Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    Chapter Six. Objections Considered

    Objection 1.-Revelation 22:2. “The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations,” which supposes nations on probation, subject to sickness, etc., after Christ comes.RDAC 94.1

    Answer. The objection assumes that the blessing of the above text, and of verse 14, is not for the saints of this present age; for the saints will then have become immortal, and will not need the tree of life; and they will not be subject to sickness, and therefore will not need healing.RDAC 94.2

    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, by unassisted reason, we cannot comprehend.RDAC 94.3

    The “seven churches” of Revelation 2 and 3 were either seven literal churches in Asia, or they are seven different states of the church in as many periods of time. The latter view is likely the correct one; but in either case they are before the coming of Christ, as in each of the four last letters, that event 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.” Revelation 2:7. Here is a point that no sophistry can evade. If the blessing is for them it may be also for all the resurrected saints, and the changed ones likewise, even though the wisdom of the world be not able to comprehend all the depths of the counsel of God. And we may look forward with confidence to the time when all those who keep the commandments of God may have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into the city.RDAC 94.4

    Having thus obtained a Scripture application of the promise, we will farther examine the text. And the objection is seen to be invalid in that the whole scene is laid, not in the Age to Come, but on the new earth, where there is neither death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor pain; Revelation 21:4; and in the next verse after the text quoted in the objection, it says, “And there shall be no more curse.” Come now and let us reason together. Can sickness or disease exist where there is no more curse? And if, as is assumed in the objection, “the nations” will then be on probation, there must be death there also, for we cannot suppose immortal men will be on probation. To sustain the 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. 21:24, 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.RDAC 95.1

    I consider that the scriptures above noticed remove the objection, and prove that the idea of healing diseases, or removing a curse, is not implied in the text. To support this view, I offer the definition of the word as given by Greenfield. The word rendered healing is therapeian. That all may be assured on this point, I copy the following definitions from the lexicon:RDAC 96.1

    Therapeia, service, attendance, aid, help, Luke 9:11, by impl., relief, healing, cure, Revelation 22:2; meton., those who render service, servants, domestics; family, household, Matthew 24:45, Luke 12:42, fromRDAC 96.2

    Therapeuo, to serve, minister to, render service, and attendance, worship, Acts 17:25; by impl., to heal, cure, Matthew 4:23, 24; 8:16, et al.: whence,RDAC 96.3

    Therapon, a servant, minister.RDAC 96.4

    The text teaches that the leaves of the tree are for the use or service of the nations; they being, as before shown, saved in the kingdom of God.RDAC 96.5

    Objection 2.-Isaiah 9:7. There is to be an increase of Messiah’s government and peace, which supposes of necessity that it will spread, and men yield obedience to it, which it would be inconsistent to suppose of the eternal state.RDAC 96.6

    Answer. 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,RDAC 96.7

    “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.RDAC 97.1

    Objection 3.-2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. 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.RDAC 97.2

    Answer. They 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. This text is in perfect harmony with all those that show 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, viz., 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; 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.” Revelation 22:12. “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.” Matthew 24:37, 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 17:28-30. 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.RDAC 97.3

    Objection 4.-Revelation 5:9, 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.RDAC 98.1

    Answer. This is an inference altogether unwarranted and at variance with the Scriptures. We have seen by Revelation 21, 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. 22, 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 forever and ever.” Verse 5. Is not the conclusion equally legitimate that mortal men or nations will exist on the new earth forever 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.RDAC 98.2

    Objection 5.-Hebrews 8:8-12. 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 (Jeremiah 31) 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.)RDAC 99.1

    Answer. Of all the perversions of Scripture consequent upon a belief in 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.RDAC 99.2

    That this covenant was to be made with Israel and Judah, we admit, for so it is written; that it is to be made in the Age to Come, we deny; and that it belongs only to Israel and Judah, we deny. The Scripture proofs on these points are very plain, and when examined, can leave no doubt on the mind as to where is the truth.RDAC 100.1

    The angel said to 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 at the end of that time. Of the Messiah, the angel said, “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst, of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.” Daniel 9:24, 27. The last week of the seventy which were 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. The whole of this week was given to that people.RDAC 100.2

    In fulfillment of this prophecy, at the end of the sixty-nine weeks, Messiah commenced preaching the gospel of the kingdom, saying, “The time is fulfilled.” Mark 1:15. And he said, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24. He sent forth the twelve to preach the same gospel of the kingdom, with this order, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.” Matthew 10:6-8. After his resurrection he commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel, “beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:47. This they did, tarrying at Jerusalem till they had received the Holy Spirit of promise, and they went to their brethren in all parts. But after a time, 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 13:46.RDAC 100.3

    We cannot believe that salvation was more necessary for the Jew than for the Gentile, or that either could be saved without the gospel: hence this necessity for preaching to them first was solely for the fulfillment of the prophecy and promise to them. 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 3:25, 26. Paul said of them, “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants [plural], and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” Romans 9:4. Also the objection itself is based on a text in Jeremiah which Paul quotes in his letter to his Hebrew brethren, in which he says, “We have such an high priest,” speaking of the new covenant as being already made, in contrast with the old which had ceased; and not only for them, but also for their brethren who had transgressed under the first covenant, was he ministering. Hebrews 9:15.RDAC 101.1

    If this does not prove that the new covenant has been made with Israel, I do not know what could show it. Can any Israelite rise up before these facts and say that God has not fulfilled his promise? And can any one have any intelligent idea of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, chapters 7-10, inclusive, who supposes that this covenant has not been made?RDAC 101.2

    The importance of this subject cannot be overestimated, and at the risk of some repetition we notice a few Scripture facts having a direct bearing upon it.RDAC 102.1

