THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE H. N. PETERS
[*PROPOSITIONS 93 & 94 VOLUME ONE (pp. 609-631.)
-------
[Page 609]
PROPOSITION 93. The
Desirous to respect and honour that overwhelming majority of
able, and learned men, who hold and teach that the Christian church is the
Kingdom of Christ predicted by the prophets and so solemnly covenanted to Him,
yet truth and justice demand an unequivocal denial of this doctrine. The reason for such denial is found in the terms of the covenant itself. The church
possesses none of the characteristics of the kingdom promised to David’s Son.
The Theocratic relationship, the throne and
OBSERVATION 1. The Christian Church is an association of believers in Christ, who, led by
the same consciousness of God, truth and spirit, accept of the terms of
salvation, repentance and faith, and continue in the use of the means of grace
appointed by the Redeemer. It is an association exclusively for religious
purposes, separate and distinct from civil or secular interests. It is
different from the Kingdom once established in that State and religion are
separated, hence involving no civil or State relationship, for members of all
nations and States, without absolving their allegiance due as citizens to their
respective civil powers, can become members of this exclusive religious
organisation. It is different from the Jewish Church, before and after the
Theocratic rule, in that it embraces new ordinances, discarding the Mosaic, and
is open to both Jew and Gentile by an expression and experience of faith in
Jesus Christ. It was formed solely on account of the rejection of the Kingdom
by the Jews, in order that through it a body of believers might be raised,
through whom finally, when all gathered, the Kingdom might be reorganised in
the most effective and triumphant manner. Originated for this special purpose it was designed, as its commencement
proves, to be separate and distinct not only from the Jewish State but all
other States.
This interpretation
of the Church, with the exception of the excessive High Church view, which,
against the testimony of both Scripture and History, insists upon the immediate
establishment of a Hierarchy, and with the exception of that of Erastianism,
which, against the Apostolic order, prescribes a union of State and Church, is
substantially that adopted by many of our opponents, who, however, are forced
by their theories to add to it the notion of an existing
predicted Kingdom. Aside from the latter idea, when we read the interpretations given by
various writers directly of the Church, we find but little difference from the
one presented, and none to necessitate the view
that it is a Kingdom. Neander tells
us that the Church is “a union of men arising from the
fellowship of religious life; a union essentially independent of, and different from, all other forms of human association.”
Then what he adds enforces our position instead of his own. “It was a fundamental
element of the formation of this union, that religion was no longer to be
inseparably bound up, either as principal or subordinate, with the political
and national relations of men,” etc. (See Ch. His., sec. 81, ch. 4, and then
compare sec. 52 where he contradicts this by giving the
Church such relations and a world dominion.) We might well ask, Why not
so bound? There must be some substantial reason. Mosheim (Inst. Of Eccl. His.), in his
preface, is guarded not to call the Church a Kingdom, whether intentional or
not. Admitting that as an association it is governed by certain laws and
institutions, and has its officers, he calls it “a
society or community” formed by the body of Christians. Dr. Hagenbach, in his, Acad. Address
on Neander’s services as a Church historian (Bib. Sacra,
Oct. 1851), shows that according to Planck
in His. of the Origin and Formation of the Christ, Eccl. Constitutions,
the Church is no Kingdom, but a union of individuals voluntarily coming
together, bound by the same religious belief, etc. Da Costa attributed, according to
The reader can find numerous
illustrations in various Confessions, His. of
Doctrines, Sys. Divinities, Theological writers, Works on the Church, Controversial
Essays, etc. In this wide field the student will find every
shade of opinion, from that of an association of believers to Schleiermacher’s “living organism,” i.e., the body of Christ (or Lange’s “the
planting and development of the salvation and life of Christ in the social
sphere,” and “the typical commencement of the
world’s transfiguration”); from that of a simple congregation of
receptive men and women to Schlegel’s
“great and divine corporation,” “free, peculiar, and independent corporation,” or to
the most extravagant idealistic and mystical conceptions, or to the sterner
idea of an existing conquering Kingdom in a visible form (as the Papacy), destined to a
world-dominion. High-Churchism, Broad-Churchism, Spiritualism, Mysticism, etc., have a favourite topic, but
always, with few exceptions, considered isolated from the covenanted
relationship. Many of the definitions could be adopted, provided the assumed transformation into a Kingdom were set aside. The most
simple definition is that of the Apostles’ Creed adopted in an article in the Princeton Review,
Ap. 1853, entitled “The idea of the Church,”
viz.: “the Church consists of saints, and (2) of
saints in communion - that is, so united as to form one body.”
