Earlier text: THE RESURRECTIONA WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE.
By W.
"After Eight Days," Pentecost, and Troas.
THE next "weighty utterance" that we find is the following:— "We have no account of their meeting again until a week later, after eight days according to the Jewish reckoning. No meeting is mentioned on the old Jewish seventh day; but on the first day of the next week, their second Lord's day, they met again and Thomas was with them, and again he said, 'Peace be unto you.'" We never before heard that Thomas said to the disciples, "Peace be unto you," and perhaps Dr. Bailey did not mean to say so; but if he had positively declared that it was Thomas instead of the Lord that said, "Peace be unto you," he would have been no further out of the way than he is in saying that the second time Jesus met with the disciples was on the first day of the week. The assurance with which he says, "We have no account of their meeting again until a week later," would lead a novice to suppose that John plainly states that it was just one week later, and that the "after eight days," which the Doctor repeats in an "aside," is simply his own explanation of the Bible term. What John really says is this: "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you." John 20:26. Dr. Bailey tells us that "after eight days" is the Jewish expression for one week. It would have been more satisfactory to the inquiring reader if he had given a few examples of such use of the expression, in proof of his statement. Since he did not, we will quote a few instances of similar expressions, which will plainly show that "after eight days" does not mean just one week. In Hosea 6:2 we read: "After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." If "after eight days" means just seven days, then "after two days" ought to mean just one day, and the prophet should have said, To-morrow he will raise us up. But the prophet evidently said just what he meant, namely, that after two days is the third day. This is the Jewish as well as the common-sense mode of reckoning, and according to it "after eight days" would be the ninth day. Therefore if we begin our count with the day on which they first met, the earliest that we can place this second meeting would be the next Monday evening. But some one will say that the Jews were not always exact in their reckoning of time. Very true, and we will give an instance of this inexactness. In his account of the transfiguration, Mark says: "And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves." Mark 9:2. Luke, in relating the same event, says: "And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter88 and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray." Luke 9:28. From these two accounts we find that "after six days" may mean "about an eight days after;" therefore if it is claimed that John did not mean to express the exact time, we must admit that "after eight days" means at least about ten days after, and this would bring the meeting to the middle of the next week. But by no possible conclusion can the meeting recorded in John 20:26 be placed earlier in the week than Monday evening. How, then, must we regard the statement which the Doctor makes immediately following, that this meeting is "specifically mentioned as on the first day of the week." We are unwilling to believe that he would willfully tell an untruth in order to deceive those who might be ignorant of the exact wording of the text, and we are therefore obliged to suppose that when he wrote his article he did not look at the Bible, but simply quoted from a too treacherous memory. Whichever way it is, it shows the desperate straits in which a man is placed when he attempts to maintain Sunday sacredness. Let us now look at the text itself a moment, and see how simple the narrative is. Remember that we have already shown that the disciples had one common dwelling-place at this time. On the evening of the resurrection, Jesus had come into the room while they were eating supper, to convince them that he had actually risen. For some cause not stated, Thomas was not in when Jesus came. Although they all lived at one place, it is not to be supposed that they never stirred from the house. But after eight days (whether nine or ten or more, there is no means of knowing) they were all "within." And then Jesus appeared to them again. Whether they were eating supper at this time or not is not stated. But knowing the facts as they are stated, how foolish seems the following question: "What higher sanction could Jesus give to this meeting for worship on the first day of the week, this change from the seventh day to the Lord's day?" The Doctor's method of argument seems to be something like this: Assume that certain things were done at a certain time; if this assumption happens to be contrary to the Scripture, then change the assumption into an emphatic declaration, so as to make people think it must be so, even though the Bible says it is not; and then from these erroneous assumptions and declarations draw a conclusion with such an air of confidence that people will think that it must be so. The next "argument" is the following:—
