p. 164 | LETTERS TO BRO. SPERRY by J. H. W.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 25, 1856

LETTERS TO BRO. SPERRY

By J. H. W.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD.—No. 5.

LETTERS TO BRO. SPERRY.

DEAR BRO. SPERRY:—When we look at the plain testimony of the sacred word that Zion, the "holy hill," and Jerusalem, "the City of the great King," are in heaven, it is a matter of astonishment that any Bible student should deny it. But such is the case. Substitutes for the plan of salvation are common in these days of strong delusions, and false christs abound; so, for Jerusalem above, the holy City, we find substitutes in Palestine, at New Lebanon, and Salt Lake. And so confident are men that John's vision of the descent of the holy City will never be fulfilled, that they think it the very height of wisdom to deny it. At this I should not be surprised did the denial proceed from those who reject the word of God, or claim only a spiritual or mystical interpretation of it, as the Swedenborgians and Spiritualists do. But when it emanates from those who profess to take the Bible exclusively as the rule of faith, and who claim to be the only true literalists, it assumes quite another appearance. The most striking instance I have seen is the following from D. P. Hall, in his article on the Kingdom:—

"Where did David reign? and who were his subjects? are questions, which when correctly answered, will prepare the way for answering two others of like import; viz., where will David's son, Jesus, reign, and who will be his subjects? Canaan, Zion, Jerusalem, and the twelve tribes, instantly arise before the mind, on undertaking such a task. Who would think of taking Canaan, Zion, Jerusalem, and the twelve tribes, into heaven above, up to a white cloud, into a Gentile's heart, or a Protestant church? No one, unless they were fit subjects for an insane asylum."

With some of the above points I have nothing to do, nor to say in their defense; but I notice the passage because it includes the faith of my brethren and self in regard to Christ, the King, Jerusalem, Zion, and the Israel of God, being taken "into heaven above," and considering the very plain proof we have of the fact, I think it leaves the assertion of our being "fit subjects for an insane asylum" on account of that faith an "open question," which, however, I shall not stop to discuss with him, but pass it with the highly gratifying reflection that we are not there. Strongly marked peculiarities of character are always interesting to the student of human nature; and in this light I consider D. P. Hall's self-complacency worthy of the deepest admiration.

But the scripture question under consideration will not be settled by any evidences of our folly or of his superior wisdom, but by the declarations of God's word, which, fortunately for us, are so plain that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." It is better, then, to be "wayfaring" than wise; and the Apostle also instructs us, (and I am forcibly reminded of it by Mr. Hall's past course in relation to the Third Angel's Message) that the unlearned are not the only class that wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. See 2 Pet. iii, 16.

In presenting the kingdom of Israel under David as an illustration of the kingdom of God under Christ, he has erred exactly where he erred in his remarks on the promise to Abraham; namely, by losing sight of the New Testament comments on the Old Testament prophecies and promises. As the land possessed by the Jews was typical of the rest remaining for the saints, so were the natural descendants of Jacob a type of the true Israel—the prevailers with God—the children of the promise, even as their circumcision was a type of the Spirit's operation upon the heart of the Christian, or their sacrifices typical of that presented before God in this dispensation. Said Paul, "And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." Heb. iii, 5, 6. If they who "hold fast the confidence" are the house of Christ, otherwise termed "the household of faith," [Gal. vi, 10,] by analogy, the house of Moses would be "the house of Israel." Moses was the first priest under the old covenant, [Ps. xcix, 6; Ex. xxix, 11, 12,] and Christ also as a Prophet was like unto Moses, [Deut. xviii, 15-18,] which clearly shows that Moses was a type of Christ, as Paul said, he was faithful in his house for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after. And the house of Moses bears the same relation to the house of Christ, that Moses bears to Christ, that is, of the type to the antitype. The declarations of the New Testament, beginning with that

of John the Baptist, [Matt. iii, 9,] and ending with that of our Saviour from heaven, [Rev. iii, 9,] confirm this view.

Mr. Hall's comment on Rom. xi, it will not be necessary to notice, as I gave an exposition of that chapter last Winter, and he has not advanced any new idea in regard to it, but run the old beaten track, the fallacies of which have been fully shown.

In speaking of the descendants of Jacob, on the question: "Who will be the subjects?" of the kingdom? he says:—

"God exalted the children of Israel, the descendants of Jacob, his natural and fleshly descendants, and brought them from Egyptian bondage. At the base of Mt. Sinai he constituted them his kingdom. God was King and the tribes were subjects."

