argument. The fact that the reckoning of months presented such difficulties when the Jews moved from Palestine, reveals the absolute confusion into which the Sabbath institution would have been thrown if it had been related to the months, as this unwarranted Gamble theory contends. Only by being connected with a time cycle, the week, that runs independently of calendars, could the Sabbath of the moral code, whose precepts have worldwide application, be successfully kept in various lands. Only by connecting it with the cycle of the week could the identity of the Sabbath be retained, for the week is unique in that it has come down through the centuries independent of calendars. No matter where the "Dispersed" of Israel have been located, and no matter what their difficulties have been in keeping the reckoning of the annual feasts that are dependent on months, they have never had any uncertainty as to which day is "the seventh day" of the commandment. For the sun sets regularly each night in each land. The Jews of the Dispersion have never had any controversy with the Palestinian Jews as to which is the seventh day of the week. They have never differed in their observance of the Decalogue Sabbath. And why need they, for could not the Jews in Spain, for example, count the cycles of seven sunsets as easily as the Jews in Palestine?
We discover, therefore, from an examination of Jewish history and from a study of the different senses in which the word Sabbath may properly be understood, that the arguments built upon Leviticus 23:15, 16 have no foundation.
Different Sabbaths Distinguished
But let us take the matter a little further. The fact that there are different senses in which the word may be employed, and that basically it means "rest from labor," demands that the phrase, "the seventh day," in the Sabbath command, possess an unmistakable definiteness.
The authors of the revived Gamble theory endeavor to give definiteness to this phrase by attempting to place the Decalogue Sabbath in a fixed relationship to the months. Abundance of proof that this cannot be done has already been offered. Still further proof is offered by summarizing the command for the Decalogue Sabbath alongside the commands for the annual Sabbaths. When Jehovah proclaimed the Sabbath commandment, the Israelites listened to these identifying facts:
Strong Contrasts in Sabbaths
1. Six days shall work be done.
2. The seventh day is the rest day of Jehovah-no work shall be done. 3. In six days Jehovah created the earth, and rested the seventh day.
4. Jehovah hallowed this day, that is, set it apart for a holy use.
Later, when Moses instructed the children of Israel as to the annual feast days (see Leviticus 23), they received these facts:
1. On the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month-first and last days, respectively, of the Feast of Unleavened Bread no servile work shall be done.
2. On the fiftieth day from "the morrow after the" fifteenth of the first month-known later as Pentecost-there shall be a special ceremony of offering "two wave loaves"-"no servile work shall be done.
3. On the first day of the seventh month there shall be a memorial of blowing of trumpets "no servile work shall he done.
4. On the tenth day of the seventh month there shall be the Day of Atonement-"you shall do no manner of work."
5. On the fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month the beginning and the end of the Feast of Tabernacles-"no servile work shall be done.
Other distinguishing characteristics might be enumerated, but these will suffice to provide more than enough material for a series of strong reasons why the Decalogue Sabbath and the annual Sabbaths, such as the Passover and Pentecost, are not the same:
1. If the two kinds of Sabbaths are the same, and the Feast of Trumpets, for example, on the first day of the seventh month, was a Decalogue Sabbath, why was it necessary for Moses solemnly to inform the hosts of Israel that the opening day of the Feast of Tabernacles, on the fifteenth of the month, was also a Sabbath? Could not even the simplest have comprehended that if the first of the month is a Sabbath, two cycles of seven would cause the fifteenth to be a Sabbath also? Or more incredible still, if the opening day of the Feast of Tabernacles on the fifteenth was a Decalogue Sabbath, how utterly pointless for Moses to inform them that the closing day of that feast on the twenty-second was a Sabbath also. Anyone capable of counting tip to seven would have known that already, for is not fifteen plus seven, twenty-two?
Indeed, if the Israelites were so hopelessly dull-witted as to necessitate such specific instruction as to what date in the month was seven clays later than the fifteenth, would they not also need to be instructed as to what date came seven days later than the twenty-second, and so on throughout the year? Why single out one month, the seventh month at that? Why wait until the year is half over before giving them detailed information? The fact that Moses so solemnly announced the fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month as Sabbaths reveals clearly that these dates were not automatically Sabbaths by virtue of the fourth commandment.
2. The fact has already been noted-but is so conclusive as to justify repeating it in this summary- that the annual Sabbaths are not generally separated by seven-day periods, and no possible arrangement of dates can make them all come in that sequence.
3. The reasons given for observing these various Sabbaths are different. The Decalogue Sabbath was to be a holy rest day because "in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth... . and rested the seventh day." But the first day of the seventh month, for example, was to be a day of rest because it was the Feast of Trumpets. And the tenth day of that month, because it was Atonement Day; and the fifteenth and twenty-second, because they were the opening and closing dates of the Feast of Tabernacles. In the case of the Decalogue Sabbath, the reason for its observance remained the same continually. But with the annual Sabbaths the reason is different in each case.
Now, when the Israelites learned that they were to do no servile work on the fifteenth and twenty-second of the seventh month, because these dates marked the beginning and end of the Feast of Tabernacles. What possible reason was there for them to conclude that they should rest also on the eighth or the twenty-ninth of that month, for example, seeing that these dates marked neither the beginning nor the end of any feast? Rather would they reach the very opposite conclusion.
4. The fact that it was necessary to command the people to refrain from work on each of these annual feasts reveals that they were not Decalogue Sabbaths, for the fourth commandment already forbade "any work on the "seventh day" Decalogue Sabbaths.
5. The Decalogue Sabbath is specifically connected with a time unit of seven days, which, according to the Bible and the best secular authorities, has been employed by the Jews and various other Eastern peoples "from time immemorial." But the annual Sabbaths were specifically connected with a time reckoning that began at the Exodus, for that was "the beginning of months" for the Israelites. It was then that their months received distinguishing titles; "first month" and "seventh month," for example. (See Ex. 12:1,2.) Each feast was to be on a certain day of a certain month.
When we consider "the seventh day" Sabbath in terms of the week, then are we able to harmonize theology, philology (the science which deals with the meanings of words), and the understanding of the commandment by the Jewish race through all their history.
The Word "Week" Analyzed
Take the word week. This word, when found in the Old Testament, comes from a root meaning "seven." To reveal the close relationship between these two terms, it should be explained that in ancient Hebrew only the consonants were written. The context, the setting of the word in the sentence, enabled the reader to know which of the possible variant meanings should be understood in each case. Written in this fashion without vowels, the words translated "seven" and "week" are identical. Thus the ancient scribe had to decide by the context whether to give it one pronunciation and read it as "seven" or give it a little different pronunciation and read it as "week," for in the spoken language there was a slight difference in pronunciation.
To be more exact, when the hearer listened to the word as pronounced for "week," there was really conveyed to his mind the thought of "sevenfold," "a combination of seven," or "sevened," which would be a very literal way of translating the Hebrew word for "week." Thus embedded in the roots of that ancient language is found one of the strongest proofs, not only of the existence but of the great antiquity, of a time cycle of seven days.
A Contradiction of Terms
To an ancient Hebrew the phrase "a week of eight days-would have sounded like a contradiction of terms, for how could eight be "Sevenfold"? A modern comparison would be the phrase "a fortnight of sixteen days." For how could a fortnight, a contraction of "fourteen nights," be sixteen?
This important fact as to the meaning of the Hebrew word makes altogether irrelevant the extended comments and tables in the Gamble book regarding the eight-day weeks of certain pagan peoples and the nine-day weeks of others. We are no more concerned with the many time cycles of these peoples than we are with their many gods.
The Scriptures themselves speak of the week long before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. Laban said to his son-in-law Jacob with regard to Leah, 'Fulfill her week." (Gen. 29:27.) The history of Jewish customs reveals that this phrase refers to the week of wedding festivities which were considered a part of the ceremony, and which lasted seven days. A comparison with verse 22 shows that the feast had been called, and a comparison with various other scriptures reveals the custom of holding feasts seven days. Thus does the Bible itself corroborate strongly the undisputed understanding of this passage as given by the historians of Jewish customs. And thus does the Bible corroborate the united statements of learned authorities, that the week has been known "from time immemorial."
What Other Conclusion?
The hosts who gathered at Sinai were a people whose ancestor Jacob was well acquainted with the time cycle called the week, and whose language employed a term meaning "a combination of seven" to describe that cycle. What, then, would be their most natural conclusion when they listened to Jehovah speak twice in the Sabbath commandment of a cycle of seven days-six days shall thou labor, but the seventh day is the Sabbath-in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh? In the absence of any declaration to the contrary, would they not most obviously conclude that "the seventh day" meant the seventh day of the week, that long- established combination of seven days? To that most natural conclusion Jews everywhere through all the centuries have come. And to what other conclusion could they rationally have been expected to come, seeing they knew nothing of the Gamble calendar! We are therefore prepared to take our leave of this revived Gamble theory. But, wait, there is one more piece of evidence that is triumphantly presented as a sort of capstone to the involved argument so confidently set forth.
The Case Summed up
This capstone consists of an alleged proof-independent of the main line of argument - that the second year of the Mosaic calendar began on a Sabbath. In order properly to introduce this last point, let us summarize briefly the whole series of propositions that the calendar authors have reared up:
1. If the Mosaic calendar was a 365-day solar calendar (but virtually all authorities declare it was not); and
2. If Moses divided this 365-day calendar on the basic plan of the Egyptian calendar (but for this there is not the slightest proof).
3. If Moses placed three supplementary days at the end of the sixth month and two at the end of the twelfth (but for this there is no proof whatever).
4. If the Sabbath commandment means simply one (lay of rest following six days of labor (but evidence shows it does not mean this).
5. If the command to work six days is as compulsory as the command to rest the seventh (but it is not).
6. If the Passover Sabbath came on the fifteenth of the first month, then the first day of the first month of the first year came on a Sabbath. Because it was exactly two weeks earlier (but the Passover Sabbath was not a Decalogue Sabbath, and therefore counting back from it by sevens proves nothing).
7. If the Israelites reached Sinai on the third day of the third month (but this is an assumption incapable of proof).
8. If the three-day period in preparation for the giving of the law began on the third day of the third month (but this also is sheer assumption).
9. If there was a double Sabbath at Pentecost, with the extra Sabbath not counted in the cycle of the week (but there was no such extra Sabbath outside the week).
10. Thus and thus only could the first day of the second year begin on the same weekday as the first year.
11. Now with the point already proved that the first day of the first year began on Sabbath (but the point has been fully disproved); therefore
12. If we can prove from independent evidence that the second year began on a Sabbath, we will have provided a convincing demonstration that our argument concerning a blank day in the Mosaic calendar is correct!
The Capstone Examined
And what is this clinching demonstration that is to give the final proof to a theory that has been refuted at every step-this evidence that the second year began on a Sabbath? Here it is: The command to set the show bread in order every Sabbath is cited (Lev. 4:8), and then the following passage is quoted:
"It came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up. "And he [Aaron] put the table in the tent of meeting, upon the side of the tabernacle northward, without the veil. And he set the bread in order upon it before Jehovah; as Jehovah commanded Moses." Ex. 40:17,22,23. (Italics theirs.)
But the authors have quoted only Part Of the scripture. Here is the Whole Passage:
"It came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up. And Moses reared up the tabernacle, and laid its sockets, and set up the boards thereof, and put in the bars thereof, and reared up its pillars. And he spread the tent over the tabernacle, and put the covering of the tent above upon it as Jehovah commanded Moses. And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves of the ark and put the mercy- seat above upon the ark. And he brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up the veil of the screen, and screened the ark of the testimony; as Jehovah commanded Moses. And he put the table in the tent of meeting, upon the side of the tabernacle northward, without the veil. And he set the bread in order upon it before Jehovah; as Jehovah commanded Moses." Ex. 40:17-23.
The Capstone Collapses
When the whole scripture is quoted, the matter assumes a very different aspect. Moses and his helpers were certainly tremendously busy that first day of the first month of the second year. The scene around the tabernacle must have been one of great physical activity, of diligent work, as the sockets were laid, the boards set up, the bars put in, the pillars reared up, the tent spread over, and the covering put above it - to recount only a part of the work that was done.
If that were proper to do on the Sabbath jay, we would have an excellent precedent for building churches on the Sabbath. But then what would become of the command not to do "any work" on that holy day? And how would the Israelites be able to harmonize such labor with the warning that prefaced the whole episode of tabernacle building? For when Moses descended from the mount with the plans for the sanctuary, as recorded in the end of the thirty-fourth chapter, he assembled all the people to invite their participation in the making of the tabernacle; and from the opening of the thirty-fifth chapter to the close of the fortieth, the record deals exclusively with-the construction of this center of worship. And thus is the whole narrative introduced:
"Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them, These are the words which Jehovah bath commanded, that you should do them. Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of solemn rest to Jehovah. Whosoever does any work therein shall be put to death. You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day." Ex. 35:1-3.
Then follows immediately the description of plans for the tabernacle, which, as has already been noted, must have called for an immense amount of physical labor. Jehovah left no uncertainty in the minds of the people as to the specific relationship of the Sabbath command to the task of building the house of the Lord. For He warned them immediately before they began this great task, that the seventh day should be a "Sabbath of solemn rest." Therefore the passage quoted by the authors as a climax to their whole argument, and as an irrefutable proof that the first day of the second year was a Sabbath, fails utterly to aid them. In fact, it proves the opposite from what they intended-it proves that the first day of the second year was not a Sabbath.
