In last week's REVIEW we gave a part of the communication from M. H., with our reply; we will now give the remainder. The writer thinks we have been in error on other points besides the time to commence the Sabbath, and wishes to point out one of the many as follows, and thus correct us by the Word. Well, as the Word is our standard, we will see who will be corrected by it on this point.
M. H. “I would like to notice one. Not because it is the only one, but because it dwells upon my mind just now. It is concerning the bride, the Lamb's wife. They say it is the New Jerusalem. But what saith the scriptures? “Isa. liv, 5, says, when speaking of the church, ‘For thy Maker is thine husband, the Lord of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called.’ Now the city has never been redeemed, or ever will be, yet the persons or things there spoken to is redeemed by the Holy One of Israel. In Rev. v, 4, we learn who the redeemed are.”
REPLY. In order to understand “what saith the Scriptures” on this, and other points, scripture must be compared with scripture; and where we have in the New Testament an inspired explanation or application of Old Testament scripture, we should receive it, and seek for no other exposition or application of the text. As we prize the Divine Mind above human wisdom, we shall do this.
The apostle Paul, by inspiration of God, applies the prophecy of Isaiah referred to above, to the New Jerusalem. Gal. iv. He first says, “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman, was born after the flesh, but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; (testaments, margin;) the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” Verses 23-26.
An allegory is “a figurative discourse, implying more than is literally expressed.” The Apostle has in this chapter applied the figures of the allegory which he introduces. Abraham's two wives represent the two Jerusalems; Agar, the bond-woman, represents Old Jerusalem, or, as Paul says, “is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children;” while Sarah, the free-woman, represents the New Jerusalem above, which is free. His two sons represent the natural seed of Abraham, and the children of God. Ishmael, the son of the bond-woman, represents the children of Old Jerusalem, who are in bondage with their mother; while Isaac represents the children of the New Jerusalem, the children of promise. Paul continues: “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, [in Isa. liv,] Rejoice thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Verses 26-28. Here Paul applies the prophecy to the New Jerusalem, which our correspondent applies to the church.157It will be seen that the church is represented as the children, and not the mother, or bride, in this great family, while the New Jerusalem is called the mother. Christ is the “everlasting Father” of his people. Isa. ix, 6. When the marriage of the Lamb shall be consummated, and Jesus “returns from the wedding,” [Luke, xii, 36,] to the joy of the waiting ones, and raises from the dead, and changes to immortality, all the children of promise, they will follow their Lord up to the Father's house of many mansions. John xiii, 33-38; xiv, 1-3. Then the whole family of God in earth and heaven, Father, Mother and children, will be gathered together in one.
To say that it is the church that is addressed, [Isa. liv,] of whom it is said, “Thy Maker is thine husband,” is equivalent to saying that the “Jerusalem above” is the church, for Paul makes them the same. This idea of the bride will go much better with those who believe that the immortal souls of all saints who have died are now in glory “above,” “free” from the body, than with those who do not believe in the translation of invisible, immaterial souls; therefore there can be no church above as yet.
M. H. “Again see Jer. iii, 14, ‘Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you,’ &c. In verse 18, the Lord calls upon them to acknowledge their iniquity and disobedience. He then tells them that he is married unto them, and will take one of a city, or two of a family, and bring them to Zion. Therefore it will be seen that the bride is brought to Zion, or the city.
“See also Eze. xvi. Here the Lord speaks of having made a covenant with his people. In verse 9 he says, They became his. But we see by reading the whole chapter that they brake his covenant and leaned upon the arm of another. Hosea ii, 19, 20, is much to the point. In the first chapter, and the first part of this, the wickedness of the followers of God is portrayed. They departed from the Lord, and delighted in others. Then he (the Lord) causes her (the church) to return to him. He also tells her what he will do if she returns to him. ‘I will betroth thee unto me for ever, yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and loving kindness, and in tender mercies: I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord.’ Some will doubtless object to these scriptures having reference to the church. We will notice who composes the espoused hereafter.”
REPLY. We do not object to the application of the text last quoted, to the professed people of God. The relation of man and woman, united by the marriage covenant, has fully represented the union of the people of God with their Lord, ever since the days of righteous Abel. Granting this, however, we cannot admit that the marriage of the Lamb has been going on for near six thousand years! That event is at the END, and nowhere else. To apply these texts in the Old Testament, as well as the New where the figure of marriage is used, to the “marriage of the Lamb,” would produce darkness on this subject most profound. What the marriage of the Lamb is, we shall notice hereafter.
M. H. “We have noticed some of the Old Testament scriptures. Nor is the New Testament silent on the subject; for in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. We rejoice that our witnesses are faithful ones. When John the Baptist commenced his work, many came to his baptism and thought he was that Prophet which had been promised. He denied this, and told them that he was not he, but was sent before him, &c. When Jesus and his disciples came into Judea and baptized, many more came to be baptized of them, than came to John. John's disciples marveled at this; hear his answer. John iii, 29. ‘He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiced greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled.’ Christ is here called the bridegroom, and those who came to him the bride.”
