BROTHER HALE'S ARTICLE by A. Hale

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Oct 7, 1851

BROTHER HALE'S ARTICLE.

By A. Hale

[CONCLUDED.]

THE BRIDE.

That "the bride the Lamb's wife," denotes "that great city, the holy Jerusalem," is settled by the word of God. Rev. xxi, 9, 10. And if God designed that we should understand something else to be denoted, he certainly could have informed us, as easily as he has explained the seven stars—the seven candlesticks—the two witnesses—the waters—the woman, or the beast that carrieth her.

It is equally clear that "the marriage of the Lamb" is an event that is always placed in the future, among the events which close up the scenes of this world. It is also equally clear that the actual reception of the throne and kingdom by Christ, is placed among these events.

Again.—I think I may say that every Adventist, at least, will admit that it is the New Jerusalem which is to be called "the throne of the Lord," (Jer. iii, 17,) "the city of the great King," who shall "sit as a priest upon his throne," "a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," a "High priest over the house, or family of God." As old Jerusalem is doomed to perpetual desolations all these things can be true only of the New Jerusalem. Now, is there any authority for supposing the figure of a marriage to denote the reception of the throne and kingdom? Let us see. By turning to one of the oldest of the prophets, we read: "And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ish: i. e., my husband. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies: I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord." (Hosea ii, 16—20.)

But who is this that is to call "the Lord," "my husband," in that day? In the appointed symbolic action of the prophet, who represents "the Lord," he is commanded to "take a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms; for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord." i, 2. The wife is "Gomer;" the children are 1. "Jezreel, i. e. the seed of God," whose "blood" the Lord says "I will avenge." 2. "Lo-ruhamah, i. e. not having obtained mercy:" and 3. "Loammi, i. e. not my people." The Lord disowns Gomer as his wife, (ii, 2,) and her children are rejected. (4.) She is punished for her conjugal infidelity, and at length returns to her "first husband." (7.) The wife, throughout this allegorical scene, is "the land," as we shall see to be fully settled in other portions, and the marriage, in this case, brings the land back to the Lord. The children are the different classes which constituted the people of the land. The relation of "the children of Israel" to "the Lord," their character and history, are exhibited by a similar allegorical scene, in the third chapter, but there is no marriage in the case.

Shall we turn to Isaiah? "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.—liv, 1.

Who is denoted by the "barren" and "the desolate," whom the prophet commands to "sing?" Paul has settled its application, Gal. iv, 26, 27. "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice thou barren: break forth and cry thou that travailest not," &c. Is this city, which figures in the "allegory," as "the mother of us all," provided with a husband? O Yes. And do not be frightened, brethren, if he should be the same personage, who is called in other forms of speech, our brother; it certainly cannot be any more alarming than that our "elder brother" should be called our husband, as he certainly is, if the church is the bride. But if any complain, their complaints must be directed against the word of God, and not against us.

But who is the husband of "the mother of us all?" Answer. "For thy Maker is thy 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." (Isa. liv, 5.) Surely this must be the Lord Jesus. The prophet adds, "this [Jerusalem above] is the heritage of the servants of the Lord." V. 17. Compare Isaiah liv, 11—15, and Rev. xxi, 11—21; xxii, 1—5.

Again.—The prophet speaks of Jerusalem which is to be made "a praise in the earth;" as follows: "Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate; but thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." Isaiah lxii, 4, 5. But are her sons to marry the same bride? Not if the bride is "the church." But as they are to receive the kingdom as joint heirs with Christ, the marriage may denote the same act in each case.

Omitting a great many mere allusions to this established "allegory," in the case, among the prophets generally, shall we hear Ezekiel? By him all the natural, and most affecting, as well as the most loathsome incidents, are thrown into the picture, by which he "causes Jerusalem to know her abominations."—xvi, 2. There is the love at first sight—the promise and the covenant (v, 8), the gifts and tokens of affection, and the admiration of her beauty (10—14.) Then follows the wanton violation of all the holy ties of "wedlock,"—the withdrawal of gifts—the contempt and wretchedness of the outcast, and the final desolation. (15—43.) But the marriage under "an everlasting covenant," restores the wife—"Jerusalem"—to "the Lord" (60—62.) And as this takes place in connection with the restoration of her sisters, Samaria and Sodom, it must denote the act of receiving that Jerusalem, which is to be "his throne," when "the kingdom is the Lord's."