OBSERVATION 2. The first churches and the apostolic Fathers and their immediate
successors, as already shown had no conception of the Church being the [Page 611] promised Kingdom of the Covenant and Prophets. They looked and prayed for
its speedy coming at the Second Advent. Origen
was the first one who made the Church the mystic
The student will be amply repaid in
tracing these influences in confirming the
Origenistic notion, and thus giving power into the hands of designing, and
even of conscientious men. Against this conversion of the Church into a Kingdom there was a protest, which was ultimately silenced
as the Papacy increased in power, until finally it was only held by the Paulicians and Waldenses (see p. 126, Voice of the Church by Taylor). Coming down to the Reformers, great allowance must be made for them, seeing that the magnitude of the work
before them scarcely allowed it to be consummated within the period of their
lives. They could not readily rid themselves of all the prejudices engrafted by
former church relationship, and resulting from the growth of centuries. Their immediate successors, as all Church historians sadly
acknowledge, instead of prosecuting the work of Reformation, engrossed themselves
in disputes, and pressed each other on points of differences - many
non-essential - until as a measure of advancement they seized the former Church
idea, and taking advantage of the Kingdom notion as a source of protection and
strength, they granted fatal concessions (which the Reformers
refused), even to Royalty and the civil magistrate, vesting to a certain extent
ecclesiastical power in their hands, uniting Church and State, elevating the
civil head to a religions position over the Church, which speedily brought
forth its
bitter fruit in proscriptions,
disallowance of freedom to individual conscience, heresy-hunting, the
imposition of extended symbols and formulas, depositions, imprisonments,
banishments, and even in some cases death itself. The
leverage underlying all this the unfounded doctrine, that the
Church being a Kingdom here on earth, a real power in actual sway over men,
such power was to be manifested and exerted in an actual authority felt and
acknowledged by all. For the exertion of such authority, civil and
ecclesiastical power were, more or less, combined.
While history abundantly attests this to be the case,
with their followers, the Reformers themselves held views which it is difficult
to explain as consistent with the notion that the Church is the predicted
OBSERVATION 3. One class of our opponents who contend that the Jewish Church which
existed at the First Advent was no Kingdom,
certainly cannot [Page 612] make the Christian Church such, if
the Kingdom its they Inform us only denotes “God’s reign”
for that was characteristic of the Jewish Church. Another class, too
circumspect to fall into so palpable an inconsistency, insist upon the points
of identity between the Jewish and Christian Church, and pronounce them to be one and the same
Incidental proof corroborative of our position, can also be alleged. Thus e.g. the conduct of the
apostles, after the Christian Church was established, to conciliate the Jew’s
in attending the sacrifices and services in the temple, and adhering in many
respects to the laws and customs of Moses,
can only be satisfactorily reconciled with our view, that the Christian Church (just as the preceding Jewish)
is preparatory
to the Kingdom. If a Kingdom was established, as Fairbairn and others assert, then the charge of unbelievers,
that they had but an imperfect notion of the Kingdom and its properties,
remains in force (and crushing, because if imperfect in knowledge on so
important a matter as the goal, how can we trust them in other matters?) But
from our standpoint we see only a matter of prudence, a manifested desire to
avoid difficulty, etc., which, connected with things non-essential, was far
from being inconsistent with a correct view of the church, its
meaning and design. In the controversy between Paul and Peter, our
opponents forget what they previously asserted respecting Peter’s knowledge of
the Kingdom in Acts, ch. 2 and 3 (excepting some, who tell us that even in those
sermons he manifested great ignorance, possessed only “the
husk,” etc.) - for they inform us that Peter had low ideas respecting
the Kingdom. They forget also that Paul’s objections to Peter
were based (1) on the rites and
ceremonies being non-essential; (2)
non-essential, but yet burdensome and leading to bondage; (3) non-essential, but yet calculated, if pressed too far, to
obscure repentance and faith in Christ; (4)
non-essential, so that even he (Paul), for the sake of conciliation, attended
to some rites, but without sacrificing Christian truth. Nowhere does Paul base his rejection of
Mosaic rites, etc., upon the fact of
a Kingdom being established, but upon the fact of the provision made
through Jesus for salvation, and the call of the Gentiles [Page 613] through repentance and faith. The Church-Kingdom theory feathers the shaft
which infidelity (so e.g. Duke of
Somerset, Ch.
Theol., p. 76) sends against inspiration,
seeing that Paul is pressed as the exponent of a Kingdom, over against Peter,
James, etc. Our attitude and belief indicate no such antagonism. If one is overtaken in weakness by the effort to conciliate the
prejudices of the Jews, this only intimates the nature and design of the
church, and is no reason for the rejection of fundamental truth, because it is
a mere matter of conduct, probationary discipline, test of character, etc., to
which the apostles, having to fight the good fight of faith, were, like all
other men, subject - the very church relationship evidencing the same.
OBSERVATION 4. Some occupying higher ground, take the view that the
To avoid repetition, it is taken far granted that the reader
has passed over the previous Propositions, and hence a mere reference to
the line of argument is deemed sufficient. The answer to Kurtz is found in the Davidic Covenant, the
prophecies based on it, and the first preaching derived from it. It is a most solemnly
pledged truth, confirmed by the oath of the Almighty, that the Theocratic order,
as under David, will be restored and
most gloriously perpetuated at the appointed time under his Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ. Hence it is impossible to allow to the church the features of a
restored Theocratic Kingdom as covenanted; for there is no restored
Jewish nation, no restored tabernacle of David, no restored earthly rule of
God, no Theocratic rule manifested through David’s Son, etc. Men
may claim that this or that church is “the Theocratic
Kingdom”(so Papacy), or “the Kingdom of God” (so many Protestants), or “Christ’s Kingdom on
earth” (so Shakers), or even
“the New Jerusalem state” (so Swedenborgians), etc., but all, without
exception, lack the covenanted and prophetic marks, so that a firm [Holy
Spirit taught] believer in the Word cannot allow any of them
this coveted honour.