REPLY. The witnesses are indeed faithful and true; but unfortunate for the position of our correspondent, they do not testify on the point at issue. They have nothing to say in regard to the marriage of the Lamb, or in determining who the Lamb's wife is. True, John used the figure of bridegroom and bride to illustrate the relation of Christ and those who came to his baptism. That Christ is here represented in his relation to his followers by a bridegroom, and his followers by a bride, is true; but that He and they are here called the bridegroom and bride is not true. No one believes that the event called the marriage of the Lamb, took place more than 1800 years since.
M. H. “Paul, in 2 Cor. xi, 2, when writing to the church, says, ‘I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.’”
REPLY. In regard to 2 Cor. xi, 2, we inquire, Did the “marriage of the Lamb” take place in Corinth? And could it be said in Paul's day, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready?” Or, did Paul only wish to represent by marriage the union which he had effected through the gospel between Christ and the church at Corinth? Judge ye.
M. H. “Also in Eph. v, 23-33. Paul here shows the relation that existed between a man and his wife, and then says in verse 23, ‘For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church,’ &c. The foregoing scriptures teach plainly, I think, that the church is the bride, and she who is espoused to Christ. It embraces all believers of every age and clime. See 1 Cor. i, 2. ‘Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon our Lord,’ &c. Here we see that the espoused, or church, is composed of all who in every place call upon God.”
REPLY. Please turn to Eph. v, and read from verse 22, and it will be seen that Paul's subject is the relation and duty of man and wife to each other. This is illustrated and enforced by the relations of Christ and the church. Those who suppose that Paul is here defining who the Lamb's wife is, are greatly mistaken; for that is not his subject. He commences, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” Verse 22. “Husbands, love your wives.” Verse 25. It is, indeed, an excellent subject; but has nothing to do in determining who the Bride would be in the great Marriage, which is in connection with the end.
M. H. “I am aware that there is one, at least, seemingly objection to be urged, found in Rev. xxi, 9, 10. The angel says to John, ‘Come hither, and I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.’ Here John has a promise to see the bride, and is shewn the city. We learn in 1 Thess. iv, 17, that the saints are to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. And in Zech. xiv, 5, the Lord is said to come, and all his saints with thee. Is it at all strange that John should see the city coming? Doubtless the bride was with the city descending to take the kingdom, and to possess it for ever, even for ever and ever. This to me seems what the Scriptures teach on this subject. There are other points which I would like to notice at some future time, in which I fear the brethren, (or some of them at least,) depart from the teachings of the Word or Bible. Such as the desolation of the earth, and the time of the setting up of the kingdom, &c. O brethren, let us be cautious, let us beware lest we be found fighting against God. Let us receive what he reveals to us in his Word.”
REPLY. We doubt very much whether the plain declaration of Rev. xxi, 9, 10, is disposed of to the satisfaction of even our correspondent. This is not a figure, but a matter of fact declaration, yet the effort is made to explain it away, and make the text teach just what it says nothing about, while the figures in the texts we have examined are treated as though they were declarations of literal facts. Hear the angel as he addressed the beloved John. “Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.” Did the angel shew John the church? Ans. No, he shewed him something else. What did he shew him? Let John answer. “And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem.” John then goes on and gives a description of the city, its wall, gates, foundations, most precious stones, &c., and does not refer to the church till we come to verse 24, where it is said, “And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it”—light of the city.
We join in the inquiry of our correspondent, “Is it at all strange that John should see the city coming?” And answer, not at all strange, after having so plain a promise from the angel. Angels don't disappoint people. But that the church was in the city, and that John was viewing the church, while he reports what he saw of the city, is a difficult item of theology which our correspondent has to speak into existence from nothing. The text says nothing about the church being in the city when John saw it. The whole chapter is silent on the point, and the Bible nowhere teaches that the church will be in the city when it descends from God out of heaven. What a sad departure “from the simple teachings of the word!” It is much easier for us to believe the recorded testimonies of the angel, and of John, than to believe what is not written.
By referring to last week's paper it will be seen that M. H. speaks freely and well upon the Word, and the importance of following its plain teachings, and adds, “But frail, erring mortals, refuse to be guided by its light, seeking for counsel to other sources for light and wisdom. Are we even now walking in this light? It is to be feared that many of us are enshrouded in error's night, and why is this but because we do not search the Scriptures? And if we do, is it not rather to seek for proof to substantiate our peculiar theories, than to find what they teach? I fear it is even so.” We really think that these expressed fears are not groundless, and in our application of them would be as definite as Nathan when he said to David, “Thou art the man.” The principles laid down are excellent, but our correspondent has departed from them. If such liberties be taken with the Word, we see no difficulty in adding another to the one hundred and one existing “theories” of a probationary age, after the Second Advent. Those texts which teach the destruction of all wicked men at Christ's coming can be disposed of in the manner our correspondent disposes of Rev. xxi, 9, 10. That is, they mean something else and not what they say.