ELDER PETER VOGEL’S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE

3. Another most memorable occasion was the Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus. Pentecost signifies fiftieth, and was so named because it always fell on the fiftieth day, counting from the morrow of the Paschal Sabbath, and so came invariably on the First Day of the week. I am well aware that some contend that ‘the morrow after the Sabbath’ was the morrow after the first yearly sabbath of the Paschal week, but to me there is nothing plainer than that the weekly Sabbath is meant.WDUS 130.12

a. ‘The morrow after the sabbath’ (Leviticus 23:11) is rendered, in the Greek, tee epaurion tees prootees, the morrow of the first day, i. e., Sunday.WDUS 130.13

b. As if for the greater clearness, the yearly sabbaths of the Paschal week are, in this connection, called ‘holy convocations,’ simply (vv. 7, 8), while the word sabbath is used to designate the day from whose morrow the Hebrews were to date Pentecost.WDUS 130.14

c. Not only do we have the word sabbath used to designate the day, but, in the Hebrew, the definite article is prefixed to show it to be the Sabbath, by way of pre-eminence. (See ver. 11, 15, 16.) This is all the more significant when the fact is regarded that none of the yearly sabbaths have the article in this chapter; no, not even the weekly Sabbaths, aside from these verses. The significant weight of the article seems specially reserved to place this matter beyond cavil.WDUS 130.15

d. And, as if to make sureness doubly sure, the day which ends the series is declared to be the First Day of the week: ‘Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days,’ v. 16. Inasmuch as ‘the yearly sabbaths were movable as to the day of the week,’ had the counting been from the morrow after the first yearly sabbath, it would have been impossible to always end the series of fifty days with a sabbath before the fiftieth day; for the only possible sabbath before the Pentecost was a weekly Sabbath. Hence the ‘morrow’ which came after it, the Pentecost, was the First Day of the week.WDUS 130.16

With this matter indisputably settled, we are ready to note the memorable events of the day.WDUS 131.1

(1.) On this day the promised baptism of the Spirit took place. “And behold,” said Jesus to His disciples, “I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye at Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high,” Luke 24:49. This promise of the Father was the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), and was fulfilled on the Pentecost: “Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Never before was the Spirit so given (John 7:38-39), This was ‘the first-fruits of the Spirit’ (Romans 8:23). Henceforth He was both ‘along side of’ and ‘in’ the disciples (John 14:16-17), shedding abroad the love of God in their hearts to a degree past all understanding (Romans 5:5; Ephesians 3:19). Before this, “eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither had entered into the heart of man, the things which God had prepared for them that love Him; but God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:9-10). Christian reader, as your heart burns with that love, and is cheered by these things, can you think of a day more memorable? How it wafts its blessed sacredness across the ages! Glorious day!WDUS 131.2

(2.) This day marks the beginning, in fact, of the New Dispensation. “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” said the prophet [Isaiah 2:4], and ‘beginning at Jerusalem’ was the Savior’s instruction [Luke 24:47]. “Who hath heard such a thing! Who hath seen such things! Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day! or shall a nation be born at once! for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children!” Isaiah 66:8. At the giving of the old law three thousand perished by the sword of justice; but at the ushering of the new, ‘the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.’ What a gathering of ‘first-fruits’ for the Lord!WDUS 131.3