"We have no account of the disciples meeting for worship on any seventh-day Sabbath from the resurrection of Christ to the day of Pentecost, which was also on the first day of the week." Inasmuch as the day of the week on which Pentecost came that year is not-mentioned, it seems rather a lame thing from which to build an argument for Sunday sacredness. It is about equal to the argument on John 20:26. If the pouring out of the Spirit upon the disciples upon the day of Pentecost were intended as a sanction for Sunday observance, it certainly would not be too much to expect that something should have been said about Sunday. On the contrary, however, no hint is given as to the day of the week, and some of the ablest commentators do not pretend to know what day it was, one among whom is Dr. Hackett, a Baptist commentator; he holds that Pentecost came that year on the seventh day of the week, while there are some who hold that it fell on Monday. This shows that they are of the same opinion as Dr. Barnes, who says that it is a matter of no importance what day of the week it was. And that is exactly true. If there were any significance as to the day of the week, the day would certainly have been mentioned. We could easily show from the Scriptures that that Pentecost was on the seventh day of the week, but we shall not take the time, because it would not add a particle of strength to the Sabbath argument. Even if it were plainly stated that that wonderful outpouring of the Spirit was on the seventh day of the week, we should not think of quoting that as an argument in favor of the Sabbath. At the close of creation God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, and no subsequent act could add to the sacredness there put upon it. And here we will say that even if the statements which Dr. Bailey has made concerning meetings for worship on the first day of the week were true, they lack the essential element to make them of any force in favor of the Sunday; namely, a Bible statement that any sacredness was ever imparted to Sunday. If the mere being together on a certain day were proof of the sacredness of that day, then we would have, according to John 20:26, either Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday as a sacred day, for it was on one of these days, we do not know which, that Jesus met with his disciples the week after the resurrection. The day of the ascension of Christ, forty days after his resurrection (see Acts 1:3), was on Thursday, and on that day the disciples all met together with Jesus, and he blessed them, and they worshiped him. See Luke 24:50-52. If Dr. Bailey has any confidence in his method of argument, he ought to keep Thursday. The fact that he does not keep Thursday as sacred, even though Jesus met with and blessed his disciples on that day, shows that he does not really believe that Christ's meeting with and blessing his disciples on the evening of the resurrection imparted any sacredness to that day. Yet that is all the argument he has in favor of Sunday. So far as the Bible is concerned, there is just as much authority for keeping Thursday as there is for keeping Sunday. The Doctor continues:— "Was this new order of sabbaths or meetings on the first day of the week kept up by the apostles and by the churches which they established under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? They bade the churches 'not to forsake the assembling of themselves together.' On what day did they meet to break bread, and worship? When Paul was at Troas, where a Christian church had been previously formed, we are told in Acts 20:7: 'And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, and continued his speech until midnight.' Here again is specifically recorded their customs of assembling on the first day of the week, led by an inspired apostle. Were they right or wrong in this?" Notice how adroitly everything is turned in behalf of the Sunday. The apostle says to the Hebrews: "Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together;" and behold, it is quoted as an argument for Sunday! Because he tells the disciples to meet together for exhortation, it is taken for granted that he must mean for them to meet on Sunday. We are a little surprised that the Doctor did not say that we are here specifically commanded to meet on the first day of the week. We have heard Hebrews 10:25 quoted thus: "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together on the first day of the week." Dr. Bailey here neglected a rare opportunity to make another "weighty utterance" in behalf of Sunday. But now what about this meeting at Troas? The apostle and his companions had been with the church there an entire week. Acts 20:6. If anyone thinks that Paul spent seven days with the church in Troas, and did not hold a meeting until just before he started away, he has read the life of Paul to little purpose. If Paul did not hold a meeting every day he was there, he did differently from his ordinary custom. See Acts 19:8-10. We have, however, the record of only one meeting with the church at Troas, and when did that take place? The record says, "On the first day of the week." But on what part of the first day of the week was it? It was in the night, because they had "many lights," and it is plainly stated that the meeting lasted all night. But according to Scripture reckoning, the day begins and ends at sunset. See John 1:5, 8, 13, etc.; Deut. 16:6; Lev. 23:32. The first day of the week, then, begins at sunset Saturday evening, and ends at sunset of the following