Objections Considered by J. H. W.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 7, 1856

Objections Considered

By J. H. W.

WHEN WILL THE NATIONS BE DASHED IN PIECES?

(Continued.)

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

As long as men have "carnal minds" that are "not subject to the law of God," so long will doubts arise in regard to the revelation which he has made. And as long as prejudice is allowed to sway the mind, objections will arise in regard to the plainest doctrines of the Word, even with those who regard the Scriptures as truth, and profess to abide by its decisions. Thus on the doctrine of immortality alone through Christ, the truth is plainly taught—the general principles which ought to govern the investigation of that subject are easily defined; yet many refuse to bow to these principles, and cling to their construction of a single passage or sentence as if their conclusions and inferences were of more value than well-established truths.

The Universalists act on this principle, as well as many other existing sects, whose theories are built up on partial and one-sided views of scripture. I have heard professors of religion denominate certain passages of scripture, "Universalist texts," "Calvanistic texts," "Armenian texts," &c., as if Christ was divided, or God was the author of confusion; as if, foreseeing these several factions in the professed Christian world, he had made provision in his word for the accommodation of their tastes and prejudices. That view is true which harmonizes apparently conflicting declarations. This must be admitted by all. I will illustrate this in noticing the first objection.

Rev. xxii, 2. "The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." This text is offered in proof that mortal nations will live on the earth on probation, after Christ comes. I consider that one of two things is indispensable to sustain such a view; namely, either to show that the events of which I have spoken do not occur at the coming of Christ, or that I have misconstrued the testimony of the many scriptures I have quoted. But I think all must admit that I have shown their proper connection, and used them according to the plain, obvious import of their language. Hence the objector's view of Rev. xxii, 2, must be incorrect. I will now show that it is in perfect harmony with the view that I have presented.

The objection assumes that the blessing of the above passage, and of the 14th verse, is not for the saints of this age, but for those who may become such in the age to come; for the saints will then have become immortal, and cannot need the tree of life; and they will not then be subject to sickness or disease, and therefore will not need healing.

If we were to be guided by the "enticing words of man's wisdom," we would acknowledge such reasoning, but the scriptures are our guide, and I think an examination of them will convince us of the error of assuming a positive position on the strength of mere human reason, on a subject which we cannot fully comprehend.

The "seven churches" of Rev. ii, and iii were either seven literal churches in Asia, or they are seven different states of the church in as many different periods of time. The latter view is doubtless correct, but in either case they are before the coming of Christ, as in each of the four last letters that occur it is spoken of as being yet future. Of course the members of "the church at Ephesus"—the first of the seven—must come up in the resurrection to receive their reward. The promise to that church is, "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Rev. ii, 7. Here is a point that no sophistry can evade. If the blessing is for them, it may be for all the resurrected saints, and the changed also, even though the wisdom of the world be not able to comprehend all the depths of the counsels of God. To me the promise is precious; and I look forward with joy to the time when all those who keep the commandments may have right to the tree of life, and enter through the gates into the city.

Having now obtained a scripture application of this blessed promise, we are prepared to further examine the text. And the objection is further seen to be invalid in that the whole scene is laid on the new earth, (not in the "Age to Come,") where there is neither death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor pain; [chap. xxi, 4;] and in chap. xxii, where it says the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations, the very next sentence reads, "And there shall be no more curse." Verse 3. "Come now, and let us reason together." Can sickness or disease exist where there is no more curse? And if, as is claimed, "the nations" will then be on probation, there must be, not only sickness, but also death; for we cannot suppose immortal men will be on probation; and if they were not subject to death, they would not, on the ground of the objection, need the tree of life, but in that respect be equal to the saints. To sustain this objection, the text must be wrested from its obvious connection, or death be introduced in the new earth. But keeping in view the promise to the church of Ephesus, and looking at chap. xxi, 24, how plain it is that these nations are "the nations of THEM WHICH ARE SAVED," and not them which are to be saved, or which may perhaps be saved. These are the nations whose kings bring their glory and honor into the city, the New Jerusalem which is the city here described.

Isa. ix, 7. There is to be an increase of Messiah's government, and peace, which supposes of necessity that it will spread and man yield obedience to it, which it would be inconsistent to suppose of the eternal state.

