THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS
PROPOSITIONS 122 & 123
[*VOLUME 2 pp. 199-223.]
-------
[Page 199]
PROPOSITIOM 122. As Son of Man, David’s Son, Jesus inherits
David’s throne and Kingdom, and also the
This has been already proven under the Propositions pertaining to the covenant (49, 50, 51, 52, etc.),
and was so understood by the Jews and the early Christians.* Leaving the proof already assigned,
directly derived from the covenant, attention is now called to the
manner in which this inheritance is spoken of in the Scriptures. (With this compare
such Propositions as 117, 131, 132, 137, etc.)
* The views of the Jews have been presented in previous Propositions,
and are confirmed by the statements of able scholars, such as Lightfoot, Neander, Schaff,
Knapp, Smith, and others, whom we have quoted. This was perpetuated in the
early Christian Church, as we have already shown (Propositions
70-76), and evidently led to the
inquisition of Vespasian, as e.g.
stated by Milman
(His. Jews,
vol. 3, p. 90): “The Christian Hegesippus relates that Vespasian commanded strict search to be
made for all who claimed descent from the house of David. in order to cut off, if possible, all hopes of the
restoration of the royal house, or of the Messiah, the confidence, in
whose speedy Coming still burned with feverish excitement in the hearts of all
faithful Israelites. This barbarous inquisition was continued in the reign of Domitian.”
This only shows how the promises were associated in prevailing faith with a
restoration of David’s throne and Kingdom, so much so that the emperors had
their attention and jealousy directed to it, but totally failed to apprehend
its Theocratic nature and relationship to the crucified Jesus. To give an idea
of the more modern Jewish view, several quotations from the prayer books (Art. Jews, in
the Galaxy,
Jan., 1872) will suffice: “Oh,
return with mercy to
OBSERVATION 1. Writers by confining themselves to the Divine Sovereignty and
overlooking the specific promises to David’s Son, have Christ now in the enjoyment of the promised inheritance. To make this out, the
language is spiritualised until. David’s throne and Kingdom is
elevated to heaven and the land itself is converted into the
Church or heaven or the universe. Besides this, it is rashly asserted that for Jesus
to come again and obtain such a Theocratic rule here on earth would be
derogatory to His dignity, etc. Having already replied to this and showed the
impropriety and danger of our prejudging what is right and proper for Christ to
perform, we rest content with the plain and repeated statements of the Word. And,
moreover, it can be seen that the fulfilment of these promises will
subserve noble purposes. The humanity of Christ, His contact with man in
David’s line, gives Him the leverage for Redemptive purposes; so also His
contact through humanity with the throne and Kingdom of David gives Him the
requisite leverage for a Theocratic rule, a divine government over the human [Page 200] race for the completion of Redemption. In looking
closely at the wonderful arrangement , we find it most singularly, adapted to secure the
happiness of the creature man. In the infinity of matter, in
the immensity of the universe, the man feels himself in almost the condition of an
atom, and he finds only a consoling point of contact, of union, with the
Infinite Architect in the Incarnation of Christ; so in the astounding,
outgrowing laws of government, felt to be necessarily universal, acknowledged
to be inseparable to order, happiness, etc., and yet in the history of the
world running in selfishness and antagonisms through depravity, man can only
find a point of union and needed support with the Divine in the reign of the glorified humanity of David’s Son. It brings God to man and
man to God in the highest of all relations, that of religious, social, and civil law and order.
It prevents us from indorsing views,
which, presented under the honest supposition of honouring Christ, are
antagonistic to His Theocratic position. Thus to illustrate: Farrar (Life of Christ,
vol. 2, p. 138) says that “the
Coming of God’s Kingdom is as little geographical as it is chronological (Steir, 4. 287).”
To this misconception it is only necessary to reply: if not geographical, what
becomes of the express covenanted land, throne, and Kingdom; if not
chronological, what becomes of the past history of the Theocracy, the
overthrow and postponement, the prophetical periods, the times of the
Gentiles, and the Second Advent? Farrar
(p. 274) fully admits that the house remains desolate until Jesus comes again,
saying in foot-note: “At the
Second Advent, Zech. 12: 10; Hos. 3: 4, 5.” This admission is sufficient. But this reference to Farrar must not be regarded as placing
him among those who refuse to believe that there will be “the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom at His Second Coming,” see e.g. vol. 2, p. 259. A writer in the Christian Union
asserts that the
OBSERVATION 2. Having previously shown how
Jesus as David’s Son is entitled
to David’s throne and Kingdom; how the same throne and Kingdom overturned, is finally restored (Ezek.
21: 25-27; Hos. 3: 4, 5; Amos 9: 11; Acts 15: 16,
etc.), it is only necessary to indicate
how the Scriptures in their general tenor preserve the idea that such is the inheritance of David’s Son. This Kingdom is
declared to be “His
inheritance” the
Lord’s (1 Sam. 10: 11):
“mine inheritance” (2
Kings 21: 14), “Thine
inheritance” (Ps. 28: 9 ete.), and “the inheritance of the Lord” (1 Sam. 26: 19 and (2 Sam. 21: 3),
in view of
the Theocratic arrangement,
for, as Solomon stated in his prayer (1 Kings 8: 51, 53), this nation is “Thy people and Thine inheritance,”
“for Thou
didst separate them from among all the people of
the earth to be Thine inheritance, as Thou spakest unto Moses.”
Hence they are called “the tribes of Thine inheritance” (Isa. 63: 17), “the mountain of Thine inheritance” (Ex. 15: 17). “Thy people [Page 201] and Thine inheritance” (Deut. 9: 26, 29). Such language
repeatedly employed must have a significant
meaning, and this is only found in the special relationship that the Jewish nation sustains to God as their Ruler. But having shown that this Theocratic rule is absorbed and manifested in the Davidic line, and culminates
in the Person of Jesus Christ, who is both the Son of
David and the Son of God, the Scriptures speak of this inheritance belonging to Christ in this double relationship; but especially, because of the Covenant with Abraham and then with David,
speak of it as pertaining to Him as David’s Son, the Son of Man, seeing that the Kingdom is to be administered by Him
because of His descent in the
covenanted line,
and only through this Humanity can
the Ruler Himself he exhibited, etc. In
addition to our previous argument showing that as David’s Son He inherits David’s
throne and Kingdom, we add in this connection -
that “heir of all things” (Heb. 1: 2) to whom the heathen also shall be given as an “inheritance”
(Ps. 2: 8): yea, even the kingdoms of this
world (Dan. 7, and Rev. 11), yet He is also “out of Judah an
inheritor of My mountains” (Isa. 65:
9), who will “return for Thy
servants’ sake, the tribes of Thy inheritance” (Isa. 63: 17), for “the Lord shall
inherit Judah, His portion in the
holy land and shall choose Jerusalem again”
(Zech. 2:
12), because “the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:
32, 33). Men may think that this Heir of
David’s will not care for such
an inheritance, but “the Lord will not cast off His people, neither
will He forsake His inheritance” (Ps.
94: 14),
for the time will come when this Heir whom His own people
killed shall return again [to this earth] and claim His right. The
reasons having been given under the covenant, this
will be confirmed by showing in the follow Observation that not merely the throne and
Kingdom but even the territory, the land itself, is claimed as part of this inheritance. If the
latter is the case, then the former is the more readily acknowledged.
It is suggested that this subject may give a clew to the words
“out of
OBSERVATION 3. Jesus, as David’s Son and the Theocratic
Ruler with whom the Father is united and
identified, is the Heir of
This line of
argument might be extended by noticing the passages which speak of the time
when (Joel 2: 18)
“the Lord will be jealous for His Land;” when (Ezek.
36: 34, 35, 36, etc.)
the desolate land shall “become like the
Garden of Eden;” and when (Joel 2:
21) the
land shall “be glad and rejoice; for the Lord will do great things”, by referring to the predicted dwelling
again of God in the restored Jerusalem with the resultant joy and prosperity;
by reference to the Davidic throne and Kingdom, as connected with the land restored (Proposition 49); by the
statements respecting the place of
manifested royalty (Proposition 168); by its relation to a restoration of the Jews (Propositions
111-114),
a visibly manifested Theocracy (Proposition 117),
Pre-Millennial Advent (Proposition 123),
the visible reign of Jesus (Proposition131),
etc. It is linked with a variety of things, which will be presented
in detail hereafter. Bishop Lowth’s version of Isa. 62:
5 still more, forcibly presents the idea of Christ’s marrying the land, i.e. being permanently united with it as husband
to wife, for instead of “thy sons” he, reads “restorer” or “builder.”