By "tracing the figurative word through the Bible," so far, with this "meaning," all is perfectly clear—"it makes good sense." The figure, the "allegory," is this:—The Lord is the husband, "the land," or "Jerusalem" is the wife—the people are the children. (Ezek. xvi, 21, 36.) So it was understood in reference to the old "covenant." And the old prophets themselves teach us, with a clearness that can hardly be misunderstood, that a Jerusalem to be "called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name," is to be under the "new covenant," what its type was under the old. Isa. lxii, 2; lxv, 18, 19; Ezek. xvi, 61.

Without stopping to consider the "city which hath foundations," to which Abraham "looked"—whose wife, "the free woman," represented "Jerusalem above," in the "allegory;" as his "bond-woman" did old Jerusalem, of which Melchisedec was the founder, (according to Josephus,) and king. Shall we pass to consider "the marriage of the Lamb?" Rev. xix, 7—9. This text has given rise to three questions. 1. Who is the Lamb's wife? 2. What is denoted by the marriage? 3. When,

in the order of events, does it take place? 1. Who is the Lamb's wife? The church?—the church and the city?—or the city itself? Let us see. Who are these that sing of the marriage? The command to which they respond is as follows: "And a voice came out of the throne saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great." It is the same company that is brought to view, Rev. xi, 18. This must be the church. Hear their response. "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. 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." If the church is the "wife," why do they sing of another party as the wife? Will the church sing her own praise in this manner? It may be proper enough for "one of the elders" to say, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, &c. But when the church speaks for herself she says, "Salvation unto our God." "Thou hast redeemed us." If the church is the bride, who are the guests at the marriage supper? The church cannot figure here as the wife. It must be, as God says, "the holy city." But can a city make herself ready? is often asked. "Is Christ to be married to stone walls?" &c. &c.

It is necessary, here, to allude to the most obvious and familiar laws of language, and of interpretation, that our brethren may not be betrayed into a spirit of levity, which would better become the Ballou and Whittemore school, or our common enemies, than Adventists. It must be known to every one for whom it is proper to speak in the case, that in these figurative exhibitions of truth, allegories in particular, life, and thought, and feeling, and speech and action are given to the inanimate things personified, and that is said of them which could be literally true only of rational beings. Thistles and cedars talk and make contracts. (2 Kings xiv, 9.) Eagles have fields to plant. (Ezek. xvii, 5.) Cities come and go, weep and rejoice, rise up and sit down, eat, drink, are clothed or naked, sin, and are punished, &c. &c. In all these cases, the inanimate or irrational agent is personified and made, or supposed to perform what is ascribed to it. And every figure, simile, metaphor, parable, allegory, &c. must be interpreted by laws peculiar to themselves. This rule should not be forgotten here: "We must not explain one part literally and another part figuratively."—(Horne.)

Now I think any brother must see, that when he asks, "Is Christ married to stone walls?" "Can a city of stone and mortar make herself ready?" &c. &c., it does much more credit to his mirthfulness than to his veneration, conscientiousness or perceptive faculties.

We do not suppose that Christ is "married to stone walls," or anything else; but that the marriage of the Lamb denotes the inauguration of Christ, as King into his throne, which is just such a city as God has described in Rev. xxi: We do not suppose there is any bride to "make herself ready;" but that this figurative expression denotes some important preparatory work, in the case of the city, in connection with its becoming "the throne of the Lord." And what that work is it is not difficult to determine. The "holy city" is called also "the tabernacle of God."—Rev. xxi. Christ is "the minister of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man."—Heb. viii. 2. The typical tabernacle had to be "purified;" and Paul tells us the true tabernacle must also be purified:—"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified

with these; (the blood of calves and of goats;) but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."—Heb. ix, 23. The typical work of "atonement for the holy sanctuary, and for the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar;" as well as for "the priests, and for all the people of the congregation," was on the tenth day of the seventh month.—Lev. xvi, 29, 33. And when that work of atonement for "the heavenly things themselves" shall have been accomplished by Christ, then we suppose that preparation denoted in the figure, will have been effected:—what had been hitherto the tabernacle of our Great High Priest is "ready" to become his throne.

"And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." They "wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb." "By his own blood he entered in once, into the holy place." The holy city—the heavenly Jerusalem—is indebted to the same atoning blood for her purity, that the saints are indebted to for theirs.