No Conflict in Commands
And now. lest someone should feel that the fact this first day of the second year was not a Sabbath presents a difficulty because of the command to set the show bread in order on the Sabbath, let us make a few observations. A command as to any feature of routine ritual cannot become operative until after the ritual is established. For example, the Lord declared to Abraham, "He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you." Gen. 17:12. Then follows this statement: "Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him." Verse 23. Should we therefore conclude that there was no "male among the men of Abraham's house" who was more than an infant of eight days? The very next verses specifically declare that Abraham himself was ninety-nine years old and Ishmael thirteen at this time. Did Abraham therefore go contrary to the command of God? No. The law as to the age of circumcision applied, not to the instituting of the rite, but to the operation of it once it had been instituted.
Thus with the show bread. The solemn rite of changing the bread each Sabbath could not apply until there was bread on the table to change. And in fact the whole series of instructions regarding the ritual of the tabernacle, as given in Leviticus 24, most obviously could not apply until after the tabernacle was completed and set in operation.
But an even more simple answer can be given by declaring that there is no proof that the show bread was set in order on that first day. The whole passage from the seventeenth to the thirty- third verse deals with the final work of rearing up the tabernacle from the material that had been furnished. That series of verses relates to a great number of acts that might conceivably have taken several days. To declare that they must all have taken place on the one date mentioned at the beginning of the passage is to make an assumption that is impossible of proof. It is similar to the argument the authors attempted to draw out of the nineteenth chapter of Exodus. But assumption is of the essence of this Gamble theory, and it remains assumption to the end.
Cotsworth and Marvin assure us calmly that this marvelous calendar they have been describing was lost by the Jews when they went into Babylonian captivity. Just why seventy years in Babylon should cause them to abandon so vital, so remarkable, a method of time reckoning is not made clear! Indeed, the authors do not even divulge to us how the Jews lost this calendar. Therefore no attempt to pry into the matter will be made.
But Mr. Gamble, who brought forth the original form of the theory, has a very detailed theory as to the change from the alleged fixed Sabbaths to free-running weekly Sabbaths. He claims that Christ kept the fixed Sabbaths like other Jews until the time of His death, but that when He arose that Sunday morning, it was the beginning of a new order of Sabbaths. Mr. Gamble reaches this conclusion by translating the phrase "the first day of the week" (in Matthew 28:1 and parallel passages in the Gospels) as "the first of the Sabbaths," or "the chiefest of the Sabbaths." This translation, as fanciful as any that Gamble has presented in behalf of his theory, is answered under objection 47.
---===---
6. Charges of Fanaticism by 1844 Adventists are Groundless
In the year 1944 the Review and Herald Publishing Association printed The Midnight Cry, a historical study of the Millerite Movement of the 1840's, particularly as regards the false charges that the Millerites were guilty of wild fanaticism, such as wearing ascension robes. Copies of this book were sent for review to various historical and religious journals. These reviews speak for themselves. In some instances they are written by men who had earlier been guilty of repeating the false charges in their own historical writings. Hence they provide a singular kind of admission and proof that the charges should no longer be believed. Following is a representative group of such reviews:
First, from Christendom (American organ of the World Council of Churches), William W. Sweet, University of Chicago, reviewer:
"This book... has been written with the avowed purpose of defending William Miller and the Millerite movement from the calumny of historians.... He [the author] does lay claim to forthrightness and honesty in the presentation of his case, and the bibliography, together with the copious annotations on every page, drawn from an examination of the numerous documents of the time (many of them manuscripts hitherto unused), seems to be adequate proof that he has made a praiseworthy attempt to present the whole movement in the light of all available sources. ...
"In refuting, the 'ascension robe' stories, the author undoubtedly has proved his 'case, but whether or not he has made his case in regard to the charge of fanaticism depends upon what is meant by fanaticism. He has, however, shown that the leaders tried to keep the movement under control emotionally, and perhaps succeeded to a larger degree than has been generally known.
"As has already been noted, the hook is forthright and honest, and deserves a careful reading." - Winter", 1946, pp. 103,104.
The New England Quarterly (published at the University of Maine), Ira V, Brown, Phillips Exeter Academy, reviewer:
"In a disarming preface the author confesses that his book does not pose as history .... The work is based on careful examination of original sources. ...
"The most interesting section is that devoted to exploding the tradition that Miller's disciples garbed themselves in 'ascension robes.' Had they universally marched out to graveyards and hillsides in white muslin gowns on October 22, 1844, the final day set for the advent, it is incredible that contemporary newspapers would not have reported the fact. They are silent on this point, except for one reference describing the occasion in Cincinnati, which states that the millenarians were dressed like everyone else. It would appear that for the most part they spent the day quietly in their homes or tabernacles. Undoubtedly the movement was a much more prosaic one than the public has usually assumed.
"Many of the wilder tales regarding it do rest on contemporary newspaper evidence, but such stories were generally prefaced with 'It is reported' or 'They say.' Others were clearly facetious. Even so renowned a historian as John Bach McMaster allowed himself to fall into inaccuracies through careless reliance on journalistic sources. Independent investigation done by the reviewer
two years ago confirms Mr. Nichol's conclusion as to their untrustworthy character. The book is also a valuable corrective to Clara E. Sears' popular account, Days of Delusion, derived chiefly from second and third-hand family gossip." - September, 1945, pp. 423,424.
"Ascension Robes Are a Myth"
New York History (quarterly journal of the New York State Historical Association), Whitney R. Cross, Connecticut College for Women, reviewer:
"As the appointed day [October 22, 18441 approached and proselytizing grew more intense, unprincipled scoffers and devoted churchmen alike persecuted the Millerites at every opportunity, distorting their preaching, questioning their motives and holding them up to hilarious ridicule. The few secular historians who have dealt with the movement utilized as sources unreliable folk traditions and hostile newspapers. Thus a seriously warped conception of this. Pre-millennial enthusiasm has prevailed for generations....
"His [the author's] study of the subject is without question the most thorough and reliable ever made. It is sufficiently able to make the necessity for work along similar lines in the future extremely doubtful. He has, in my opinion, proved the lack of fanaticism in the movement, at least up to the day of reckoning. After the disappointment, when more irregular behavior occurred, he has not pursued his investigations. He has likewise proved that ascension robes are a myth, that Adventism, did not drive numbers of men insane, that its leaders were sincere and courageous men, even saintly and heroic." - January, 1946, pp. 100,101.
Comments in Historical Association Organ
The American Historical Review (official organ, American Historical Association), Mary H. Mitchell, Ph.D., historical writer, reviewer:
"The author's general thesis is that Miller was an honest and sincere man who had reached his beliefs after long and careful study of the Bible, that Millerism was a part of a wide advent movement, and that it 'does not suffer by comparison with other religious awakenings.' ...
"Newspapers printed wild and ridiculous stories about it-caricatures were issued, and mobs attacked its meetings. The followers were charged with irregularities and excesses, hysterical and fanatical behavior, and financial wrongdoing. The most serious accusation was that Millerism caused waves of insanity, suicide and murder.
"The author does not deny the presence of the 'lunatic fringe' that accompanies any movement, and cites attacks on abolitionists, among others. He asserts in defense that it should be judged by its main body of well-behaved members rather than by the actions of a few cranks and impostors....
"Specific and serious charges he examines with special care. ... He is convinced that 'Millerism was not really the cause of anyone's insanity.' His defense is so strong that hereafter if serious writers repeat the charge, it would seem to be only to illustrate the fear and hostility roused by the preaching of the end of the world.
"As to lesser charges, tales so colorful and picturesque as those of Millerites dressed in long, white robes, waiting in graveyards or in trees and on platforms for Gabriel to blow his horn, will not pass into the oblivion which he feels they deserve, but into the realm of folklore....
"Mr. Nichol has done an immense amount of work, with valuable results, both in exposition and defense. His self-confessed bias is not extreme or bitter." - January, 1946, pp. 331, 332.
Christian Advocate (leading weekly of the Methodist Church), Roy L. Smith, editor of the Advocate, reviewer:
"Wild and fanciful tales were told about the Millerites, and the most scandalous charges were made against them and their doctrines. It was an age of colorful reporting on the part of newspapers, and uncertain means of communication, as a result of which gossip was made to appear as fact. Stories of ascension robes, dementia, riots, and other attendant circumstances were widely current and universally believed. That the Miller movement continues to exist as a denominational group is not widely known, though the adherents are themselves a devout body.
"One of their number, in a careful and thoroughgoing fashion, has undertaken to remove much of the stigma attached to the early movement. And in a carefully documented volume which represents an enormous amount of painstaking research he has presented a portrait of a forceful figure whose preaching created the movement. It is a good book, if for no other reason than that it explodes so many of the indefensible charges against an honest man who was proved to be also a mistaken one." - February 21, 1946, p.26.
University Professor Testifies
The Christian Century (most prominent in interdenominational weekly in America), Sidney E. Mead, University of Chicago, reviewer:
"This 'defense' of the Millerites will be greeted with enthusiasm by those within the Adventist churches who have long suffered from the repetition of baseless rumors about their origins, and will receive a sympathetic welcome from people outside those churches who have an interest in historical accuracy....
"The first nineteen chapters tell the story of William Miller.... Here the author does justice to the integrity and sincerity of Miller. ... The exciting events of the 'year of the end of the world' (March, 1843, to March, 1844) are treated with restraint, and the 'great day of hope' (October 22, 1844), The final day set by the leaders for the second coming, is adequately dealt with.
"In the second section of the book the author argues convincingly from the evidence that common charges-for example, that the movement was fanatical and led to insanity, suicides, and murders-have been greatly exaggerated. Three of these chapters are devoted to the attempt to squelch once for all the story that the Millerites wore 'ascension robes' on the night. In dealing with Millerism, twentieth century writers have frequently yielded to the temptation to dwell on the sensational, and this work will do much to balance the popularized accounts such as Clara Endicott Sears' Days of Delusion.' March 7, 1945, p. 304.
Monday Morning (a Presbyterian pastor's magazine), Rev. Alexander Mackie, D.D., president Presbyterian Ministers' Fund, reviewer:
"In the story of William Miller and Millerism, there is a sincerity which lifts it out of the world of fraud and deception into the land of conviction. Miller, from his studies of the Scriptures, became firmly convinced of the imminence of the end of the world and the return of our Lord, and fixed the date as some time in 1843 or 1844. ...
"The book [The Midnight Cry], although apologetic in its purpose, is a welcome and kindly addition to the literature which sheds light on the religious thinking of a hundred years ago. The author is to be congratulated on a piece of thorough-going, even if purposeful, research as evidenced in his scholarly bibliography." - September 2, 1946.
Baptist Organ Speaks
The Watchman-Examiner (leading Baptist weekly):
"William Miller developed a movement which emphasized the imminence of the Second Coming of Christ. The movement was a tremendous emphasis upon a greatly neglected truth. ...
"In a phenomenal way, the whole country seems to have been affected, and the public press carried articles dealing with the situation. Very few of these were friendly, and the wildest rumors concerning Millerites were spread abroad. It was rumored that Millerism resulted in insanity, murder, and other extravagances. It was said that on the day appointed for our Lord to return the Millerites put on white robes and went out into the country and to hilltops to meet Him. All these reports Mr. Nichol investigated with remarkable thoroughness, and, we think, proves them false. His discussion of this historical episode is frank and factual. He seems to have left no stone unturned to get at the facts. His research is most thorough. We are glad for the appearance of this book. It corrects a great injustice done to a good, if mistaken, man in Mr. Miller and to the large company that followed his teachings... . Because of the widespread error concerning the Millerites, this book should have careful and thoughtful reading." - May 24, 1945, pp. 513, 514.
The Westminster Theological journal (Presbyterian), A. Culver Gordon, reviewer:
"It is a safe assertion that few can read this book without a revision of their estimate of William Miller and the Millerite movement of a century ago. The author gives a history which is also a defense. ... He does not pretend to be an impartial judge but rather the attorney for the defense. ... Mr. Nichol is partisan, but he is also fair. ...
"In the portion of the book which deals with an answer to various charges brought against Millerism, Mr. Nichol presents material that is of wider interest than might at first be imagined. For instance, in dealing with the question, 'Did Millerism Cause Insanity, Suicide, and Murder?' he examines the medical evidence for charges of this nature brought against evangelistic religion generally. His discussion of mental instability and religious excitement is illuminating.
"A considerable section deals with the question of fanaticism, especially on October 22, 1844, and with the wearing of 'ascension robes.' Mr. Nichol makes a good case for believing that with
but few exceptions the Millerites were in their places of worship on that fateful night, that they behaved circumspectly, and that they did not wear the robes of popular legend. ...
"Mr. Nichol in writing this book with such painstaking care has put the church in his debt. It is one that the historian, the student of prophecy, and the general reader may pursue with advantage. It is a book which, if not definitive for the Millerite movement, is the closest approach for such an ideal presently existing." - May, 1946, pp. 218-220.
New York Herald-tribune (one of the most influential newspapers in America), Stewart Holbrook, author and journalist, reviewer:
"Most laymen in New England and the Midwest have been brought up on stories of the fanatical imbeciles of the Millerites - how they gathered and shouted, how they tailored ascension gowns of pure white muslin for the great day, how they climbed hills and mountains, even barns and apple trees, in order to get a good view of the event; and how many went stark mad and had to be confined. ... These stories have long since congealed into a folklore that is as firmly believed as is Henry Longfellow's verse about Paul Revere.