The bishop also remarks: “In
the prophets a desolate land is represented under the notion of a widow; an
inhabited land, under that of a married woman, who has both husband and
children.” Oriental nations represent the accession of a prince to
kingship, the occupancy of supreme power over a land, under the figure of a
marriage; so the Bible delineates the establishment of this Theocratic rule (comp. Proposition 109).
The reader will observe that our argument now only refers to the inheritance that specially is
covenanted to David’s Son - this is not the only inheritance (as we
abundantly show) that belongs to Him, for this Theocratic-Davidic government
established in this inheritance is to
extend over all the earth until all nations and lands are embraced, as
predicted, in its universal dominion. This view is opposed to those
mystical and spiritualistic notions, found incorporated in the writings of
eminent men, viz., that the future Kingdom has reference merely to state,
condition, or character, and not to place or locality. Much that is
finely portrayed in this direction, must be discarded as unscriptural. “Jehovah’s
Land” (Hos.
9: 3), “the glorious Land” (Deut.
11: 41),
“the
OBSERVATION 4. The absence of the Lord as indicated by the parable of the
nobleman; His concealment, as noticed by Isa. 40:
2, during this period of removal, is only preparative to the final return and enforcement
of His claims as the mighty and irresistible Heir. Take e.g. the
chapter of Isaiah just alluded
to and we have (1) this hidden
position of the one called from the womb; (2) an allusion to His rejection at the
First Advent. (3)
His ultimate success in the restoration of the Jews; the conversion and
subjection to the Gentiles and the glorious reign; (4) to effect this He delivers the prisoners - [from ‘Hades’ by ‘the First Resurrection’ (Matt.
16: 18; Rev. 20: 4-6, cf.
Lk. 20: 35; Heb. 11: 35b,etc.)]; He restores the earth,
removes the desolations, in an especial manner blesses Zion, etc. The
delay of fulfilment is no reason for
believing that it will never be realised, because the fact of such postponement
accords with the previously given predictions intimating it.
The reasons for this postponement of inheriting have been
given (1) as a punishment to the
Jewish nation for its sinfulness; (2)
as a means of grace and mercy to Gentiles for engrafting; (3) as a measure by which to obtain the allotted number of the elect
to - [‘inherit’ (Gal.
5: 21,
R.V.) and] - sustain the Kingdom, etc. Hence, a present non-fulfilment
should only confirm out hope in
fulfilment. Advantage is taken of this by impostors, its e.g. in the imposition
of David El-Roy of Amaria, as related by Benjamin
of Tudela in his Travels (Bohn’s Ed.), and by Major Rawlinson in Trans, of Geographical Society of
OBSERVATION 5. The student will see that the inheritance covenanted is not typical of something else. The mystical views
that would make it a type of something spiritual are refuted
by the literal tenor of the covenant, and that all the prophecies and promises
reiterate that literality which is
corroborated by the idea of inheriting. The Kingdom at the time of the
covenant was literal; the promise of inheriting is literal, confined as it is
by the express terms to the literal Theocracy; the Coming of the Heir is
literal; the postponement is literal; all is literal. Whatever spiritual
blessings and additional glory may be added, the
inheritance cannot, without the greatest violence, be transmuted into something
else. The same tabernacle fallen down (Acts 15: 16) is
Christ’s inheritance, and to fulfil the covenant is to be rebuilt again when Jesus, David’s Son, comes
again. It is the same Kingdom
that (Propositions
69, 70,
and 71)
the preachers of the Kingdom under special Messianic instruction declared as
seen e.g. in Acts 1: 6. It is (Propsositions 32 and 33) the same
Those who (like Fairbairn, Theology) make
We may again briefly refer to Acts15:
14-16,
which our opponents attempt to wrest from us. (The Latin Vulgate, Dub. Transl., gives the following: “Simeon
hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to His name.
And to this agree the
words of the prophets, as it is written: After these things I
will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle
of David, which is fallen down, and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up”). No matter
what version we take, two things are self-evident: (1) that after the gathering
out of this people, Jesus will return again; and (2) that David’s Kingdom, which is purposely (as if to avoid the
glosses not put upon it by human wisdom in its efforts at spiritualising)
identified as the one fallen, shall
then
be restored by this Jesus. And to this
agree, as Simeon intimates, not
merely a prophet but the prophets in general, as seen by our quotations from
them. Hence we can well afford to pass by the
far-fetched applications given to the passage. Thus e.g. the Compreh. Com.,
loci, says: “But [Page 205] God will return and build it (David’s house, and family, and
Kingdom) again, raise it out of its ruins; and this was now lately fulfilled, when our Lord Jesus was raised out of that family, had the throne of his father, David, given
him, with a promise that He should reign
over the house of Jacob forever. And when the tabernacle of David was thus rebuilt in Christ, all
the rest of it was, not many years after, wholly cut off, as was
also the nation of the Jews itself, and all their genealogies lost. Can
prejudice present a more one-sided and contradictory exegesis! One-sided:
because there is not a particle of proof that implies that this throne was given to Him, or this tabernacle was rebuilt.
Contradictory: because it implies that “the house of Jacob” is not what the term expresses,
and that this nation (or “house of Jacob”) is
forever cut off; and that the tabernacle is rebuilt with the nation left out. Again take this same Com. on Acts 1: 6, and we have: “Their
expectation of the thing itself, that Christ would restore (and perfect) the
Kingdom to Israel, i.e. make the nation
of the Jews as great and considerable as it was in the days of David, Solomon, Asa, and Jehoshaphat; whereas Christ came to set
up His
own kingdom, and that a
Kingdom of heaven, not to restore the kingdom to Israel, an earthly kingdom.”
Then referring to the disciples as mistaken, etc., he adds: “They thought God would have no Kingdom in the world unless
it were restored to
OBSERVATION 6. The continued covenanted relationship of Jesus to the throne
and
The primitive Church, however “ignorant”
moderns may deem it, was far more consistent
in its belief than multitudes are to-day; for it clung to the oath-bound promises of God given in language which - as our opponents are forced to admit,
however afterward changed - conveys our doctrine. Our opposers base their view
on sheer inference and assumption. Thus Storr (Crit, Diss. on Kingdom) concludes: “It follows, then, that the commencement of Messiah’s
Kingdom, although in a certain sense it may be traced from His birth, yet
properly is to be reckoned from His ascension into heaven. Which proves that a
far different appearance was then given to the
We may, by way of
illustration and contrast, present a few expressions of faith. We have
already (as e.g. John Bunyan, Proposition 78)
given a variety, but the reader may appreciate some more. Brookes’s (Maranatha, p. 442), after stating
that God will fulfil His promises made to the Patriarchs, and that “the blood of His own Son has been poured out to ratify the
covenant,” then adds: “No power, then, on earth
or in hell can set it aside. That Son shall yet reign upon the throne of David, as announced to the
Virgin Mary and elsewhere throughout the New Testament, and if readers of the Bible would stop to
think, instead of blindly following tradition, they would see that in no conceivable sense is the throne of David in
our hearts, nor yet in heaven, but just where our Lord says it is,” viz., in
Jerusalem. Dr.
Seiss (Last
Times, p. 135), after referring to this
dispensation in which “the throne of David is yet less than a cipher,” and
during which His inheritance “is still trodden by the
vile foot of the destroyer,” remarks: “Oh, tell
me not that this is the glorious reign of the Messiah! Tell me not that these
are the scenes to [Page 207]
which the saints of old looked
with so much joy! I will not so disgrace my Saviour or His Word, as to allow
for a moment that this dispensation [or evil and apostate age] is the sublime Messianic
Kingdom. No, no, no; Christ does not
yet reign in the Kingdom
which He has promised, and for which He has taught us to pray. Isaiah and Gabriel have said that He should occupy the throne of His Father,
David, and reign over the house of Jacob, and establish His [Messianic
and Millennial rule and] government in eternal [i.e., Gk.