    No sin was taken away by the first covenant; therefore, it was typical of the new, in which alone sin is taken away. And for this reason, it is declared that Christ is the mediator of the new, for the transgressions under the old. Hebrews 10:1-4; 9:9-15. Hence, if the new is not yet made, Christ is not yet a mediator, and there is yet no forgiveness.RDAC 102.2

    The priests of the two covenants cannot change places of ministration; for under the first, or on earth, the priest of the new could not minister; Hebrews 7:13-17; 8:1-4; for if he did, he would officiate as a type of himself! And under the new, there is but “one mediator.” 1 Timothy 2:5; and his priesthood is on his Father’s throne in Heaven. Hebrews 8:1-5. This excludes all of the order of Aaron.RDAC 102.3

    Under the old covenant there were many offerings, and the priests succeeded one another in office. In the new, there is but one offering, one priest, and he enters into Heaven itself by his own blood, shed once for all.RDAC 102.4

    Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. Hebrews 9:15; 12:24. The Scriptures invariably speak of him as being a mediator at the present time. Hebrews 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1; Hebrews 9:24; Romans 8:34. They never speak of him as a priest, mediator, or intercessor, in any future dispensation.RDAC 102.5

    Again, the blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. Matthew 26:28. As “the life is in the blood,” and man by transgression has forfeited his life, blood is given to make an atonement. Leviticus 17:11. Therefore, “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22. When Paul says, “He is the mediator of the new testament,” he gives a reason that the most obdurate advocate of the Age to Come will scarcely deny. “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead.” Hebrews 9:16, 17. If Christ is not the testator here referred to, then another must die to ratify the covenant. But who will contend for this? Thus it is proved beyond the possibility of contradiction that the new testament or covenant was ratified, or “of force,” when Christ died.RDAC 103.1

    The scriptures which I have quoted to show that it was made with Israel, also show that it was to extend to others as well as to 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 24:47. If this covenant had not been made with them, and the gospel first preached to them, the Scriptures would not have been fulfilled; neither would they have been fulfilled if it had been confined to them. See again Acts 13:46, 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 unto the ends of the earth.” See Isaiah 42:6.RDAC 103.2

    Mark well this point: The gospel was first preached to them, and it was not taken from them; they put it from themselves. And from that day to this, it has been preached to them-to all of them who would hear, as well as to the Gentiles, When Paul says, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” all say that that includes the Gentiles; but will “whosoever” exclude the Jews?RDAC 104.1

    Now, we see that it is a great error to call this a Gentile dispensation, as is frequently done, and so look for a time when the Jews will be restored to national pre-eminence in order to the fulfillment of the promises to them. The Gentiles were never made exclusive nor pre-eminent heirs of the promises of God in any dispensation. They never had, nor will they ever have, advantage of the Jews, in or out of the gospel. The Jews had a pre-eminence even in this dispensation, so that the promises of the new covenant were termed theirs; but the middle wall of partition was broken down; the difference in privilege abolished, and it was thenceforth ordained that “the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body.” Ephesians 3:6. What this body was, may be learned from. Ephesians 2:12-19. The Gentiles were in time past “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise.” “But now, 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.”RDAC 104.2

    Jesus himself testified to 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 10:16. 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 17:21.RDAC 105.1

    Again, these promises have not failed, as the apostle Paul shows in Romans 9:3-6. He speaks of his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” and declares that the covenants and promises pertain to them, and then seems to anticipate the very objection stated; for he says, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect,” 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 of 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.”RDAC 105.2

    As the “promises to Israel” are so directly involved in this objection, it may be well here to notice the fact that the name Israel does not exclusively belong to the Jews “according to the flesh;” nor even does it properly belong to them in the gospel.RDAC 106.1

    The name Israel is significant; it is an acquired name. Jacob received it because he prevailed with God. Afterward it became a family and national name, but the Scriptures show that God kept its significance in view; especially is this plain in the New Testament. Hence it came to be used in two senses. Not observing this fact, many have erred concerning God’s purposes.RDAC 106.2

    Everything peculiar to the Jewish system was typical; and every term by which a type is designated must be used in two senses, one referring to the type, the other to the antitype. It is not difficult to determine in what sense a term is used if we keep in view its relation to first principles, or observe to what covenant it belongs. The following are instances. Israel according to the flesh, Jews outwardly, Palestine under the curse, the sanctuary or pattern of heavenly things, Jerusalem which now is, and circumcision outward in the flesh. These are all peculiar to the first covenant. On the other hand, we find Israel (the prevailers) the faithful children of promise, Jews inwardly, an incorruptible, undefiled, and eternal inheritance, the heavenly sanctuary, Jerusalem which is above, and circumcision of the heart, in the Spirit. These are of the new covenant. These two classes belong to two different systems; one of enmity-the other of peace (Ephesians 2:14, 15); and each has its own place in its own system, and cannot be transferred to the other by any means. So that he who is outwardly a Jew, an Israelite according to the flesh, can no more take his place in the other class, or gospel system, without becoming Abraham’s seed by faith in Christ, than can the Greek or the Hottentot.RDAC 106.3

    D. P. Hall, one of the ablest of Age to Come advocates, in trying to prove that the literal descendants of Jacob are heirs of the promises, remarked on Ezekiel 36, as follows:—RDAC 107.1

    “There are but three positions which can be taken in regard to this promise, and many others of like import, viz: They have been fulfilled in the past history of this nation; or they will be fulfilled to those who are Israelites in the highest sense, i. e., after the law of faith; or they remain to be fulfilled to the natural descendants. The last-named position is the only one admissible in the scripture now under investigation.”RDAC 107.2

    And again he quotes from Ezekiel 37, and inserts an explanation in a parenthesis as follows:—RDAC 107.3

    “So shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David (David 2nd, Christ) my servant shall be a king over them, and they shall have one shepherd,” etc.RDAC 107.4

    Here we notice that he has admitted that there are two senses in which the term Israel is used, but thinks (or rather decides) that it is not allowable to use it in the “highest sense.” Yet in quoting a parallel promise in which it is said David shall be king over them, he uses David in the “highest sense,” by referring it to Christ.RDAC 107.5