OBSERVATION 5. It may be well in this place to
illustrate the arguments that are employed by others to elevate the Church into
a Kingdom, and we therefore select a work which has
been specially written to perform this service.
In The Kingdom of Grace, ch. 2, the author gives us his Scriptural,
and other authority. The Church is a Kingdom, (1) because “the
Kingdom of God is within you,” forgetting that this was addressed to the wicked Pharisees who were so
unconscious of a Kingdom within them that they inquired concerning it, see Proposition 110; (2) “My Kingdom
is not
of this world”, which we also teach, as will be shown under its
appropriate heading, see Proposition 109; (3) that Jesus claimed to be King, which claim we admit to be just,
but is far from proving the establishment of the Kingdom; (4) Jesus did not set up any direct claim to occupy David’s throne
while living, which we admit and clearly point out the reason for not so doing,
viz.: the postponement of the Kingdom, see Proposition 58, etc.; (5) that David’s Kingdom was not of
heavenly origin as the church:- this is [Page 614] incorrect, as the
reader will see by referring to Propositions 28, 31, etc., and the covenant, Proposition 49,
all proving that it was God’s own ordering, the throne and
Kingdom claimed as His own, and the King himself being divinely consecrated or
anointed to his position; (6) that
Christ has not yet raised up David’s throne, and therefore it is argued, that
He never will, - this argument is presuming to point out what is right and
proper for Deity to perform, and has been already answered; (7) the preaching of John, “Repent, for the Kingdom of
Heaven is at hand”, is “evidently the gospel
dispensation,” for nothing else appeared near at hand but this, etc. -
the reasoning is this: the Kingdom was predicted as near, the church was
established, and hence the church is the Kingdom, which overlooks the
change in the style of preaching, Proposition 58, and the postponement, Proposition 68.
He continues (8)
quoting Isa. 9:
6, 7, and
bases the alleged fact of the church being the Kingdom on, “of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no
end,” saying: “This expression is, in my view,
fatal to the theory of Millenarians; for, according, to the principles of that
theory, the government of Christ is to have no increase after the
Second Advent. The elect will have been
gathered in against that great say, when the Son is to be revealed in glory
from heaven.” It is surprising to charge our theory
with a doctrine which it pointedly repudiates, as can be seen
by the early church view and the history of our doctrine down to the present,
which insists on the reign of Jesus on the restored throne and Kingdom of David
over the Jewish nation, and the spared Gentiles, etc. (9) Refers us to Rev. 3: 21, claiming
from the passage that Christ is on His [Messianic
and Millennial] throne, and now reigns
in the predicted manner, but (a) the Word says that He is “set down with the
Father on His throne,” indicating great exaltation, but contrasted
still with “my throne,” which in a special
manner belongs to Him as Son of Man; (b)) he makes in this theory, as a
present result, all the saints now rewarded, crowned, associated with Christ in
His rule, against the most direct teaching to the
contrary: (c) and following His theory, as given in another place, he
makes these same rewarded and crowned saints lay aside their received
honour to appear at the judgment-bar and receive their sentences; (10) He asks what advantage would it be
to have Christ’s visible throne on earth, for He could only be seen by a few;
those in foreign countries, as China and America, could not see Him, unless “they should have new organs of vision given to them,”
etc. This is altogether unworthy of notice, and
is only reproduced to introduce, the remark: suppose after all that the
apostolic Fathers and that long line of noble witnesses to the Kingdom as
covenanted, and as held by Millenarians, are correct, would not such writers,
who speak so disrespectfully of the Saviour’s throne, its lowness and
degradation if planted here on the earth, appear before that King with the
deepest confusion? Brethren, who think that they do God’s
service by opposing us, should at least exhibit the respect due to discussions
in which the Saviour’s glory is involved, This
observation is the more necessary in view of what follows. (11) For, he makes sport of the dominion
attributed to Jesus by Millenarians, taking only as much of it as happens to
suit his style of witticism. Thus (a) he refers to Winthrop (Lectures), arguing that the
original grant of dominion (Gen. 1: 26-28), lost by the fall, is restored by the Second
Adam, giving as proof Ps. 8, comp. with Heb.
2: 5-9, (b) He examines this with the
following result: (1) Adam reigned
personally over fish, fowl, cattle, creeping things,
etc., so the Second Adam must do the
same, and “what a glorious Kingdom this will be of our blessed Saviour! Bnt we did not know that this was the Kingdom which He
bought with His precious blood.” Comment is unnecessary, for
argumentation that can stoop to such absurdity, disallowing the dominion we
give to Jesus, is unworthy of a serious reply (comp. Proposition 203).