4. And of what is the Pentecost itself typical, but of the sacred observance of the first day, upon which it so uniformly fell. Pentecost was one of the ‘holy days,’ heortee, of which ‘the body is of Christ’ [Colossians 2:16-17]. The antitype always enters with the recession of the type. I do not say that there is no double fulfillment of prophecy in types, as there is in other prophecies, but I insist that the shadow gives place only to the substance. And as a shadow Paul declares the Pentecost gone and its substance here. I maintain that the first day, the Lordic day, is that substance. Of all the sacred days appointed by Moses, only two were not movable as to the day of the week, the Sabbath, and the Pentecost. The Sabbath was not movable for retrospective reasons, but the Pentecost-what retrospection has it, binding it to the first day?—the reason can be only prospective. And this is virtually admitted in Eld. W.’s first article in this discussion, when he says of all the yearly sabbaths, and so of Pentecost, ‘They were typical of future events.’ In that first-day sacredness lay, in embryo, the Christic holy day of this dispensation. As the ‘sheaf of the first-fruits of the harvest’ [Leviticus 23:10-11], presented to Jehovah on the memorable first-day in the Paschal week-a resurrection of new grain from the old-was a type of the resurrection of Christ, ‘the first-fruits of them that slept’ [1 Corinthians 15:20]; and as the two Pentecostal wave-loaves, the prepared ‘first-fruits unto the Lord’ [Leviticus 23:15-17], were a type of the ‘first-fruits’ of Christians [James 1:18] offered to Christ on the Pentecostal first-day [Acts 2.], and also of Christians generally as they are presented in heaven [Revelation 14:4]; so the Pentecost itself, and of course in its first-day character, has its antitype. ‘The body, is of Christ.’ And this type is of itself sufficient to end this controversy.WDUS 131.4

5. Analogy furnishes material for the conclusion that there should be a sacred day in this dispensation, and that the First Day of every week should be the time.WDUS 131.5

1st. The occasion of deliverance from Egyptian bondage was deemed worthy of weekly sabbatic commemoration [Deuteronomy 5:5]. The deliverance from the task-service of the devil, which was virtually accomplished at the resurrection of Jesus, surpasses the former by the value of the spirit above that of body, and by the preciousness of immortality above mortality; and hence, for a stronger reason, deserves commemoration.WDUS 131.6

2nd. We have seen that not until the First Day were the bars of the tomb broken; and hence not till on this day did the Lord Jesus rest from His work of redemption, and from His conflict with the Satanic power which had entombed Him. If the Father honored the day on which He ended the old creation, much more is it fit that the Son should honor that on which He ended the new creation, inasmuch as the new surpasses the old. “Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth,” finds its first fulfillment here; and so far do these excel the old that the prophet adds, “And the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”Isaiah 65:17.WDUS 132.1

REVIEW OF THE SECOND NEGATIVE

I said not a word about ‘accredited writers’ when I referred to the fact that ‘at least some of Eld. W.’s brethren’ once held to a non-abolition of the old covenant. I had read but little of Advent literature at the time I met those ‘brethren.’ Had they even been ‘writers’ it would be easy to say ‘not accredited.’ If names are desired, they can be had for the asking. And as for insult or discourtesies, I believe every word from my pen on this proposition will bear the closest scrutiny. My brother may continue his insinuations, if he will, and may persist in characterizing those with me as ‘partisans’, his shall still be ‘brethren.’WDUS 132.2

Suppose I were wrong in my application of Psalm 69., would that prove me in error on Isaiah 56? But even on this Psalm I have nothing to yield. ‘The zeal of the Lord’s house’ may ‘eat up’ many a Christian, and ‘the reproaches of them that reproach the Lord’ such a one may take upon himself as well as did David. There is a difference between appropriated quotations, when individual histories run parallel, and fulfillment of predictions; both may be said to be fulfillment of scriptures, but not in the same sense.WDUS 132.3

I am sorry to learn that my brother only eats bread and drinks wine, when he sits at the Lord’s table. With Paul, I claim to ‘commune’ [1 Corinthians 10:16], Deipnon [supper] denotes a ‘full meal,’ and is not exhausted by the deglutition of a morsel of bread and of a sup of wine: the spirit feasts to the full. This is least akin to the cannibalistic devouring of literal flesh and blood by the ‘mother church.’ Neither this spiritual repast, nor even a simple commemoration of a crucified Savior, was possible to the apostles at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, both on account of ignorance and of unbelief respecting the essential basis.WDUS 132.4

