Your ShelfYour Projects

SCRIPTURE QUESTIONS

6%

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, April 15, 1880

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 16

Read the full edition

SCRIPTURE QUESTIONS.

60.—THE BRIDE, THE LAMB'S WIFE.

“What reason, or argument, or scripture, for the belief that the New Jerusalem is the bride, the Lamb's wife?” A. L. C.
Ans. Rev. 21:9, 10: The angel said to John, “Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God.”
Our first evidence that the city is the bride, the Lamb's wife, is that we do not believe that the angel deceived John when he told him he would show him the bride, the Lamb's wife, and then showed him the great city.
Our second reason is Gal. 4:26: “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”
Third, Rev. 19:9. The redeemed are the guests at the marriage supper. “Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” The marriage of the Lamb is evidently a definite future event, and the figure sets forth simply the reception of the kingdom by Christ, when he receives the city, New Jerusalem, as the metropolis of the kingdom in which his throne is located.
Fourth, in Rev. 22:17, the bride is spoken of in connection with the Spirit, as something entirely distinct from those who hear, or those that are athirst. With the view that the city is set forth under a figure as the bride, there is consistency and harmony throughout; but if we endeavor to make the church the bride, we confound the bride with the guests, the children with the mother, and involve Rev. 22:17 in tautology and contradiction.

61.—ROMANS 14: 5, 14.

“Please explain Rom. 14:5, 14.” A Reader.
Ans. Rom. 14:5 reads, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” We understand the apostle here to be speaking of the days connected with the Jewish ritual, associated with eating and drinking, and other features of the ceremonial system. Paul was willing to concede to those who were weak in the faith, the privilege of making a distinction in these days, if, not appreciating entirely the liberty of the gospel, they thought they ought so to do. See verses 1–3.
In the 14th verse the same principle is carried out in reference to distinctions between clean and unclean meats. While that distinction in meats is done away under the gospel, if any one still thought that it yet continued, he was wronging his own conscience to eat that which he considered was forbidden.

62.—WERE THE FOUR KINGDOMS OF DANIEL 2 AND 7, UNIVERSAL?

“An objection to our views of prophecy is raised by some who have studied history, who claim that Medo-Persia and Grecia, and perhaps Babylon, were not universal kingdoms, and hence that the representations of the prophecy in this respect are incorrect. Medo-Persia, they say, never had dominion over Grecia, and Grecia never conquered Rome, Carthage, or farther India. How shall we meet these objections?” J. D. R.
Ans. It is true that Medo-Persia never conquered Grecia, nor Grecia, Rome; and if the date of 753 B. C. is the correct date of the founding of Rome, Rome, the last of the four kingdoms, was founded before the old Chaldean kingdom, the first of the four, was introduced into prophecy, which was 677 B. C. But it is nothing against the prophecy that God begins to prepare his agents long years before they enter upon the prominent part they are to perform on the stage of action in the development of prophecy. We are to adopt the same point of view held by the prophet, and consider his statements in the light of the location he occupied, the time in which he wrote, and the circumstances by which he was surrounded. It is a rule of prophetic interpretation that nations are not particularly noticed in prophecy until they are connected with the people of God. When this was the case with Babylon, it was the great and overtowering object in the political world. Before the prophetic eye, that would eclipse all else. He would naturally speak of it as a kingdom having dominion over all the earth. So far as we know, all provinces or countries against which it did move, were subdued by its power. That there were some portions of territory, and perhaps considerable numbers of people, unknown to history, and without the pale of civilization as it then existed, which were neither discovered nor subdued, is not a fact of sufficient strength or importance to condemn the expression of the prophet, or to falsify the prophecy.
When Medo-Persia was introduced into prophecy as the conqueror of Babylon, and the next great power with which the people of God were connected, Grecia had risen to no prominence among the nations of the earth, and the people of God were in no way affected by its history at that time. Hence it is left out of the prophecy until it had developed strength sufficient to overthrow the Medo-Persian dynasty.
Just so we may say of Grecia in respect to Rome. Rome played no prominent part in the world's history till after Grecia had long been introduced into prophecy; and hence stands as the fourth of the great kingdoms, in order. It is sufficient to be governed by the general tenor of history in this respect.