The Gathering of Israel

Chapter 14—The Messages Analyzed

These messages, which furnished guidance in a time of confusion and controversy, ¹ reveal unity and meaning in view of their setting. A study of this counsel will show that every section was relevant to some error connected directly or indirectly with the age-to-come controversy of that time: GI 12.1

The Gathering Time

[a] September 23 [1850], the Lord showed me that He had stretched out His hand the second time to recover the remnant of His people, and that efforts must be redoubled in this gathering time. In the scattering, Israel was smitten and torn, but now in the gathering time God will heal and bind up His people. In the scattering, efforts made to spread the truth had but little effect, accomplished but little or nothing; but in the gathering, when God has set His hand to gather His people, efforts to spread the truth will have their designed effect. All should be united and zealous in the work. I saw that it was wrong for any to refer to the scattering for examples to govern us now in the gathering; for if God should do no more for us now than He did then, Israel would never be gathered. ²

This introductory section shows clearly that she applied the gathering of Israel to “us.” Later she took occasion to insert an explanatory note definitely applying it to the people of the Advent movement. ³ GI 12.2

[b] I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was removed. GI 12.3

The Millerite chronology, in the main, was to be retained. The time settings of 1850 and 1851, outside the Seventh-day Adventist group, were nearly all based on changes in the dating of the 2300 years. ⁴ GI 12.4

[c] Then I saw in relation to the “daily” (Daniel 8:12) that the word “sacrifice” was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the “daily”: but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test. GI 12.5

Her reference to the “daily” and the “sacrifice” was not unrelated to an error concerning the “gathering of Israel.” What she saw, in relation to the daily, was “that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied,” and that the Millerites had “the correct view of it” and were united on it until other views came in after 1844. GI 12.6

The “it” on which they unitedly held the correct view could refer grammatically to either (1) “the ‘daily’” itself or (2) the fact “that the word sacrifice was supplied ... and does not belong to the text.” Against (1) is the fact that she later wrote that she had “had no instruction on the point under discussion”—the point, as mentioned five lines earlier (Selected Messages 1:164) being “the true meaning of the daily.” GI 12.7

And in favor of (2) is the fact that the Millerites had unitedly and repeatedly insisted that the word “sacrifice” was not in the text. They used this argument to refute many of their opponents who contended that the taking away of the “daily” was the taking away of the Jewish sacrifices by Antiochus for a period of 2300 (or 1150) literal days. ⁵ They insisted that the period was 2300 years, not days, and that the cleansing at the end of that time had nothing to do with the Jewish sacrifices. GI 12.8

Further, it is interesting to note that, among the “other views” embraced “in the confusion since 1844” was at least one exposition, by a Literalist, interpreting the “daily” as “the Jewish daily sacrifices which are yet to be restored” in a future temple, and computing the 2300 as literal days. ⁶ Thus it can be seen that in this paragraph the “daily,” the supposed sacrifices, and “the time” have a logical connection after all. GI 12.9

[d] The Lord has shown me that the message of the third angel must go, and be proclaimed to the scattered children of the Lord, but it must not be hung on time. I saw that some were getting a false excitement, arising from preaching time; but the third angel’s message is stronger than time can be. I saw that this message can stand on its own foundation and needs not time to strengthen it; and that it will go in mighty power, and do its work, and will be cut short in righteousness. GI 12.10

This warning against connecting the third angel’s message and time setting was given in a vision of June 21, 1851. It is a direct reference to Bates’ 1851 expectation. ⁷ GI 12.11

[e] Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error of believing that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. Such a view is calculated to take the mind and interest from the present work of the Lord, under the message of the third angel; for those who think that they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get themselves and others there. GI 12.12

This first reference to the supposed duty of going to “Old Jerusalem” (part of the vision of September, 1850) ⁸ labels that a present error. GI 13.1

[f] I saw that such a mission would accomplish no real good, that it would take a long while to make a very few of the Jews believe even in the first advent of Christ, much more to believe in His second advent. I saw that Satan had greatly deceived some in this thing and that souls all around them in this land could be helped by them and led to keep the commandments of God, but they were leaving them to perish. GI 13.2

The second reference to going to Jerusalem, and its futility, was added in August, 1851, at the time when she was publishing these messages together in Experience and Views. This was shortly before Mrs. Minor’s party went overseas, and at the very time when appeals were being made on behalf of “a few faithful laborers,” for a thousand dollars to send them to Bethlehem to aid Meshullam. ⁹ GI 13.3

[g] I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of the Lord. GI 13.4

The statement that Old Jerusalem never would be built up (also added in August, 1851,) clearly indicates that some were looking for it to be built up in the future. Obviously this expectation of a future rebuilding, and not the immediate going there, was the “looking to Old Jerusalem” that she equated with the millennial “age to come” (by definition, a future age). ¹⁰ Indeed the age-to-come writers repeatedly emphasized the future building up of Old Jerusalem as the glorious capital during the millennium. GI 13.5

The age-to-come view on this is clear from what Marsh wrote in the Advent Harbinger: GI 13.6

Numerous prophecies as clearly and positively predict the building up again of Jerusalem as they do of its fall. And as they make Jerusalem re-built, the glorious city of the Lord during his millennial reign, it is evident that the new Jerusalem, which is not to be re-built, cannot be that city .... It does not speak of the new Jerusalem which is to be located on the new earth, but of literal Jerusalem in its redeemed, cleansed, beautified, and glorified state, in the Age to come, under the millennial reign of Christ. ¹¹

It is obvious, then, that Mrs. White’s denial that Old Jerusalem will be “built up” refers to the time of the millennium and not to any present-age rebuilding. GI 13.7

Copies are available from:

The Biblical Research Institute
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
(Reprinted, 1983) GI 16.1