"Now comes Mr. Nichol, ... with a truly monumental and enlightening study of Millerism, with especial regard to the allegedly insane acts of its cohorts. With a self-avowed bias, but with great good humor and a vast amount of research, he has made a book that must be reckoned with. ... He discovered - what every infidel knows - that the greatest persecutors of all were the other Christian sects.
"Mr. Nichol has done a remarkably clear, fine, and important book, and it stands virtually alone in its field. Though I admire the book and found it of intense interest, I regret it must largely dissipate the more lurid of the folk tales about the Millerites, wondrous stories cherished for years." - Weekly Book Review, August 26, 1945, p. 26.
Chicago Tribune (second largest newspaper circulation in America), John Astley-Cock, M.A., (Cambridge University), religious editor of the Tribune, reviewer:
"Miller was an ardent and sincere evangelist of unassuming humility whose revivalism weaned many from the flesh pots and created the fruitful soil whence sprang all the Advent denominations, the most prominent today being the Seventh day Adventists, with a world membership exceeding half a million.
"Miller, however, was jealously reviled by contemporaries, his followers accused of fanaticism, and the movement accused of causing murder, suicide, and insanity.... Broadsides ridiculed the ascension robes which it was alleged, entirely without foundation as it now appears, were worn in expectancy of the Rapture. All this calumny and irresponsible gossip have been so extensively copied and quoted unchecked by writers, encyclopedic and literary, during the last century that the most preposterous yarns have virtually become a part of folklore.
"This book is a defense of Millerism. Not by the apologetic method of special pleading, but solely by allowing the documentary record, either of affirmation or refutation, to speak for
itself. ... Every story is traced to its source and shown to be either fabrication or distortion and even malicious misrepresentation.
"By presenting the origin and progress of Millerism with judicial impartiality, without any of the historian's or biographer's inevitable subjectivity, the author has placed all future writers on the subject under weighty obligation." - July 29, 1945.
Later Important Admission
William Warren Sweet, foremost American church historian of the present day, declares in a book published in 1952:
"Francis D. Nichol, The Midnight Cry, Washington, D.C.: 1944, is a Seventh-Day Adventist defense of William Miller and the Millerites. The author has convincingly shown that many of the stories of the excesses committed by the Millerites had little basis in fact.' Religion in the Development of American Culture, 1765-1840, p. 307, footnote. "Nichol's book is the most thorough piece of research that has been done on the Millerite movement in spite of its avowed purpose to defend his coreligionists against the accusations made against them.' - Ibid., p. 310, footnote.
"The widespread accusations that Millerism had driven people insane and caused many to commit suicide has been refuted by Nichol in a careful study of asylum records for the years involved. Nichol also has produced indisputable evidence that the numerous stories of the Millerites providing themselves with ascension robes and gathering on hilltops to await the coming had no basis in fact." - Ibid., pp. 310,311.
---===---
7. How Long is Everlasting?
[The following, by W. E. Howell, appeared in the Review and Herald of June 22, 1939.}
The three words forever, everlasting, and eternal are closely related in their Greek originals. Their interrelation as English words is easy to see: forever, everlasting, ever-eternal (contracted to eternal). They can be best studied in the order given. Then we may take them in typical passages where they occur and note the application of their individual meaning.
"Forever"
This is really two words: for and ever. It is so printed in the Bible, and usually so in England even today. The word ever comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon aifre, Latin aevum, Greek ai (w) on. The last is itself from two simpler elements: aei, "always," "ever," and on, "being." From the combination of these two into aion, comes our direct derivative aeon, now usually written con. Since this word is the basis of our whole study, it will pay us to notice it a bit further.
Historically aion is many eons old. Homer (about 800 BC.), and in fact all the poets through the classical period to the time of Alexander, used this word in the sense of lifetime or life. Which during the same period easily passed into the more general prose sense of an age or generation,
the next generation being spoken of as "the coming aion." From this it passed into long space of time, era, epoch, but no more definitely marked off than our corresponding terms in English. In the Byzantine period it retains the general meaning of age. Barnabas uses "the holy aion" to refer to the world to come. The LXX uses "from aion" in speaking of the giants in Genesis 6:4 as being "of old," or ancient, and in Isaiah 64:4, "from the aion" is used in the sense of from the beginning of the world. Modern Greek uses aion for century, as the "20th aion"; and for age, as the "golden aion"; also in the dialect, like our colloquial, "I have not seen him for an aion."
It is easy to see that the underlying idea in this word is continuity (without a break), whether for a definite or an indefinite period, long or short. The New Testament usage agrees with these variations of the basic idea, as witness the following ten examples:
1. Before the aions, before the ages covered by this world's history (1 Cor. 2:7).
2. From the aion or aions, from the beginning of the world's history (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21; 15:18; Col. 1:26; Eph. 3:9).
3. In the now aion, the present world or period of the world's history (1 Tim. 6:17; 2 Tim. 4:10). 4. This aion, this world, or period of the world (Rom. 12:2; Luke 16:6; 20:34).
5. The god of this aion, the devil now ruling men's lives during the age of sin (2 Cor. 4:4).
6. The ends of the aions, last part of the world's periods or ages (1 Cor. 10:11).
7. The end of the aion, end of the world (Matt. 13:39; 24:3).
8. The coming aion, the future world (Heb. 6:5).
9. That aion, the world to come (Luke 20:35).
10. In the aions to come, the successive periods of the future existence (Eph. 2:7).
Now coming back to our word forever, or rather two words for and ever, practically a preposition and a noun, we find their exact counterpart in the Greek, as for example:
"Let not fruit grow on thee henceforward into the aion" (Matt. 21:19); "he shall live into the aion (John 6:51; Heb. 6:20); "glory into the aions" (Rom. 11: 36);-yesterday, to-day, and into the aions" (Heb. 13:8).
These simpler forms are also compounded into more emphatic expressions, as:
"Into all the generations of the aion of the aions," the age embracing shorter ages (Eph. 3:21). "Ascends up into aions of aions," longer ages embracing shorter ages (Rev. 14:11). "glory into the aions of the aions," seemingly more inclusive than the preceding (Gal. 1:5). "I am alive into the aions of the aions" (Rev. 1: 18); "smoke rose up into the aion of the aions" (Rev. 19:3). "day and night into the aion of the nions" (Rev. 20:10). "shall reign into the aions of the aions" (Rev. 11:15; 22:5).
Now out of 123 times aion is used in the New Testament, it is used 55 times as the base of some phrase rendered forever or forever and ever. The conclusion on the use and meaning of forever may be stated as follows:
It seems reasonable to conclude from this study that aion, like our age (which the lexicographer traces back to aion), denotes a period or state of undefined length. And that to determine its measure, in any given instance, even relatively, we must consider the context and other passages where it is found.
To illustrate: when it is said in Revelation 11:15 that Christ shall reign unto the aions of the aions, no one doubts that this means ages without end.
When it is said of the punishment of the wicked in Revelation 14: 11, that "the smoke of their torment ascends up into aions of nions," we must conclude one of two things: (1) that smoke is here used as a symbol of the effect, or result, of their torment. Or (2) that aions of aions denotes a limited, not an unlimited, period of time; for of the final destruction of the wicked it is said in Revelation 20:9 that "fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them". (Literally, completely ate them up, as the fowls did the seed by the wayside, the same word being used in Matthew 13:4).
When it says in Revelation 20: 10 that the devil and the beast and the false prophet "shall be tormented day and night into the aions of the aions," we must not conclude that this means time without end. For they were leaders of the wicked "on the breadth of the earth," and the next scene after they were cast into the lake of fire (on the breadth of the earth) was a "new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." Rev. 21:1. The "first heaven" must refer to the atmospheric heaven (for the dwelling place of God does not pass away), and if the old atmosphere passed away, it certainly took the smoke with it. And if the old earth passed away, there must have passed with it both the wicked and the devil and the beast and the false prophet, who were tormented and devoured "on the breadth of the earth."
This conclusion is consistent with the testimony of Malachi concerning "all that do wickedly," that "the day that comes shall burn them up" and "shall leave them neither root nor branch," and the wicked "shall be ashes under the soles of your feet."
"Everlasting"
In twenty-three out of the twenty-five times that the Greek word translated "everlasting" is found in the New Testament, it is an adjective formed on the stem of aion, namely aionios. Manifestly when this adjective form is used, we leave off the for and add to ever whatever fits best the idea of the noun which aionios modifies. If life, we say ever-continuing, ever-lasting; if a flower, we say ever-blooming; if a tree, we say ever-green; if a certain type of person having only a "form of godliness," we say ever-learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. In none of these instances do we understand ever to mean continuing without end, unless it be in the case of life.
Hence in the use of ever to render aionios, it is clear that it must be subject to the same interpretation as in rendering aion itself.
Of the twenty-five times that aionios is rendered everlasting, it is used fourteen times with life, every one of which fourteen no one win question means life without end. Of the remaining eleven times, two are used with fire, which we must understand to mean continuing unquenchable till that on which the fire feeds is consumed (see under "Forever," above). In the remaining nine times, we find aionios used as follows: "once with punishment, permanent in effect (see same comment). Once with habitations, doubtless new earth, and without end; once with God, unquestionably without ceasing. Once with destruction, in effect like punishment; once with consolation, unending for the saved. Once with power, ascribed to God, hence without limit; once with covenant, unending in result accomplished; once with kingdom, ascribed to Christ, hence unceasing; once with gospel, which is the power of God (Rom. 1:16), hence limitless in duration."
In one other place (Jude 6) "everlasting" is from another word, aidios always existing, which comes from the same' base as aionios; namely, aei, always.
"Eternal"
In every instance of its use in the New Testament-this word comes from one of the two above rendered everlasting, with one exception, in which it comes directly from aion itself. From one of the two, aidios, it comes but once. From the other, aionios, it comes forty-two times. It is applied to life thirty times, without question life without end. Once to damnation, unending in result; three times to glory without end; once to unseen things, imperishable; once to building of God, standing without destruction. Once to salvation, without end; once to judgment, never ending in result; once each to redemption, Spirit, and inheritance, all without limit; once to fire, same limit as everlasting (which see). In derivation the English word eternal goes back through the Latin to the Greek aion. In use, it is a synonym of everlasting when applied to the future, but distinguished from it in that it may refer backward to time without a beginning, as well as without end.
Summary
From the study of forever, everlasting, and eternal, it is easy to see that they are subject to the same variation in interpretation, being mostly renderings of the adjective aionios or of the noun aion, which latter, in phrase, is rendered forever. In fact, aionios itself is once rendered forever (Philemon 15), suggesting the close relation of the three words under study here.
Thus wonderfully does the word harmonize with itself. Any unprejudiced mind can answer the question, "How long is everlasting?"
---===---
8. Life, Soul, and Spirit
[The following, by W. E. Howell, appeared in the Review and Herald Of Feb. 27, 1941.]
This article deals with a great trinity of gospel terms, "life," soul," and "spirit." It is important to discriminate between these terms, so that we may know what it is that abides in the body during life, what it is that leaves the body at death, and what is the state of the dead.
It is a remarkable fact that in the King James Version the word "soul" always represents the same word in the original Greek, psuche; but on the other hand, psuche is also translated "life" forty- one different times, as compared with "soul" sixty times. It is an equally remarkable fact that ''life" represents the Greek word zoe a total of 125 times, and psuche-41 times, as stated above. This being the case, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the meaning of zoe and psuche in the original, and of "life" and "soul" in the translation.
Each of the Greek words comes from a different verbal root meaning "breathe," but usage has established a difference in import. Thus zoe names the act of breathing as an evidence of life, while psuche names it as an act of life, and pneuma (spirit) denotes the breathing as a means of life. From this we may deduce that zoe is life as an essence or principle, that psuche represents life as it is possessed and lived out from day to day, and that pneuma denotes the medium through which life does its work, and the quality of that work.
In actual usage in the New Testament, we find:
1. That zoe is invariably used to denote the inherent life of God, the inherent life of Christ, imparted life, and life everlasting or eternal. But zoe never denotes the life that Christ gave as a ransom for sinners. The word is found in many phrases, like "bread of life," "word of life," "tree of life," "book of life. .... crown of life," "water of life," "spirit of life," "gift of ... life."
2. That psuche is used to denote natural life, life as it is lived from day to day, the whole being, and especially the mental and emotional life. It is invariably used to denote the life that Christ laid down as a ransom for sinners. It is found in many phrases like: "the young child's life", "take no thought for your life. .... lose his own soul," "in exchange for his soul," "give his life a ransom for many," "is not the life more than meat?" "lay down my life for the sheep," "an anchor of the soul," "He laid down his life for us," "My soul is exceeding sorrowful," "vexed his righteous soul from day to day," "eight souls were saved," "Shepherd ... of your souls," "every living soul died in the sea," "loved not their lives unto the death," "as thy soul prospers."
Terms Variously Rendered
It is easy to see that the same word psuche is variously rendered "life" and "soul," according as it fits our idiom better, but that in some places in which it is rendered "soul," it could as well be rendered ', life," such as, "What shall a man give in exchange for his life [instead of soul]?" "Let every life [not soul] be subject unto the higher powers." "An anchor of the life [instead of soul]." "Shall save a life powers from death." "Eight lives were saved." "Saw under altar the lives of them."
