p. 116 | FAITH OF JESUS by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 1, 1860

FAITH OF JESUS.

By Editor

IN another column will be found a reply to our remarks on this subject in the REVIEW of Feb. 2d. We are glad the writer appreciates the feelings of kindness with which those lines were penned, and which it is our purpose ever to maintain as well in the unpleasant arena of controversy, as under more favorable circumstances. We cheerfully accord to our Seventh-day Baptist friends space to correct whatever they regard as misrepresentations; and whatever portion of our remarks places them in a wrong light, we cheerfully withdraw, while on those points wherein we rightly judged that a difference does exist, and wherein they endeavor to maintain the correctness of their position, it will devolve upon us here to say a word in defense of our own. We are glad to see an avowal on their part of a belief in the personal coming of the Saviour in the clouds of heaven, the resurrection of the dead and a general judgment; but we should hear this avowal with greater pleasure did we not know that our friends who make it are still cherishing in their bosoms a belief which saps the vitality of these doctrines, destroys their practicability, and renders them but little better than effete and withered items of their creed: we refer of course to the doctrine of the consciousness of the dead.

We could wish that the writer had been a little more explicit on some points: thus, he does not tell us in regard the coming of the Lord, whether they believe it to be near at hand, or whether with the great majority of professors of religion, they are expecting a thousand years wherein peace and safety shall smile upon the converted world prior to that event. The coming of the Lord under the first aspect, and the same coming under the second, could hardly be called the same doctrine, though there should be no difference of opinion in regard to the nature and manner of the event.

The Seventh-day Baptists we are told, have not fixed upon any time for the Lord to come. In that respect there is no difference between us and them: we have no time fixed upon for the Lord to come. And we wish it distinctly understood, that we have no connection with those who have been of late years continually setting times for that event. We have set no time since 1844; and the nature of the mistake we then made is now clearly understood. Of this there is no occasion for an explanation here. But the Seventh-day Baptists do not concur with us in our eccentric views of the signs in the sun, moon and stars. "They do not agree in remembering when the literal sun has been darkened," &c. Happily this event is not left to the memory of any one. The testimony of history abundantly assures us that on the 19th of May, 1780, the sun was supernaturally darkened, and the moon the following night: an event which aroused an expectation in many minds that the day of Judgment was at hand. But the question may be asked, Have there not been many such phenomena, and how then can any importance be attached to this? We answer, There may have been; but it matters not if there have; the Saviour locates this beyond the possibility of mistake. See Mark xiii, 24. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. Those days refer to the time of the papal persecution, commencing in 538 and ending in 1798. Now mark the accuracy of the Saviour's prediction; in those days, after the tribulation. The persecuting power of the papacy was restrained by the reformation before the end of the days. And between that time and 1798, the sun was darkened, as the Saviour foretold. Will any one deny that this was one of the signs which he said should take place as the forerunner of his advent? "And the stars shall fall from heaven." The memory of thousands will agree upon the 13th of November, 1835, as the time when this phenomenon occurred. Not that the literal stars fell, or that the prophecy contemplated any such event; for it would be impossible for the stars, being larger bodies than our earth, to fall to the earth; but there was a shower of meteors which had every appearance of falling stars, over no inconsiderable portion of the earth's surface; and eye-witnesses were compelled to go back for a description of the event to the language in which it was foretold almost eighteen hundred years before. See Rev. vi, 13.

But the greatest portion of our friend's effort seems to be against our declaration that the only hope Christ ever held out to his disciples of being with him was through the medium of his personal return. To disprove this, the case of the rich man and Lazarus, the thief on the cross, Rev. xiv, 13, and Phil. i, 23, are brought forward. In regard to the rich man and Lazarus, that is evidently a parable; and being such it cannot be relied on to prove a doctrine. On the use of metaphorical language in proof of any doctrine, Dr. Clarke thus speaks: "Let it be remembered that by the consent of all except the basely interested, no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls." We may therefore dismiss this parable from the controversy, since not being literal, whatever doctrine it may be designed to illustrate, must be sustained by other and positive scriptures. It was doubtless designed as a rebuke upon the Jews for their hardness of heart and unbelief: the grand conclusion arrived at being, "If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, they would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

The thief on the cross is referred to with the remark, "This is certainly a promise of being with Christ not through the medium of his personal coming." We think not. The promise was that he should be with him that very day, or else it brings to view no definite and appointed time when this should take place. But the Saviour could not mean that the thief should be with him that very day, for three days afterwards he said that he had not yet ascended to his Father, or in other words, had not yet been to Paradise. See John xx, 17; 2 Cor. xii, 2, 4; Rev. ii, 7; xxii, 1, 2. Since therefore the promise has reference to the future, it does not by any means follow that the only hope of the thief of being with Christ was not through the medium of his personal return; especially when the hope of a future life is elsewhere so often and so expressly made to hang upon that event.