evening. Therefore a night meeting on the first day of the week must be held on Saturday evening, and that is just when the meeting was held which is recorded in Acts 20:7-11. Then having held this meeting in the night of the first day of the week, what did Paul do in the day-time? Luke tells that he departed when it was light, and traveled on foot to Assos. That this is the view that must necessarily be taken even by Sunday-keepers, when they are not specially set to uphold that institution at all hazards, will be seen by the following extract from Conybeare and Howson's "Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul.":— "The labors of the early days of the week that was spent at Troas are not related to us, but concerning the last day we have a narrative which enters into details with all the minuteness of one of the gospel histories. It was the evening which succeeded the Jewish Sabbath. On Sunday morning the vessel was about to sail. The Christians of Troas were gathered together at this solemn time to celebrate that feast of love which the last commandment of Christ has enjoined on all his followers."—Chap. 20, par. 9. After describing the meeting, the departure of the ship with Paul's companions, and Paul's departure on foot, the same writers say:— "Strength and peace were surely sought and obtained by the apostle from the Redeemer as he pursued his lonely road that Sunday afternoon in spring among the oak woods and the streams of Ida."—Par. 11. So much for Paul's sanction for Sunday worship. Perhaps, however, some may insist that the meeting was held in the night following Sunday, and that Paul's journey was on Monday; then according to their assumption that Paul tarried there a week in order to be with them at their regular time of meeting, they must necessarily claim that he passed over the whole of the first day of the week without having any meeting, and did not meet with them until the setting of the sun and the gathering darkness showed that the first day had passed. Whichever way they fix it, the record of this meeting gives no aid or comfort to the advocates of Sunday observance. Now one word about apostolic example, for that is the stronghold of Sunday advocates. If apostolic example has to be followed at all, it must be followed closely. It will not do to discriminate and say that we must follow certain apostolic practices, but may neglect others. Therefore our friends who are such sticklers for apostolic example, must hold their meetings in the dark part of the first day of the week, and never in the day-time on Sunday, for the entire Bible contains no account of a religious meeting on Sunday in the day-time. And the meeting at Troas is the only recorded instance of a meeting on the first day of the week, even in the night. W. THE WEEK OF PRAYER.
By C. P. Bollman
The Christian at Work objects to Dr. Pentecost's proposition to abolish the Week of Prayer, and proposes instead that it be given "a proper setting, by postponing it to the Lenten season." "As at present instituted," says that paper, "the Week of Prayer comes right in the time of the world's season of festivities, which it not only antagonizes, but from which it suffers." That should of course settle the matter at once; if any religious service "antagonizes" the "world's season of festivities" it should be promptly postponed, if not indefinitely, at least to such time as will clearly not interfere in the least with the festivities. But then it is just a little difficult to see why the "world's season of festivities" should have anything to do with the church's season of prayer. Unless, indeed, it be true that contrary to the primitive order of things, the church and the world have become one; only, like a man holding two offices, acting in different capacities at different seasons—during the holidays, seeking pleasure; during Lent, attending to the duties of religion. It would seem that this is just what the Christian at Work means, for it says (saving the italics): "Five-sixths of the world of Christians devote a specific time to prayer and abstinence. It might be well if the other sixth would so far go over to the majority as to place its specified Week of Prayer at a time when the fashionable and religious world equally pause from their festivities." Think of it! five-sixths of professed Christians so wedded to this world that they cannot give up its pleasures to engage in a Week of Prayer, unless it be at a season when "fashion" has decreed that the religious is the proper thing to do! Yes, by all means let the one-sixth get into harmony with the "fashionable world"! and let all special religious services come at seasons when they will not interfere in the least with worldly festivities. But, let all remember that "if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." 1 John 2:15-17. "Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." It is becoming quite fashionable for society folks to be very religious during Lent, and if the Week of Prayer could only come within that season a great many people could be doubly pious for a few days without any special inconvenience; and it is presumably for this reason that the Christian at Work expresses the hope that "neither the bugaboo of the 'church year,' 'Episcopacy,' nor 'Rome,' will delay the perfecting of this much needed adjustment." WHERE ARE THE PROTESTANTS?