The thing to be noted especially in this connection is that the Greek does not confuse the words "soul" and "spirit," as we do in English. The true word "spirit" (pneuma) is nowhere translated "soul" in the New Testament. It is often rendered Ghost or Holy Ghost, to use an Anglo-Saxon word instead of the Latin word ' "spirit," but nowhere "Soul," and in only one instance "life," in
which instance it could as well read, "had power to give breath unto the image of the beast," to make it alive and active, just as God breathed breath into Adam's nostrils and he became a living being. In fact, pneuma is rendered "wind" in John 3:8, first part, and "Spirit" in the last part. It is this ethereal thing pneuma that believers in immortality of the soul confuse with psuchi, the true word for soul, when they talk about immortal souls or the departed spirits of the dead, which in reality are nothing more than their departed breaths. The Bible tells us that God imparted breath to Adam to make him alive, and that when he or any other man died, his breath returned to God who gave it, without being anything essentially different from what it was when God imparted it to man.
To sum up, it may truthfully be said
1. That "soul" is a proper word to use for the natural life-the whole being, or especially the mind and emotional part of natural man.
2. That it cannot be properly applied to the breath or spirit that departs at death.
3. That from the human standpoint "spirit" is a proper word to use for the natural breath (the Greek uses it for even the natural air). For the quality of man's mind and heart while he lives, and for the breath that departs at death and returns to God, who gave it.
4. That "spirit" cannot properly denote an entity that leaves the body at death, retaining its personality and continuing to live an endless life. The spirit of man is natural and mortal, as the spirit of God is divine and immortal, eternal.
5. That "life" is plainly used in two basic senses-the principle of life that gives and maintains being, and life as it is lived out in human existence. In the first instance, it may and should be called "life." In the second it may, in our idiom, be properly called either "life" (in the second sense) or "soul." The first belongs to God, and the second belongs, as a gift of God, to man. The first has no existence apart from God, and the second has no existence apart from man. There is therefore no such thing as soul distinct and apart from man, either before or after death.
What life is it, then, that sustains our physical being day by day? It is the imparted life, the zoe, breathed into our nostrils as in the case of the first man, to make and keep us alive.
How may we speak of what the zoe produces in our daily experience by stimulating us to act and think and feel? We may call it life in the sense of what experience produces, or we may call it by that wonderful word psuche, by which we love and hate and belief and hope and aspire and achieve in our natural lives. In other words, it is the soul of living, which ceases to exist when our zoe that produces it is withdrawn, just as naturally and logically as heat stops when the gas that produces it is turned off.
What shall we say of the life that departs at death? It is nothing less and nothing more than the spirit, the pneuma, that, as the medium of life, is breathed into the body at birth and breathed out again at death. In fact, the Greek way of saying that Jesus gave up the life He had lived for us in the flesh, is "he breathed out," phrased in King James as "gave up the ghost." That is what every man does at death merely breathes out again what was breathed into him at birth. There is
absolutely no possibility here of conceiving that an immortal soul" leaves the body at death, carrying with it a personality that goes right on thinking and feeling and never dying. The only thing that never dies is the life, the zoe of God, which He lends to us at birth and withdraws to Himself again at death. In other words, "the spirit shall return to God who gave it," and that is the end of life for us till God sees fit to breathe it in again, which He will do in the glorious resurrection morning for all those who are sleeping in Jesus.
---===---
9. "Upon This Rock"
[The following, by W. E. Howell, appeared in the Review and Herald of June 15, 1939.]
It is a well-known fact that the Roman Catholic Church uses Matthew 16:18, 19, as the basis of its claim that Christ made Peter the head of the church. That he was the first pope, that all the popes from his day to ours are successors to Peter, and by right of succession are vicegerents of the Son of God on earth. It is not difficult to prove the fallacy of this claim, both by the English version of the Scriptures and by the reading of the original Greek.
Through the orthodox method prescribed in the Bible itself, of comparing scripture with scripture, the meaning of this passage is made clear. A new pope has so recently been ordained in the person of Pius XII, that the procedure is fresh in mind, the acclamation of the pope reading, as in Matthew 16:18, 19, in Latin, "Tu es Petrus," etc. ("Thou art Peter," etc.).
It should first be noticed how Peter came to be called by this surname. Jesus gave it to him directly at the time of his call by saying, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shall be called Cephas [Aramaic, his mother tongue], which is by interpretation [into Greek] Peter." John 1:42, margin, and also Revised Version. The word Peter in Greek is Petros. The point to be established by this scripture is that Simon is named P-e-t-r-o-s. He is never called by any other etymological form of this word, though of course it is subject to all the grammatical variations common to all Greek nouns and names. He is called by this name 161 times in the Authorized Version of the New Testament, and by no other name except Simon.
Now the word petros is itself a masculine derivative from the feminine parent-word petra. The word petra denotes rock as a substance, rock en masse, as embedded in the everlasting hills, or as a huge boulder, or as a projecting ledge-in other words, mother rock. It therefore becomes a most fitting symbol of Christ, and is frequently applied to Him; directly throughout both Old and New Testaments, often but not always written with a capital initial, Rock. Paul makes its use very clear in 1 Corinthians 10:4, in speaking of the children of Israel during the Exodus: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." The Greek original for Rock in both instances here is petra. What could be clearer than that petra is Christ, and that Christ is petra when spoken of by this symbol of rock?
Summing up what we learn from these two passages of Scripture, we have: 1. Peter was originally named petros, not petra.
2. In the 161 times lie is mentioned by the name "Peter" (162 if we include the margin of Authorized Version and the text of Revised Version, in John 1:42), he is invariably called petros.
3. The word petros is never used for any other purpose in the New Testament than to designate Peter, including Matthew 16:18.
4. Christ is repeatedly called petra in both the Old and the New Testament, four times in the New, twice translated with the capital initial, Rock, as already cited, and twice with the small initial in the phrase "rock of offense."
5. Christ is never called petros in the Bible.
Hence we have the conclusion:
1. Peter always petros, and petros always Peter.
2. Christ always petra, and petra always Christ when used figuratively. Why Overthrow Established Usage?
How utterly inconsistent and self-stultifying, then, to overthrow established usage, and in the single instance of Matthew 16:18 call Petra Peter and Peter petra. It illustrates with emphasis the absurd length to which a body of religionists will go to find and establish a substitute, a vicegerent, a vicar, of Christ in His church on earth invest him with all the robes, phylacteries, crowns, on a throne, not on a cross. In pomp, not in meekness and lowliness, while tradition has it that Peter himself refused to be crucified upright on a cross, like his Master, but head downward.
But more may be said. The word petra has been known and used from the time of Homer and Hesiod (800 to 1000 BC.) down through the classical period of Pericles and Demosthenes (400 BC.), through the Koine of the time of Christ, in the patristic Greek of the Middle Ages, and in the modern Greek of today-always in the sense of rock as a substance, as bedrock.
The word petros also comes from a time equally early, and is defined by Liddell and Scott's unabridged Greek lexicon as "a piece of rock, a stone, and thus distinguished from petra, in Homer used by warriors," that is, to hurl at their enemies. It is sometimes used loosely for petra, but not in standard authors. The same lexicon says, "There is no example in good authors of petra in the significance of petros, for a single stone." The lexicon also says that it is used in Homer's Odyssey (which some of us have read with our own eyes) "as a symbol of firmness," just as by the same author petros is used of stones light enough and small enough for soldiers or anyone to throw.
What a striking contrast here between petra as a symbol of Christ, and petros as a symbol of Peter-of the same substance or character, but the one firm and stable as a rock, the other unstable as water, and entirely dependent upon the grace of God for firmness and strength. Hence Petra, Christ, is a firm foundation on which to build His church, while Petros, Peter, is firm only as a "lively stone" built into or upon the Chief Cornerstone of the church.
The other two words representing the substance rock in the New Testament are: lithos, dressed or fitted stone for building or other purposes, such as the "lively stones" mentioned by Peter. And psephos, a smooth pebble, used for casting a vote, as in Acts 26:10, and for inscribing a name, as in Revelation 2:17.
The reader may therefore be deeply grateful that his hope is built on nothing less than on "Christ the solid Rock," and not on a rolling, movable fragment of rock.
---===---
10. How Are Prohibition Laws Related to Religious Liberty?
There are some who feel that there is a contradiction between our Seventh day Adventist advocacy of prohibitory liquor laws and our insistence on liberty. That criticism comes largely from those outside our membership. A different kind of misunderstanding in the matter of prohibition laws reveals itself at times inside our ranks. There are some of our members who feel that we should seek to secure prohibitory laws because the Bible condemns liquor and drunkenness.
In these days when the crusade for prohibition is again gathering momentum, and certain areas have prohibitory laws, we should understand clearly what kind of antiliquor laws Adventists may consistently support, and what kind of reasoning we may properly employ irk giving our support.
Prohibition and Personal Liberty-Letter to the Editor
First, let us examine the question of the consistency of campaigning for prohibition laws while advocating liberty. The following letter brings the question into focus:
"Dear Sir: Please tell me why a person has a right to enter my house and arrest me because I have a bottle marked 'Whisky' on a shelf. But nothing is said about the fact that on the same shelf is a bottle marked 'Carbolic Acid,' which is as sure to kill as the whisky, if drunk as freely? If a prohibition law is O.K. as practiced, why not have a law to forbid the use of tobacco? 'The poison in tobacco is more subtle than in alcohol.' 'Meat eating is doing its deadly work'-why not a law to prohibit the use of meat? 'Drugs never cured any one'-why not prohibit the use of drugs by law?" The letter was answered as follows:
Text of the Editor's Letter in Reply
The real basis on which laws prohibiting liquor rest is that the liquor business creates a menace to the rest of society and to the security of the community. In other words, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the part of the members of society are jeopardized by the liquor business. For example, the liquor tavern, which has been the symbol and center of the whole liquor industry through all the years and in all countries, has an unbroken record of being a public nuisance, a place where every kind of vice can breed, and where men can partake of stuff that so inflames the mind that they no longer have full possession of their faculties, and thus become a danger to their fellow men.
To call attention to the fact that all who drink do not thus become a danger is not a valid reply. It is equally a fact that not all men who might carry a revolver on their hip would use it improperly. In enacting legislation, it is obviously impossible to draw fine lines and distinguish between individuals. Instead, the principle is employed of passing a general prohibition on something which has so generally proved itself to be dangerous as to demand that sort of legislation. So today there is a law against carrying a revolver. And for anyone to contend that he would not use the revolver improperly would not avail. But surely neither you nor anyone else who is law abiding would offer objection to such curtailment of personal liberty. Yet it is obvious that in a certain sense of the word your liberty has been curtailed, for the time was that any man might carry on his person any kind of weapon he wanted.
Again, we have a prohibition on the speed we can drive our cars. Why should anyone tell us just how fast we may drive? For the simple reason that if we drive beyond that speed, we become a potential danger to society. We endanger not only our own lives but the lives of others. And it is quite pointless for any of us to argue that we can safely drive beyond such limits, and ought not to be held back because a few others cannot well control their cars at such speed. We cannot make one law for one man and another law for another. We proceed on the general principle that fast driving is dangerous to the community, and make a law against it.
Ten times over can it be established in the blood and tears of drunken brawls and broken homes that the presence of the liquor business in a country creates a real danger to the peace of society. And for that reason a prohibition upon the whole liquor business is just as rational, just as defensible, yes, a hundred times more so, as any prohibition against carrying concealed weapons or driving at an excessive rate of speed.
Now, as to your wondering why an officer may arrest you, in a prohibition area, for possessing whisky and not for possessing carbolic acid, since both are deadly. Without doubt, if a carbolic- acid beverage industry grew up in the country, and people were persuaded to get the habit, and the getting of that habit would not only work disaster upon them personally but make them dangerous to society, I believe that you, along with others, would think it quite proper to legislate against carbolic acid. But the facts are that nobody is promoting such an industry. And as is painfully obvious, if anyone got the carbolic acid habit, he would get over it very quickly, and never prove a danger to anyone else. The situation would be automatically settled, and therefore would hardly warrant legislation. Of course, there is a prohibitory law that applies against carbolic-acid drinking. Suicide is prohibited by law!
To the extent that poisonous substances such as drugs are likely to cause men to become enemies of society or a burden upon society, we do have legislation. We have vigorous anti-narcotic laws, and we all approve of them. And no rational person seems to feel that it is wrong for a prohibition to be placed on the use of such drugs, or that anyone's personal liberty is being improperly interfered with.
Your inquiry as to why tobacco should not be prohibited because it has a poison in it more subtle than that in alcohol, or why meat eating should not be prohibited inasmuch as it is unhealthful, seems to me, in view of the foregoing statements, to be wholly irrelevant. If tobacco smoking necessitated an institution like the tavern, with all its vicious atmosphere. If it caused men to maim and kill each other in tobacco brawls. If it caused them to beat or murder their wives or
leave them penniless and a burden upon society, then I would say that the state had proper grounds for legislation; for the peace of society would be affected. As much as I hate even the smell of tobacco, I have never found any ground for believing that tobacco would cause men to do any of these terrible things. And much as 1 loathe even the sight of meat, I could never give any credence to the story of a man's rushing madly from a meal of beefsteak, or even bacon, to go out and murder his wife or his children. In fact, I have never heard such a story, have you?