‘aionios’
i.e., ‘age’- lasting] peace
and righteousness; but David’s sceptre He has never held, over Jacob’s house He
has never ruled, and the whole world is yet full of iniquity and woe.” (Comp. e.g. Luther on Ps. 2,
quoted by Seiss, p. 254.)
Hundreds of able and talented pens express the same faith and hope, for
which we thank God. We hold (Milton, Paradise Lost, xii. 369) that -
“. . . … He
shall ascend
The throne hereditary,
bound His reign
With earth’s wide bounds,
His glory with the heaven.”
With Bishop Heber -
in that sublime poem descriptive of the Second Advent, the enthronement of the [all overcomers (Rev. 2: 25; 3: 21) and] Saints, the restoration of the Jews, etc. - we hold that
“On David’s
throne shall David’s offspring reign,
And the dry bones be warmed to life again.”
OBSERVATION 7. The time will come, when this covenanted and predicted truth, now so
ignored and perverted, will be fully recognised by
earthly Kingdoms. And this recognition will be the real cause for the
formidable array of the nations against the Christ at His open revelation, for
they will be unwilling to yield to this re-establishment of the
Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom (comp. Propositions 160, 161,
162,
and 163.
OBSERVATION 8. It may be added:
unless this Theocracy is restored in grandeur and glory, as covenanted and
predicted, then God’s earthly government in the union of the civil and
religious (Church and State) has. amid the Kingdoms of the earth, proven a failure (comp. Proposition 201).
God, as an earthly King, has had rule but a brief period. Will it ever be so?
No! God’s Word assures us that when He comes again, it is to a glorious reign. Once “He
came to His own land and His own people received Him not” (Cambell’s rendering of John 1: 11; so Alford,
“His own inheritance or
possession and His own people,” etc., comp. Matt.
8: 20 and
21: 33), but when He comes
again to His own land or inheritance, His own people will receive Him with
patience and gladness, and then the Theocracy will be manifested in and through
Him with an exaltation and splendour commensurate with the predictions given.
Some writers (as R. D. W. in Proph. Times, vol. 9, p. 21) insist upon it that “David the King” and, “David
the Prince” (Ezek. 37: 24, 25; 34: 23, 24; Hos. 3: 5; Jer. 30: 9) denotes not Jesus,
the Christ, but David himself. The theory is that David is raised up and reigns
over
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 208]
PROPOSITION 123. The Pre-Millennial Advent and the
accompanying Kingdom are united with the
destruction of Antichrist.
This is a decided landmark in prophecy, and nearly every
prophet dilates, more or less, on this feature, viz., that Antichrist is destroyed at the personal presence of
the Christ. We, for the present, only, direct attention to three: Paul in 2 Thess. 2, Daniel in ch. 7,
and John in Rev.
19. The early Church and a long line of
witnesses held that these synchronise; and we know of no legitimate argument
adduced by our opponents to the contrary; while, on
the other hand, a host of admissions, favourable to their identity in time and
destruction of the Antichrist, could readily be gathered. If we can give decided proof that one of these predictions relates to a
personal Coming to destroy the Antichrist, the others naturally - describing
the same event and results - range themselves in the same order. 2
Thess. 2 is
selected as a special subject for examination in this connection.
OBSERVATION 1. It is admitted by all our recent prophetical writers that Antichrist shall exist previous to the
Millennial age - this is so plain in the confederation of nations existing
then, that it needs no additional proof
- now if we can show that he is destroyed by the personal Coming of
Jesus, we have a personal Pre-Millennial Coming. The predictions relating to the
Millennium clearly portray the removal of the man of sin and of his adherents before that age; and they reveal the impossibility of
reconciling their presence with the realisation of that age of blessedness. The
true sense of the Scripture is contained in 2 Thess. 2, “which”
(as
* The late Dr. Marsh (quoted p. 159, vol. 5, Proph. Times)
gives the view of a large number of writers: “As to
the Coming of our Lord, I simplify it thus: There is no intervening period of a
Millennium between Daniel’s Son of Man coming in glory and the destruction of
the fourth empire. Nor, in our Lord’s prophecy of the fall of the civil and
ecclesiastical sun, moon, and stars, and His return. Nor in
the Apostle Paul’s revelation of the Man of sin (2 Thess. 2: 1-8), and the Lord’s return to destroy him. Ergo the
Millennial period succeeds, not precedes, the Lord’s return. The prophecies of
the Old Testament proceed on this plan.” “I never knew an Anti-Millenarian give
a satisfactory answer to 2 Thess. 2: 8. If the Man of sin must
be destroyed before
that period, the Lord must come before that period; for it is of His personal,
not spiritual Coming, that the Apostle is speaking. Spiritual, indeed, that
will be also, for there will be but little spirituality till
then.
OBSERVATION 2. The passage to which special attention is
called reads: “And then
shall the wicked be revealed, whom the
Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His Coming,” (2 Thess.
2: 8).* Owing to
its importance and the efforts made to give it an interpretation adapted to the
modern Whitbyan theory, it will be best
to examine it in detail.
* Revision has: “And then shall be
revealed the lawless one whom the Lord Jesus shall slay
with the breath of His mouth, and bring to
naught by the manifestation of His Coming (or Lange’s Com. loci : “And then
shall that Wicked be revealed (shall be revealed
that lawless one) whom the Lord (Lord
Jesus) shall consume with the Spirit (breath) of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness (appearing) of His Coming.
A. Those to whom
Paul wrote were looking for the personal Advent of Christ. This appears from several
considerations. 1. The Apostle
distinctly and repeatedly mentions the personal Coming. Thus in 1 Thess. 1: 10; 2: 19; 3: 13; 4: 16; 5: 23; 2 Thess. 1: 7; 2: 1; 3: 5. Hence he
minds of the Thessalonians were specifically directed to this subject. 2. This very Coming, we are told, 2 Thess. 2: 2 - the subject matter of Paul’s discourse - was calculated to shake and
trouble them, deeming it past and they not saved. If a “spiritual” or “providential
Coming” was as only intended, as some contend, it is singular that Paul
does not explain it as such; if it was to “convert”
and not “to consume and destroy,” it is astonishing that Paul does not declare the same;
and if it was a providential Coming at Jerusalem (as a few assert) in which the
Thessalonians were not personally concerned, it is strange that the Apostle
does not mention the fact to relieve their minds. The only satisfactory
explanation which meets the condition of their trouble is, that they supposed
the day of Christ had come, was inaugurated, and hence
they expected that a personal Advent had taken place. They believed in such a
personal Coming from Paul’s previous teachings. They supposed it at least to be
imminent, if it had not already transpired. The Apostle seeing that this
supposition agitated their minds, etc., makes the Imminency, the nearness of such a visible Coming as they believed in, the subject of
his remarks. It would, in the nature of the case, be
unreasonable for him to introduce any other
Coming than the one under
consideration, without a specific mention that they were mistaken in their
ideas respecting such a personal Coming; or, if another Coming was to be
understood, growing out of the one stated, without pointing out, in some way,
the distinction between them. 3.