    By what authority does he put “David 2nd, Christ,” in the prophecy of Ezekiel, while he arbitrarily denies us the privilege of putting “Israel 2nd, of faith,” in the same connection?RDAC 107.6

    There are, by his own showing, two Israels and two Davids; and David 1st has reigned over the first Israel, and now he contends that David 2nd will also reign over the first Israel. But the first Israel and the reign of the first David belonged entirely to the first covenant, while the second Israel and “David 2nd” are under the new. It is as impossible and absurd to connect the reign of David 2nd with the first Israel, as it would be to connect the reign of David 1st with the second Israel. But such confusion is common with the advocates of the Age to Come. They seem to think that by quoting much Scripture they gain their point, entirely disregarding the connection and the principles that govern its application.RDAC 108.1

    It is often asserted that Gentiles by birth can have no right whatever to the name of Israel. But this is not in accordance with the Scriptures. Notice what Paul says to the Ephesians-ye were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. But what do they become when they are no more strangers, or aliens and foreigners? Take our own nation for an illustration. Here are individuals born in different countries; aliens and foreigners by birth. But they come to our shores, and by virtue of the naturalization laws they cease to be strangers or aliens, but are constituted American citizens. They are Americans by adoption: and in any transaction of, or with, the government they would not be styled or treated as English, French, or Germans, though they were born in England, France, or Germany. So, says Paul to the believing Gentiles, “Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens”—of what?—“of the commonwealth of Israel.” They are Israelites by adoption: they are of “the same body;” they are no more two, but one in Christ.RDAC 108.2

    Again, Paul says in Romans 9, that “they are not all Israel which are of Israel.” Now it is evident that if the term Israel was strictly a national name, indicating the origin or birth of him who bore it, as our opponents claim, this declaration of Scripture could not be true, for then they who are of Israel would all be Israel, and no others.RDAC 109.1

    We notice here that in the plan of the gospel there is a change in the relation of both Jews and Gentiles; that is, of such as are Jews and Gentiles by birth or descent. Thus, the unbelieving descendant of Abraham and Jacob is not a child of Abraham, nor counted for his seed; nor an Israelite, according to Romans 9. He is not of that body, nor partaker of their promises. While the faithful, Gentile born, are Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:7, 29; Romans 4:11; 9:6-8), and citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, of the same body, partakers of the same promises.RDAC 109.2

    There is a very specific declaration respecting each class in Romans 2. Circumcision distinguished between the Jews and the Gentiles. “Uncircumcision which is by nature,” certainly refers to Gentiles. And if the circumcised (i. e., the Jew) be a breaker of the law, his circumcision is made uncircumcision; that is, his claim to the title of a Jew is reversed, and he is counted a Gentile. But if the uncircumcision (i. e., the Gentile) keep the righteousness of the law, his uncircumcision is counted for circumcision; that is, his Gentile origin is set aside, and he is counted for a Jew. This would be called an extravagant pretension by Age-to-Come Judaizers, but Paul does not leave it indefinite or open to cavil, but plainly says, “FOR HE IS NOT A JEW WHICH ISRDAC 109.3

    ONE OUTWARDLY,” that is, by birth or natural descent: “BUT HE IS A JEW WHICH IS ONE INWARDLY,” that is, of faith, whether circumcised or uncircumcised-whether Jew or Gentile by birth. How, in the face of these positive declarations, the Age to Come advocates can think to sustain their positions is a mystery. What do they do with such testimony? Nothing at all. They pass it by and arbitrarily decide that the promises do not belong to “Israel in the highest sense!” We do not wonder that there is confusion among the believers in that doctrine. Denying first principles, passing by the most positive declarations, wresting the promises from the gospel and placing them in a system which they are not slow to declare is abolished, they can no more hope to arrive at truth and unity than they could to arrive at perfection in numbers while denying that two and two make four.RDAC 110.1

    We have shown the fallacy of restricting the phrase, “my people,” to the natural descendants of Jacob. But we are told that God’s name was named on them; and so it was on “Jerusalem which now is” (see Jeremiah 25:29), yet she is rejected, and so are her children. Galatians 4. Instead of being the chosen of God-his people-the Saviour said to them, “Ye are of your Father the devil.” They claim to be Jews, but they are not: they are of the synagogue of Satan. Revelation 3:9.RDAC 110.2

    It would not seem likely that any special promises or blessings were in reserve for the children of the devil, as the Saviour termed the unbelieving Jews. But in belief they are in Christ, and we have fully shown that in Christ there are no special blessings to any particular class or nationality.RDAC 110.3

    We say that in the gospel there are no special privileges; and the gospel is the means whereby this equality before God is effected. Paul declares that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel. Ephesians 3:6. 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. 2:15.RDAC 111.1

    As long as the law of commandments contained in ordinances existed, so long was a distinction recognized between Jew and Gentile; but 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.” Galatians 3:28. 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. 2:18.RDAC 111.2

    In this we notice that (1.) The gospel had broken down the middle wall between Jews and Gentiles, and made both one, partakers of the same promises; and (2.) They who would build up this wall, and thereby separate between the partakers of the promises, are transgressors against the gospel. 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.RDAC 111.3

    The old covenant with its ordinances (a sign of enmity and difference) has passed away, and now as there is one God, even so there is 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.RDAC 112.1

    Objection 6.-Isaiah 54:1-10. The expressions in this-chapter cannot refer to the New Jerusalem, but must refer to the old, as that which has been forsaken, desolate, etc., is to be built up in the future age. See Age to Come, by J. Marsh, pp. 66, 67.RDAC 112.2

    Answer. This objection would have some degree of plausibility 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 inspired comment are worth volumes of human wisdom.RDAC 112.3