The Bible in Relation to Temperance Work
The second question, the relation of the Bible to prohibition laws, perplexes some of our Adventist Church members. When we deal with the liquor problem in terms of an appeal to inert of their own free will to refrain from liquor, we should use the Bible. But when we endeavor to secure a civil statute to prohibit drinking, we should not base our appeal on religious grounds, but only on civil. A church member who had read a statement like the foregoing wrote to say that lie thought we thus excluded "the Lord from a part in the temperance work," and would cause our denomination to "go the way of all other denominations. It's all right to bring forth man's strongest reasons, but they should be backed up with a 'Thus says the Lord.' I believe if we do this, the temperance cause will win. Religious liberty will not be affected in the least. It will help religious liberty instead of harming it." The letter was answered as follows:
Text of the Editor's Letter in Reply
I believe as ardently as you, or any other Christian, that when we are appealing to an individual as to the relationship he personally should bear to liquor, we may properly, indeed surely ought to, use the Scriptural evidence and arguments with all the vigor we possess. We should set before him not only the fact that liquor is bad for his body and makes him an economic liability to society but that intemperance is contrary to the revealed will of God, and therefore he as an individual answerable to God should give heed to the warnings in the Good Book, and order his life accordingly.
But when we move out of the realm of the appeal to the heart of the individual to refrain from drinking over to the support of a civil statute which is intended to prevent a man's drinking whether he will or no, then we are in quite a different world. We must employ evidence, reasons, and arguments that belong properly in the civil realm: the facts that have to do with the relationship of man to man, and not man to God-the social, the economic arguments, for example.
To contend that because the Bible forbids drinking, we should have a civil statute against drink, enforced by the policeman's club, is to put ourselves essentially on the basis of the reasoning employed by the various church reform organizations. They declare, for example, that the Bible condemns Sabbath breaking; therefore there ought to be a law on the statute books to prevent men from violating the Sabbath command. Our basic reason for taking issue with them on this attempt to enact a law is not on the ground of their error in substituting "first day" for "seventh day" in the command of God, but because we believe that the Bible, a religious book, ought not to be made the basis for civil statutes. We contend that to do so is to violate the primary Principle of separation of church and state, and to do obvious injustice to a great part of the citizenry who do not view the Bible as an authority in their lives.
I cannot see how we, as champions of religious liberty, can safely enter into the discussion of laws at all unless we ever hold to the clear-cut principle that civil statutes must be built upon and defended by civil reasons. This, of course, does not say for a moment that various civil prohibitory laws, such as those against murder, robbery, and so forth, are not also found in the Good Book. It means that if we are going to avoid confusing the realm of the religious and the civil, we must find a sufficient justification on civil grounds for these various statutes, altogether apart from any Biblical arguments.
It is a well known fact that almost without exception the various denominations have tied together their fight for a prohibition law with that for a Sunday law. I am afraid they would receive great consolation from the viewpoint that you apparently take, and would ask only that you be consistent, and argue also for their Sabbath law, because Sabbath desecration is as clearly condemned in the Scriptures as is intemperance. It would not relieve your situation any for you to reply to them that the Bible nowhere commands Sunday to be kept holy, for they might immediately inquire whether you were re using your support of their Sunday law simply because you believed in a different day. You would have to answer them No, that you were against all Sabbath legislation. Such an answer would reveal, I believe, that you really could not be in agreement with them at all in appealing to Bible commands as a basis for a civil law. Therefore, to be really consistent, you would have to drop out of your antiliquor fight the Bible argument when you were focusing on the civil-statute feature of the liquor problem.
In view of this I hardly think you are quite accurate in saying that if my "theory" is adopted, "our denomination will go the way of all other denominations." The facts are that in making the distinctions between religion and the state on this liquor question we are going in the very opposite direction from other denominations. If they made the distinctions I am here expressing, they would cease to work for Sunday laws.
There was a time in the history of our country when various of the colonists, especially the Puritans, took the Bible as the basis for their code of laws. Such a procedure at first blush looks like a high and holy one to follow, but all of us know the sad results in religious intolerance that grew out of that program. As Adventists we have held up the program of the Puritans as an example of what ought not to be done. And as a denomination we have taken the position that the only escape from the dangers of religious intolerance that grow out of such a course as was followed by the Puritans, is to apply Bible commands exclusively to the hearts and the free will of men. And to enact only such civil statutes as can be justified on civil grounds.
It would be very much easier for me in many ways, at least it would make it possible for me to cooperate much more largely with other religious groups, if I blurred over the distinctions that I have endeavored to set forth in this letter. But I do not feel I can do this, except at the peril of sacrificing some very primary conceptions as to religious liberty.
On the other hand, I am not willing to be viewed as behind even the most ardent Christian brother in my vigorous employment of Scriptural injunctions and commands on the matter of liquor drinking, when appealing to men's hearts to refrain from drink of their own free will. And, indeed, I believe we ought to do more of this. Such work may properly parallel our appeal on civil grounds for prohibitory laws against liquor. My contention is this: Although these two lines of activity may properly be carried on side by side, they ought never to be fused together so that
we begin to declare that because the Bible says thus and so. Therefore we ought to have a civil statute forcing men by pains and penalties to order their lives accordingly.
---===---
11. Do Adventists Seek a 'Wide Open" Sunday?
Often Sunday law advocates seek to embarrass us in the matter of our opposition to Sunday laws by accusing us of aiding and abetting the disreputable elements in the country. The charge seems to have plausibility. Do not irreligious, commercial interests seek Sunday law repeal, arguing for a "wide open" Sunday for every kind of commercial amusement? And do not Adventists also urge repeal of those same laws? In fact, do not Adventists strive earnestly to liberalize such laws, even if they cannot succeed in having them repealed? And is there not already too much liberalizing in matters of religion and morality?
The fallacies in this charge are examined in an address delivered at a hearing in Annapolis, State capital of Maryland, some years ago, on a bill to liberalize the State Sunday law in certain counties. The chairman of the hearing was the then governor of Maryland, the Honorable Albert C. Ritchie. The following address sought to present the Adventist viewpoint on the matter:
The Text of the Address
Your Excellency: I labor under an unusual handicap in attempting to speak on the Sunday Liberalization Bill that is before you. Undoubtedly the most distinctive feature of it is the permitting of movies on Sunday. My handicap is that of ignorance; I do not attend movies at all, and so I cannot speak from personal, firsthand knowledge as to the effect of movies on morals on any of the seven days of the week. Nor is my ignorance relieved by inquiry of my parishioners, for they do not attend. It is one of the requirements of Seventh day Adventist church fellowship that the members do not attend movies, the theater, or any similar places of amusement.
It is necessary to make my position clear at the outset, that my attitude may not possibly be misunderstood. For someone to say, as has been repeatedly said because of my public statements on this matter in the past, that "Mr. Nichol wants the movies opened on Sunday, is to put the matter in an altogether wrong light. It would be as accurate to say that I want the grocery stores, the bank, the bakery, opened on Sunday. But my real interest would be revealed by saying that I want the theater man, the banker, the grocer, and the baker to have the right to open if they wish. As a citizen, I do not care which day any one of them opens or closes-least of all the moving- picture theater. I might even go so far as to express the wish that some places of amusement, including some theaters-if well-authenticated reports may be believed-were not open any day in the week. Yes, I would go even further, and say that without doubt some of these places of amusement ought properly to be the object of vigorous legislation, and compelled to close their doors forever.
Sunday Law Wrong Solution of Problem
But, Your Excellency, the point that I wish to make clear is this: That Sunday legislation is not the proper way to deal with any business or industry or institution inimical to society. The state
can know no distinction of days in determining the question of the propriety of acts either of an individual or of a business. To contend that what is proper on one day is wrong on another is most certainly to contend that there is an essential difference in the two days. This is the logic of all Sunday legislation. It is the logic of the Maryland Sunday law, which the bill before you proposes to liberalize.
I cannot consistently restrict my remarks to the question of liberalizing this law. To work simply for the liberalization of a law is to admit tacitly that the law is right and just in principle, and needs only revision. Believing, as I do, that Sunday legislation is wrong in principle, I appeal, not for liberalization, but for absolute repeal.
Let no member of the clergy gasp at this statement and hasten to charge that I would have the state remove all restraint and give license to any conduct. My appeal is only for repeal of the Sunday law, and not of the criminal statutes under which evil deeds or evil amusement may be prosecuted seven days in the week. To say that the Sunday law must be retained in order to protect the morals of the citizenry is to state a fallacy, for we have a surplus of laws touching on every conceivable question of morals and our relation to one another as citizens.
Sunday Laws and the Laboring Man
Or to say that Sunday laws must be maintained in order to protect the workingman is also to state a fallacy. The advocates of Sunday laws deplore the laxity in enforcement in recent years compared with former generations. Yet the condition of the workingman in this present generation is vastly better than in any former time. In fact, in States where there is no Sunday law, the working man does not suffer. There are civil statutes which protect him from oppressive hours of labor.
There is only one ground on which Sunday laws can be urged. It is the historical ground on which such laws in all former centuries have been promoted, and that is to protect a day which many devout persons consider holy. That Sunday legislation is primarily and essentially religious legislation, and only secondarily and indirectly social and moral legislation, is surely not open to question. The reading of the texts of the Sunday laws of past generations makes abundantly evident their religious nature, without the necessity of my entering into any extended historical discussion. Let me be specific, and quote the opening words of the first Sunday law in Maryland: "Forasmuch as the sanctification and keeping holy the Lord's day commonly called Sunday, hath been and is esteemed by the present and all the primitive Christians and people, to be a principal part of the worship of Almighty God, and the honor due to His holy name; Be it enacted," etc. This is typical of other Sunday laws of the colonies and of the old country. It is certain that if we had lived in those days, we would not have thought to ask a colonial whether Sunday laws were religious laws, for the question would have found its unequivocal answer in the texts of the statutes. The fact that the revised codes of postcolonial times have dropped out certain religious phrases from the texts of the Sunday laws in no way affects the essential nature of such laws or their definite historical connection.
Why We Plead for Repeal
Your Excellency, it is because Sunday legislation is religious legislation that I plead not simply for its liberalization but for its repeal. And my plea grows out of the fact that I am a believer in the Bible and also in the principles set forth by the founding fathers regarding separation of church and state. In matters of religion and our duties and relationship to God, I believe that the state should play no part Religious beliefs and our sense of religious duties proceed from the depths of the conscience and from our interpretation of God's Word. Therefore, to make such beliefs and duties the objects of cold civil legislation is to change the basis of our relationship to God from that of free will and loving obedience to that of coercion and necessity. There is doubtless no one in this fair State of Maryland but would declare that he believed in religious liberty. Indeed, many of our forefathers came to America for the express purpose of securing religious liberty. Yet so steeped were they in the Old World idea that religion is properly a subject for legislation that they immediately formulated laws reflecting their religious viewpoint. The result was that even in this new land dissenting religious minorities suffered various degrees of hardship and even persecution. The early colonists did not immediately see that religious liberty meant liberty not only for themselves but for all others no matter how differing their religious views. It was not until the founding of the Federal Government that the principle of the separation of church and state was fully and clearly enunciated and applied.
A New Principle in Political World
It was indeed a new thing for the rest of the world, accustomed from time immemorial to the fusion of church and state, to see a new nation created an the principle that the state has no proper jurisdiction over the church. Nor the church over the state, but that each has an individual sphere of its own. An amazed world heard proclaimed the doctrine that conscience and religious beliefs are not amenable to civil legislation. It is in this vital particular that our nation is different from all others. There have been republics since the days of Rome. Democracy was a form of government that flourished in ancient Greece, an confederacies of states were known long before our day. But a state with no state god, no national church, and repudiating the very principle upon which any fusion of religion with the state might be built-ah, that was something new!
On this clear principle of the separation of church and state our Federal Government was built. It is America's distinctive contribution to political history. It is to this principle above all else that we owe the vitality and reality of our boasted liberty, especially religious' liberty.
Slow Deletion of Religious Laws
But the various States of the Union were founded in an earlier century, when this principle of church and state separation was only dimly understood. Gradually, as the leaven of this revolutionary principle began to work, religious laws were deleted from the statute books, until today they are virtually all gone-all but the Sunday laws. True, the strongly religious language of the Sunday statutes is tempered, as are also their penalties, but the laws still remain. They are a relic from a former age, reminders of a day when legislation on religious duties was as common, and considered as proper, as legislation on civil ones.
Ever-present Threat to Liberty
But modified though they are, these Sunday laws are strangely out of harmony with true American principles. And though no longer consistently enforced, even in their present form, these laws restrict in a real way the liberties of those who do not desire to rest on Sunday. Specifically, right here in Maryland the law operates to compel the man who believes in no day to give passive homage to a certain day because the majority in the State happen to believe in that day. What is even more unfair, this Sunday law compels a man who has already rested on a day which he believes holy to rest an additional day in the week, and all because he happens to be in the minority.
But here is where Sunday-law proponents endeavor to make a bold defense of their course by employing the language of democracy. They declare that the majority of the people wish a Sunday law, and should not the majority rule? But, Your Excellency, if the majority have a right to enforce their will on the minority in this one particular area of religion, who can logically deny their right to enforce their will in other areas of religion? Is not the fallacy evident? Their argument proves too much.
What if Adventists Were in Majority?
But to make certain that the advocates of Sunday legislation do not fail to see the untenability of the majority argument in religious questions, let us suppose that Seventh day Adventists became in the majority in Maryland-stranger things have happened in the history of religion. And suppose we should have enacted a law to compel all to rest on Saturday, no matter what their religious beliefs might be. Suppose, further, that various of our members took occasion at times to report to the police even such a minor infraction of the law as the doing of a little work around one's house on Saturday. How quickly-yes, and how properly-would our Sunday keeping friends cry out that they were being oppressed by religious legislation, that their rights were invaded! And how altogether unconvincing to them would sound our argument that the majority wish a Saturday law! With vigor would they insist that matters of religion cannot be settled by majorities.
