QUESTIONS ANSWERED by James White

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 29, 1856

QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

By James White

BRO. SMITH:—I have just received your note enclosing questions by Bro. S., and hasten to reply. The first question is as follows: “If the end means Christ’s coming, and the delivering up the kingdom, takes place previous to the end, which is the Melchisedec priesthood, and this took place in 1844, my question is, Where is the mercy for sinners after that priesthood ends? But if his priestly office continues, Christ either sits upon two thrones at once, or he officiates as priest on David’s throne.” In this Bro. S. misapprehends our position, as may be seen by referring to Bro. White’s article in No. 21, Vol. VII, on the Marriage of the Lamb. Also in the article in No. 1, Vol. VIII, p. 3, I remarked as follows:

“A careful examination of the Scriptures, will show that the coming to the Ancient of Days, where he receives the kingdom, [Dan. vii, 13, 14.] is parallel with his coming to his temple, [Mal. iii, 1.] where he sits as “a refiner and purifier of silver,” [verse 3.] and with his going in to the Marriage, [Matt. xxv,] where he receives as his own the New Jerusalem, the Bride, (our Mother by adoption,) which is the Capital of the kingdom which he there receives. And throwing off the figures, this signifies his going into the Most Holy Place to cleanse the Sanctuary, blot out the transgressions of Israel, finish his priestly rule, and receive his own throne and kingdom, when his enemies are put under his feet; a work which commenced, according to the prophets, in 1844, and will terminate just previous to the pouring out of the plagues.”

All the above named events must occur within that time, viz., between 1844 and the pouring out of the plagues, but they cannot all occur at once. His priestly rule is on the throne of his Father exclusively, and continues as long as his mediation and probation continue; and until his enemies are put under his feet; that is, until he receives his own throne, but no longer. He then takes his own, which is a subordinate throne, and becomes subject to the Father.

To say that “he went in to the marriage,” in 1844, or that he went to the Ancient of days to receive a kingdom, is not to say that the marriage was consummated, or the kingdom given at that identical point of time: or to show that he passed into the Most Holy to cleanse the Sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days, does not prove that the work is accomplished at that time. It is a progressive work. And to show that Christ still occupies his place at the Father’s right hand after his entrance into the Most Holy, it will only be necessary to remark, that the cleansing of the Sanctuary is an important part of his priestly work, and can be performed only by entering into the Most Holy Place. There is no chance for an inference that he occupies two thrones at once, or officiates as Priest on David’s throne. The misapprehension that has arisen, or that may arise, on this point must be owing entirely to the fact being so long overlooked that Christ is a King (Priest-king) on the throne of his Father in heaven. It has been so often asserted that he could not be priest and king at the same time, that many suppose it to be a truth. If he was to be king on the throne of David only, then it would doubtless be true; but the Scriptures ascribe to him a priesthood on the Father’s throne after the order of Melchisedec. The testimony of Zech. vi, 12, 13, and Heb. vii, and viii, should be examined with care.

That Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 I have designed noticing in due time. This has been denied by some, who take the position that “when Christ does enter the Most Holy, the time for the salvation of sinners will be past, according to the type;” and as it is not yet past, they therefore conclude that he has not yet entered. But it is worthy of notice that the self-same individuals earnestly contend that “the time for the salvation of sinners” will continue for at least a thousand years after that event!! It is very convenient to be able to prove a thing by “the rule of contrary” under certain circumstances. (The subject, and not the question, has led me to make these remarks.)

The next question, on Dan. ii, 34, 35, and 44, covers a large field, and I am obliged to defer it for the present for want of sufficient time to notice it as the subject demands. J. H. W.