As to Rev. xiv, 13, we cannot admit that the expression, "from henceforth," has reference to the time of the person's death; for where would be the propriety of making the declaration at that particular time, when all who had died in the Lord at any previous time, were equally blest? There would be none. And again, the phrase, from henceforth, does not modify the word, blessed, but the word die. It is not, blessed are they from henceforth, but blessed are they who die from henceforth: and to make from henceforth signify the time of their death, and to say that blessed are they who from the time of their death die in the Lord, is making sad nonsense of the sacred text. Let it be noticed that in this case a particular time is reached in a chain of prophecy, and from henceforth, that is from the time these special events take place, a blessing is pronounced upon those who die in the Lord. But again, the term blessed does not necessarily imply conscious happiness; for it is applied to inanimate objects. Gen. ii, 3; Matt. xiii, 16; Titus ii, 13.

Phil. i, 23, is referred to show that at death a person departs to be with Christ. There seems to be a contradiction here in our friend's own theory; for a few lines further on he says, "From the above it may be seen that the Seventh-day Baptists do not sympathise with such as hold . . . that man at death goes to his final reward." But if he goes to be with Christ, who is at the right hand of the majesty on high, where the Psalmist says there is fullness of joy, and pleasures forevermore, what more could be asked? what greater reward could be bestowed? But Paul does not necessarily locate the being with Christ at the time of death. He had a desire to depart, and, as the next event upon which his mind would naturally rest, to be with Christ. When we go to be with Christ he many times tells us in other places. It is when we experience the redemption of our bodies [Rom. viii, 23]; it is when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality, at the last trump [1 Cor. xv, 51-54]; it is when we are clothed upon with our house from heaven, the immortal spiritual body, or when mortality is swallowed up of life. 2 Cor. v, 1-4. Between the departing and being with Christ, in Phil. i, 23, we must necessarily suppose a space of time to make it harmonize with Paul's other writings.

But most of all we are not told in the article under review how the doctrine of the consciousness of the dead can be made compatible with the doctrine of a future judgment and the resurrection of the body. The point we made on this in our previous article, we are sorry to see passed by in silence. It does not help the matter at all to say that they do not enter upon their final reward at death; for if they have a foresight of their final reward as is claimed by remarks on the rich man and Lazarus, decision must have been passed on their characters just as much as though they were receiving their real happiness or punishment. And then we ask again, What need is there of a judgment to come? and what necessity is there of a resurrection of the body? and on what ground can these doctrines be defended? And again we say, as in our former remarks, let this point be carefully considered: there is an incongruity here, which we are sure it will cause our brethren of the opposite belief, infinite trouble to harmonize with their present views.

But Paul will not admit for a moment into his religious belief the idea that there is consciousness in death or any future life, without the resurrection. On this event he makes everything depend; and he does it in the following strong and emphatic language: "If the dead rise not, then they that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." Thus the only avenue to a future life which Paul points out to us, is through the resurrection: there is no conscious existence between death and that event. If the dead are not raised, then they that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

A few texts to show that the coming of the Lord is the great hope held out to the people of God, and we close. John xiv, 1, was referred to in our first article: we call attention to it again. I go away to prepare a place for you, says Christ, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also. Would any disciple gather from this language, that he would be with his Lord before his return to receive them to himself? No one. The declaration is express, that the very object of his coming is that they may be with him.

Again, in Luke xiv, 12-14, Christ instructed the Pharisee, with whom he reclined at meat, when he made a feast, to call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, for they could not recompense him; but, he told him, he should be recompensed, not at death, but at the resurrection of the just. In 1 Thess. iv, 16, 17, we are told that the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. So, not by consciousness in death, but by the coming of the Lord, and by our being caught up to meet him in the air. Again, in 2 Thess. i, 6, 7, we are told that the Lord shall recompense rest to his people, not in death, not before his return, but "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." Again, the aged apostle Paul writes to his son Timothy concerning receiving the crown of righteousness; and surely if any one would be entitled to receive his crown when he laid down his armor on the field of battle it would be the illustrious apostle to the Gentiles. But hear what he says, "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course, I have kept the faith." Yes, he was about to lay down his life for Jesus; and does he say that he shall then receive his crown of life? No; but he adds, "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness." We understand then that notwithstanding he should lie down in death, he was not prepared yet to receive the crown: it must still be "laid up" for him. How long laid up? Let him inform us: "Which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." Thus all is made to hang upon

the appearing of Jesus, and the bestowal of the reward is deferred till that time shall come.

Peter bears testimony to the same effect. When he would encourage the shepherds to take proper charge of the church of God, he points them forward to their reward in these words: "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear [not before] ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Pet. v, 4. Paul again tells us that this is the time when we are to be with the Lord. Col. iii, 4. When he who is our Life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

We forbear quoting further, having brought forward sufficient, as we think, to show conclusively that the hope of the church in being gathered together unto their Lord, hinges wholly upon his return and the resurrection of the dead.