(2) He informs us that the phase “Son of Man,” in the 8th
Psalm, has not “the remotest allusion whatever
to the man Christ Jesus, that it denotes
man only,” and sarcastically inquires whether the animals, etc., are to
be also resurrected over whom He is to reign. (3) He says that Heb. 2: etc., only applies
to man so far its dominion over animals, etc., is concerned, and not
to Christ; objects to Winthrop’s
making, “the world [or ‘Age’] to come” to
mean “the inhabitable earth to come,” on the
ground that we are not at liberty to add a word as understood;- that we make by
such application to Christ verses 8 and 9 contradictory;- that Son of man when it has a
reference to Christ begins with a capital letter; that our theory makes David’s
language unmeaning, which only indicates humility, for David could not say, “Who is Jesus Christ that thou visitest Him,” etc.
Against this argument based on the dominion promised to “the Son of Man,” it is sufficient to say, (1) that it is opposed to the views of
multitudes who are hostile to Millenarianism. The
commentators, as e.g. Barnes, Stuart, etc., decide in our favour -
while theologians of all classes almost universally contend that
The reasons given by
Brown (Second Coming) are of a similar
nature (only not so disrespectful in tone), and the Scriptures relied upon to
sustain a present Messianic covenanted Kingdom are the following: Acts 2: 29-36, Zech. 6: 12, Rev. 5: 6, and 3: 7, 8, 12, Isa. 9: 6, 7, Acts 3: 13-15, and 3: 19-21, and 4: 26, 28, with Ps. 2, Acts: 29, 31. As all these
passages are frequently referred to and explained, - as they have no reference
to a present existing Kingdom as covenanted (that being inferred), - as they
must be considered in the light of the general analogy of the Word, - it is
sufficient, for the present, to allude to them, so that the student way observe
the exceeding slight foundation upon which the prevailing view rests. A direct passage in favour of the Augustinian view cannot be
produced; it is supported entirely by inference, as e.g. Fairbairn (On Proph.) infers it from the two discourses of
Peter in Acts; and Mason (Essays on the
Church, No. 1), after correctly defining the church, supposes it to
be the Kingdom of God, because he infers that such passages as Isa. 66: 12, Isa. 49: 23, Isa. 6: 3, 5, and
especially “He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles,” must apply to the present
existing church. Now, we cannot, for a moment, allow that a Kingdom the
subject of covenant and prophecy, the object of faith, hope, and joy, can be left,
if really established, to mere. inference. And more,
we cannot believe, that if set up as many theologians tell us, the early church
for several centuries would be unconscious of the same.
OBSERVATION 6. A main leading feature in this effort to make out of the Church the
predicted Kingdom of the Messiah, is found in applying to the present, things
relating to the Church which are spoken of as prospectively (the present used as the
future, Proposition
65, Observation
9), as e.g. Heb. 12: 22, 23. Promises are given
which can only, as we shall hereafter show, be realised by the Church as a completed body. This principle must not be overlooked, as e.g. the marriage of the Church,
which (1) one party confines to the
Church now on earth as married to Jesus; (2)
another asserts is done as every believer enters the third heaven, so that
recently a prominent theologian delivered a funeral discourse in which he made
a distinguished minister, deceased, sitting down and already enjoying the
marriage supper, etc.; (3) while
still another declares the same to be still future as the Scriptures and the
early Church locate it, viz.: to occur only at the Second Advent. It will be satisfactorily seen, as we
proceed, that many promises, that are only to be realised in the future Kingdom, are
seized and appropriated to the Church; and this is not only done by the Popes
quoting and applying to themselves, as earthly Heads of the Church, Millennial
predictions, but by Protestants in
their laudation of Churches. This is done not only
from motives of self-interest and ambition, but with a sincere desire to
indicate the honour, stability, and perpetuity of Christ’s Kingdom. Well may
the former be attributed to some of the representatives of the Papacy who even
appropriated descriptions applicable to Jesus unto themselves, while the latter is seen in the well-intentioned
denomination of the Church by the phrase “the City of God,” given by Augustine, followed by the multitude, and recently re-introduced by
Mansel, Abbey, and others. It is notorious that the names Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem are regarded by a host
of writers as synonymous with the Church, without any regard to the connection of the prophecy that the same Israel,
Judah, and Jerusalem acted and overthrown for its sinfulness, is to be restored
to favour, and is thus meant. The curses pronounced, [Page 616] are all carefully heaped upon them severally and shown in their case to be sadly realised, while
the blessings promised to the identically same nation and city are taken from them and carefully
bestowed upon the Gentile churches. Is this honest to the Record?
OBSERVATION 7. This view of the Church, as we have already seen (Proposition 78), is not inconsistent with the earliest creeds. Those modern
phrases and definitions so current are unknown to them.
They embody a Scriptural idea of the Church, and are consistent with the
doctrine received by the first churches (Propositions 72-76). The later confessions of various
denominations, generally, when speaking of the Kingly office of Christ and His
Kingdom either deal in general expressions susceptible of different
interpretations, and therefore indecisive; or else passages are quoted which
teach both the Kinship of Christ and His Kingdom, but are practically
misapplied by not more explicitly asking when the same, shall be manifested. Thus in looking over several, Isa. 9:
6, 7 is the favourite passage with them in
making the Church the Kingdom of the Messiah. Instead of asking when this is to be verified, leaving
parallel passages and the preceding context of Isa. 9, which predicts this to occur in union with the Jewish nation at a time of mighty national deliverance (see verses 3, 4,
5, Barnes, Hengstenberg, Gesenius, etc., loci), they appropriate the passage isolated and torn from its connection. In one
confession, more plain than others, it is asserted that
“Jesus Christ hath here on earth a spiritual Kingdom which
is His Church,” etc., and the proof' texts given are Matt. 11: 11 and 18: 19, 20. Neither of these texts have a direct bearing, and are inferred (wrongfully) to teach it.