    In Matthew 25 is a parable of a wedding. A cry is made, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh!” All acknowledge that Christ is the bridegroom. By Revelation 21 we learn that the bride is the New Jerusalem; and of course the saints will be the guests at the marriage supper. Compare Revelation 19:7-9, with Luke 12:32-37. We hold that this cry was made in 1844, at the termination of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, when Jesus passed into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, before the Ancient of days, to receive his kingdom and dominion. Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 11:15-19.RDAC 112.4

    The city-the bride-is the capital of the kingdom which he is there to receive; and his receiving the kingdom is called the marriage. It is then, before the marriage, that Paul makes an application of Isaiah 54 to the New Jerusalem; and it is beyond question that old Jerusalem was called “the married wife,” in the days of Isaiah, who wrote the prophecy. Said the apostle, “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” Galatians 4:31. This free woman, so long time unmarried, is the mother of all the saints; of all who have trusted in the Messiah in both dispensations.RDAC 113.1

    There are many who stumble over the fulfillment of prophecy, not bearing in mind the interchange of expressions in reference to type and antitype. Thus, in Daniel 8, it was said that the sanctuary should be cleansed after 2300 days; and afterward in explaining the same vision in chap. 9, the angel, without any qualification of terms, predicted the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which was fulfilled long before the 2300 days terminated! Shall we therefore say the sanctuary must be “rebuilt,” and some son of Aaron (for no other could minister there) must come up to cleanse it at the end of the days? So we should say if we treated this subject as others are treated, leaving out of sight the New-Testament proofs that there are two sanctuaries, and that the prophecy refers to the antitypical sanctuary in Heaven. Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:23, 24. And so also we learn that there are two Jerusalems, and we must accept the Scripture declarations in regard to their relation to the fulfillment of the prophecies.RDAC 113.2

    But if these prophecies refer to the old Jerusalem, then that must be considered the capital of the kingdom, in the Age to Come, and her children will be those who will inhabit her during that age. And, indeed, this is the view the advocates of that theory advance. But what will become of it at the termination of that age? This is an important question, having a bearing on our title to the inheritance. But two suppositions can arise in regard to this, viz.: it will be burned up at the end of the 1000 years, with the other works that are in the world; or, it will continue to exist forever in connection with the New Jerusalem.RDAC 114.1

    In regard to the first supposition, it would seem improbable that the capital of Christ’s kingdom should ever be burned up. But if it shall be, then Isaiah 54, and many other texts quoted by the advocates of the Age to Come as being parallel with it, 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.” Should the advent take place at the end of the present century, which is certainly far enough in the future to meet the minds of the advocates of that doctrine; and if we date the little wrath at the destruction of Jerusalem in a. d. 70, the little moment will have been one thousand eight hundred and thirty years; while the everlasting kindness will be just one thousand years in duration! The little wrath was its being overthrown and trodden down of the Gentiles; and the great mercy will eventuate in its being burned up with the fire that comes down from God out of Heaven!RDAC 114.2

    But the advocates of the Age to Come may say they do not believe any such absurdity. Then, of course, the other supposition must contain their belief, viz., that, with the New Jerusalem, it will stand forever. Let us see how this will agree with the Scriptures. Those who inhabit her, or are gathered to her when she is rebuilt, will be her children, her seed. Now let us apply the argument of Paul to this view. He makes Agar, the bondmaid, answer to “Jerusalem which now is;” and so what the Scriptures say of the free and bondwoman applies to the two Jerusalems, the old and the new. Now the advocates of the Age to Come talk as if the Scripture said, Release the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall take the precedence of the son of the freewoman! But, “What saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” Will they accept this as their view? What will they do in this dilemma? Or, if they reject both these suppositions, will they please inform us what is their position on this subject? But I pray that the Lord will deliver me from being gathered to old Jerusalem with her children, for, as sure as the Scripture is truth, she with her children will be cast out when the children of the New Jerusalem shall take the inheritance.RDAC 115.1

    Jesus would have gathered the children of Jerusalem, but they “would not;” and for all her sins the curse of God came upon her. She was the “married wife”—God’s name was named on her; his tabernacle was there. But for her adulterous actions she was cast off and utterly rejected. After a long time her bond children apply to Christ to receive her again, and come and reign in her; but alas for her hope and theirs: when he comes they find that he has another Bride! and the Scripture demands that the adulterous woman and her children be cast out. The glorious bride of our glorified Lord is the New Jerusalem. The “little flock” realize this, and they are “waiting for their Lord,” to “return from the wedding.” Luke 12:31-37. They know that the marriage is to be consummated in Heaven, and they patiently wait for their Lord to come and take them to the city, where they will sit down at “the marriage supper of the Lamb.” “Then will the prophets be confounded which prophesy concerning Jerusalem, and which see visions of peace for her, and there is no peace, saith the Lord God.” Ezekiel 13:16.RDAC 115.2

    Objection 7.-Christ’s priesthood is after the order of Melchisedec. But Melchisedec was both priest and king at the same time; therefore the priesthood of Christ will not cease at his coming, but will continue while he is king on the throne of David.RDAC 116.1

    Answer. Paul to the Hebrews says the earthly priests “serve unto the shadow and example of heavenly things.” But there are certain things which were not typified by the priests of the order of Aaron, and there were also certain things in their ministration to which there is nothing corresponding in the antitype. Therefore it is evident that Aaron and the priests of his order were not complete types of the minister of the new covenant in the heavenly sanctuary. They offered a multitude of offerings “year by year;” he offered but one. Hebrews 7:27; 9:25, 26; 10:1, 11, 12. Some have followed the types so strictly as to lose sight of this, and imbibe opinions subversive of the most important truths on this great subject. The points of difference are distinctly pointed out in the letter to the Hebrews.RDAC 116.2

    They could not continue by reason of death; but he ever liveth to make intercession for us. Hebrews 7:23, 25.RDAC 117.1