By Editor
ONE of the most noticeable, most humiliating, and at the same time, from the interests and destinies involved, most important movements of the present day, is the fast-growing alliance between Catholicism and so-called Protestantism. It is hardly correct though to call it an alliance, for in fact it is scarcely more than an out-and-out surrender of the "Protestants" to the Catholic Church, for the advances are all on the part of the "Protestants." Protestantism, which in name does, and in fact ought to, represent open and direct antagonism to Catholicism, now, in doctrine, in work, and in methods of work, represents close relationship with Catholicism. In short, that which is called Protestantism is now such only in name, and has actually ceased to be Protestant in anything where Catholicism is concerned. We have mentioned this before, in these columns, but as the evil work goes on we shall have to mention it more and more. Because such movement, or any movement that tends to increase the power of Catholicism, can be fraught with evil only. The Papacy knows no change of heart. Its outward form it may and often does change, so that it may the better accomplish its evil and oppressive designs upon men and nations. It is true that now there is a close resemblance between Catholicism and Protestantism, but it is not because Catholicism has grown better, but because Protestantism has grown worse. "As the Protestant churches have been seeking the favor of the world, false charity has blinded their eyes. They do not see but that it is right to believe good of all evil; and as the inevitable result, they will finally believe evil of all good. Instead of standing in defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, they are now, as it were, apologizing to Rome for their uncharitable opinion of her, begging pardon for their bigotry." "A day of great intellectual darkness has been shown to be favorable to the success of Popery. It will yet be demonstrated that a day of great intellectual light is equally favorable for its success. In the movements now in progress in this country to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the State, Protestants are following in the footsteps of the Papists. Nay, more, they are opening the door for Popery to regain in Protestant America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World. And that which gives greater significance to this movement is the fact that the principal object contemplated is the enforcement of Sunday observance." An important item on this subject we find in the Christian Statesman, Jan. 13, 1887, copied from an article by the late Dr. A. A. Hodge, in the Princeton Review. Dr. Hodge was one of the vice-presidents of the National Reform Association, and was zealously devoted to the objects sought by that Association. Dr. Hodge was writing on the subject of teaching religion in the public schools, really insisting that the State shall teach religion, and said:—89 "It is greatly to be regretted that this tremendous question has been obscured and belittled by being identified with the entirely subordinate matter of reading short portions of the King James's version of the Bible in the public schools. Another principal occasion of confusion on this subject, is the unavoidable mutual prejudice and misunderstanding that prevails between the two great divisions of our Christian population, the Romanist and the Protestant. The protest against the reading of the Protestant version of Scripture came in the first instance from the Romanists. Hence, in the triangular conflict which ensued, between Protestants, Romanists, and infidels, many intelligent Christians, on both sides, mistook the stress of battle. Every intelligent Catholic ought to know by this time that all the evangelical churches are fundamentally at one with him in essential Christian doctrine. And every intelligent Protestant ought to know by this time, in the light of the terrible socialistic revolutions which are threatened, that the danger to our country in this age is infinitely more from skepticism than from superstition. We have, Protestant and Romanist alike, a common essential Christianity, abundantly sufficient for the purposes of the public schools, and all that remains for specific indoctrination may easily be left to the Sabbath-schools and the churches respectively. We are in the same sense Christian theists. We believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in his fatherly providence and love. We believe in the same divine human Saviour, and place alike all our hope of salvation on his office and work as Mediator. We believe in the infallibility and authority of the inspired word of God, and we nearly approximate agreement on all questions touching the Sabbath, the oath, the rights of property, marriage, and divorce, etc., and with regard to the religious elements of science, physical and moral, and on all questions in which the State, or the schools of the State, have jurisdiction. Let us mutually agree, as citizens, not as ecclesiastics, upon a large, fair, common basis of religious faith, for the common needs of the State and her schools, leaving all differences to the churches, and, thus united, we will carry the country before