The reference to a personal Coming is established by
the phraseology appended, “as that day of Christ is at hand.” The period when the Messiah is to be
personally manifested as the Judge, the King etc., is often called “His day,” etc., and was so
understood both by the Jews and early Christians. This
phrase clearly proves that the Apostle was writing to those who not only held
to a personal Advent, but united the day of Judgment, the distinctive day of
Christ in which His power and majesty was to be revealed, with that Coming. Paul’s endeavouring to show that such a day of Christ (see how he
used the phrase in [Page 210] Acts 17: 31; Rom. 2: 5; 1 Cor. 3: 13; 2 Cor. 1: 14; 1 Cor. 5: 5; Eph. 4: 30; Phil. 1: 6, 10),
of which he had told them in the First Epistle (1 Thess. 5: 2), “the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night”
was not so near as they apprehended, that certain great events would intervene, unmistakably
corroborates his entire and exclusive reference in this verse to a personal Advent.*1
B. The Apostle then designs to correct
the mistake respecting the presence or nearness of that personal Coming in
which they believed, and the manner in which he does this confirms the allusion
to the personal Coming. Instead of denying such an Advent (which he could not do) he enters into the question concerning the time of the very Advent whose expected
speedy approach or supposed occurrence caused their alarm. He introduces the
subject by several distinct references to the personal Advent, and then
asserts, that it shall not come until at least a certain event, viz., the appearing and
power of the man of sin, was first witnessed; then after this it would occur as stated in the passage under consideration
and “the day of Christ” would be witnessed. His argument is not that they were
mistaken in a personal Coming, or that it would not at some time or other take place, but is directed to the time when it will be
manifested. To show the latter, that it is not “at hand” or “present,” as they supposed, he introduces the
predicted fact that before that visible Advent or day of Christ, the wicked one
must arise and be exalted in power. It legitimately follows from the tenor of
the proof given, that this personal Advent is not “at hand” or “present;” that it will, after an intervening
event has been fulfilled, then come to pass. Any other
construction than that which makes the writer speak of the
same day of Christ, and Advent which the
Thessalonians expected, which troubled them, and which he stated was only to be expected after the accomplishment of the
revelation of the son of perdition, is a manifest
violation of the Apostle’s reasoning, and a gloss
put on the passage.*2
C. The Apostle’s proof of the day of Christ and
hence also the personal Advent not being. “at hand” or “present,” thus fully accords with the analogy of Scripture. Many are the predictions and pointed allusions that
Christ’s visible personal Advent only takes place at a time when Antichrist or a mighty confederation of wickedness is
developed, and that He will at such a Coming take vengeance and utterly
destroy the wicked arrayed against Him. All prophecy agrees in uniting the
destruction of the Anti-christian power with a personal Advent. The simple fact that acts of judgment and the destruction of the
ungodly are united with, in passages admitted to relate to the Second Advent
(as in this same Epistle, ch. 1: 7-10), and that the same is expressed here in
this Scripture when the purpose of the Apostle was to tell the Thessalonians why
“the day of Christ”
and its attendant Advent was not present or immediate, or near, firmly
establishes the truth that no other but a real personal
one is intended.
The proof alleged by him thus accords
with all his previous utterances on the subject, with the tenor of the Record,
and was suited to convince those brethren that a
delay in the Advent
was inevitable, since it would require time, and probably a long time, for such an apostasy [with its accompanying evil and blasphemous statements] to develop
itself into the giant form of wickedness predicted.*3
D. The Apostle, in introducing the Coming
of the Lord Jesus to destroy this Antichrist, was undoubtedly aware of the views of the Jews [and of apostate Christians] on this [Page 211] subject. The Jews, impelled by the
prophecies, looked for a personal Coming of the Messiah to destroy the wicked one.*4 If
their belief was an erroneous one, why is it
that Paul employs the very language, calculated (see below) beyond
any other, to express such a Jewish
faith, and thus confirm them, should any see the Epistle, in it? The knowledge that
such a belief was extensively current among them, if it were an unscriptural one, should have led him to use different words -
not words which in their naked, primary
meaning corroborate their opinion. This union of the destruction of the wicked
one with words that literally import a personal Coming is the strongest possible endorsement of their faith.*5
E. The import of the
two words rendered “brightness of His Coming.” Epiphaneia,
[see Greek …] called here “brightness,” and Parousia, [see Greek, …], translated “Coming.”
1. Notice
how these words are used in the New Testament (a) The word Epiphaneia
occurs six times, 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 10; 2 Tim. 4: 1 and 8; Tit. 2: 13, and in this place. In one place it refers to the personal First Advent, and in the four
remaining, as our opponents concede, to the personal Second Advent. Now, why, unless the clearest proof can be given, should it in the only remaining place, with the
light before us, attain another meaning?
Whoever undertakes to foist a definition at variance to the
New Testament usage ought to be able to give conclusive reasons for such a
departure.*6 (b) The word Parousia is used in the New Testament twenty-four times, Matt. 24: 3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15: 23, and 16: 17; 2 Cor. 7: 6, 7, and 10: 10; Phil. 1: 26,
and 2: 3; 1 Thess. 2: 19,
and 3: 13, and 4: 15 and 5:
23; 2 Thess.
2: 1, 8, 9; James 5: 7, 8; 2 Pet. 1: 16,
and 3: 4, 12, and 1 John 2: 18. In all places where applied to persons it denotes, as all admit, a personal
presence or arrival, and hence we have no just reason to discard that meaning in this place,
especially since the argument of the Apostle makes the retention of the meaning
thus given necessary. *7
2. But in addition, the fact that the
Apostle unites together those two words, each one expressive of a personal Advent, adds
weight to the interpretation we claim. As if aware of the future denial of such a personal and purposely to
guard against it,
he employs two words unitedly, each one of which is singly applied to the
Second Advent. Why select two such expressive of a real,
actual presence, if he did not intend to teach the same? One
of these words would be sufficient to sustain our argument, both make it irresistible. Dr.
Duffield (On Proph., p. 324) well
says: “If neither, when
separately used, can be metaphorically understood to denote a spiritual Advent,
much less can
both when united. If the words, ‘the shining forth or appearance of His presence,’ do not mean the personal
revelation or manifestation of Himself, it is impossible to employ terms that can express it. Human
language is utterly incapable of being interpreted on any fixed and definite
principles whatever, if it be not a literal personal manifestation and Coming.” Dr. Seiss (Last Times, p. 48), after using very nearly the
same language, adds: “Either of these words is held
sufficient in other passages to prove a real and personal appearing and
presence. And when both are united, as in the case before us, how it is possible that they should mean anything less than the literal, real, and
personal arrival and presence of Jesus, with reference to
whom they are used?” The
same was noticed by earlier writers, and has been frequently repeated as worthy
of attention.*8
[Page 212]
3. The testimony of lexicographers.* (1)
Epiphaneia. Pasor, N.T. Lex.,
says it denotes “appearance. In one place it is
applied to the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Tim. 1: 10; in other places of the
Scriptures for His glorious Coming to judgment, as 2 Thess. 2: 8.” Stockius, Clavis,
vol. 2, remarks: “1st it denotes, when
applied to genus, any appearance whatever. 2nd
when applied to a species, it properly denotes the appearance of some corporeal
and shining matter which bursts forth with great splendour. In
a metaphorical sense, it is applied to the appearance of Christ: First His
glorious appearance in the flesh, which is called His first Coming; second, His
glorious appearance to judge the world, which will be gracious to the righteous
and faithful, but terrible to the sinner and infidel, and which is called His
Second Coming, 2 Thess. 2: 8,” etc. Leigh, Critica Sacra, p. 161, writes: “This
word signifieth a bright, clear, glorious appearing, from which word we take
our Epiphany, specially
Adventus Numinis (i.e. the Coming of the Divinity). It is taken for the First Coming of Christ, 2 Tim. 1: 10; for His Second Coming, as 2 Thess. 2: 8,” etc. Suicer (Thess. Eccles.,
vol. 1, p. 1202), “after mentioning the use of the
word, 1st the heathen use of it in reference to the, manifestation
of one of their gods; 2nd in reference to the First Advent,
proceeds: 3rd ‘This is frequently applied by the Apostle to the
Second Coming of Christ, which will be to judgment, 2 Thess. 2:
8.’” Scultetus,
Evang.,
Lib. 2, ch. 1. after noticing that the pagan writers called any appearance,
of the gods by this word, adds:- “The Apostle also
applies [the Greek word…] - appearance - to the first and last Coming of Christ.” Bretsehneider, Lex., [… - the Greek word ‘appearance’] “is used in the New Testament in the writings of Paul
concerning the splendid appearing and future Advent in which Christ, who, is
now concealed from our view in the heavens, shall appear coming in the clouds
(literally borne on the clouds or wafted by the clouds) to administer judgment,
2 Thess. 2: 8; 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 1, 8; Titus 2: 13; and
concerning His appearing in the world, which has already taken place, viz.,
when He was born, 2 Tim. 1: 10; or, in other words, His first Advent.” Wahl, Lex., defines the word to be an appearing,
and quotes the same passages, and expressly applies 2 Thess. 2:
8 to Christ’s “future glorious return.”
* See Voice of the Church, pp. 315-317, where a number of these are given.