But today they are in the majority, we in the minority. And, accordingly, we suffer handicaps, and not infrequently hardships. Only a short time ago a member of my church was spied upon while doing a little painting on a window inside his home on Sunday, and suffered five days' imprisonment. His only offense was that he had violated a religious law.
And yet, Your Excellency, we are made the objects of scorn, and charged with being enemies of religion, of society, and of the state, because we raise our voices against such a law. I contend that the facts warrant the conclusion that ours must he a real religion to continue active under such handicaps, and that we are friends, not enemies, of the state in pleading for the complete repeal of all religious legislation.
Religion Too Holy to Mix With State
To extol the glories and the divine origin of religion or religious days is not therefore to furnish a valid reason for state legislation in behalf of religion, but rather the contrary. Something so holy as religion should be freed from alliance with something so secular as the state. Christianity
displayed its greatest purity and its greatest growth in the early centuries, when it not only lacked the support of the state but was the object of bitter attack.
I am not a party to the framing of this present bill for liberalization, and have no conceivable interest in it personally. But 1 am vitally concerned with the primary question that is raised by any bill that deals with Sunday. And it is with the primary principle alone that 1 ant concerned.
Doubtless it will be charged, in conclusion, that the adoption of this principle of the absolute repeal of all religious laws would make for a "wide open" Sunday. Your Excellency, the state should know no widths to days; certainly it should not attempt to determine widths by the varying yardsticks of different creeds. The state should not be in the business of enforcing religious tenets; the church should not seek such aid. The arm of the Lord, not the arm of the law, should be the strength of religion.
---===---
12. How to Meet the "Christian Nation" Argument
In America one of the premises on which Sunday law advocates build is that this is a Christian nation, and therefore Sunday legislation is not only defensible but imperative if Christian standards are to be reflected through the activities of the government. At first the argument in support of the Christian-nation claim was rather vague and of this order: Christian people founded the country, some of them coming here for religious reasons. The moral principles of Christianity are woven into our customs and laws. The oath is administered in the name of God. Sunday is excluded from the count of days in determining certain judicial matters, cognizance thus being taken of its distinctive character.
These and like reasons were originally offered in proof that this is a Christian nation, and hence should protect Sunday with legislation. Then came the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1892, in what is known as the Holy Trinity Church case, in which the statement is made that "this is a Christian nation." The case dealt with the right of that church to import a minister from abroad. Lower courts had ruled that this violated a law forbidding the import of foreign labor.
Supreme Court's Reasoning in 1892
The Supreme Court reasoned that the legislators never intended to include religious groups or individuals in the restrictive law, and supported this reasoning by showing that from earliest days the people of this country had acknowledged God as supreme and had sought to do His will. After citing declarations as far back as the commission of Ferdinand and Isabella to Columbus, the court declared:
"These, and many other matters, which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.' - 143 U.S., 457.
How far the justices intended the logic of their statement to he carried is not evident from that decision. They there invoked the "Christian Nation" claim only to create a reasonable
presumption that the legislators never intended to include ministers in their law against foreign labor. Thus, strictly speaking, the reasoning that climaxed in the conclusion that this is a Christian nation, is really not the decision of the court, but is, in legal parlance, an obiter dictum, a kind of parenthetical observation. The court was not ruling on the question of whether this is or is not a Christian nation, but on whether the Church of the Holy Trinity had violated a labor law.
Reformers Comment on Court's Words
However, Sunday-law reformers did not trouble themselves over legal niceties. They had their own convictions as to the implications of the Christian-nation statement. In the organ of the National Reform Association appeared this exuberant comment:
"This is a Christian nation. That means Christian government, Christian laws, Christian institutions, Christian practices, Christian citizenship. And this is not an outburst of popular passion or prejudice. Christ did not lay His guiding hand there, but upon the calm, dispassionate, supreme judicial tribunal of our government. It is the weightiest, the noblest, the most tremendously far-reaching in its consequences of all the utterances of that sovereign tribunal. And that utterance is for Christianity, for Christ. 'A Christian nation!' Then this nation is Christ's nation, for nothing can be Christian that does not belong to Him. Then His word is its sovereign law. Then the nation is Christ's servant. Then it ought to, and must, confess, love, and obey Christ." - The Christian Statesman, Nov. 19, 1892.
This quotation reveals how far reaching were the conclusions that the reformers drew from the words of the Supreme Court. Of course, these reformers were chiefly and immediately concerned to find support for Sunday laws. Charity toward them requires us to believe that they did not truly see what their bubbling rhetoric could lead to. Zealots and reformers are rarely given to dispassionate, calm, and logical analysis. They are inclined, rather, to seize with fervor whatever appears to support their cause, without troubling to inquire whether it may prove to be a broken reed that will pierce them.
Our Analysis of Reformers' Position
Seventh day Adventists have consistently argued that the National Reformers, in reasoning as they did, logically gave to the state a religious character, and caused its statutes to appear as springing from the mind of God and a holy people. Hence, to rebel against the state or against any of its laws would he tantamount to rebelling against the will of God. But if that be so, it is pointless for a citizen to set up his individual conscience against any mandate of the state. Is it not presumptuous for anyone to say that God, speaking to hint through his conscience, forbids hint to obey a law of a Christian nation?
Does God contradict Himself?
In other words, we have consistently held that the logic of the Christian Nation premise leads inevitably to a revival of the medieval doctrine that the king can do no wrong. How plausibly, in bygone centuries, that claim was made! Did not God set up the king? Does not the Bible declare that he is the minister of God? The peasant in those days of the divine right of kings could not
hope to make a case in court by arguing that his conscience forbade his obeying a law of the king. The argument had no standing.
Supreme Court Speaks in 1931
Adventists have often wondered whether the Supreme Court might someday interpret its own words and reveal what are the logical conclusions that follow from the loose, though sweeping, observation that 'This is a Christian nation." The Holy Trinity Church case was decided in 1892. In the year 1931 the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Dr. Douglas Clyde MacIntosh, who had applied for citizenship, with a reservation regarding the bearing of arms. Dr. MacIntosh reserved the right to let his conscience tell him whether he ought to bear arms in a particular war that might be fought. In ruling against his application, the court reasoned in the following manner:
"When he speaks of putting his allegiance to the will of God above his allegiance to the Government, it is evident, in the light of his entire statement, that he means to make his own interpretation of the will of God the decisive test which shall conclude the Government and stay its hand. We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church Vs. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 470, 471), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.
"But, also, we are a nation with the duty to survive. A nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose Government must go forward upon the assumption, and safely can proceed upon no other, that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God."
Reformers Comment on Court's Decision
The same Christian Statesman that in 1892 had given such fulsome praise to the Supreme Court for its declaration that this is a Christian nation, joined the chorus of the religious press in denunciation of the court in 1931, with these scathing words:
"Just now the American people have been rudely awakened to the fact that this liberty of the conscience for the individual citizen is threatened at least, by making its surrender one of the conditions for becoming a citizen by naturalization. ...
"In this case the Federal Government has officially declared that it has the power to decide when and in what circumstances it may, under the plea of necessity, override the conscience of the individual citizen. Carried into the realm of actual citizenship, this would abolish the right of the individual to judge of the righteousness of the acts of the government he has helped to create and of his own active participation in them. It requires but logic and the ruthlessness born of excitement, to march from this premise straight to all the conclusions of the state sovereignty of Soviet Russia." - The Christian Statesman, July-August, 1931.
Nowhere in this fervent defense of the individual conscience does The Christian Statesman reveal that it is aware that the court had used the National Reformers' favorite Christian-nation
phrase as the basis for its decision against MacIntosh. The reformers observed that the court's decision gave the government the "power" to "override the conscience of the individual citizen." But the court contended not only that the state has the power but also the right, and that this right rests upon the premise that "unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land ... are not inconsistent with the will of' God." This is but another way of saying that the laws of the land are not inconsistent with the will of God. And of course this leads on to the far-reaching but inevitable conclusion that the citizen is to discover what is the will of God for him, not by searching his heart and conscience, but by examining the laws and statute books of the state.
Reasoning Valid if Premise Correct
And why may not the court thus reason if it really believes that this is a "Christian people"? If this or any other nation is truly Christian; if, as a state, it possesses not only a political but a religious character, the Christian religion at that, then it may plausibly be argued that the laws of the land are not inconsistent with the will of God. Indeed, only on the premise that this is a Christian nation, and thus guiding its course by the standards of Heaven, could it possibly be contended that the laws of the land are not inconsistent with the will of God.
The National Reformers were happy to declare that the Supreme Court acted under the guiding hand of Christ when it said in the Holy Trinity Church case that this is a Christian nation. In fact, they declared at the time that the court's statement in that case actually established that this is a Christian nation. But when this same supreme tribunal later quoted the Trinity Church case and went on to reason that citizens should give unquestioning obedience to the laws of the state, the reformers were ready to pillory the court. But how did the reformers know that Christ guided the court in the first instance but not in the second? Are the National Reformers better able to decide what are the ultimate conclusions that may logically be drawn from a statement of the Supreme Court than is the court itself?
It is evident that the only way to escape the conclusion reached by the Court in the MacIntosh case is to set down the counter view that "unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land" may in certain instances, be wholly "inconsistent with the will of God.". But to maintain this position we must surrender the view that the nation is Christian. That is the dilemma that has confronted the National Reformers ever since the Supreme Court decision in the MacIntosh case.
Other Fallacies in Reformers' Claims
Turning aside, now, from this devastating Supreme Court commentary on the famous Christian- nation phrase, let us explore a little further the statements made by the National Reformers in their historic pronouncement of 1892. We shall see that their reasoning contains other fallacies than those exposed by the Supreme Court decision in the MacIntosh case. In 1892 they came to the sweeping conclusion that because this is a Christian nation "this nation is Christ's nation, for nothing can be Christian that does not belong to Him. Then His word is its sovereign law, Then the nation is Christ's servant. Then it ought to, and must, confess, love, and obey Christ."
The National Reformers appear to have made this statement to protect themselves against the question that clamors for expression: Why call this country Christian when its citizenry in general are anything but Christian? Let us examine the statement. If we should say to a man, "You are now a Christian, therefore you 'ought to, and must, confess, love, and obey Christ," our words would need explaining, to avoid most serious error. If we meant simply that the man was to continue such a relationship to Christ, well and good. But if we meant that because he had been pronounced a Christian, he must therefore begin to relate himself thus to Christ, we would be guilty of turning the Christian program upside down. It is because a man confesses, loves, and is willing to obey Christ that he becomes a Christian.
Now the National Reformers were unable to say in 1892 that the nation could be pronounced "Christian" on the ground that it had been confessing, loving, and obeying Christ. So they were obliged to work from the opposite end, affirming, first, that the nation is Christian, and then telling it that it "ought to, and must," act Christian.
What Will They Say Today?
The reformers, made that statement more than half a century ago. Will they contend that the nation has, during those years, changed its ways as 'It ought to," and justified the pronouncement as to its national Christianity? I hardly think they would have the hardihood to attempt to prove this. The fact of the increasing problem of crime, and of disregard for law on the part of the citizenry at large, is too generally known. Those who sought to give spiritual guidance to millions of men in two world wars declare that the nation is largely pagan.
If, after half a century, the nation has failed to conform to Christianity as "it ought to," but instead has become only worse, is it not about time that all those who truly love the name Christian protest against the hypocrisy of the phrase "Christian nation"? The nation has not been improved by the magic of the famous phrase. And certainly the beautiful word "Christian" has received no added richness of meaning from being thus combined with "nation."
But perhaps the National Reformers may contend that although it is true that national conditions have become only worse during the years, nevertheless the title "Christian nation" should still be retained, because as a result of reforms that they will launch, the nation will finally do what "it ought to." In reply it might be said that the title never should have been given in the first place, not only because as a matter of fact the nation is not Christian in its conduct, but because the state cannot properly have a religious character. Nevertheless, let us consider this final argument in defense of the notable phrase. Can the National Reformers point to any nation that has been nationally reformed? We read much of the decline and fall of empires, morally as well as politically, but scarcely a word of their reformation.
And if, after a half century and more of active endeavor by the National Reformers, the country has gone only downward morally, what reason can they offer as to why we should believe they can reform it, throughout, in the future? Can they do what earnest contenders for Christian principles have been unable to do in any other nation or century?
Surely history does not warrant the belief that the nation at large will ever do what "it ought to." Should we, nevertheless, continue to describe it as "Christian," solely because "it ought to" do
that which it never has and never may be expected to do as a nation? If so, then words have lost their distinctive meaning, and we can properly call a man "Christian" who for half a century has steadily sunk lower morally-not because we believe he is confessing, loving, and obeying Christ, but because we believe he "ought to."
---===---
13. The Remission of Sins
[Under the above title Mrs. E. G. White discusses in the Review and Herald, June 13, 1899, the difficult question of remission of sins in terms of Christ's statement in Matthew 16:19. Because this text is so frequently quoted by Catholics in their discussions with Adventist workers, Mrs. White's article is here reprinted in full. See also The Desire of Ages, pp. 414, 805, 806.]
Before His death Jesus told His disciples what the priests and rulers would do to Him, but the disciples could not understand His words. Now, after they had been verified, after Christ had been rejected, condemned, scourged, crucified, buried, and had risen from the dead on the third day, the disciples believed. They had gained a valuable experience. All the sophistry and reasoning of the scribes and Pharisees could not now turn them from Christ. They could say, as did Paul, "I know whom I have believed." Their faith in Christ was rewarded by a most remarkable experience. They saw their beloved Master. They heard His voice and He opened to them the Scriptures; and from this they obtained much knowledge.
