ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS by James White

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 14, 1868

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

By James White

To Miss M. The contrast between the present and future bodies of the saints (Isa. lxvi, 23, and 1 Cor. xv, 50), is not so much between “spirit” and “flesh,” as flesh in its connection with blood. Our present animal “life is in the blood;” our future life will not be; and it appears from several scriptures that spirit will bear the same relation to the future life, that blood does to this. The term “flesh and blood,” may properly represent man in his present corruptible state of animal life; while the term “all flesh,” may designate all the race existing, without any special designation of condition. It is also certain that Christ had “flesh and bones” after his resurrection; that there was blood connected with them does not appear. But our bodies will be like his in the resurrection.

The difficulty in harmonizing Mal. iv, 1, with Isa. lxvi, 24, arises from the old error of making the “fire” and “worm” refer to the transgressors, instead of to the means of their destruction. John the Baptist said, “he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire;” the fire and chaff are different things, and we cannot think the fire would continue to burn after the chaff was “burned up.” The Lord said he would kindle a fire in the gates of Jerusalem, which should devour its palaces, and not be quenched. Jer. xvii, 27. We think both texts you refer to will be literally fulfilled when “fire comes down from God out of heaven,” to devour the wicked, who are even then compassing the camp of the saints.

To H. B. The figures, “Man of Sin,” and “Mother of Harlots,” do not refer to the same thing. The woman of Rev. xvii, the Mother of Harlots, represents the Church of Antichrist, the Roman Catholic: The Man of Sin, represents the head of that church, the Pope. He, not the church, sits in the temple of God, &c.

To R. A. W. You will find a sufficient answer to your first question in “Which? Mortal or Immortal?” pages 62, 63. To the second, a careful reading of 1 Pet. iv, 6, is all that is necessary to give its meaning, and it will also help you on the other passage. The Mormons and others, say that the gospel is preached to the dead. Peter says the gospel was preached to them that are dead; not that the gospel was preached to them that were dead, nor is preached to them that are dead. We have all heard the gospel preached to some of them that are dead, but they were not dead at the time it was preached to them.

To J. C. We still think the statement is correct: that you refer to, namely, that the Atonement is made—the sanctuary cleansed—“before Satan is brought to take any part in the transaction.” The scapegoat was not brought into the sanctuary, and the sanctuary must be cleansed from the sins of the people, or else those sins would remain there, instead of being brought and put on the scapegoat.

You seem to consider the work of cleansing the sanctuary and its vessels one thing, and the cleansing of the people another thing. By reading Lev. xvi, 16, “He shall make an atonement for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel,” you see they are identical. The name “mercy-seat,” is significant; the glory of God is above it, and the law of God beneath it; the priest, bearing the sins of the people, enters there, and the place is defiled. But the blood which makes atonement is sprinkled between the Law-giver and his violated law, and justice is honored, and the sinner forgiven. This, we understand, is the “blotting out” of sin. Here, at the mercy-seat, mercy is administered. And now, the sin being removed from the people, and from the presence of God, it only remains to put them on the scapegoat and send them away.

In the antitype, an angel is represented as coming down from Heaven and laying hold of Satan, binding him, &c. But the plagues have been previously poured out, and evidently the sanctuary above will be cleansed before the plagues are poured out; certainly before the Saviour comes and the Devil is bound. And it is before this that it is said “He that is holy, let him be holy still,” showing that the work is accomplished for the saints, and their characters are completed before God.

Some have been troubled over Lev. xvi, 10, where the scapegoat is reserved also “to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” While in general the definition of the original is, to cover, expiate, or forgive, Gesenius gives as one definition, “to do away or obliterate.” Now we have always contended that the forgiveness of sin was relative, not absolute, as most writers on the Atonement insist; that is, when the sin is forgiven and removed from God’s people, it still has an existence, and falls somewhere else: in the type, on the scapegoat; in the antitype, on the Devil. And when he is destroyed, sin perishes with him; it is in his extinction, literally “done away or obliterated.” In this sense only has he any thing to do with an atonement. But as soon as the sins of Israel are removed from the most holy—the place of judgment—the work is finished for them, and the priest no longer bears sin to represent them, but to place them on the head of their originator. Practically, as far as the people of God are concerned, it would not make a particle of difference whether laid on Satan, or disposed of some other way; they are secure when the blood on the mercy-seat has produced release for them, as they are acquitted at the throne of judgment.

J. H. W.