us." Think of it: "Every intelligent Catholic ought to know by this time that all evangelical churches are fundamentally at one with him in essential Christian doctrine"! So then to be "at one" with the Catholic Church is an evidence that you are "evangelical." And thus "evangelical" Protestantism is one with Catholicism. And Rev. A. A. Hodge, D. D., was one of the foremost men in the Presbyterian Church in the United States. The Statesman remarked upon this extract:— "We have yet to hear, however, the first utterance from any recognized Roman Catholic authority, of like spirit with the above." So have we. Nor do we expect to see any such utterance. What need is there of it? As the Protestants are all going to Rome, all that Roman Catholic authorities need to do is to wait. Not so, however, with the Protestants. They don't propose to stand on ceremony. They want help, and they don't hesitate to go to Rome to get it. The country is in danger from these "terrible socialistic revolutions," and so to save themselves and the country from the dangers of Socialism, they propose to give all into the cruel hands of Rome. We have not the least doubt that they will really unite and that before long, and when "thus united" they "will indeed carry the country before" them. But, farewell liberty when that time comes. If there be any people in this country who think themselves Protestants, it is high time for them to examine themselves and see whether they really are such or not. In the new charter that is being prepared for San Francisco, to be voted upon at the next election, it is proposed to exact a license from Spiritualist mediums, just the same as from fortune-tellers, jugglers, etc. Commenting on this, the Golden Gate says:— "Ministers of other religions preach the continued existence of the spirit of man beyond the grave without producing an iota of positive proof thereof. Spirit mediums come forward with irresistible evidence of that stupendous fact. Now, why should the former be exempted from a license fee, and not the latter? Can any fair-minded person answer?" We do not see how the "ministers of other religions" can very well reply to that question, except by admitting that Spiritualist mediums should be placed on a level with themselves. The ministers who are referred to are those who teach that there is really no such thing as death, that the real man cannot die. This is just what Spiritualists teach, and what they profess to demonstrate. It may be urged that Spiritualists do not accept the Bible as true; neither do those ministers who say that men retain their consciousness in death, and that in fact the soul of man cannot die. For the Bible says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die;" and "his breath goeth forth; he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." If men accept the devil's assertion, "Ye shall not surely die," we cannot see how they can consistently refuse to accept his professed demonstration of his original lie. And they will not do so. There is no hope that the mass of professed Christians will accept the simple truth of the Bible concerning the nature of man, and his dependence on Christ as the sole source of life; and thus they will inevitably fall into the greater delusion of Spiritualism. The Golden Gate has only to wait a little while, and it will see Spiritualism almost universally adopted, and Satan thus formally acknowledged as god of this world. Those who shudder at the thought of such a proceeding should speedily accept the Bible just as it reads; this is the only way they can escape the snare of the devil. "Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee." THE translation of the Hebrew word, mitzad, in this text is unfortunate, as it has led to needless misapprehensions. It is rendered "in the side," whereas it means "by the side." The proof of this is very plain and very positive. We have two means of determining the signification of words in the original: the lexicon, and usage. Sometimes we find instances of the use of an original word when it does not seem to agree with the lexicon. In such cases the use may be exceptional, or the definition in the lexicon may not be full enough to cover the various shades of meaning of the word. In such cases we need to examine the entire use of the word, and to carefully analyze the text, and perhaps the context of the instances of the use in question. In the text now under consideration there is little or no place for difficulty, as the following will show. The word tzad is used in the Old Testament with three prefixes: mitzad, betzad, and al-tzad. The first is the preposition min (shortened to mi), from or of; the second, the regular preposition, in; the third is a separable particle, al, upon. We will notice them in their order. 1. Gesenius gives as the definition of mitzad, "at or by the side." The following is its entire use according to the Authorized Version. Ex. 25:32 (three times), out of the side.
37:18 (three times), the same.
Deut. 31:26, in the side of the ark.
Josh. 3:16, that is beside Zaretan.
12:9, which is beside Bethel.
Ruth 2:14, she sat beside the reapers.
1 Sam. 6:8, in a coffer by the side of the ark.
20:25, Abner sat by Saul's side.
23:26 (twice), on this side—on that side.