Others are added.
[Page 213]
F. The opinions of commentators - of the class who have no sympathy with our views, but yet are candid enough to concede this vital point, and of others who express themselves
independently of any theory or bias, etc. Barnes,
Com. loci,
on ch. 2: 1, says,
that the phrase “by His Coming,” etc., means “respecting His Coming,” and refers it to a personal one,
the same specified in 1 Thess. 4, and argues that the alarm, etc., of
the Thessalonians was produced by the expectation of the speedy Advent of
Christ to judgment. He then consistently explains verse 8 to embrace a personal Coming in the
following words: “this (with the brightness of His
Coming) is evidently a Hebraism, meaning His splendid or glorious appearing.
The Greek word, however, rendered ‘brightness’ means merely an appearing, or appearance. So it is used, 1 Tim. 6: 4; 2 Tim. 1: 10, and 4: 1, 8; Tit. 2: 13, in all of which places it
is rendered appearing, and refers to the manifestation of the Saviour when He shall come to judge
the world. There is no necessary idea
of splendour in the word, and the idea is not, as our translators would seem to
convoy, that there would be such a dazzling light, or such insufferable
brightness that all would be consumed before it, but that this
Antichristian power would be destroyed by His appearing, that
is, by Himself when He would return. The agency in doing it would not be
His brightness, but Himself. It would seem to follow
from this that, however this enormous power of wickedness might be weakened by
truth, the final triumph over it would be reserved for the Son of God Himself on His second return to
our world.” This honest but fatal concession destroys at one
stroke all the reasoning abounding in his commentaries against our doctrine.*11 Dr.
Adam, Clarke, Com.,
after quoting Bh. Newton, who endorses our view, says “the principal part of modern commentators follow his steps,”
and notwithstanding his cautions and in some respects contradictory exposition
indorses the same. For in his pref. to 2 Thess.
he informs us that Antichrist will be destroyed “by a visible and extraordinary interposition of the power of Christ in the government of the world,” and on Rev.
17: 17
he more plainly declares: “This deplorable state of
the world is not perpetual, it can only continue
till every word of God is fulfilled upon His enemies, and when this time arrives, which will be that of Christ’s Second Advent, then shall the Son of God slay that Wicked with the
spirit of His mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of His coming.”
Dr. Scott, Com., is
forced to acknowledge, notwithstanding his efforts to make out a figurative coming,
that it will only receive its ultimate
fulfilment at the coming of Christ to judgment, for he writes: “He will shortly destroy the whole Papal authority, and all
obstinately attached to it, by the brightness of His Coming to spread the
Gospel through the nations, and He will finally condemn and punish with everlasting destruction all the actors in this
delusion when He shall come to to judge the world.” Bloomfield,
Gr. Test. Notes,
speaks of it as indicative of “His very presence,” “His
glorious presence,” and adds: “Indeed the expression is often both in the Scriptures and
classical writers used to denote Divine Majesty.”* Matthew
Henry, Com.,
says: “The apostle assures the Thessalonians that the
Lord would consume and destroy him (viz., the Antichrist); the consuming of him
precedes his final destruction, and that is by the spirit of His mouth, by His
[Page 214] word of command; the pure Word of God, accompanied by the Spirit of God, will
discover this mystery of iniquity, and make the power of Antichrist to consume
and waste away; and in due time it shall be totally and finally destroyed, and
this will be by the brightness of Christ’s Coming. Note,
the Coming of
Christ to destroy the wicked will
be with peculiar and eminent lustre and brightness.”
* In another place he observes: “It is especially suitable, as here, to His final advent to judgment.”
G. It is important to notice the opinions of the early
Apostolic Fathers who being acquainted with the language as a living spoken
one, and receiving their interpretation of a passage which would excite special attention from the hands of the apostles or
their immediate disciples, may thus afford strong corroborative evidence.
Knowing that they were all decidedly Millenarian, that they all believed that
Antichrist would destroyed by the personal Second Advent, we have sufficient testimony
concerning their mode of interpreting 2 Thess. 2:
8. Having previously given the authorities,
it is only necessary to append a few examples of this
belief. Thus, e.g., Barnabas
(martyred about A. D. 75) says (Apost. Fath., p. 186): “The day of the Lord is at hand, in which shall be destroyed together with the “Wicked one.” On the Creation week he adds: “And
what is that he saith ‘and He rested the seventh
day;’ He meaneth this: that when His Son shall come and abolish the Wicked one
and judge the ungodly and shall change the sun, and moon, and stars, then He shall gloriously rest on the seventh day,” alluding to the Millennial era. Irenaeus (Adv. Hoer.,
8 v. c. 35) takes the same view, and declares that when “Antichrist” has reigned his allotted period - “then the
Lord shall come from heaven, in the clouds with the
glory of His Father, casting him and that obey him into a lake of fire, but
bringing to the just the times of the Kingdom, that is, the Rest or Sabbath,
the seventh day sanctified, and fulfilling to Abraham the promise of the
inheritance.” Justin
Martyr (Dial.
With Trypho, referring to Micah 4: 1, etc., see Bh. Kay’s Justin)
pointedly unites the Second Coming of Jesus in glory with the destruction of “the man of apostasy.” *12
H. Even after the allegorizing
interpretation, introduced by the Alexandrian school, by which such passages as
these are so readily transformed into various meanings, the Divines still
insisted that this Scripture taught a personal coming to destroy Antichrist. In fact, so general was this opinion,
that both Millenarians and their opposers held to it. The names of [Page 215] Cyprian, Lactantius, Tertullian, Hippolytus,
Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom,
Jerome, Hilarian, Theodoret, and a host of others,
embracing various classes, etc., clearly teach this, referring to the phrase
itself, adducing it as a warning, etc. Thus to illustrate: Augustine, on 2 Thess. 2:
8, wrote: “No one doubts that the
apostle said these things of Antichrist, and that the day of judgment, which he here calls ‘the day of the Lord,’ will not come, unless he
whom he calls an apostate, that is
to say from the Lord God, shall first come.” (City of
I. The Popish writers, however they may apply it,
ascribe it to a personal Advent. The larger and more learned
portion (See Calmet
and Encyclops. Art. “Antichrist,” and Proposition 161) refer it to a personal
coming, of Jesus at the destruction of a future Antichrist. Another party, in
retaliation for the application of the terms “man of sin,” etc., to the Pope,
apply the same phrase to Luther or
the Reformation, but nearly all of
these also apply it as an ultimate fulfilment to the day of judgment, when the
Christ shall come to destroy the wicked.*14
J. The opinions of the Reformers, although making the apostasy
and the man of sin to be one and the same, are
distinctly in our favour. Thus to give a few illustrations: Luther, as well known, making the Pope
or the Papacy Antichrist, frequently expresses his belief that the Papacy was [Page 216] not to be destroyed by human agency or by the power of the truth, but by
the personal Advent of the Christ. Thus e.g. “Our Lord
Jesus Christ yet liveth and reigneth, who, I firmly trust, will shortly come and slay with the spirit
of His month, and destroy with the brightness of His Coming, that man of sin” (D’Aubigne’s His. Ref. vol. 2, p. 166) “The apostle expresses this Pope’s destruction thus: ‘When the Lord shall consume,’ etc. The laity,
therefore, shall not destroy the Pope and His Kingdom. No he and his wicked rabble, are not deserving of so light a punishment. They
shall be preserved until the coming of Christ, whose
most bitter enemies they are and ever have been (Pope Confounded, p. 177).”
In opposing the Anabaptists, one
leading argument against them consisted in his constantly declaring that Christ’s personal coming would overthrow His enemies, etc. appealing to Paul and Daniel as foretelling their destruction, not by the hand of man,
but by the Advent of Christ. (Sleidan’s
Com.