Campbell says of Pedobaptists, “Their method is not to produce either a precept or precedent.” He admits, then, a precedent as sufficient; and precedents I have given. My brother admits that a man may be justly hung upon circumstantial evidence [i. e. inference], if ‘based on a series of undisputed facts.’ This, precisely, I have given. Is that fact or fiction which Paul and Luke record in 1 Corinthians 16. and Acts 20., and that in those other scriptures cited? Ah! but ray deductions are disputed. Yes, so does the criminal’s lawyer dispute, but for all that the man is hung.WDUS 132.5

Let me grant that express precept or formal proclamation is needed. We have it. Revelation 1:10 would be an impossible scripture without such a basis. I see a house yonder: it is massive in its proportions, but I am not in position to see its foundation; it is out of sight: has it, therefore, none? Must we see the foundation before we have a right to assert that it has one? How preposterous I Well, I’ll grant it, says my brother; but then it is an old house, long since built. In reply, I prove [1] that the old house has been torn down, [2] that this is built by a different architect, and [3] that it stands in a different place.WDUS 132.6

I am requested to prove that the term Lord in Revelation 1:10 is used differently from Revelation 11:15. And here is the proof: 1. Though the words are the same in the English, they are not in the original Greek. 2. That used in Revelation 11:15 refers there undoubtedly to the Father, whereas the other is never used with reference to Him, but only of the Christ. 3. ‘Lord,’ in Revelation 1:10, is used in an official sense, and so refers to Christ, since He only is now Lord, officially, as I have abundantly shown. True, the Father ‘gave him to be head;’ but that which is given to me is mine. And when ‘all authority’ is given, what is lacking to complete Lordship? In other words, the Father was sole Lord, officially, in the former dispensation, but He resigned or ‘gave’ this position to Christ during this dispensation, so that Jesus is now ‘Lord of all.’WDUS 132.7

The reason why Jesus did not do His own will during His earthly ministry is simply this: He was ‘born under the law’ [Galatians 4:4] and was obedient to Him who was then Lord; but Himself being Lord now, He is ‘the author and finisher of the faith’ i. e., of the gospel with all its appurtenances [Hebrews 12:2]. And mediation, on the part of Christ, must not be so much conceived of as having the Father now above Christ and over the gospel, but rather as having Him before the gospel. Not only is Christ the author of the gospel, but the whole race is His by the purchase of His blood, so that now all are amenable to Him, and ‘the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son’ [John 5:22]. It is only when the Son will resign this Lordship that the Father will judge again, and those, namely, who shall not have profited by having been under the Son [Hebrews 10:31]. The Father was speaking level to the Jewish mind when He said, ‘I will make a new covenant;’ for, strictly speaking, Jesus is the ‘testator’ or covenanter [Hebrews 9:16]; and hence the ‘my laws’ are Christ’s laws, of which He is ‘the author and finisher.’WDUS 133.1

This leads us again to the conclusion that the Lordic day, of Revelation 1:10, is a Christic day. He is ‘the author’ of it; and everything predicated by Barnes of kuriakee is, as he meant it, predicable of the Sunday.WDUS 133.2

The attempt to prove Jesus proprietor of creation, and so of the Sabbath, is weak indeed. All things were created ‘for Him’ [Colossians 1:16] is to prove Him owner and proprietor! Let us test it. The Sabbath was made ‘for man,’ therefore he is owner and proprietor of it! If I, then, see fit to set the Sabbath aside, what right has my brother to complain? “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”WDUS 133.3

I am represented as saying that the Lord’s Day is a ‘moral law.’ I said nothing of the kind, but was careful to tell to what extent I denied his proposition marked I. in his first negative, and have both before and since called the Lord’s Day positive. While knocking down his man of straw, he makes a statement too good to be lost; namely, “All positive institutions of the gospel are a part of the faith of Jesus.” Now since all sacred days are positive institutions, that of Revelation 1:10 is also positive, and of the faith of Jesus. And since Jesus is ‘the author of the faith,’ he is also of the day named in Revelation 1:10. It is, therefore, a new institution. Do I still ‘stand on inference only on all the ground of difference?’ It strikes me that we have concession here.WDUS 133.4