2 Sam. 13:34, by the way of the hill-side.
Ps. 91:7, a thousand shall fall at thy side. The first two texts, Ex. 25 and 37, have the translation "out of," which is admissible according to the derivation of the prefix. Deut. 31:26, "in the side," is not admissible; this word cannot be so defined, and there is a regular form for this expression, as will be seen. The Revised Version, as also other translations, gives it, "by the side." 2. Gesenius gives the definition of betzad "in the side." As before said, the prefix is the regular preposition, in. For its use see Gen. 6:16. "And the door . . . shalt thou set in the side." Num. 33:55. "Thorns in your sides." And others. 3. Al is a separable particle, meaning on or upon, and is used with tzad in such texts as Ex. 37:27, "upon the two sides thereof." We have thus presented the three forms, that the reader may see the different definitions and uses. There is a supposition—for it is only a supposition—that the book of the law was placed "in a coffer" by the side of the ark. And some have been led to conclude that this is the meaning of the text. But it is not. Prideaux is thought to give warrant to this conclusion, but we cannot see that his words justify the thought. His words are as follows:— "As to the book or volume of the law, it being commanded to put mitzad, i. e., on the side of the ark, those who interpret that word, of the inside, place it within the ark, and those who interpret it, of the outside, place it on the outside of it in a case or coffer made on purpose for it, and laid on the right side, meaning by the right side, that end of it which was on the right hand. And the last seem to be in the right as to this matter; for, first, the same word, mitzad, is made use of where it is said that the Philistines sent back the ark with an offering of jewels of gold, put in a coffer by the side of it. And there it is certain that word must be understood of the outside, and not of the inside. Secondly, the ark was not of capacity," etc. "And therefore, putting all this together, it seems plain that the volume of the law was not laid within the ark, but had a particular coffer or repository of its own, in which it was placed on the side of it. And the word mitzad, which answers to the Latin a latere, cannot truly bear any other meaning in the Hebrew language." Prideaux also quotes a Chaldee paraphrase to the same effect. But we insist that the only evidence which the language of Prideaux contains is that the book was outside, not inside the ark. Beyond that we object to his conclusion. For, 1. The description of the most holy place, and of that which it contained, is given in the Bible to the least particular, and it would be strange indeed if an extra coffer or box (for the ark itself was simply a coffer or chest) were to be made and put in the most holy, and not a word spoken concerning it in the Pentateuch. 2. The idea of a coffer beside the ark was evidently borrowed from the Philistines, who placed their golden offerings "in a coffer by the side thereof" (mitzad), when they sent the ark away from Ekron. 1 Sam. 6. But the order of Deut. 31:26 was given some four hundred years before this; and we know of no proof that any other "coffer beside the ark," ever existed than that made by the Philistines. And it is not probable that that was ever put in the most holy place. 3. The conclusion of Prideaux is not at all necessary, that they who interpret mitzad to mean outside, place the book in a coffer by the ark. For the book might just as well have been outside "by the side of the ark," without being in an extra coffer at all, of the existence of which there is no hint in the text or in the connection. And some have even concluded that a receptacle for the book was attached to the ark—literally made in the side of the ark. This is the most fanciful idea of all, for which there does not appear to be any sanction even in tradition. The Lord required that the people should hold in great reverence the ark wherein was placed his holy covenant, and it does not seem fitting to represent it, as it has been misrepresented by descriptions and illustrations. We have seen models of the ark of God with something on the side very much resembling the dumping-place of a grain elevator; and we have seen a minister set before a congregation a common hand-satchel, and slip a book into the side pocket, to illustrate how the book of the law was put in the side of the ark! A very little study of the subject must convince anyone that such representations are caricatures of things held sacred in the Scriptures. Prideaux gives the position of the book "on the right side," meaning by the right side, "that end of it which was on the right hand." That it was at the end is very probable; that it was at that end which was on the right hand is by no means certain.