The lessons given by Christ to His disciples after His resurrection were with reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. He could now explain to them the prophecies concerning Himself. They were surprised that they had not discerned the meaning of the inspired record of Christ's work and the reception that would be given Him by the Jewish dignitaries. While the poor heard Him gladly, those to whom had been committed the sacred oracles closed the eyes of their understanding, that they might not see Christ. And by misapplying the Scriptures, substituting their own traditions and fables for truth, and upholding their words as the commandments of God, they so bewildered the minds of the people that they could not see Christ.
Christ rebuked these false teachers. "In vain they do worship me," He said, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." "Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." This is the work of many of the teachers of this time. They make void the law of God by teaching the commandments of men.
"You do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God," Christ said to the teachers of His day; and His words apply to all who claim to know the truth, yet who make void the law of God by their traditions.
"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and says unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side." He gave them evidence that He was the same Jesus who had been crucified. "Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and
says unto them, Receive you the Holy Ghost: whose so ever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose so ever sins you retain, they are retained."
Thus the disciples received their commission. They were to teach and to preach in Christ's name. The instruction given them had in it the vital, spiritual breath that is in Christ. He alone could give them the oil which they must have in order to work successfully. Christ's likeness must appear in them. They could be successful only as they studied their Master's character and followed His example.
The Holy Spirit is the breath of life in the soul. The breathing of Christ upon His disciples was the breath of true spiritual life. The disciples were to interpret this as imbuing them with the attributes of their Savior, that in purity, faith, and obedience, they might exalt the law, and make it honorable. God's law is the expression of His character. By obedience to its requirements we meet God's standard of character. Thus the disciples were to witness for Christ.
The impartation of the Spirit was the impartation of the very life of Christ, which was to qualify the disciples for their mission. Without this qualification their work could not be accomplished. Thus they were to fulfil the official duties connected with the church. But the Holy Spirit was not yet fully manifested, because Christ had not yet been glorified. The more abundant impartation of the Holy Spirit did not take place till after Christ's ascension.
"Whose so ever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose so ever sins you retain, they are retained." The lesson here given to the disciples means that wise men, truly taught of God, possessing the inward working of the Holy Spirit, are to act as representative men, samples of the whole body of believers. These are to show themselves capable of preserving due order in the church; and the Holy Spirit will convince of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. But the remission of sins is to be understood as the prerogative of God alone. The warnings in the seventh chapter of Matthew forbid men to pronounce judgment on their fellow men. God has not given His servants power to cast down or to destroy. The apostles were unable to remove the guilt from any soul. They were to give the message from God: It is written-the Lord has said-thus and thus in regard to lying, Sabbath-breaking, bearing false witness, stealing, idolatry.
Christ has given rules for the guidance of His church. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee," He said, "go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven!'
Remitting sins or retaining applies to the church in her organized capacity. God has given directions to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine. Censure is to be given. This censure is to be removed when the one in error repents and confesses his sin. This solemn commission is given to men who have in them the breath of the Holy Spirit, in whose lives the Christ-life is manifested. They are to be men who have spiritual eyesight, who can discern spiritual things, whose actions in dealing with the members of the church are such as can receive the endorsement of the great Head of the church. If this is not so, in their human judgment they
will censure those who should be commended, and sustain those who are controlled by a power from beneath.
The gospel commission is to be carried out by men who know the inward working of the Spirit of God, who have the attributes of Christ. Christ's breath is breathed upon them, and He says to them, "Receive you the Holy Ghost!' All who are thus inspired by God have a work to do for the churches. As Christ's representatives, the ministers of the grace of God, they may say to others, It is written, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This is remission of sins in accordance with the word of God.
In all labor with the members of the church, every eye is to be directed to Christ. Those in the wrong are to confess their sins to the sin-pardoning Savior. And the servants of the Lord Jesus are not to strive, but to minister in word and doctrine. The shepherds are to take a kindly interest in the flock of the Lord's pasture. They are to present the grace of Christ, comforting the erring by speaking of the divine tenderness of the Savior, encouraging those who have fallen to repent and believe in Him who alone can pardon transgression.
Let the tenderness of Christ find a place in the hearts of His ministers. Watch for souls as they that must give an account. Watch constantly, vigilantly, and pray earnestly. Faithfully warn every soul that is in danger. Encourage the sinner to go to Christ. If he repents of his sin, he will find abundant pardon. He has assurance that his sins will be remitted; for thus it is written. Bear in mind that first the Lord gave His disciples the Holy Spirit. Those today who would do the work of the disciples must receive the presence of the Holy Spirit, and work under its influence.
Remission of sins can be obtained only through the merits of Christ. On no man, priest or pope, but on God alone, rests the power to forgive sins. "Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world." "As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." "If we say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.... But who so keeps his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected." This is the message that is to be borne. On this basis Christians are free. Give encouragement of sins remitted. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses its from all sin. ... If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." "These things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
---===---
14. Rome's Claim to Unity in Contrast to Protestantism's Divisions
One of the historic differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that regarding the right of private judgment or private interpretation of the Scriptures. Catholicism holds that the individual, devout Christian though he may be, is not capable, alone, of understanding the Bible; that his private judgment is so faulty and erring that only confusion can result from permitting him to determine his spiritual life by what he reads in the book of God. Rome holds that the church and by the church is meant the Catholic clergy in general and the pope in particular-is the
only safe and true interpreter of Scripture. This view naturally explains why, as a general rule, the Catholic laity are not students of the Scriptures; in fact, in many instances, are not encouraged and sometimes not even permitted to have the Scriptures.
Inasmuch as the Protestant movement was reared on the foundation principle of the Bible and the Bible only, it was both natural and logical that this Catholic view should be challenged and repudiated. Many have been the disputes that have raged over this question.
Argument From Diversity of Sects
The very diversity of Protestant sects provides Rome with what it believes to be an absolute demonstration of the truth of its teaching that private judgment is a dangerous heresy; for, "See," it declares, "what confusion and disintegration have come to Protestantism!" And whenever a sharp religious dispute occurs within a Protestant denomination, Rome considers it simply an added proof.
For example, the controversy that occurred some years ago in the Presbyterian ranks, provided a concrete illustration on the question at issue between Rome and Protestantism. Note these lines that appeared on the editorial page of the Pilot, a leading Catholic weekly newspaper published in Boston:
"Once again communions outside the [Catholic] church are given opportunity, in the controversy which has been aired in the press between the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions and one of its missionaries. To see more clearly the desperate plight to which 'private judgment' has reduced the religious groups outside the Catholic Church. In that is the sole value of the incident. The prominence of the offending missionary has inspired a publicity doctrinal differences are rarely accorded by a secular press. For all that, the only permanent and real value the matter possesses is that it draws clearly issues all sincere people must sometimes face." - June 10, 1933.
The editorial is referring, of course, to the stir that was created by the statements of a certain well-known woman missionary of the Presbyterian Church, in connection with the much- discussed laymen's foreign mission report. She expressed ideas so alien to the historic position of Protestant Christianity, and so ultra-modernistic, as to necessitate her resignation. According to her view, it matters not really whether our Lord Jesus Christ ever actually lived, because, to give her words, as quoted in the Pilot:
'If there existed mind or minds, dreams, hopes, imaginations, sensitive enough to the human soul and its needs, perceptive enough to receive such a heavenly imprint on the spirit as to be able to conceive a personality like Christ's and portray Him for us with such matchless simplicity as He is portrayed, then Christ lived and lives, whether He was once one body and one soul, or whether He is the essence of man's highest dreams."
Not Heresy, but Apostasy
The Catholic editorial immediately adds, and most appropriately: "To lodge the accusation of 'heresy' against the author of this sentence is to err seriously regarding the nature of the offense. These sonorous platitudes constitute a total apostasy."
Then follow the conclusions which Rome believes must necessarily be drawn from such an incident as this:
"Yet, given the principle of private judgment, how can one quarrel with any conclusion, however fantastic? The Scriptures, variously understood, have split Christendom into countless fragments. It was inherent in the principle that some erratic intelligence should at last conceive a Christ who never lived, but who is real because 'He is the essence of men's highest dreams.'
"It is a chaotic world in about every field of human activity. But, by the grace of God, we are spared uncertainty in that sphere of life which is paramount above all others. The Catholic Church, protected by the abiding presence of the Spirit of truth, teaches at this hour the faith delivered to the apostles.
"She teaches not speculatively, or with mere probability, but with an assurance which is altogether divine. Her credentials entitle her to the allegiance of every reasonable intelligence. The day draws nearer when the simplest of minds must perceive that their choice lies between her or nothing."
But a very vital point is overlooked in this Catholic editorial, and that is that this Protestant missionary under discussion found it necessary to resign because of her views. And why? Because those views were so clearly at variance with the teachings of Scripture that she could not continue her work with the Presbyterian Board. The second fact overlooked is this: That the reason why such views as those of this missionary are held by an increasing number in Protestant communions is not so much because of a new interpretation of the Scriptures, as because of a repudiation of them.
Changed Basis of Comparison
It is one thing to deal with the centuries old controversy of private judgment in terms of the historic attitude of Protestantism, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God from cover to cover, and therefore to be accepted and followed implicitly as its teachings are revealed to the heart through prayer. It is an altogether different thing to deal with this doctrine of private judgment in terms of what is now becoming the widely accepted view of Protestantism-that the Bible is not the infallible, inerrant guide for our lives, and that prayer does not bring enlightenment and understanding of God's will. There is really little if any comparison between the two positions, and it brings only confusion of thought to attempt to test the validity of the Reformers' beliefs regarding the Bible and private judgment by the deplorable situation now existing, of which this Presbyterian missionary incident is a striking illustration.
As already remarked, the Catholic Pilot spoke accurately when it declared that "to lodge a charge of ‘heresy' against" this missionary is "to err seriously regarding the nature of the offense," that, instead, her utterances "constitute a total apostasy." Why should the views of one who, it is admitted, has apostatized, be used as evidence of the dangerous beliefs held by those from whom she has apostatized? Rome answers: "Because her apostate views grew naturally from the Protestant premises of private judgment." To which we reply that this apostasy from historic Christian teaching regarding Christ, involves also an apostasy from basic Protestant beliefs regarding the Bible, the Spirit of God, and prayer-beliefs which dominate and control the
principle of private judgment. Therefore we inquire again, Why present as evidence against Protestantism the views of one who has apostatized front the primary tenets on which historic Protestantism was built?
It wits not the teaching of the Reformers that everyone's private views on religion are equally valid, but simply that there is no tribunal that God has set up in this world before which those views are to be judged. And the Pilot therefore caricatures the basic idea in the Reformers' teaching by declaring that, "given the principle of private judgment, how can one quarrel with any conclusion, how ever fantastic?" In other words, the essence of the Reformers' position in this matter was not that private judgment is infallible, or even good in various cases, but that the claim of the Catholic Church to the right of domination over the private judgment and beliefs of men, is altogether wrong.
The application of the principle of private judgment to the interpretation of Scripture was based, by the Reformers, on the following beliefs. That God has revealed His will to men in an infallible Book. That Christians are enjoined in the Scriptures to study this Book; that we are promised God's Spirit to enlighten our minds, that we may discern spiritual things and may be led into all truth. That nowhere does the Bible declare that God has set up any human institution to stand between the Christian and the understanding of the Bible.
It may be freely granted that the application of these principles has permitted a certain divergence in Protestantism through the centuries. But such divergence, contrasted with the seeming unity of Rome, does not in itself provide the proof that the Protestant attitude toward the Scriptures is wrong and the Catholic one right. It is possible to maintain quite a definite measure of unity of utterance in an organization without possession of any supernatural or infallible powers. It is also possible, on the other hand, in various branches of an organization, to have a considerable amount of divergence on secondary questions, while maintaining a remarkable unity on vital matters.
Remarkable Unity
A reading of the great Reformation creeds reveals a singular measure of unity on the vital doctrines of salvation, a measure of unity, indeed, that can be explained only on the ground that the Divine Spirit has exercised a manifested degree of control over the hearts and minds of all. An examination, on the other hand, of beliefs that have been held inside the circle of the Catholic Church, indicates that a wide variation has been present there, despite the closely knit nature of the organization, divergences and controversies so sharp that if equivalent ones had occurred in Protestant ranks, Catholic writers would have made capital of them.
Wylie's Critical Comments
On this very point Wylie, in his notable essay, "The Papacy," observes:
"When one man only in the world is permitted to think, and the rest are compelled to agree with him, unity should be of as easy attainment as it is worthless when attained. Yet despite the despotism of force and the despotism of ignorance, which have been employed in all ages to crush free inquiry and open discussion in the Church of Rome, serious differences and furious
disputes have broken out in her. When we name the pope, we indicate the whole extent of her unity. Here she is at one, or has usually been so; on every other point she is disagreed. The theology of Rome has differed materially in different ages; so that her members have believed one set of opinions in one age, and another set of opinions in another age. What was sound doctrine in the sixth century, was heresy in the twelfth; and what was sufficient for salvation in the twelfth century, is altogether insufficient for it in our day.