This objection has been urged by several writers; but it is their view of the text that is inconsistent with their view of the eternal state. How do they know there is to be an "eternal state" of Messiah's reign, except by the expressions which declare it? and how do they know the order of that state, except by the terms that define it? Now the objection involves a conclusion at variance with the terms of the very text on which it is based. The passage reads, "Of the increase of his government and peace THERE SHALL BE NO END, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and TO ESTABLISH IT WITH JUDGMENT AND WITH JUSTICE, from henceforth, even FOREVER." If these terms do not point it out as an eternal state, I should be happy to be informed what language would be appropriate to the purpose; but I shall make further remarks on these terms in considering other objections.

2 Thess. i, 7-10. This text does not say that the Lord, when he comes, will take vengeance on all them that know not God, and all that obey not the gospel; it speaks only in general terms, of course allowing of exceptions.

Those who use this text to prove the destruction of the wicked would smile at an objection based upon it, against that view, having so much the appearance of caviling; and had not the objection been raised by those standing high in the esteem of many of their fellow men, it might be passed in silence.

Though I would not think to prove any great doctrine by a single disconnected text, I think this is in harmony with what I have endeavored to show, namely, that all who are not "Christ's at his coming" are destroyed from off the earth. Let us see what it teaches. "It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." We notice here the time when the Lord Jesus is revealed; the time when the saints will have rest; and they that trouble them will receive their recompense of tribulation, or vengeance. These are divided into two classes, (1.) them that know not God, and (2.) them that obey not the gospel. Now we have the classes disposed of at a definite time; but let us look at other statements relative to the same time to get the particulars or individuals. "Behold I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev. xxii, 12. "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not, until the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matt. xxiv, 37, 39. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke xvii, 28-30. Thus not only the classes are destroyed in that day, but EVERY MAN—ALL OF THEM; and this testimony removes more than this objection; it removes the objector's whole ground of argument, so that all other objections are really cut off by it.

Rev. v, 9, 10. The saints reign as kings on the earth; but they do not reign over one another, hence there must be mortal men or nations over whom they reign.

This is an inference altogether unwarranted, and at variance with the scriptures. We have seen by Rev. xxi, that on the new earth there are kings over the nations of them which are saved, who bring their glory and honor into the heavenly city—the New Jerusalem. In chap. xxii, in finishing up the description of the city wherein is the tree of life, and the river of water of life, and the throne of God and of the Lamb, where the Lord God gives his people light, the angel said, "And they shall reign for ever and ever." Verse 5. Is not the conclusion equally legitimate that mortal men or nations will exist on the new earth for ever and ever? In these and many other objections (and arguments for the Age to Come) the Scriptures are wrested from their connection and made to bow to a system of human reasoning as dangerous as it is erroneous. O that men would "cease to pervert the right ways of God," and let their feeble reason bow to the revelation of his all-wise counsels.

Other points in the text in question I reserve to be noticed in the future.

Heb. viii, 8-12. The New Covenant, embracing forgiveness of sins, is to be made with the house of Israel and Judah. This has not yet been done; for the scripture from which the text is quoted [Jer. xxxi] says, "they shall not cease from being a nation before me forever," but they are yet rejected and scattered. Hence it must be in the Age to Come. (See Age to Come, by J. Marsh, pp. 107-109.)

Of all the perversions of scripture consequent upon a belief of that theory, this appears the most glaring and the most fatal. If the new covenant, with Christ the High Priest as its Mediator, his blood that ratified it and rendered forgiveness possible, its blessings to those who avail themselves of its intercessions; if these be removed from our reach and all transferred to the Age to Come, then truly may the gospel believer say, as did weeping Mary, "They have taken away my Lord." In the work above quoted, eight reasons are given why it must be made in the Age to Come, and exclusively with the natural descendants of Jacob. Before going into an examination of these points I would call attention to a few facts set forth in the Scriptures:

There are but two covenants contrasted—the old and the new.
The first was taken away and the new established by Christ. Heb. x, 1-22.
There are two (and only two) orders of priesthood—the Aaronic and Melchisedec.
There are two sanctuaries for the priests to officiate in—one on earth made by man, [Ex. xxv, 1-9,] the other in heaven, built by the Lord. Heb. viii, 1, 2.
They cannot change places of ministration, for under the first, or on earth, the Mediator of the new could not minister, [Heb. vii, 13-17; viii, 1-4,] and under the second, or new, there is but "one mediator," [1 Tim. ii, 5,] which excludes all those of the first order.
No sin was taken away by the first, but forgiveness is granted under the second: therefore
The old typified the new, [Heb. vii, 1-5,] and the minister of the new mediates for the transgressions under the old. Chap. ix, 15.
Under the old, offerings were made daily, [Heb. ix, 6, 7; x, 1-4,] but under the new only one offering was made, and that but once. Chap. x, 10, 12.
Under the old, the priests entered the sanctuary on earth with blood of others; [Heb. ix, 25;] but under the new, Christ enters the heavenly by his own blood. Verses 11, 12.
Under the old, one priest succeeded another, but the Mediator of the new has no successor. Heb. vii, 23, 24.

I hope all will bear in mind these plain scripture facts, not only for their bearing on this objection, but on others that may be noticed.

That this covenant was to be made with Israel and Judah, I acknowledge, for it is so written; that it is to be made in the Age to Come, I deny, and that it belongs only to Israel and Judah, I deny, and shall now test those assertions by the Word.

The angel told the prophet Daniel, "Seventy weeks are cut off [from the 2300 days] upon thy people." This must be understood of Israel and Judah, who were to fall from their pre-eminence above the nations at the end of that time; of the Messiah the angel said, "He shall confirm the (a—margin) covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease." Dan. ix, 24, 27. The last week of the seventy determined or cut off upon that people commenced at the commencement of Christ's preaching, was half expired at his crucifixion, and terminated at the time the apostles turned to the Gentiles. This whole week belonged to them.

In fulfillment of this prophecy, at the end of 69 weeks Messiah commenced preaching the gospel of the kingdom by saying, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. xv, 24. He sent forth the twelve to preach the same gospel of the kingdom, to whom he said, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." Chap. x, 6-8. After his resurrection he commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel, "beginning at Jerusalem." Luke xxiv, 47. This they did, tarrying at Jerusalem till they had received the Holy Spirit of promise, and they went forth preaching to their brethren in all parts. Afterwards, when the Jews contradicted and blasphemed, Paul and Barnabas said to them, "It was NECESSARY that the word of God should first have been spoken to you." Acts xiii, 46.

We cannot believe that salvation was more necessary for the Jew than the Gentile, or that either Jew or Gentile could be saved without the gospel of the kingdom; hence this necessity was because the prophecy and promise of God must be fulfilled. Peter said to them at Jerusalem, in the temple, "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, 'And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.'" Acts iii, 25, 26. Paul said of them, "Who are Israelites; to whom pertained the adoption; and the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." Rom.

ix, 4. Also the text which is quoted from Jer. xxxi, is an extract from a letter which Paul wrote to his Hebrew brethren, in which he says, "We have such an High Priest," speaking of the covenant as being then established with them, in contrast with the first covenant which had ceased; and not only for them, but also for their brethren who had transgressed under the first covenant, was he ministering under the new. Heb. ix, 15.

If all this does not show that the new covenant was made with Israel I do not know what could be said or done to show it. Can any Israelite rise up in the face of these facts and say that God has not fulfilled his promise? And can any one have any intelligent idea of Paul's epistle to the Hebrews, chapters vii-x inclusive, who supposes that this covenant has not been made?

It is next asserted that it cannot refer to the Gentiles, but to Israel and Judah only.

That Israel and Judah are distinct from the Gentiles, I also admit; otherwise we could conceive of no possible necessity of confirming the covenant with one before another; but that it belongs exclusively to one, or now more to one than another, I deny. (Age to Come, p. 107, paragraph marked 6.) The scriptures from which I have quoted to show that it was made with Judah and Israel, also show that it was to extend to others as well as them. Thus when Christ commissioned his apostles he said that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name AMONG ALL NATIONS beginning at Jerusalem." Luke xxiv, 47. If this covenant had not been made with them, and the gospel first preached to them, the Scriptures could not have been fulfilled; neither could they have been fulfilled if it had been confined to them. See again Acts xiii, 46, 47. "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles, for so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, 'I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation to the ends of the earth.'" See Isa. xlii, 6.