OBSERVATION 8. The same is true of works on Systematic Divinity. Thus, e.g. Dr. Hodge in his recent work gives as proof texts Isa. 9: 6, 7; Ps. 2, etc., which only assert that Christ
shall be king; also Dan. 7: 13, 14; Psalms 45, 72, and 110; Luke 1: 31-33, without
attempting to show that they are correctly
applied, but in a
manner, as if such an interpretation was never
questioned by the
early church and many witnesses in the church. This is characteristic of many of them, and is especially
weak when the design is to give a systematic view of Christian doctrine thoroughly
founded on the Word in a clear and decisive form. Theologians of eminence take
singular and contradictory views of the church as a Kingdom. One
of the latest, Dr. Thompson (Theol. of Christ,
ch. 10), endeavours to define the
If Jesus really did preach such a
Kingdom as Thompson claims, it ought
to be decided and established by the Gospels, but these unmistakably prove the contrary
by the stubborn fact that neither the Seventy nor the Twelve comprehended the
nature of the Kingdom to be such as he teaches. Another proof will be found below in next Proposition, Observation 2.
We are indeed told that the more devout and spiritual, such as Zacharias,
Simeon, Joseph of Arimathea, expected just such a Kingdom, but this is not only
unproven, but contrary to the general, universal expectation of the Jews, Propositions 20,
21,
40,
44,
etc. Again, he declares that “the
Kingdom consists in doing the will of the Father;” that “coming to the realisation of God in His supreme Lordship
over the soul, is the Kingdom;” that the Church, “held together by a personal faith in Him, did not constitute
the Kingdom of God in the most pure and absolute sense;” that “the external, visible Church may shadow forth that Kingdom,”
while “the true Church of Christ” (i.e. as we
understand him, true believers in union with Christ, hence the invisible
Church) “is identical with the true Kingdom of God.”
All these definitions are of human origin; not one is to
be found in the Bible (those expressions from which it might he
inferred will be subsequently examined in Propositions 108, 109, and 110), and every one of them
mistakes the requisite qualification for entrance into the Kingdom, for
the Kingdom itself. Repentance, faith, obedience, union with Christ, etc., are
essential for inheriting, but do not constitute the Kingdom itself. The
covenant forbids it.
OBSERVATION 9. The church, as we have shown, being
designed to gather out and raise up those who should
be rulers in, inheritors of the Kingdom, it is necessary for them to
possess certain qualifications. Those just mentioned are specified, and therefore true [obedient as well as regenerate] believers,
instead of being in the
Kingdom, are represented as being in a state of
probation, of trial and testing. The very nature of probation is opposed to the idea of
the Kingdom as given by the Prophets, and hence in the Epistles believers are exhorted to hold fast to faith and obedience that they
might attain unto the Kingdom, 1 Pet. 1: 7; 2 Thess. 1: 5-11, etc.
OBSERVATION 10. The church, instead of being represented as a Kingdom, is
held up to us as s struggling, suffering people,
OBSERVATION 11. Those modern phrases of ministers and people, “of extending, enlarging, building up, etc., Christ’s
Kingdom” are not to be found in the New Testament. They are the
result of viewing the church as the Kingdom. The absence of such phraseology
and eulogies of the church derived from Millennial
descriptions must also have some weight with the student. For., if the church
is what the many tell us, then surely we ought to find the portrayals of it as
a glorious Kingdom to be extended by believers given by inspired men. But
our argument logically and scripturally shows that such language from them
would be fatal to the covenant itself. Christ
Himself personally, and not men, can build
up this Kingdom at the appointed time.
Much is said in books, sermons, hymns, prayers, etc., under
the impulse of misguided zeal,
respecting the Church’s building up the
“Help him to
found thy Kingdom
In majesty and power,” etc.
OBSERVATION 12. The church is not this Kingdom of prophecy, because the
establishment of the church does not meet the conditions of the
prophecy respecting the period of suffering, etc., preceding the Kingdom. Notice (1) the views of
the Jews (Van Oosterzee, Theol. of N. T,
p. 53), that they expected the Messiah to come in a time of great trial; (2) this derived front the declaration
of the Prophets, as e.g. Zech. 14; Dan.
7 [Page 619] and 22; this the language also of Jesus to the Pharisees, Luke 17, Matt. 24;
(3) but instead of war, etc., as
portrayed by Zechariah and others,
the Christian Church was established in a time of peace. The destruction
of
If the student refers to Propositions 115, 123, 133, 147, 160, 161, 162, 163, etc., he will find the
Scriptures relating, to the period of war, suffering, etc., just preceding, the
establishment of the covenant Messianic Kingdom, showing that there is a wide
and material difference between the First and Second Advents. And may it be
most reverently said, that this very distinction of the condition of things as
witnessed at the First Advent, and as shall be observed at the
Second, is one of those incidental but forcible, proofs of an all-pervading
Plan which God purposes to complete.