And what is there so despicable about inferences? Is not the conclusion of every argument an inference from its premises? To inveigh against inference is to ask me to argue without reasoning, to discuss without discussing, and to prove my proposition with my mouth shut!WDUS 133.5

Much space is devoted to 1 Corinthians 16:2, to prove the collection to have been at home, as though that were fatal to my position. But my conclusion follows equally well from either construction. I will, however, say again, that heautoo, being in the dative case, may be either masculine or neuter; if masculine, then by himself (at home) is the proper version; if neuter, then we must render it by itself. I would like to know how my brother has found out that it cannot be neuter. As for the term logia (collection), it is from the verb legoo, and legoo means to gather in any quantity, as fuel, words for a discourse, etc., etc. See Liddell & Scott.WDUS 133.6

On Acts 20. I was sufficiently full in my third affirmative. I will only add, that to argue from the sentential order of the words in Genesis 1:5 to the point of beginning the day, is lame. Who, for example, would argue from Acts 5:30 and 10:39, ‘whom ye slew and hanged on a tree,’ that Jesus was first slain and then nailed to the cross? Yet this sentence is connected by and in a way that the other is not. See Conant’s literal version, already given. It is a well known fact that great liberty is used in the sentential collocation of words when the real order is indicated by the meaning of the words, as in Genesis 1:5, or by a knowledge of the facts in the case, as in the other passages cited.WDUS 133.7

I have space here only to consider two items in the third negative. If the First Day was given to the Lord, ‘who required the gift?’ The Lord Jesus. For Revelation 1:10 shows that He requires a day, and no day can be shown to have been given, if it is not the First Day. To the statement that ‘Acts 20. gives but a single act of a single church,’ I have, in addition to what I previously said, this reply: From 1 Corinthians 11. we learn that there were two kinds of gatherings among the first Christians. [1] The more private or social meetings for prayer and prophecy, which seem to have been ‘free-will offerings,’ presented by a few gathered here and a few there, according to convenience; and [2] there was the ‘coming together in the church,’ when all came together ‘into one place’ [ver. 18, 20]. And this gathering had always in view, as a chief purpose, ‘to eat the Lord’s Supper’ [ver. 20]; the Corinthians failing of this only in so far as they perverted the institution.WDUS 133.8

1. Such being the custom of the primitive Christians, it is known that the meeting of Acts 20:7, being for the purpose of observing this Supper, was not a casual affair; and, hence, the First Day is the day for the ‘coming together in the Church.’WDUS 134.1

2. Moreover, the type of the shewbread demands a stated weekly meeting for the observance of the Lord’s Supper. We have already seen that the holy place in the tabernacle represents the church. The table of shewbread had all the appearance of the Lord’s table. There were twelve loaves; one for each tribe, as we have one loaf, being but one body; there were also vessels of wine, as on the Lord’s table, which was poured out as an offering to God, as Christ poured out His soul to be an offering; and incense, typifying the thanks we render before participation. That bread was only for the priests, as the Lord’s Supper is exclusively for those who are now of the ‘royal priesthood.’ “Every Sabbath he [the priest] shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant” [Leviticus 24:8]. ‘Everlasting’, ‘continual,’ and ‘perpetual’ are terms that have no such limit as to confine their force to the Mosaic dispensation. As the priesthood, the Sabbath, circumcision, and other institutions, whose duration is described by the same terms, exist today in antitype, so does this institution also. The Lord’s Supper must, then, be weekly observed, but, by express example, upon the First Day. This, therefore, is the Lord’s Day.WDUS 134.2