J. H. W. A CERTAIN D. D. is credited by a First-day Adventist paper with saying: "Nothing is so dreadfully terrific to my mind as that sinners have no terror!" And pray, how can they have when they have no sense of sin? "By the law is the knowledge of sin," but the law is not preached, and thus multitudes are resting in a state of carnal security, from which they will not be aroused till it is too late. WHEN Christ spoke of the condition of the righteous after the resurrection he said, "Neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels." Luke 20:36. Thus the angels in Heaven are immortal. But there is another feature in which the saints will resemble the angels, and that is in their holiness. This quality is a characteristic of the angels. This is so well known that an angel is almost a symbol of purity. When they are mentioned in the Bible the adjective "holy" is often applied to them. The servants of Cornelius told Peter that their master had been "warned from God by an holy angel." Acts 10:22. In Matt. 25:31 Christ himself applied the term to all the angels of Heaven. He said: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Without these direct statements as to their character, we would know that they are holy, for Christ says of these "ministering spirits," they "do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven." Matt. 18:10. And only the pure and holy in heart can see God. Matt. 5:8; Heb. 12:14. IN what does the holiness of the angels consist? What is it that makes them holy? It must be in that they do the will of God. That the will of God is done in Heaven, is evident from Matt. 6:10; and since there are none in Heaven except the angels to do the will of God, it is a necessary consequence that they are the ones to whom Christ refers. God is holy, and the doing of his will would make one like him, holy. From Rom. 2:17, 18 we learn that God's law is his will; and that this is the will which the angels perform, and which constitutes their holiness, is plainly stated in Ps. 103:20: "Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word." The perfection of the angels, then, is due to the fact that they keep the perfect law of God. CHRIST taught his disciples to pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven." Matt. 6:10. This shows that a time will come when the commandments of God will be kept on earth even as the angels now keep them in Heaven. This will be in the new earth, wherein righteousness shall dwell. 2 Peter 3:13. But although the change of the earth from old to new will be quickly effected, and although man's change from mortal to immortal will be brought about in the twinkling of an eye, the change to holiness is a gradual work. "Heaven is not reached at a single bound." The work of sanctification is a progressive work. Therefore the fact that the commandments of God will some day be kept by men on earth even as they now are by the angels in Heaven, shows that they who hope to be among the equals of the angels must now be keeping the commandments of God. WE read in 2 Peter 2:4 that "God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." This shows conclusively that the angels were once on probation as Adam was in the garden of Eden, and that those who are now called the holy angels have had their characters tested, so that they are now placed beyond the reach of temptation. It shows also that the angels who sinned can have no hope of a restoration to the favor of God. Peter says that God "delivered them into chains of darkness." We can understand what this means by comparing a few texts. From 2 Peter 2:19; Gal. 3:22, 23; Rom. 7:14 we learn that sin is bondage. The person who is in the darkness of error is in a state of bondage. Moreover, we learn from 2 Thess. 2:9-12 that those who persist in rejecting light will finally be given up to believe a lie. The same thing is taught in Rom. 1:28. That is, those who persistently sin in the face of great light, will finally be left in the bondage of sin without hope of escape. This is what is doubtless meant by the angels that sinned being delivered into chains of darkness. They had light and knowledge greater than man had, as they were a higher order of creatures than he was. In the face of this light, and in defiance of the love and mercy of God, they deliberately chose the way of darkness. Having once chosen the bondage of sin, their choice was irrevocable. They were in "chains of darkness" that could not be broken. And so until the Judgment day ends their miserable careers, they are in darkness. They are darkness itself. Darkness and error are inseparable from them. Wherever they are, their presence contaminates; and their sole aim is to perpetrate lying wonders which shall lure men away from the truth into the same chains of darkness with themselves. Let us never forget to pray, "Deliver us from evil." CARE OF GOOD ANGELS FOR MEN.
BUT if "the rulers of the darkness of this world" are actively engaged in trying to overthrow us, and drag us down to eternal ruin, we have the assurance that "angels that excel in strength" are "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." Heb. 1:14. Every "little one," every child of God, has one for his especial guardian. Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:15. Not only so, but all the heavenly host are intensely interested in the whole human race, and anxious for the conversion of each sinner. Says Christ: "I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." Luke 15:10. When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, there was joy in Heaven. It was not sufficient to send a single angel to announce his birth, but a multitude of the heavenly host must accompany him to sing their joy at the good tidings which should be to all people. So great was the joy among the angels over the fact that fallen man's Redeemer had actually come, that it would seem that they could not remain quiet in Heaven. They must flock to witness the joy of the humble shepherds, and to proclaim their own.91 SEEING then that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16); that "God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8); that Christ is at the right hand of God making intercession for us (Rom. 8:34); and that all the holy and mighty angels of God are interested and loving messengers of light and strength to those who are striving against sin, may we not even in the face of Satan's hosts say: "In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. 8:37-39. w.