When does the marriage take place? It is asserted that it must be after the destruction of the wicked, after the judgment, at least, of the "great whore." But why so? The fact that the account of it falls after the account of the judgment of that personage, is, of itself, no proof of it. The parts of this book in particular, must be arranged, not by the order in which they occur, but by the order of the events of which they speak. Is it not evident that verse 4th of chapter xix, closes the portion which begins with chapter xvii? and that the 5th verse begins a new portion? Compare Rev. iv, 5. And if the marriage be supposed to denote the union of Christ with his church, does not that take place till after the judgment? They certainly meet him, and appear with him in glory before that time. The union of Christ with his church must take place before the execution of judgment upon the wicked. But if it be contended that the marriage, here, denotes some event which takes place so long after they have found their way to the Lord, it is very doubtful whether that can be the event denoted by the marriage in the parable.

The song of the church, here, itself, appears to prove both the event which the marriage denotes, and the time in which it takes place. What is their theme? The same, evidently, of the four and twenty elders on the sounding of the seventh trumpet: "We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned!"—Say the elders. "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth!" say the church. They both celebrate the introduction of the reign of Christ. And as Christ, together with his saints in their glorified state, are to execute judgment upon the wicked, the marriage, which denotes the placing Christ in his throne, must take place before, and not after the execution of judgment upon any of his enemies. We suppose the song celebrates an event that is already accomplished at the time it is sung.

By going "through the Bible," then, with the figure, guided by the established rules of interpretation, there is but one interpretation, one "meaning,"—which can be sustained throughout—of "the marriage," as an event to take place in connection with the end. And I can give that act of Christ denoted by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, no other special reference, but to the act of resigning his mediatorial work, in behalf the world, in order to his becoming king.

It is asked—"What is meant by the virgins going in with him to the marriage?" The difficulty exists only with those who interpret "one part of the figure literally, and the other figuratively."

But understanding this part of the figure as we do the other part, to denote something beyond itself, it must be understood in a sense which accords with the nature of the event which the marriage denotes. The coming of the bridegroom would point out some change of work or office, on the part of our Lord, in the invisible world; and the going in with him a corresponding change on the part of his true people. With him it is within the veil—where he has gone to prepare a place for us; with them it is outside the veil, where they are to wait and keep themselves ready till he appears for their salvation.

Finally. What are the reasons for believing that the event, now supposed to be denoted by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, has taken place? Some of these reasons have been anticipated. 1. That event must precede the appearing of Christ.

2. All the power of "the typical argument," though it may have misconceived the precise bearing of the type upon events, bears upon the last seventh month, as the date of that change. Those who have not fully abandoned the position then taken, will admit, that it is too early, at present, to attach no special importance to that argument, or to the events of that time.

3. This view of the question given us as well-defined a position as we have ever had; while it explains what must otherwise be a perplexity in our history, and shows that we have taken a step, which we know must be taken, in the closing up of our mortal state.

4. The condition of things around us goes to confirm the supposition that this step has been taken; while the Adventists, as a body, are placed in circumstances evidently in accordance with those described in the word of God, as the lot of his people at the end. Those will be noticed more at length, in considering the duties and trials of our position.

5. This interpretation harmonizes all those figurative portions of the word of God, which speak on the coming of Christ, in their special application, and that too, by referring them to facts plainly stated in other forms of speech, through the prophecies.

The entire picture is also remarkably in accordance with the history of the Adventists, while they have been as insensible that they were living in, as the disciples of old were, that the oft repeated prophecies of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were being fulfilled, though these events were passing before their eyes, till after they had passed.

I know it is doubted whether we have had any demonstrations which should lead us to such a conclusion. But where shall we look for demonstrations? "We know that whatsoever the law saith it saith to them that are under the law;" what God has spoken of the state of things in connection with the coming of Christ, is applicable only to those who are responsible for the truth on that subject. The demonstrations of the old world's doom, before it came, were given only to the family of Noah. The demonstrations of Egypt's doom, to which the Egyptians would not take heed, were given only to the people of God. The demonstrations of the doom of Babylon, were unheeded, but by her captives, till God himself informed her proud and idolatrous monarch, that "God had numbered his kingdom and finished it!" The inhabitants of Jerusalem, excepting the little flock of her outcast children, "knew not" the demonstrations, "that the things which belonged to her peace" were hid from her eyes, till the wrath came upon them to the uttermost. And when I must admit, that the Adventists have had no demonstrations that the world's day is over, I must doubt that they have the truth of God, and that they are His people.

A. HALE.