It is true that they were constituted the subjects of his kingdom, on the condition that they would obey his voice. The terms were as follows: "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Ex. xix, 5, 6. But, instead of obeying, as Mr. Hall has observed, they presented a scene of disobedience and rebellion, until God would bear with them no longer. And then, instead of regarding them as a peculiar treasure, as he would have done had they obeyed, he says, "they continued not in my covenant AND I REGARDED THEM NOT." The conditional promise of God in Ex. xix, 5, 6, and this declaration in Heb. viii, 9, prove beyond all possibility of contradiction that character and not birth or national distinction, was the condition of a place in the kingdom. God gave them privileges because of the love that he had for their fathers, and a special opportunity was presented to them of becoming subjects of his kingdom; it was promised to them on conditions which they did not fulfill, and as before remarked, they having failed on their part, these special privileges were taken from them, and the promises to them as a distinct people were withdrawn; as the Saviour said to them: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matt. xxi, 43. Certain fruits were required to entitle them to the kingdom, for want of which Jacob's "fleshly descendants" had the kingdom taken from them; their claim to the title of Abraham's children was rejected, and they were denominated the children of the devil! John viii, 39-44.

Another error of that theory is that the judging of the tribes by the apostles, and of the world by the saints, is in a dispensation of mercy. On "the object of the present dispensation," Mr. Hall says:

"It is to gather out a peculiar people, a select and well disciplined company, to become Christ's associates in dispensing judgment and bestowing mercies upon the nations of earth. . . . The same is presented to the Corinthians by the apostle Paul, when he would shame them for referring their difficulties to an infidel tribunal. 'Do ye not know,' said he, 'that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life.' 1 Cor. vi, 2, 3."

Under this head he also quotes and comments on the rule of the saints, which I must briefly notice.

There are three distinct manners of ruling ascribed to Christ; not that he rules on three thrones, but the rules differ according to their object, though two may be partly in the same time. The first is the rule on his Father's throne, where he speaks peace to the nations, which is to continue only during his priesthood. Second, he will rule all nations with a rod of iron, which ends in their destruction. Third, he will rule over the house of Jacob, which rule will be for ever and have no end.

The saints also rule over the nations; but from the scripture expressions relative to their rule, it cannot be in manner what Age to Come believers seem to suppose. As it is predicted of the Saviour that he shall rule all nations with a rod of iron, so it is of the saints. "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father." Rev. ii, 26, 27. Mark the parallel between this and Ps. ii, 8, 9. "Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." It has been shown by the clearest proofs given in the Review, that he will dash them in pieces at his coming; therefore this iron rule must be at and immediately preceding his coming. There is no length given to it in the scripture. Some assume that it will be 1000 years, but for this they have no warrant. It cannot be longer than the time intervening between their being given to him, which is at the close of his priesthood, and their being dashed in pieces, which is at his coming. But what is spoken of the Saviour is spoken also of the saints; and their rule over the nations with a rod of iron can be no longer than his. In both cases it terminates with their being "dashed in pieces," or being "broken to shivers."

Besides the very plain statements of other scriptures contradicting that theory, there are evidences in 1 Cor. vi, that it does not refer to such circumstances as they claim. The judgment referred to is distinct from any judgment in matters of "this life," which would not be the case if they were to dispense judgments and bestow mercies on mortal probationers. "This life" is peculiar to no dispensation, but was lived by Adam and all his posterity, through the past and present dispensations, and will continue till "mortality is swallowed up of life," even eternal life. According to their view "this life" will continue through the Age to Come, and the saints will judge matters of right and wrong in regard to it; and they quote 1 Cor. vi, 1, 2, to prove it, but it does not.

Again, as they will judge the world, so will they judge angels. But I presume they will not claim that the angels judged by them will be on probation, and of course it will not be to dispense mercy to them. It can no more refer to the angels of God who do his Commandments than to a world of immortalized men; hence this judgment can only refer to the process by which is determined the punishment of fallen angels and the wicked world, whose period of probation having expired, nothing but the judgment and its final execution awaits them.

It is claimed that the future age will be far more glorious than this; that this is but initiatory and preparatory to that. This is the dawn—that the day. I heard D. P. Hall say in a public lecture that the object of this dispensation is to save individuals out of the nations: of that to save the nations. As salvation is now individual, it will then be national. But this does not appear consistent with the fact that they will be ruled with a rod of iron. An iron rule would not be more merciful than the present rule of the Saviour on his Father's throne. I cannot see how the two ideas can be harmonized unless the salvation is compulsory, and mercy will be dispensed with the sword!

I shall follow out this thought in my next, and examine the declarations of the Scriptures respecting the day of the Lord. J. H. W. (To be Continued.)