"Transubstantiation was invented in the thirteenth century; it was followed, at the distance of three centuries, by the sacrifice of the mass; and that again, in our day, by the immaculate conception of the virgin. In the twelfth century, the Lombardic (so called from Peter Lombard, who collected the opinions of the fathers into one volume. The differences he had hoped to reconcile be but succeeded, from their proximity, in making more apparent) theology, which mingled faith and works in the justification of the sinner, was in repute. This had its day, and was succeeded in about a hundred years after by the scholastic theology. The school men discarded faith, and gave works alone a place in the important matter of justification. On the ruins of the scholastic divinity flourished the monastic theology. This system extolled papal indulgences, adoration of images, prayers to saints, and works of super recognition; and on these grounds rested the sinner's justification. The Reformation came, and a modified theology next became fashionable, in which the grosser errors were abandoned to suit the newly risen light.
"But now all these systems have given place to the theology of the Jesuits, whose system differs in several important points from all that went before it. On the head of justification the Jesuitical theology teaches that habitual righteousness is an infused grace, but that actual righteousness consists in the merit of good works. Here are five theologies which have successively been in vogue in the Church of Rome. Which of these five systems is the orthodox one? Or are they all orthodox?
"But not only do we desiderate unity between the successive ages of the Roman Church; we desiderate unity among her contemporary doctors and councils. They have differed on questions of ceremonies, on questions of morals, and they have differed not less on the questions of the supremacy and infallibility. Contrariety of opinion has been the rule; agreement the exception. Council has contended with council; pope has excommunicated pope; Dominican has warred with Franciscan; and the Jesuits have carried on ceaseless and furious battles with the Benedictines and other orders. What, indeed, are these various orders, but ingenious contrivances to allay heats and divisions which Rome could not heal, and to allow of differences of opinion which she could neither prevent nor remove? What one infallible bull has upheld as sound doctrine, another infallible bull has branded as heresy. Europe has been edified with the spectacle of two rival vicars of Christ playing at football with the spiritual thunder; and what we find one holy Father, Nicholas, commending as an assembly of men filled with the Holy Ghost, namely, the Council of Basil, we find another holy father, Eugenius, depicting as 'madmen, barbarians, wild beasts, heretics, miscreants, monsters, and a pandemonium.!" Elliott's 'Delineation of Romanism,' p. 463. But there is no end of the illustrations of papal unity. The wars of the Romanists have filled history and shaken the world. The loud and discordant clatter which rose of old around Babel is but a faint type of the interminable din and furious strife which at all times have raged within the modern Babel, the Church of Rome.
"Such is the unity which the Romish Church so often and so tauntingly contrasts with what she is pleased to term 'Protestant disunion.' As a corporation, having its head at Rome, and stretching its limbs to the extremities of the earth, she is of gigantic bulk and imposing appearance. But, closely examined, she is seen to be an assemblage of heterogeneous materials, held together simply by the compression of force. It is a coercive power from without, not an attractive influence from within, that gives her being and form. The appearance of union and compactness which she puts on at a distance is altogether owing to her organization, which is of the most perfect kind, and of the most despotic character, and not to any spiritual and vivifying principle, whose influence, descending from the head, moves the members, and results in harmony of feeling, unanimity of mind, and unity of action.
It is combination, not incorporation; union, not unity, that characterizes the Church of Rome. It is the unity of dead matter, not the unity of a living body, whose several members, though performing various functions, obey one will and form one whole. It is not the spiritual and living unity promised to the Church of God, which preserves the liberty of all, at the same time that it makes all ONE: it is a unity that degrades the understanding, supersedes rational inquiry, and annihilates private judgment. It leaves no room for conviction, and therefore no room for faith. It is a unity that extorts from all submission to one infallible head, that compels all to a participation in one monstrous and idolatrous rite, and that enchains the intellect of all to a farrago of contradictory, absurd, and blasphemous opinions. This is the unity of Rome. Men must be free agents before it can be shown that they are voluntary agents.
In like manner, the members of the Church must have liberty to differ before it can be shown that they really are agreed. But Rome denies her people this liberty, and thus renders it impossible that it can ever be shown that they are united. She resolves all into absolute authority, which in no case may either be questioned or opposed. Dr. Milner, after striving hard, in one of his letters [End of Controversy, let. xvi.], to show that all Catholics are agreed as regards the 'fundamental articles of Christianity,' is forced to conclude with the admission, that they are only so far agreed as that they all implicitly submit to the infallible teaching of the Church. 'At all events,' says he, 'the Catholics, if properly interrogated, will confess their belief in one comprehensive article, namely this, 'I believe what ever the Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches.' So, then, this renowned champion of Roman Catholicism, forced to abandon all other positions as untenable, comes at last to rest the argument in behalf of his Church's unity upon this, even the unreasoning and unquestioning submission of the conscience to the teaching of the Church.
In point of fact this 'one comprehensive article' sums up the entire creed of the Papist: the Church inquires for him, thinks for him, reasons for him, and believes for him; or, as it was expressed by a plain-speaking Hibernian, who, making his last speech and dying confession at the place of execution, and resolved not to expose himself to purgatory for want of not believing enough, declared, 'that he was a Roman Catholic and died in the communion of that Church, and believed as the Catholic Church ever did believe, now does believe, or ever shall believe.' Put out the eyes of, men, and there will be only one opinion about color; extinguish the understandings of men, and there will be but one opinion regarding religion. This is what Rome does. With her rod of infallibility she touches the intellect and the conscience, and benumbs them into torpor. There comes thus to reign within her pale a deep stillness, broken at times by ridiculous disputes, furious quarrels, and serious differences, on points termed fundamental, which remain unsettled
from age to age, the famous question, for instance, touching the seat of infallibility; and this profound quiescence, so like the repose of the tomb, accomplished by the waving of her mystic rod, she calls unity.". - The Papacy, by J.A. Wylie, pp. 194-198.
The Answer to the Problem
The answer to the distressing problem of divergence of belief on the part of those who hold to the Bible as their one guide, is not to surrender their minds to the Catholic Church, but to pray the more earnestly for divine enlightenment by the Spirit of God, "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Eph. 4:13. Quite evidently in Paul's day there were some divergences, or else there would have been no point to the statement about coming into "the unity of the faith."
Of course, it must not be forgotten that one of the handicaps that belong to the Protestant position is that a man who for some selfish or stubborn reason desires to hold to some diverse view, can do so on the declaration that he sees the matter thus and so, even though his mind may have been clearly convinced to the contrary by the Scriptural evidence and God's Spirit. The Protestant view sets up no tribunal to judge the hearts of men, no confessional to probe the innermost thoughts of the soul, and thus a man's hypocrisy cannot be uncloaked. Yet the differences of view that grow out of such a situation as this, and doubtless there are numbers of them, when we remember the willfulness of the human heart, provide no proper indictment of the Reformers' principle of private judgment in relation to the Bible. God alone can reveal hypocrisy, and we must await the day of judgment for that.
Cannot Accept Catholic Conclusion
We cannot agree with the conclusion of the Pilot editorial: "The day draws nearer when the simplest of minds must perceive that their choice lies between her [the Catholic Church] or nothing." The choice is not that of the Catholic Church or nothing. Rome offers us the Bible plus tradition, with tradition taking precedence over the Bible, and with both interpreted by the Catholic Church. Historic Protestantism offers us the Bible alone, and as interpreted to our hearts by the Spirit of God, who will guide the believer "into all truth." John 16:13.
The question is really three sided, for there are not only the Catholic and Protestant views, but also that of a large number today who have discarded both the Bible and tradition, who have faith neither in the Catholic Church's interpretation nor in the supernatural operation of the Spirit of God on the human heart and mind. This third group, known loosely as Modernists, or Liberals, offer the Bible plus scientific works, with the latter given precedence over the former, and with both interpreted by human reason. The presence of this third group today makes the religious problem much more complex than formerly, when the question was simply one between the Catholic Church and historic Protestantism. There is a new need for those who stand on the platform of the Bible and the Bible only, to provide strong reasons for their stand. They are beset today, not alone by their traditional opponent, Rome, but by a new and even more subtle one, Modernism.
Footnotes
1 This and other non-Biblical quotations in this series of proofs that the Sabbath command is a moral one are taken from the pamphlet "The Morality of the Sabbath", written in 1875 by none other than D. M. Canright. His later defection from the Seventh-day Adventist Church no more invalidates these proofs than does the defection of a minister from the Christian religion invalidate the reasons he formerly presented in behalf of Christianity. Rather, they stand as an indictment of the man's defection.
2 See objection 38 for a discussion of this point. See also objections 26 and 27 for a discussion of other aspects of the claim that the Sabbath is ceremonial.
3 At the time this was written the Seventh-day Adventist headquarters were in Battle Creek, Michigan.
4 'Began should read "ended." See correction of this typographical error by Dr. Robertson in The Expositor, October, 1931.
5 Published in 1944 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C. For book reviews which contain the admission of scholarly reviewers that the charges against the Millerites have been clearly refuted, me Appendix F, page 36.
6 For extended discussion of this matter see the author's Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 161-252, and 598-615.
7 The agreement in meaning between olam and aion is revealed in two ways:
1. The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, always translates "olam"
by "aion". (See Greek and English Lexicon, by Edward Robinson, under the word aion)
2. The New Testament writers, in quoting an Old Testament passage, or using an Old Testament phrase where olam is used, translate it by aion, or by the adjectival form, aionios. Note the following quotations:
Hebrews 1:8, "for ever and ever [aion]," quoting Psalm 45:6, "for ever, and ever [olam]. Hebrews 5:6, 6:20; 7:17-21 "forever" quoting, Psalms 110:4, 'for ever [olam]."
1 Peter 1:25 "for ever [aion] quoting Isaiah 40:8, "for ever [olam]."
Hebrews 13:20 "everlasting [aionios]" as in Genesis 17:19, "everlasting [olam]."
2 Peter 1:1, "everlasting" [aionios] as Psalms 145:13, "everlasting [olam]."
8 The only place in the Bible where fire or torment is coupled with hades is in Luke 16:23. This is in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which we have already examined. It is an accepted rule in theology that doctrines should not be based upon parables. It is even ore questionable to attempt to discover the real meaning of a word by the setting in which it is placed in a parable or allegory.
9 ????
10 The reader is referred to pages 502 and 503 for a statement as to the importance of the Irish Articles and the Westminster Confession and the relation of one to the other.
11 The creeds quoted are those given in the classic work The Creeds of Christendom, by the eminent church historian, Philip Schaff. All quoted comments on them creed, are likewise from this work by Schaff.
12 The following discussion of the first four points originally appeared as an extra of The Ministry, September, 1944, which was printed by the action of the General Conference Committee.
13 Many other decorations for valor and for outstanding service were given to Seventh day Adventists non combatants youth in the armed services during the war.
14 In the first part of this sketch, historical data will he repeatedly drawn from a remarkable work entitled The Idea of Progress, by J. B. Bury, late religious professor of history in the University of Cambridge.
15 He wrote before the gathering clouds of World War II could be seen. A new view of man's future is developing, as will be seen in the next chapter.
16 Those who wish to pursue further the subject of authoritative Modernist admissions are referred to an impressive, two-volume work by Reinhold Niebuhr entitled The Nature and Destiny of Man, published in 1943 by Charles Scribner's Son. As the preface states, this work represents two series of Gifford Lectures given at the University of Edinburgh under the general title of "The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation." Probably no other present- day work has more fully or more critically examined the whole subject of man in relation to modern culture and in relation to the rosy theories of human nature that have distinguished our day.
17 This article appeared first in a Millerite paper The Second Advent of Christ, published at Cleveland, Ohio, of which Fitch was the editor. The date of the issue is July 26, 1943. The article is lengthy occupying all of the first page, and the immediately succeeding pages. Underneath the title is the display line: "A Sermon, by C. Fitch." However this may simply mean a printed sermon, or an article in sermon form. The references to the doctrine "Come Out of Her my People" as found in Millerite literature in the summer of 1843, are in terms of Fitch's article rather than of sermons that he had been preaching. The quotations in the following paragraphs are from this original article. The article was reprinted in other Millerite papers and also in leaflet form.
18 Brevity demands that much of the repetitive matter in these quotations be eliminated. No attempt can be made to give the full argument for any of the views held regarding Azazel. Sufficient, however, is quoted to reveal the main reasons for the principal views. The argument based on the alleged parallel between the two goats and the dual offering for a leprous person has been omitted because already been noted.
19 The word bottomless pit is from the Greek word abussos. This is the word use in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) in the sentence which describes the chaotic state of the earth at the beginning of creation week: "Darkness was upon the face of the deep [abussos.]" Gen. 1:2. The abussos into which the devil is cast-the earth which has again returned to a lifeless, barren state as a result of the Second Advent. This may be very properly be typified by the wilderness destination of the goat.
20 The chief presbyters or bishops of all the churches in the early years of Christianity were called papa. [English Pope]. Later all heads of monasteries also were called papa. Still later the term was claimed as the exclusive property of the bishop of Rome.
21 I wish to acknowledge my great indebtedness to the late Dr. Moses Hyarmon LLD who at the time I interviewed him, was professor of codes at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York. Rabbi Hyarnson gave to me more than a whole day of his valuable time in explanation of the various customs of ancient Israelites and in elucidation of Scriptural passages theory. He was regarded not only by his orthodox associates but also by reformed rabbis as one of the most learned of Hebrew scholars.
22 "The week is a period of seven days, having no reference whatever to the celestial motions, circumstance to which it owes its unalterable uniformity. ... It has been employed from time immemorial in almost all Eastern countries; and as it forms neither an aliquot part of the year nor the lunar month, those who reject the Mosaic recital will be at a loss, as Delambre remarks. To assign it to an origin having much semblance of probability." - Article "Calendar," vol. 4 (11th Edition), page 988.