But it may be asked, Can these promises of the new covenant be said to be fulfilled by the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to them seven years, and then taking it from them and preaching it to the Gentiles eighteen hundred years?

To this I reply, the gospel was not taken from them, but they put it from themselves. See again Acts xiii, 46. And from that day to this it has been preached to them—to all of them that would hear it, as well as to the Gentiles; when Paul says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," we argue truly that "whosoever" includes Gentiles, but will "whosoever" exclude Israelites?

But it is said this is the Gentile dispensation, and the new covenant supposes a time when the Israelites will be restored to their former state of national pre-eminence.

This is erroneous in two respects: the terms of the covenant imply no such thing, nor do the Scriptures which speak on this subject. Paul in his epistle to the Romans, recognizes the salvation of those only who embrace Christ by faith; of course it is a personal or individual salvation—the same that is offered to the Gentiles or "unnatural branches;" for in respect to the promises of God "there is no difference." Nor can this with any propriety be called the "Gentile dispensation," for the Gentiles were never made exclusive or even pre-eminent heirs of the promises of God under this or any other dispensation.

The Jews had a pre-eminence even in this dispensation, so that the promises of the new covenant or gospel were termed theirs, but the middle wall of partition was broken down—the difference abolished, and it was henceforth ordained "that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body." Eph. iii, 6. What this body was may be learned from the preceding chapter, where the Gentiles are said to have been in the time past "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise." "But now," says the Apostle, "in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes WERE FAR OFF, ARE MADE NIGH by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who hath made BOTH ONE, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition. . . . for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace, and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross. . . . Now therefore ye [Gentiles] ARE NO MORE STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS, [from the commonwealth of Israel], but FELLOW-CITIZENS with the saints and of the household of God." Eph. ii, 12-19.

Jesus himself testified the same thing when he said to the Jews, "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD." John x, 16. Here is a unity of the flock which should not be lost sight of; even as the Saviour prayed for them that should believe on him, "that they all may be one." John xvii, 21.

Again, these promises have not failed, as the apostle Paul shows in Rom. ix. He speaks of his "kinsmen according to the flesh," [verse 3,] and declares that the covenants and promises pertain to them, [verse 4,] and then seems to anticipate the very objection stated; for he says, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect," [verse 6,] although the "effect" may be denied by unbelievers, because all of Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh" are not converted; but the reason he assigns is, "For they are not all Israel which are of Israel;" that is to say, the covenant has been made with Judah and Israel according to the promise, and its rejection by the unbelieving children of Abraham does not make void the word or promise; for such are not recognized as Israel; (though they are "of Israel,") and consequently have no part in the promise. From these facts it is very clear that "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him."

But we may go further. This equality not only exists—the effect is not only produced, but we have the agency and the means by which it is produced. Paul declares that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel. Eph. iii, 6. Thus the gospel of Christ produces a union of Jew and Gentile, and it is effected by his "having abolished in his flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Chap. ii, 15.

As long as the law of commandments contained in ordinances existed, so long was a distinction recognized between Jew and Gentile; the middle wall was broken down, and both are made one: "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: [in the purposes or promises of God:] for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. iii, 28. Paul's rebuke to Peter has a bearing on this point. Peter was virtually acknowledging the distinction as yet existing, by conforming to that which had marked such a distinction; but Paul says: "If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." Chap. ii, 18. Let all beware how they undertake to build a middle wall which the gospel of Christ has abolished, or endeavor to divide the fold when the Lord Jesus has said there shall be one fold and one Shepherd.

The old covenant with its ordinances (a sign of enmity and difference) has passed away, and now as there is one God, even so is there one Mediator, and one covenant under which he ministers, and one offering by which we are sanctified, and one flock which he has purchased, and one fold which he has prepared, that we may all be gathered in one body, by one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling. Wherefore let us all strive for the unity of the faith, and keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Amen. (To be Continued.) J. H. W.