    With them the priesthood descended from father to son; but his is unchangeable. Numbers 3:10; Hebrews 7:24.RDAC 117.2

    And the reckoning of their genealogy was essential to their being admitted to a discharge of the duties of the office; but no priests traced their genealogy to the tribe from which he sprang. Hebrews 7:13, 14.RDAC 117.3

    They did not unite royalty with their priesthood; but he is both king and priest.RDAC 117.4

    Now as Aaron could not typify the priesthood of Christ in these respects, Melchisedec is presented in the Scriptures to make up this deficiency. Said Paul, “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is, King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” Hebrews 7:1-3. The record in Genesis gives us to understand that he was a real personage; as much so as Abraham, who gave tithes to him. And he can only be said to have been without parents, etc., because there is no genealogy of him given in the records, in contrast with Aaron and his sons, whose genealogy had to be carefully preserved. That this method of expression was common among the Hebrews, we have the best authority to show. Says Dr. Clarke, “He who could not support his pretensions by just genealogical evidence, was said by the Jews to be without father.... This sort of phraseology was not uncommon when the genealogy of a person was unknown or obscure.”RDAC 117.5

    The translation of the text from the Syriac is as follows: “Of whom neither his father nor his mother are written in the genealogies; nor the commencement of his days, nor the end of his life; but, after the likeness of the Son of God, his priesthood remaineth forever.”RDAC 118.1

    Wakefield renders it, “Of whose father, mother, pedigree, birth, and death, there is no account.RDAC 118.2

    The Rheimish N. T. has the following note: “Without father, etc. Not that he had no father, etc., but that neither his father nor his pedigree, nor his birth, nor his death, are set down in the Scriptures.”RDAC 118.3

    Comprehensive Com. “The commentators generally agree that what is meant is, that his name is not preserved, or the names of his parents, in the sacred genealogies.”RDAC 118.4

    The record in Genesis gives us no information in regard to Melchisedec further than that he was king of Salem and priest of God. Many conjectures have been put forth relative to him; some suppose he was Shem. But all such conjectures must be vain, as it was evidently the design of the Scriptures that it should not be known who he was. If it were possible to ascertain this, he would no longer stand as a type of Christ in his priesthood, according to Hebrews 7:1-3, etc. All the declarations of that scripture in regard to Melchisedec are fulfilled in the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and nowhere else. He has neither father nor son; that is, he has neither predecessor nor successor in that office. He has neither beginning of days nor end of life; that is, his office did not come to him because he was born of a certain line-it was not of descent; nor does death cause a cessation of his ministry, as was the case with all of Aaron’s order.RDAC 118.5

    Now the particular point at which the objection aims is his kingly priesthood. We see that all the other points specified in regard to Melchisedec as a type of Christ apply to the priesthood of Christ at this present time, and where he is officiating, even in “Heaven itself.” And this point is not an exception. In the letter to the Hebrews, it is shown that Christ is superior to Aaron, constituted a priest by the oath of God, after the order of Melchisedec. The characteristics of his priesthood are pointed out, and the whole is summed up thus: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest”—have, at this present time, such an high priest as has been described; not, however, on the throne of David, but, “Who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.” And it is distinctly affirmed that he makes but one offering; that he offers it but once; and enters but once into the true and perfect tabernacle to make atonement. From this it is evident that the atonement must be fully made when he leaves his Father’s throne and ceases to minister in “the sanctuary, and true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Not a declaration of the whole argument will admit of his performing this work a second time in Heaven, or of resuming it somewhere else.RDAC 119.1

    Zechariah 6:12, 13, also shows that that particular specification is fulfilled by the minister of the new covenant in Heaven. This text has been quoted (and perverted) to prove that Christ will be a priest on the throne of David. It reads thus, “Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”RDAC 120.1

    It is impossible to make this scripture apply to the reign of Christ on the throne of David. Two persons are here spoken of: the Branch, which is Christ, the Son of God; and the Lord, or Jehovah, the Father and the Son. Now if we substitute these names for the pronouns in verse 13, it will read: And the Son shall build the temple of the Father; and the Son shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon the Father’s throne; and the Son shall be a priest upon the Father’s throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. This scripture is fulfilled in the present position of our Melchisedec priest, “who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.” Hebrews 8:1. Jesus himself testifies to his position, in Revelation 3:21, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” And as the counsel of peace is between them both, during his priestly rule on the throne of his Father, therefore he is at once “King of Peace, and priest of the Most High God.” When I read the words of the Saviour, that all power in Heaven and in earth is given unto him, Matthew 28:18; that men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father, John 5:23; and learn that the Father hath so highly exalted him, even to a seat on his own throne of universal dominion, my soul rejoices at the thought that “we have such an high priest” to make intercession for us. Surely, they that put all their trust in such a Saviour shall not be ashamed.RDAC 120.2

    Another point claims our attention. As Christ is a royal priest, or king and priest at once, these offices being united in Melchisedec, it is necessary, in order to fulfill the type of Melchisedec, that there be no genealogical reckoning in regard to either his priesthood or kingship. We search in vain to find who was king before Melchisedec, or who succeeded him, or from whom, as king, he descended. What is true of him as priest, is true of him also as king. And so it is of Christ, and must be to answer to the type, in regard to that kingship which is united with his priesthood. He is exalted to the throne of God, not by right of descent, but to fulfill his priestly work in which descent was not reckoned. As he is the “one mediator,” having neither predecessor nor successor in that office, so he is the only one that will ever enjoy the high privilege of sharing the power and honors of the throne of the Most High. This fact alone would render it certain that Christ’s kingly priesthood is not upon his own throne, the throne of Israel, for when he takes that throne it is as the son of David; and it is as necessary that his genealogy be traced to David in order for him to occupy that throne, as it was for the sons of Aaron to prove their lineage in order to be permitted to minister in the sanctuary on earth. Thus the objection urged concerning the priesthood of Christ is clearly invalid. A correct view of his priestly work confirms our position, that every case is decided when he comes; and that his saints will be redeemed, and his enemies, including all the unredeemed, will be “dashed in pieces” at that time.RDAC 121.1