L. 5.) Melandhthon
held similar views. The sentiments of
the other Reformers are given in Eillott’s Horae, Apoc., Voice of the Church,
including Zwingle,
Latimer, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, etc., and require more space
than is really necessary to show a continuous line of
interpretation. They are, however, as pointed as the following: Beza, Notes on. N. T.,
“thus I have
deemed it best to translate the name […], which Paul designedly used in order to represent
to our eyes that most brilliant splendour of His last Coming.” “At length
by the word of the Lord that impiety will be exposed, and by the Advent of Christ wholly abolished.” Bh. Jewell, Com. loci, says: “The Lord shall come and
shall make His enemies His footstool; then shall the sun be black as
sackcloth and the moon shall be like blood. Then shall Antichrist be quite
overthrown,” etc. “He will overthrow the whole power of Antichrist by His presence and by the glory of His Coming.” *15
K. The opinions of eminent Divines who indorsed the Whitbyan theory. Having already given a number, an
illustration will suffice to indicate the spirit: Dr. Knapp, Ch. Theol., s. 155, 5,
p. 543, says: “The Christian Church will hereafter be
subjected to great temptation from heathen profaneness, from false delusive
doctrine, and extreme moral corruption, and will seem for a time to be ready to
perish from these causes, but then Christ will appear, and, according
to His promise, triumph over this opposition; and then, and
not till then, will the end of the
world come; Christ will visibly
appear and hold the general judgment
and conduct the pious into the Kingdom of the blessed. This is the distinct doctrine of Paul, 2 Thess. 2: 3-12, and is taught throughout the
Apocalypse.” The reader will notice the admission
made in the last sentence; and we may well ask if 2 Thess
2 synchronises with Rev. 19, etc. how can it be fitted without
violence into Knapp’s system? *16
Leaving quotations, which might be given from a host of able writers,
either directly Millenarian or at least rejecting the idea of a conversion of
the world previous to the Advent, who favour our interpretation, we turn, in
conclusion, to the concessions made by two prominent opposers, viz., by Whitby himself, author of the
prevailing Millennium theory, and by Dr.
Brown, author of a work specially devoted to its defence. Whitby allows (Com.) that a literal coming is the most consistent interpretation of the coming in 2 Thess. 2: 1, but makes the coming (in violation of
connection thus admitted) in verse
8 a providential coming to destroy Jerusalem, and then
says, in view of the use of the word in the First Epistle: “It may be thought more reasonable to refer this passage to [Page 217] the same (i.e. the second personal) advent.”
Why give utterance to such a thought if it did not commend itself as “more reasonable”? Surely it is far “more reasonable” than the interpretation which he has
foisted on the passage to aid him in his “new hypothesis”
- an interpretation which
even the mass of his followers reject as utterly untenable, being only held by a few Universalists
and some others classed among the destructive critics. Dr. Brown (Ch. Sec. Com.) writes: “There
can be no doubt that the whole passage admits of a consistent and good explanation on the view of it above given - i.e.
the Pre-Millenarian view. Nor is this view (i.e. of a literal personal coming
to destroy Antichrist) confined to Pre-Millennialists. Those of our elder
divines who looked upon the Millennium as past already, and considered the
destruction of Antichrist as the immediate precursor of the eternal state,
understood this ‘coming of the Lord’ to destroy Antichrist, of His Second Personal
coming. There are other opponents of
the Millennial theory who explain this coming to destroy the man of sin, ‘the lawless one,’ here spoken of, to
embrace all the evil, apostasy and opposition to Christ, which are to exist
till the consummation of all things; in which case the destruction of it will,
of course, not be till the Second Advent. In neither of these views, however, can I
concur.” Here we have a
frank, manly admission that our interpretation is “a
consistent and good explanation,” and that many others, beside
Millenarians, concur in making this coming a personal one. Dr. Brown, however, in viewing the
ground upon which the Whitbyan theory rests, was too wise and prudent to admit
our interpretation, well knowing that it would be
fatal to his own theory (Whitbyan);
for had he admitted that this coming, taught by Paul, a personal one, then
the necessary and inevitable conclusion would follow that no such a
Millennium of holiness, happiness, security and boldness as predicted, could
possibly arise before it, seeing that would make the apostasy and subsequent
man of sin contemporaneous with it.
Hence, while he rejects
We hold, therefore,
that 2 Thess. 2: 8 teaches a personal coming of Christ to destroy the
Antichrist (whatever the latter may be), and in support of such an
interpretation confidently appeal to the kind of Advent the Thessalonians were
anticipating; the design the apostle had in view in writing the passage; the
plain import of the words rendered “brightness” and “coming;” the New Testament usage of these
words; the union of two such words; the testimony of lexicographers, critics,
commentators, divines, reformers, friends and foes, the early Fathers, the
concessions of opponents, etc. If we have established our position authoritatively, then,
as intimated, such an Advent is necessarily Pre-Millennial. For, it is utterly impossible to reconcile the existence of Antichrist with the state
delineated in the Millennium - a state in which all shall be subject to Christ,
all shall be righteous, and all shall enjoy a condition of security and
happiness. On the other hand, we have his complete destruction and consignment
to the lake described in Rev. 19 (with which the Prophets coincide) is immediately preceding the
Millennium, and what the [Holy] Spirit has so plainly described and [Page 218] located we dare not deny and transfer. The same Spirit in both places, in accord with the tenor
of prophecy, promises no intervening or
contemporaneous Millennium, but predicts a developing and overshadowing power
of an apostasy which must be destroyed by the personal Advent of the Son of man, and then, only then,
shall the promises of Millennial glory be fulfilled.*18
*1 The student will not overlook the force of “The Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by our gathering into
Him;” which as commentators generally show, directly refers us to the
Coming and gathering spoken of in 1 Thess. 4: 15), etc. Hence those who
admit that the latter refers to a personal Coming and literal gathering, are
forced by simple consistency to allow the same to this introductory. The reader
also will notice that we are strongly inclined to receive the expression “is present”
instead of “is at hand,” as more expressive of
the original, of the usage of the word translated, of the tenor of the context,
etc. Alford’s (Gk. Test, loci. Lange’s
Com.
Amer.
Ed., b)(.i, Olshausen’s
Com. Bengel’s Gnomen, etc. indicate this
feature, so that e.g. Alford’s
remarks, after showing how the word is employed in other places: “The teaching of the Apostles was, and of the Holy Spirit in
all ages has been, that the day of the Lord is at hand. But these
Thessalonians imagined it to be already come, and accordingly were deserting
their pursuits in life and falling into other irregularities, as if the day of
grace were closed.” A multitude of able writers
endorse this view, and it is found in various versions. We only as
illustrative append Fausset’s
(Com. loci) comment: “is
immediately imminent; literally, is present; is instantly coming.
Christ and His apostles always taught that that the day of the Lord’s coming is
at
hand; and it is not likely that Paul
would imply anything contrary here; what he denies is that it is immediately
imminent, instead, or present, as to justify the
neglect of every-day worldly duties. Chrysostom,
and after him Alford, translates ‘is
(already)
present’
- Cf. 2 Tim. 2: 18, is a kindred error. But
in 2 Tim. 3: 1 the same Greek word is
translated ‘come.’
Wahl supports this view. The Greek is usually used of actual presence;
but is quite susceptible of the translation ‘is all but present.’” Comp. Dr. Lillie’s able
comment in Amer. Ed. Of Lange’s Com., who insists that usage
requires “has come, is present.” So Ellicott
renders it, “is now come.” We only add: If we take the phrase “is at
hand” in our version, then it really would be contradictory
to other Scripture. For then the Coming of the
Lord Jesus, which is always represented as a period of rejoicing, the blessed
hope, and as at hand so that all are exhorted to look
for it (and for which the Thessalonians are to wait and long
for as an object of desire), is held up and not nigh at hand (with
which compare e.g. Rom. 13: 12; Phil. 4: 5; Heb. 10: 25; James 5: 8; 1 Pet. 4: 7, etc.), and an object of fear
and dread. Now according to the hest critics the Greek
does not involve such a contradiction.
Hence the most recent commentators adopt the idea of
being present or is come, which is given by various versions, as the Syriac and Italian, which have, “the day of the Lord
is come.”
*2 Brown (Ch. Sec. Com.,
p. 456, ed. of 1879) fully admits: “I am constrained,
by, all the laws of exact interpretation, to apply the destruction here
predicted to that specific enemy so minutely described, and ‘the Coming of the Lord’ here
announced - whether personal or figurative - to a Pre-Millennial Coming.”