OBSERVATION 13. That such a Kingdom is not to be sought in the
Christian Church appears also from the views entertained by our opponents of
the general judgment. If the judgment, exists in the form and manner given by them, and the [regenerate] believers, as well as unbelievers, are to be
judicially tried at the end of the world [or this evil ‘age’] etc.,
then it is difficult to reconcile such a
judgment - [before the time of first Rapture and “the first Resurrection” (Rev. 20: 5ff.; cf Lk.
14: 14, 20: 35; Phil. 3: 11; Rev. 3: 10;Heb. 9:
27, R.V. etc.)]
- with present admittance into the Kingdom of Christ, for the simple reason
that the Scriptures assure us that entrance into by inheriting the [coming] Kingdom is with a future
judging of such persons. For such admittance is represented as a reward for previous well-doing
and results from an investigation and approval of character (Matt. 25: 34; Luke 22: 29, 30; 2 Thess. 1: 5, etc.)
OBSERVATION 14. Those who believe that the church is the Kingdom,
differ widely among themselves as to when it was
established and what it consists. As we have repeatedly seen, the time of
its commencement varies, and a copious variety of definitions
exist. This in itself would be undecisive, as differences in opinion may
exist, and yet the truth may be in some one of them, but such, when they are found in the same party, clearly show that with them the
subject is more or less involved in obscurity, giving rise to numerous
conceptions of it. One theory
steadfastly adhered to indicates at least unity, whilst several feebly
conjoined, or antagonistic, manifests weakness. If we take the descriptions of the [divine] prophets and covenant promises, it is
impossible to believe that the
As soon as spiritualising is applied
to the Kingdom, then antagonistic interpretations and opposite definitions are
given, until we have in the same
person two, five, ten, and even twenty different ones (sec Proposition 3). This is the case
with even the most recent writers, so that e.g. one (Van Oosterzee) makes Christ the Founder of this Kingdom at His
first Advent, and another (Thompson)
has Christ only reviving what previously always existed. The most latitude is given to generalities, which mean nothing, and
qualifications for the Kingdom (and even the Gospel, preaching, etc.) are
elevated into the Kingdom itself. Surely - in the
light of positive prediction that the Kingdom when established is something
recognisable by all men, something that all will [Page 620] acknowledge as indisputable in its manifestation - should
prevent us from accepting this Origenistic
view of the Church.
OBSERVATION 15. Making the church the
Consequently we must logically and Scripturally
reject any theory, no matter by whom advocated, which would make the Church, or
religion, or piety, or the Gospel, or the dispensation, or the qualifications
for eternal [and millennial] blessedness, equivalent to the
Messianic Kingdom. Covenant, prophecy, provisionary measures,
fulfilment, ancient faith, all forbid it. The Church, however
exceedingly precious and necessary, is in no sense the Kingdom, being simply
preparatory for the Kingdom. Sustained as it is by the Divine Sovereignty;
upheld as it is by the presence and authority of the Head, it has not the
characteristics of the promised Kingdom. It is sad to find that men who exert a
wide influence upon theological teaching do not discriminate in this matter, as
e.g. illustrated in Robinson’s Greek. N. T Dic.,
which makes the Kingdom to be the Christian dispensation, and then a principle
in the heart, and then a people under the influence of holiness, and then to be
perfected at Christ’s Kingdom. (Comp. e.g. for reply to such places as Proposition 59, Observation 8; Proposition 65, Observation 2; Proposition 68,
Observation 1; Proposition 66, Observation 1;
Propositions 67 and 70, etc.) Such
definitions overlook the most simple statements in
reference to this Kingdom, as e.g. that this Kingdom is allied with a Coming of
the Messiah - not in humiliation, but in glory; with a restoration - not dispersion
- of the Jewish nation; with a completed gathering of the saints, etc.
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 612]
PROPOSITION 94. The overlooking of the postponement
of this Kingdom is a fundamental mistake, and a fruitful
source of error in many systems of Theology.
One of the most important events connected with the history of Jesus (Propositions 58, 66,
etc.) is entirely ignored by the multitude; an event, too, plainly
stated, and upon which result fearful (to the Jews) and
merciful (to the Gentiles) consequences. This remarkable event, interwoven into
the very life of Jesus as a controlling force, is the
postponement of the once tendered Kingdom to the Second Advent.
OBSERVATION 1. This doctrine, noticed by, and influencing the faith and hope of the
primitive Church, is now, under spiritualising and mystical ascendancy, passed
by in numerous Commentaries, Lives of Christ, Systems of Divinity,
Introductions to Theology, Histories of Doctrine, Practical Theology, and
Exegetical Works, just as if it had no existence. The fact is, that many writers, with their minds prejudiced
and blinded by a previous training, never even suspected its existence; for,
following the lead of others, swayed by previously given systems of belief and
exegetical endorsements by favourite authors, they receive their guidance
without mistrust as in accordance with the truth.