    Objection 8.-1 Corinthians 15:23-28. Christ will reign until he subdues his enemies, or puts them under his feet. In Revelation 20, this reign is declared to be 1000 years in duration, from which it is evident that his enemies will not be put under his feet until, or near, the close of the 1000 years; and of course are not destroyed at his coming.RDAC 122.1

    Answer. The substance of this objection has been considered the stronghold of the Age to Come; and yet, when carefully examined, 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, proves itself the means of the certain and entire overthrow of that theory. Revelation 20:4-6, is invariably used in connection with 1 Corinthians 15, as stated in this objection; and it is of the utmost importance to their views that the events of 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, be located in the 1000 years of Revelation 20. But their connection is merely taken for granted-it has not been, and cannot be, shown. This method of throwing texts together for effect, without proving a connection, is quite common with the advocates of that doctrine. As an instance, a lecturer once quoted Revelation 20:6, and 5:10, in such a manner that some of his hearers supposed that he had read from the Bible thus: “They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years on the earth.”RDAC 122.2

    We have never denied the reign of Christ and his saints on the earth. On the contrary, we contend for an everlasting reign on the earth when it is fitted for the inheritance of the saints; for their inheritance is incorruptible and undefiled. And when it is considered that the promise of the inheritance does not embrace the old earth, but the earth renewed, and that the saints shall possess it and dwell therein forever, the very fact that a period of 1000 years is given as preceding the eternal possession of the earth, raises the presumption that the reign of 1000 years is not where the eternal reign is, to wit, on the earth.RDAC 123.1

    Mr. Marsh, in his pamphlet on the Age to Come, pp. 31, 32, quoted 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, and remarked:RDAC 123.2

    “The particular points in these passages to which we would now call especial attention, are the commencement, close, and character, of the reign of Christ.RDAC 123.3

    “1. His reign commences at his coming.RDAC 123.4

    “2. It will continue until his enemies are subdued, or destroyed, the last of which is death.RDAC 123.5

    “3 One grand object of that reign is to subdue or destroy his enemies.RDAC 123.6

    “These points are clear and most conclusively proved by the evidence in the case. The number of years between the commencement and close of this reign, Paul does not tell, but John does. He gives us to understand that it will be a thousand years. Revelation 20.RDAC 123.7

    Verse 7. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed-of whom it is said in the 2nd and 3rd verses, that he was bound a thousand years, that he should not deceive the nations for that length of time, and verse 14 gives us to understand that when the thousand years close, ‘death, the last enemy,’ will be destroyed. For death and hell are then ‘cast into the lake of fire,’ which is ‘the second death.’RDAC 123.8

    “The fair conclusion from the testimony of Paul and John, is, that the reign of Christ, when his enemies will be Subdued, will be a thousand years. And as this reign commences at the coming of Christ, and as the ‘times of restitution,’ or ‘dispensation of the fullness of times’ also begin then, it is certain that those times, or that dispensation, will be of a thousand years’ duration. This will be ‘the times of refreshing’—‘the times of restitution’—‘his times’—‘the dispensation of the fullness of times’—‘the reign of Christ a thousand years,’ or his millennial reign on the earth.RDAC 124.1

    “Here we might rest the case without offering any further evidence, feeling assured that we have fully proved our position.”RDAC 124.2

    J. M. Stephenson, in his work entitled, The Atonement, closely followed Mr. Marsh in his comment on this text. On pp. 83 and 84, he says:RDAC 124.3

    “With this view we may learn how long a period will be occupied by Jesus Christ in removing all the obstacles out of the way of man’s salvation, and bringing back this revolted province into allegiance to the throne of his Father. Read 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. ‘But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power: for he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.’RDAC 124.4

    “Here his reign commences with ‘his coming,’ and the resurrection of ‘them that are his,’ and terminates, as independent king, with the destruction of ‘the last enemy’-death. By Revelation 20:5, 6, we learn that ‘the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished;’ that then ‘the second death’ is to have ‘power over them,’ and ‘they will be devoured.’ Verse 9. Then the Son, having reigned until he has put all enemies under his feet, ‘delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,’ and becomes subject himself, that the Father ‘may be all in all;’ that is, that the Father may be supreme, and the Son subordinate king under him. These are ‘the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began.’”RDAC 124.5

    There is no “unity of faith” among the advocates of the Age to Come; each has a theory of his own. On the last point stated in the objection, they are not agreed among themselves. Some admit that those who have developed their characters as enemies of Christ, will be destroyed at his coming; but they also assert that they will be comparatively few in number. Others deny entirely that his enemies will be destroyed at that time. No objection can be so framed as to meet the minds of all of them while there is so great diversity of views among them.RDAC 125.1

    Against the views presented in the extracts from Messrs. Marsh and Stephenson, I have several objections to offer based upon the literal reading of the scripture in question, and upon others explanatory of it and harmonizing with it. As Eld. Marsh draws an argument from it of sufficient weight, in his opinion, to prove his Whole theory, and settle the whole question, the reader will bear with us in giving it a careful and thorough examination, even though it be of some length. In noticing the unscriptural positions taken by them I show that,RDAC 125.2

