p. 1 | Objections Answered by James White

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 28, 1856

Objections Answered

By James White

WHEN WILL THE NATIONS BE DASHED IN PIECES?

(Continued)

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

ISA. liv, 1-10. The expressions in this chapter cannot refer to the New Jerusalem; the same that has been forsaken, desolate, &c., is to be built up in the future age. (See Age to Come, by J. Marsh, pp. 66, 67.)

This objection would have some degree of plausibility in its appearance were it not that Paul has settled it otherwise by applying it to the New Jerusalem in his letter to the Galatians. A few words of divinely inspired comment are worth volumes of human reasoning, or human wisdom. There are many scriptures bearing on this point, serving to throw light on the expressions of the Apostle. In Matt. xxv, is a parable of a wedding; the cry is made, "Behold the bridegroom cometh!" See Mal. iii, 1-3.

In Rev. xxi, we are told that the bride is the New Jerusalem; of course the saints will be the guests at the marriage supper. Compare Rev. xix, 7-9, with Luke xii, 32-37. This (midnight) cry was made in 1844, at the termination of the 2300 days of Dan. viii, 14, when Jesus went into the Most Holy Place of the Sanctuary in heaven, before the Ancient of days, to receive his kingdom and dominion. Compare Dan. vii, 9-14, with Rev. xi, 15-19.

The bride—the city—is the capital of the kingdom which he is there to receive; and his receiving the kingdom, (which must be before his return,) is identical with the marriage. Before the marriage, Paul makes an application of Isa. liv, to the New Jerusalem; and it is evident that old Jerusalem was called the "married wife" in the days of Isaiah, or of the writing of this prophecy. Says the Apostle, "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." Gal. iv, 31. Yet this free-woman, whose children we are by adoption, was desolate, or unmarried, and so continued at least till A. D. 1844, or till the marriage is fully consummated, which must be after that date. Those who bear these facts in mind, and consider Paul's argument in Hebrews, showing that the Sanctuary in the temple of heaven was defiled and needed to be purified or cleansed from sin, can have no difficulty in allowing all that these scriptures say of the New Jerusalem.

There are those that stumble on many subjects by not bearing in mind the apparent interchange of expressions in reference to type and antitype. Thus in Dan. viii it was said that the Sanctuary should be cleansed at the end of 2300 days; and afterwards in explaining the same vision, in chap. ix, the angel without any qualification of terms, predicted the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which was literally fulfilled long before the 2300 days terminated! Will not the sanctuary have to be "rebuilt," and some son of Aaron (for no others could minister there) have to come up to cleanse it at the end of the days? So we should suppose, if we treated this subject as many others are treated, leaving out of sight the New Testament testimony, which shows that there were two sanctuaries, and points out their relation to these prophecies. So the New Testament informs us there are two Jerusalems, and we must bow to the decision of the scripture which shows their condition, and their relation to the prophecies, and to each other.

But if these expressions be allowed to refer to the present or old Jerusalem, then of course that will be the capital of the kingdom in the age to come; and her children—her seed, must be the saints who will inhabit her, and all who shall become such in that age. The question then arises, What will become of it at the termination of that age? This is an important question, as its settlement has a bearing on our title to the inheritance; and but two suppositions can arise in regard to it; namely, it will be burned up at the end of 1000 years, with the other works that are in the world; or, it will for ever continue to exist in connection with the New Jerusalem. In regard to the first supposition it would seem improbable that the capital of Christ's kingdom should ever be burned up; and if it was so to be, then Isa. liv, (and a great many other scriptures quoted as parallels by the advocates of the age to come,) will not apply. It says: "For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercy will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment, but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee." Allowing the Advent to be as soon as 1866, where some Protestant writers begin the millennium, and dating the little wrath at the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, the little moment will be one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six years, and the EVERLASTING kindness, extend through one thousand years! The little wrath would be its overthrow and treading down by the Gentiles, and the great mercy end in its being burned up by the fire which comes down from God out of heaven!

But the advocates of the age to come may say they do not believe any such absurdity. Of course, then, they believe it will stand for ever, together with the New Jerusalem. Let us see how this will agree with the Scriptures. Those who inhabit her or are gathered to her after being rebuilt would doubtless be her children, her seed, referred to in the text. Now let Paul's reasoning be applied to this view. He makes Hagar, the bond-maid the covenant from mount Sinai in Arabia, answer to "Jerusalem which now is," so that what the scripture says of the free and bond-woman he applies to the two Jerusalems, the old and the new; and there are no other Jerusalems but these two to which these expressions can apply. Now the advocates of the age to come argue as if the scripture said: Release the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall take the precedence of the son of the free-woman! But "what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman." I pray that the Lord will deliver me from ever being gathered to Jerusalem which now is with her children, for so sure as the scripture is true, she with her children will be cast out when the New Jerusalem and her children come to take the inheritance.

Jesus would have gathered the children of Jerusalem, but she "would not;" and for all her sins the curse of God came upon her. She has been the "married wife"—God's name was named on her—his tabernacle was there; but for her adulterous actions especially with the Romans, she was cast off and utterly rejected. After about 1800 years her bonded children apply to Christ to receive her again and come and reign in her; but alas, for her hopes and theirs: when he comes they find that he has another bride! and the scripture demands that the adulterous woman and her bonded children be cast out. The glorious bride of our glorified Lord is the New Jerusalem. None but the "little flock" fully recognize this fact, and they are "waiting" for him to "return from the wedding." They know that the marriage is to be consummated in heaven, and patiently wait for their Lord to come to take them to the city, where they will be permitted to sit down at the "marriage supper of the Lamb." Then will the prophets be confounded "which see visions of peace for Jerusalem, and there is no peace, saith the Lord God." Eze. xiii.

J. H. W. (To be Continued.)