The leaders themselves proceed thus: overlooking the
postponement of the Kingdom, and assuming that a Kingdom was somehow
established, they proceed, one in this fashion and another in that, to find
this Kingdom somewhere, if not visibly at least invisibly, with the Church or
the Divine Sovereignty. In their estimation, and assumption
of an unproven theory, a Kingdom must be erected, if it takes four, six, eight
or more Kingdoms in different stages and places, with various meanings attached
(comp. Proposition
3), to make it out, and this moulds the interpretation of Scripture,
for every passage not in harmony with it must be spiritualised until
it is forced into an agreement. And
this creature of pure fancy, so antagonistic to the covenanted Kingdom, which
they are pleased to give the title of “the
[Page 622]
OBSERVATION 2. A truth so fundamental to a correct understanding of the doctrine of the
Kingdom, is buried under a load of prejudice, preconceived opinion, mysticism,
etc. Infidel and Orthodox, unbelievers and [multitudes of regenerate] believers alike maintain on this
point a friendly relation. Thus e.g. Renan (Life of Jesus) makes Jesus set up
an ideal Kingdom, which is to appear immediately, and which, he tells us, is
established. Dr. McCosh, in replying
to Renan (Christ and positive., p. 243),
admits the establishment of the Kingdom, and designates it a spiritual one.
Rejecting the early church view (founded on the plain, unmistakable, grammatical sense of Scripture, and received directly from a profound
meaning in this postponement, and heartily embracing the Origenistic interpretation, which sadly
mars the covenants and recognises no postponement, this must necessarily have a moulding influence, a
colouring power over all related subjects. One of the
most radical defects in modern theology is found on this point,
and, so long as persevered in, certain avenues of knowledge are closed;
mystical interpretation; vain attempts to conciliate the Divine utterances with
prevailing theories of church and state; laboured, unavailing efforts to trace
a methodical progress in the teaching of the Saviour and disciples;
spiritualistic applications which effectually degrade the ancient faith of the
church, the overshadowing and ignoring
of highly important truth - these and other evils attend such a position.
Thousands of volumes attest to the fact that, with this link missing, it is in vain to
form a complete, perfect chain in the Divine Purpose, and at the same time
preserve the integrity of the preaching of John,
Jesus, and the disciples.
The sad consequences
of overlooking this postponement is e.g. duly exemplified in the work (John on the Apoc.
of the N. Test.) of Rev.
Desprez (commended by Drs. Noyes,
Williams, and Stanley). This writer, no doubt urged on by the
critical attacks of unbelief in this direction, fully and frankly acknowledges all
that we have stated concerning the preaching of the Kingdom and its expectation
by the apostles and their immediate successors; but overlooking the plain and
distinctive Scriptures which portray its postponement, he arrives precisely at
the same conclusion with the destructive critics, viz.: that all this matter
referring to a Jewish Kingdom, to the Second Coming of Christ and to the final
re-establishment, must be ruled out as no part of the Word of God (being the result of Jewish prejudice,
misapprehension, etc,), because the lapse of time has fully demonstrated that nothing of
the kind occurred as they expected. Alas! when
accredited ministers of the Gospel
give themselves up to such fearful destructive and delusive criticism to the
delight of unbelievers! Of course, such an attitude at once eliminates a large
proportion of the teaching of the Gospels and Epistles, utterly rejects the
Apocalypse as revolving around a chimera, sets aside the covenants and God’s
oath as untrustworthy, and overshadows all the remainder with a heavy pall of
doubt. If Desprez is correct, what confidence
can we possibly have in the apostles, or in the utterances of any of the
inspired writers; for if in error on the leading important subject of the [Messianic] Kingdom, why not also in error
on the [‘first’] resurrection, the atonement,
and, in brief, all other doctrines? No! never can,
such outrageous, dishonouring interpretation
be received, although Desprez boasts
of a phalanx of interlaced shields (of proof), for it lacks coherency in that
it totally ignores the proof given by these writers themselves respecting the
postponement of the Kingdom. The past is no criterion in the sense
alleged by Desprez (although it
proves the correctness of the postponement), and he had better wait until “the times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled before he
thus decides. If Gentile dominion ceases, if the Jewish nation is restored, and
OBSERVATION 3. The rejection of the postponement of the Kingdom,
is a rejection of the only key
that can unlock the singular and otherwise mysterious [Page 623] sayings of Jesus. The consistency of the Divine narration of Christ’s Life, and of the faith and conduct of His
disciples before, and after His death, is alone, preserved by its adoption. We have learned and
able treatises on this life of Jesus, which give varied and subtle, theories in
order to reconcile events and savings, and to preserve the unity of Purpose,
but every one of them, even those written by believers (as Neander’s, Lange’s Cave’s, Fleetwood’s, Milner’s, Pressense’s, Taylor’s, Farrar’s, Beecher’s, etc.), must, more or less,
resort to the favourite “germ” theory, to “a hidden leaven development,” by which is understood
that the truth is at first concealed or enveloped in language which - if
understood as it reads, according to the letter, is error -
the “growing consciousness” of the church, by a
spiritualising process through such men as Origen,
Augustine, Jerome, etc., is to bring forth in its developed form, having
discarded “the husk.”