    1. “The end” is an expression used in the New Testament to denote the termination of the day of salvation, or the time of Christ’s coming. In every instance, with only one exception, when it is used without a direct qualification, the context shows that it refers to the end of this age. In the exceptional instance, John 13:1, the context clearly shows the sense of its use. If the reader wishes to test our assertion, he will please examine Matthew 10:22; 24:3, 6, 13, 14; 13:39 (compare 24:30, 31); 28:20; 2 Corinthians 1:13, 14 (compare 1 Thessalonians 2:19); Revelation 2:26. The text in question is so clear in its reference as to leave no room for doubt. “Christ the first-fruits: afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end.” Here is brought to view the coming of Christ, but not one word about the 1000 years, nor any other subsequent period. If it does not refer to the coming of Christ there is nothing in all the context to which it can refer. We are not inclined to grant what is asserted-that it refers to the termination of the 1000 years, as that is the very point in dispute, and if it be true, let them prove it, and not longer rest it on their bare assertion. And this brings us to notice,RDAC 125.3

    2. “The end” is not synchronous with the delivering up of the kingdom. The text reads, “Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God.” By this it appears that the kingdom will be delivered up before the end; and, of course, the end cannot refer to “the close of the reign,” as Mr. Marsh has it. Mr. Stephenson makes it the close of an “independent reign,” which is no better; for it may be the close in one sense as well as another, so far as the question of time is concerned. But it is not the close of the reign in any sense-they are separate events. And he makes the delivering up necessary “that the Father may be supreme.” But when we consider the relation the two thrones sustain to each other, and that Christ receives his own throne by the gift of the Father, the idea is truly absurd that Christ must deliver up to the Father the throne of David, that the Father may be supreme! as it implies that by the gift of the throne of David to Christ, the Father’s throne-the throne of all the universe-lost its supremacy.RDAC 126.1

    This idea of an “independent reign” is evidently thrown in to obviate a difficulty into which many have rushed by limiting the reign of Christ on his own throne. Thus, it does not look consistent in Mr. Marsh to talk of “the close” of a reign of which the Scriptures say “there shall be no end.” But the difficulty is not, and cannot be, obviated. Both of those writers agree that he will reign till a certain work shall be accomplished, and that it will be accomplished in 1000 years subsequent to the advent. And as he reigns till a certain point and then delivers up the kingdom, if their view of the reign be correct it must also be correct to call it the end of the reign. But the prophet said, “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.” Isaiah 9:7. And the angel said, “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:32, 33. Paul, quoting the words of the psalmist, says, “Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.”RDAC 127.1

    To evade the force of this testimony it has been said that the term forever applies to limited duration. That it is sometimes so used, we admit, but not in these passages. All must admit that it is sometimes applied to unlimited duration, denoting eternity. And when it is used in a limited sense, there must be something in the connection to show in what sense it is used, otherwise it would be ambiguous or indefinite, and should not then be offered to prove anything. We are warranted in saying it is used in its fullest sense, or unlimited, when referring to that of which it is said, “There shall be no end.” If “the end” and “no end” are used to signify the same thing, the result must be only confusion. It seems very evident that the reign and kingdom which continues till a certain time and is then delivered up, cannot be that one which does not pass away, is forever, and has no end. We next notice that,RDAC 127.2

    3. The work of subduing his enemies is never, in the Scriptures, ascribed to Christ. Mr. Marsh’s third point is, “One grand object of his reign is to subdue or destroy his enemies.” And Mr. Stephenson says, “Then the Son, having reigned until he has put all enemies under his feet, delivers up the kingdom.” Yet, notwithstanding this opinion is advanced with such confidence (and upon it, indeed, the whole theory of the Age to Come rests), it is altogether unscriptural. In 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, as in Zechariah 6:12, 13, there are two persons brought to view, and the pronouns he and him refer to both, and so they must be referred to preserve the sense of the text and to harmonize it with other scriptures. The view advocated by Messrs. Marsh, Stephenson, and others of like faith, contradicts other passages and destroys the sense of this. To show the utter absurdity of the idea that Christ subdues his enemies and puts them under his feet in that or any other age, I will quote the text, leaving out the pronouns and inserting the name according to that view. It will then read: “Christ the first-fruits: afterward they that are Christ’s at Christ’s coming. Then cometh the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when Christ shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For Christ must reign till Christ hath put all enemies under Christ’s feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For Christ hath put all things under Christ’s feet. But when Christ saith, All things are put under Christ, it is manifest that Christ is excepted which did put all things under Christ. And when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then shall the Son [Christ] also himself be subject unto Christ that put all things under Christ, that God may be all in all.”RDAC 128.1

    This is worse-far worse, than nonsense; yet how will the “Age-to-Come” believer avoid accepting this as the substance of his faith? It is evident that Christ becomes subject to him that puts all things under him; and if he subdues his enemies and puts them under his own feet, as they declare, then it is equally evident that he becomes subject to himself!! Against this fallacy I present the truth that,RDAC 129.1

    4. The Father subdues the enemies of Christ, and puts them under his feet. Before I bring other scriptures to bear on this fact, I will give another rendering of the text, supposing this declaration to be true:—RDAC 129.2

    “Christ the first-fruits: afterward they that are Christ’s at Christ’s coming. Then cometh the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when the Father shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For Christ must reign till the Father hath put all enemies under Christ’s feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For the Father hath put all things under Christ’s feet. But when the Father saith, All things are put under Christ, it is manifest that the Father is excepted which did put all things under Christ. And when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then shall the Son [Christ] also himself be subject unto the Father that put all things under Christ, that God may be all in all.”RDAC 129.3

    With the beauty and truthfulness of this view all must be struck at a glance. The error of the other view is in referring the pronouns to Christ throughout, when it is evident that they refer to both Father and Son immediately after both are introduced in verse 24. As it is clear that the Father puts all things under the Son, we come next to notice when and where this work is accomplished. Is it during the 1000 years, while Christ is on the throne of David? It is not; but,RDAC 130.1

    5. Christ rules on the throne and in the kingdom of the Father until his enemies are put under his feet. Mr. Marsh has laid great stress on his construction of this text, considering it sufficient to prove his whole theory. But his construction is wrong, and his theory baseless. Others besides him have used this text as a stronghold; but with the establishment of this truth in regard to the reign, all claims of the Age to Come on this text are forever put at rest; and a mass of parallel scriptures, urged by the writers on that theory, are taken out of their hands and arrayed in favor of the truth, that the enemies of Christ will be “dashed in pieces” at his coming.RDAC 130.2