But then he asserts that a figurative Coming is
indicated, a Coming through other agencies, viz., by that employed in, and by
the Church. The reader will place this figurative
Coming in contrast with Paul’s previous references to the Second
Advent. If Brown is correct, it
certainly was an exceedingly strange. method that Paul adopted to soothe the Thessalonian
brethren, by informing them in figurative language
(which Brown supposes their
acquaintance with the Old Testament allowed them fully to grasp) that an apostasy, etc., should intervene, and
that certain acts of
*3 That the reader may see for himself how
our opponents contradict themselves, and the general analogy, a few illustrations are in place. Scott (Com., loci) makes the Papacy to be
the Antichrist, here delineated, and then comments: “He
(Jesus) will shortly destroy the whole Papal authority and all obstinately
attached to it ‘by the brightness of His Coming to spread the Gospel through
the nations.’” Now if we only turn to Rev.
17, we find that the Papacy (represented,
according to Protestant interpretation and application, by “the whore”) is not overcome by the Gospel, but by the beast
and ten horns - is thus destroyed not by religious but by
civil powers, the enemies likewise of the Christ. A [Page 219] bitter opponent, Ross (quoted by Dr. Craven
in Evangelist,
of Feb. 6th 1879), says “Antichrist shall
not be destroyed till Christ’s Second Coming to judgment (2 Thess. 2: 8), that Christ shall destroy him with the brightness of His
Coming. But Millenaries will have him destroyed before the beginning of these
thousand years, which is flat against Scripture.” Observe that over
against Scott he acknowledges that
the language demands a literal, personal Coming, but then, over against us,
locates the Coming after the thousand years. By the latter process he has (over
against a multitude of predictions and the plain chronological order of the Apocalypse which places the Millennium after the destruction of Antichrist) the Antichrist existing continuously
through that blessed [millennial
and Messianic] age. Waldegrave (Lec. 7 New Test. Mill.)
takes precisely the same position, and concedes the personality of the Coming. Macnight (Com.
loci), while in his Pref. (Sec. 4) he gives a one-sided
representation of the passages referring to the Second Coming and easily
disproven by a comparison of Scripture and the Primitive Church belief (and
which we answer under other headings, yet is forced by the strength of the
language to compromise his steady leaning to spiritual and figurative comings
by saying that the passage calls for “a visible and
extraordinary interpretation of Christ.
*4 In addition to illustrations
previously given, Bh. Newton (On Proph., Diss, 22) says that this passage, 2
Thess. 2: 8, “is partly taken from Isa. 11: 4, ‘and with the breath of His
lips shall He slay the wicked one’; where the
Jews put an emphasis upon the words ‘the wicked
one,’ as appears from the Chaldee, which
renders it, ‘He shall destroy the wicked Roman.’” Barnes
Com.,
Isa. 11: 4, quoting
from Castell
says: “The Chaldee Paraphrast
translates it. ‘And by the Word of His lips He shall slay the wicked Armillus.’ By Armillus the Jews mean the last great enemy of their nation who
should come after (or with) Grog and
Magog and wage furious wars, and who
should slay the Messiah Ben Ephraim,
whom the Jews expect, but who would himself be slain by the rod of the Messiah Ben David or the Son of David.” Here we see a
mixture of Rabonnical conjecture with some truth. The
ancient Jews, the Jews at the First Advent, and modern Jews of the orthodox
(not rationalistic or progressive who are a much divided) party, all unite in
believing in the destruction of an Anti-Messiah or great enemy by the personal
Coming of the Messiah. They say, and truthfully, that the texts they rely upon
do not admit of any other interpretation. It is a sad
reflection, that while they still, under such long-endured tribulation, hold
fast to the literal Word of God respecting the Second Advent as presented in
the Old Testament, they so persistently close their eyes to the plain literal
predictions referring to the First
Advent of Christ; and that for the sake of consistency in interpretation,
some of them introduce two future
Messiahs as above. Alas! for such blindness.
*5
Hence some writers, destructive in tendency, reject this entire prophecy as
merely an expression of Paul’s private opinion, on the ground that it is of “Jewish origin,” and that it favours too much “Jewish expectations.” Such a procedure, of course,
denies the Jewish basis in the Old Testament, upon which the whole is founded. The prophets fare no better than Paul.
*6 Dr. Bonar (C. and Kingdom, p. 343) justly
remarks: “Not one of these others is so explicit, yet
no one thinks of explaining them away. Why, then, fasten on the strongest and
insist on spiritualizing it? If the strongest can be
explained away so as not to denote the Second Coming, much more may the
others, and then we shall have no passages to prove the Advent at all! If the
Anti-Millenarian be at liberty to spiritualize the most distinct, why
may not the Straussian
be allowed to rationalize and mythologize the less
distinct?” Also see Taylor’s Voice of the Church, p. 314, Brook’s El. Proph. Inter., p, 129,
etc.
*7 Able writers assert that in every instance, excepting
perhaps one passage, it means a literal Coming. Even this supposed exception is
also claimed; it is found in 2 Pet. 3: 12: “Looking for and hasting
unto the Coming of the day of the Lord.” But,
of this it may be said: (1) that it
denotes, in view of the invariable usage of the word, the actual presence of
the day or time spoken of; (2) that (so Brooks, El. Proph. Infer.) “it is
evidently susceptible, agreeable to the rules of Greek Syntax of another
reading, by understanding [… see the Greek] to be in the
genitive, as denoting time, by a preposition understood (see Parkhurst), and
not as governed by [… see
Greek]. It will then be:
“Looking for and hastening to the presence (of
Christ) in the Day,” etc. Dr. Duffield, On Proph., p. 323, says: “In every instance
where it occurs, which is twenty-four times, it is used literally and not
metaphorically or analogically.” A multitude of quotations from writers
of ability in various denominations, of like tenor, could be
quoted, but these specimens are sufficient.
*8 Olshausen, Com.,
explains “the apparent tautology by referring epiphaneia to the subjective,
parousia to the objective aspect, i.e. the latter expression to the actuality
of [Page 220] Christ’s appearing, the former one to the contemplation of it
on the part of man, the consciousness of his presence, “impressed by His
Splendour, etc. So Lange, Com., that it expresses “the visibleness - appearing - 0f His Coming.”Compare Alford and Ellicott.
*9 The student can readily add to these
the same definitions given by many others. Cramner,
in Bib. Theol. Lexicon, says: “In the New Testament of the appearing or manifestation of
Jesus Christ on earth, 2 Tim. 1: 10. In other New Testament texts of Christ’s
Second Advent, 2 Thess.
2, 8; 1 Tim. 1: 10. In other New Testament texts of Christ’s Second Advent, 2 Thess. 2: 8; 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 18; Tit. 2: 13.”Comp. Parkhurst,
*10
* 11 For it makes this personal Coming necessary a
Pre-Millennial one, seeing that (as he admits also in other places) Antichrist
is destroyed before that age (in which Satan is bound, etc.) is ushered in. It
is amazing that he did mot see the fallacy and contradiction in his reasoning;
others, more, shrewd and less candid, perceiving the inevitable conclusion that
must follow if such a concession is
made, seek out some other interpretation to avoid it. Others make the same
concession, but fail to inform us how so fatal an admission is to be reconciled
with their Whitbyan theory.
*12
The belief of a personal Advent of the Messiah to destroy a wicked
confederation and inaugurate His Kingdom, was universally prevalent in the first
centuries (see also how incorporated in Sibylline, Brooks, quoted by Stuart
Apoc. vol. 2, p. 438, etc.). Now the usage of
language pre-eminently adapted to confirm an existing opinion, can only be explained by believing that the view is a
correct scriptural one.
*13 We say “perhaps”
because not having their works at hand to consult, they may, as others have
done adopting, similar views, likewise locate the passage in the future, and
admit the force of its language. For looking at the Voice of the Church,
*14 The student need only be reminded that
some of the popish writers also referred this passage to
*15 In reference to the once general opinion that 2 Thess. 2: 8 denoted a
literal Advent, Dr. Craven in his
reply to Prof. Briggs (N. Y. Evangelist,
Feb. 13th 1879)
corroborates by decided proof his statement that the men of the Westminster Assembly held “that the
Antichrist and the beast of Rev. 19 are identical; that the Parousia of 2 Thess. 2 and that of Rev. 19: 11-21 are the same; and that this one Parousia is for the
last judgment.” Hence no Millennial
age for the Church on earth after the destruction of Antichrist, as
Pre-Millenarians belonging to that body held.) He proves this conclusively, e.g. by
quoting Baillie “Dissausive ch.
11) who wrote against Pre-Millenarians thus: “The
Millenaries lay it for a ground that Antichrist shall be destroyed and fully
abolished before their thousand years begin; but Scripture makes Antichrist to
continue to the Day of Judgment, 2 Thess. 2: 8. The brightness of
Christ’s Coming is not before the last day as before is
proved. See also Rev. 19: 20, ‘The Beast
was taken and with him the false [Page 221] Prophet; these both were cast alive
into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.’
Compare it with v. 7: ‘Let us be glad and rejoice, for the marriage of the
Lamb is come.’ Antichrist is cast alive into
the
*16 This extract contains in itself a complete refutation of his section on the
Millennium. The antidote to his phrase “general
judgment,” by which he means “the last,”
is also found in this section, thus: “Hence the eccl. name of this transaction, judicium extremum or novissimum, the
last judgment because it will take place at the end of the world that now is. The term, the last judgment, is not used however in the New
Testament.” etc. We add: neither is the phrase “general judgment,” which is solely of human origin.
*17 It is unnecessary to attempt a
refutation of
*18
Hereafter the order of this passage will be introduced and
enforced by a comparison of Scripture. Now it may be
said that this Antichrist destroyed by the personal Advent of Jesus is
not, as many have held, the Papacy. The proof is distinctive
and clear (1) the Papacy is
e.g. delineated in Rev. 17 under the figure of “the
great whore” supported by the kings of the earth, but in the same
chapter this power is destroyed by other powers before this Parousia. (2) The powers that destroy this woman
exist afterward at the Second Advent, and are arrayed
against Christ. (3) While the
apostasy of 2 Thess. 2 is applicable to the Papacy yet the delineation
of the culminated “Wicked” cannot be applied to
the Papacy without violence. Thus e.g. the Antichrist
denies that Jesus Came in the flesh; the Papacy does not do this, etc. Taking all the Scriptures and comparing them
together, we are forced by simple consistency to this conclusion, which will be
explained in detail.
OBSERVATION 3. Dr. Warren, in The Parousia, while endeavouring to invalidate our
views (by making Parousia equivalent to age or dispensation), fully admits the
literalness of the language expressing the same, as e.g. rendering 2 Thess. 2: 1; James 5: 7, 8; John 2: 28, etc., by “the presence.”
He, indeed, from this
very literalness, claims, wrongfully, that the term “Second
Coming” is unscriptural. The concessions made by him, as we have already
shown, are amply sufficient to overthrow his position. It is too late in the
day (but exceedingly suggestive of the predicted denial of this truth by
the Church) for a Divine to make the Parousia an entire
dispensation - the Christian. And as to the
scriptural basis of the term “Second Coming,”
this is seen (1) in Heb. 9:
28; (2) in Jesus’ own
references to a future personal coming in His address to
Let the student consider our argument on this point, and he
will find it impregnable. So much is this the case that our most unrelenting opponents concede the force of it. Thus e.g. a man, Dr.
Neander, who probably has done as much as any one to prejudice the Church
against our doctrine and to lead it astray, concedes, with all his leaning to a
mystical conception, the full force of the passage. Thus (Pl. and
OBSERVATION 4. It is scarcely necessary to add anything additional to Dan. 7:
13 to indicate a personal Advent. All the early Fathers, as well
as those who followed them, even such a writer as Jerome (Bickersteth’s
Guide,
p. 112, quotes from, and also shows how Jerome
made the little horn of Dan. 7 synchronize with the man of sin 2 Thess. 2) made it
refer to the Second Advent. The earliest apologies, as e.g. Justin’s First Apol., ch. 51, apply this to the
future, and not to his First Advent. There is, at least, consistency in such an
interpretation, because the tenor of the prophecy
describes a coming very different from the First, which, the latter, was in humiliation; and unto death,
while the former is a triumphant Advent resulting in the overthrow of all enemies. It is very different in that
respect from the amazing and rash exposition, given by many writers, which affirms that the coming of the Son of Man is a going or ascension to heaven, into
which even so excellent a writer as Flavel falls, who
(Foun. of Life, p. 500) makes Dan. 7: 13, 14, “accomplished in Christ’s ascension.”
Even Waggoner (Ref. of Age to Come, p. 133) cannot see an Advent here unless it is
assumed that the Ancient of Days is on the earth.* The entire scene is one here on earth and not in heaven; the acts that are performed, as the
destruction of the beast, etc., are not in heaven but on the earth. What a
definition such theories involve of the words “coming” and “came.” What a shrinking from having God or
His Son present here on earth, as if it embraced a
desecration of person. Such views introduce an antagonism into the vision irreconcilable both with its simplicity and with its
synchronism with Rev. 19; 2 Thess. 2: 8; Rev. 14: 14-20, etc. Over against all such
theorising is set the application of this passage of Daniel
by Jesus Himself, when before the High Priest, to His future personal Advent - a fact which a host of our opponents,
overlooking its connection with Daniel, frankly admit in their expositions of Matt. 26:
64. (Thus, e.g. Barnes,
Com. loci, makes it refer to the future personal Advent.)
The reader is requested to notice how the personal Advent is sustained and
proven by the judgment day which, as Mede has shown (Works, p. 762), the Jews derived
from Daniel
7. (See proposition 133,
on the Judgment Day.) Those theories which lead to
extravagance in belief are utterly opposed by the sober exegesis of the
Church Fathers, and a multitude of able divines. We can safely adopt the
interpretation given by the pious Jews to Daniel 7: 13, sustained as it is by Christ Himself.**
* Waggoner’s
objection is derived from the parable in Luke 19. But this is
far-fetched, for receiving a Kingdom does not imply by any means its immediate
setting up but in His being the recognized, empowered King, etc., since even
saints, true believers, are presented as receiving a Kingdom, and the surety of
it is such, the title to it so valid that they are represented as having
attained to what they shall in the future only inherit and possess. Besides, while
parables illustrate a doctrine already given, a doctrine is itself derived from
another class of Scripture (so many of our Introds.
to the Bible, as Horne’s, etc. That the
Ancient of Days “comes” and is
also on the earth will appear under Proposition 166.
** The Jews understood this “coming in clouds” to refer to a personal Coming, and
hence, as various writers have noticed, named as we have noticed, the Messiah,
anticipatory, “the Son of Clouds.” Jesus,
appropriating such 1anguage to Himself, confirms the belief
in a personal Coming. Renan (Life of Jesus p. 61) gives the Jewish view thus: “He was a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of Heaven, a supernatural
being, clothed in human appearance, commissioned to judge the world, and to
preside over the golden age.” Gradually, as stated, this idea, was spiritualized and applied to the present. Ten thousand
perversions are noticeable to the student. Thus e.g. when the Crusaders under Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless (Milman’s His. Jews,
vol. 3, p. 250) cruelly attacked and massacred the Jews of the city of
Brown (Ch, Sec.
Com., p. 358, note) makes the Coming of the Son of Man a going, saying: “If it means any local approach at all, it is His ascent
rather than His decent - His solemn entry into heaven to receive the reward of
His work;” but prefers to regard it “as a
scenic representation of His investiture of the rights of universal dominion.” He approvingly quotes Maclaurin and Scott, making this an “ascending heaven, the throne of God, to receive the Kingdom
covenanted to him,” “from His former residence,
the earth,” viz., at His First Advent. So Cowles (Com. on Dan.) makes it refer to the ascension. Such theories will not stand the
test of criticism, the logical order laid down in the predictions, and the
general analogy of the Word, being based, as to
origination, upon a misconception of the nature, etc., of the covenanted
Messianic Kingdom. So Swormstedt’s (The End of the
World Near, p. 166) arbitrary and eccentric separation of verses 13 and 14
from the context, and interposing a Millennial period previous to their
fulfilment, cannot be received; and its inconsistency is shown by his
subsequent admissions e.g. that verses 18, 22, and 27 are
to be verified in the Millennial era.
-------
To
Be continued, D.V.