    Now that Christ is to reign as king in two localities, that is, occupy two thrones, is proved by Revelation 3:21: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Thus, while Christ is on the throne of the Father, he is only in expectation of his own throne. That this is the past and present position of our exalted Head, is further proved by Hebrews 8:1: “We have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.” And that that is where he will reign till all enemies are put under his feet, is clearly proved by the Scriptures. Psalm 110:1. “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This is quoted by Jesus, as recorded by the gospels. Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, 43; and also by Peter, Acts 2:34, 35, in his argument on the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus. “For David is not ascended into the Heavens; but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.” This is a sure application of David’s prophecy, and proves the location of the reign (until his foes are made his footstool) to be “in the Heavens,” where Jesus is ascended. I hope the enemies of the truth will no longer mock at this, by derisively calling it a “sky kingdom” but remember that God is there, sitting upon the throne of his own holiness; for “The Lord hath prepared his throne in the Heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.” Psalm 103:19.RDAC 130.3

    Paul makes mention of the same in Hebrews 1:13, in remarking on the superiority of Christ to angels. And again, in his argument concerning the work of Christ as priest on his Father’s throne, says, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” Hebrews 10:12, 13. This point is established beyond the possibility of doubt; and the true sense of this scripture clearly appears, Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the mediatorial kingdom to God, even the Father; when the Father shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For Christ must reign on the Father’s throne, till his enemies are put under his feet, or made his footstool. Then the Son delivers up or leaves the throne of the universe, and takes his own throne in subjection to that of his Father. It thus appears that,RDAC 131.1

    6. Christ delivers up that kingdom, or leaves the Father’s throne, and receives the throne of David, before his coming. The first part of this proposition is proved by the text. And that he takes the throne of David, or his own throne, before his return to the earth, has also been proved in our argument on the kingdom. But the views of our opponents should be further noticed, as on this point they directly conflict with the plainest scriptures. Luke 19:12, 15, says, “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return” “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom.” The receiving of the kingdom is first; his return follows it; and his receiving the kingdom in this text is the same as that of Daniel 7:13, 14, and both are identical with all things being put under Christ. And it has been shown that he sits at his Father’s right hand till this is accomplished. But Mr. Marsh, giving the Age-to-Come sense of Daniel 7:13, 14, quotes the text, and comments as follows:—RDAC 132.1

    “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him.RDAC 133.1

    “The order laid down is—RDAC 133.2

    a. Coming of the Son of man.RDAC 133.3

    b. Giving of the Son of man dominion, glory, and a kingdom.RDAC 133.4

    c. All people, nations, and languages, and all dominions [rulers], serve and obey the Son of man, the Lord and King of the whole earth.”—Age to Come, p. 13.RDAC 133.5

    It is not very surprising that a superficial reading of 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, should produce such a view as that advanced by Messrs. Marsh and Stephenson; but no one, however superficial, can possibly read the advent of Christ out of Daniel 7:13, 14, unless it be first assumed that the Ancient of days is on the earth prior to the second advent. For he came to the Ancient of days, and was brought near before him. But Mr. Marsh’s view would make it read that he came from the Ancient of days, and was taken far away from him to receive the kingdom. And, were it even assumed that the Ancient of days shall be on the earth, that view would not then harmonize with Luke 19, and other scriptures, which teach that he has received the kingdom at the time of his second advent. His receiving the kingdom is identical with “the marriage of the Lamb,” which takes place before he comes; as the “little flock” “wait for their Lord when he will return from the wedding.” Luke 12:36. And then will they be taken to the mansions prepared in the “Father’s house,” where they will sit down at the marriage supper.RDAC 133.6

    There can be no difference between his receiving the kingdom and having his enemies put under his feet; they must be identical. But there is a great difference between having his enemies put under him, and his destroying them. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, the same Greek word is used to express the subduing of all things to the Son, and the subjection of the Son to the Father. “And when all things shall be subdued [hupotasso] unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject [hupotasso] unto him that put all things under him.” The order of the events is given in Psalm 2:8, 9, (1.) The Father gives them to the Son. (2.) The Son breaks them with a rod of iron, and dashes them in pieces; which dashing, as has been shown, takes place at his coming.RDAC 134.1

    7. Death, the last enemy of them that are Christ’s, will be destroyed, or swallowed up in victory, at his coming. After having arrived at the true sense of the text in other respects, there is left but little chance for controversy on this point. No one will deny that the resurrection of the righteous to immortality is the same as death being swallowed up in victory. See verses 53, 54. And it is only as the enemy of the saints that death is destroyed; the wicked will never be released from death-the second death. If they are, they must have a second resurrection. Whiting renders verse 24, death will be conquered. The expressions conquered or destroyed, and swallowed up in victory, appropriately refer to the last enemy of the saints, but not to that of the wicked. Dr. Clarke says, “Death shall be destroyed: katargeitai: shall be counter-worked, subverted, and finally overturned. But death cannot be destroyed by there being simply no further death; death can only be destroyed and annihilated by a general resurrection.” This is true, and will so appear to all who have considered death as it is in truth, simply the opposite or absence of life, and not as an entity. It is by the resurrection that the saints get their victory over death. And this view is indorsed by those who endeavor to maintain their theory of the Age to Come by this scripture. Mr. Stephenson, in his work on the Atonement, p. 64, says, “The Bible leaves all the wicked under the dominion of the second death, from which it offers no hope of a resurrection.” Of course they have no victory over death, and of course the text cannot refer to them; which proves again that it does not refer to the end of the 1000 years, but to the time of the second advent, when the saints will be redeemed and put on immortality.RDAC 134.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font