Volumes, some from most gifted,
learned, and pious writers, are filled with just such mystical and philosophical
reasoning, and all arising from a misconception of the covenanted Kingdom and
an ignoring
of its postponement. Another class of learned writers,
rejecting in part the Origenistic
principle of finding a concealed meaning or another sense, subjecting the New
Testament to a searching grammatical interpretation, find that such a Kingdom,
as we argue for, was promised, preached, and fondly expected, but, overlooking
this postponement so explicitly declared, tell us that Jesus, failing in the
designed restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom (expecting but not
receiving aid through angelic interference - so Renan), He then contented Himself, under the pressure of
circumstances, to sacrifice His life and found a spiritual Kingdom. Some men (Wolfenbuttel Fragments, pub. By Lessing, etc.) declare
that Jesus in His efforts to establish a Kingdom, failing of the popular
support, miserably perished, the victim of ambition. Becker (in his, Univ. His. for the Young, quoted by
It may be
suggestive, if not instructive, to contrast two classes, who both ignore the
reasons assigned for and the predictions of Jesus relating to this
postponement. In Ecce Homo, the writer informs us: “He
(Jesus) conceived the Theocracy restored as it had
been in the time of David, with a visible monarch at its head, and that monarch
Himself.” “Christ announced the restoration of
the Davidic Monarchy, and presented Himself to the nation as their King; yet,
when we compare the position He assumed with that of an ancient Jewish king, we
fail to find any point of resemblance.” Now let us consider the
reply of Ecce Deus (p. 333) to Ecce Humo, viz.: that the Davidic
Kingdom was only “typical” (just as if the
covenant included a type) “of government and purpose
which lie beyond the merely political horizon.” And
the writer argues from the fact that because such a restoration was not
effected at the First Advent and since, Jesus never announced the
restoration of the Davidic Monarchy (i.e. the language descriptive of it is “typical” of something else), and then, satisfied with
his illogical
reasoning, in his own fancy triumphantly concludes: “If the facts contradict the theory, what confidence can be placed in the
theorist?” Precisely so: both writers ignore plain
facts as given by Jesus and the apostles respecting the Kingdom, and not
content with leaving these out of the question, confess that their unbelief is
grounded on a non-fulfilment of prophecy and prediction, just as if God is bound
to fulfil them, not, according to His own Purpose and Time, but, to
accommodate Himself to their mode of exercising
faith. Such writers had better wait until “the times of the Gentiles” have ended, until the elect
are gathered out, until the Second Advent arrives,
until Christ’s intermediate predictions are fulfilled, before rashly giving us
those conclusions. We see from this what estimate to place on
rationalistic criticism, which concludes, because the [Messiah’s] Kingdom that was covenanted, predicted, and
preached was not at once realised; that, after all, Christ’s relationship to
the Old Testament was one of mere accommodation to circumstances; and this is [Page 624] arrived at by
persistently turning away from Scripture, which tells us why it has not yet been
realised and when it is to be
witnessed. The same is true
of that class, who, because the
Kingdom did not appear in the form grammatically expressed, declare that the
language applicable to it must either be understood spiritually or as
pertaining to the Church i.e, a Kingdom, in some form, visible or invisible,
must be recognised to suit preconceived views,
OBSERVATION 4. Let the student reflect over the
singular attitude of the Primitive
Church, viz.: in view of this very postponement laying the greatest stress upon Eschatology
or doctrine of the last things, looking forward with hope and joy to a speedy Advent, the re-establishment of the glorious
Theocratic Kingdom under the Messiah, etc.,
and can such a state of things be satisfactorily explained to take place under inspired teachers and their immediate
successors without condemning the doctrinal position of the early church and
reflecting upon the founders of the
church, unless the same doctrinal teaching is
accepted as scriptural? Leaving the history of the doctrine for future reference,
it is sufficient
for the present to say that the idea of the postponement of the Kingdom had a most powerful influence, for at least three centuries, in moulding the doctrinal views of the church. Hagenbach (His. of Doc., vol. 1, p. 74) in summing
up the general doctrinal character of the early church period,
indicates this feature, when he says:
“The doctrine of the Messianic Kingdom ruled the first period. This turned upon the point that the Lord was twice to come: once in His
manifestation in the flesh, and in His future coming in judgment.”
It has been remarked
by many (as e.g. Ecce. Homo, p. 22), that at the First Advent there was a general expectation that the
Messiah would, by an irresistible and supernatural exertion of power, crush His
enemies and establish His Kingdom, and that “this appeared
legibly written in the prophetical books;” that He was rejected by His
countrymen because He refused to put forth such power, etc. We have seen, under
various Propositions,
why
He refused to exhibit such power. The time had not yet arrived, for the moral
conditions imposed were not observed by the nation. But notice: the
OBSERVATION 5. Writers commenting on the
passage, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth,
it is good for you that I go away; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you,”
etc. (John 16: 7), have much to say concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit as an advance
doctrinally, etc., but fail to tell us why the Holy Spirit, whose special (for He had been previously present), manifestation is thus announced,
could not come unless Jesus went away. This was necessary,
because the sinfulness of the nation had postponed the predicted promised
Coming of the [Holy] Spirit with the [divinely
promised Messianic] Kingdom (compare Proposition 170), hence a
special interposition of the Saviour was requisite both to prepare the way for the gathering out of the elect and to give
[them] an assurance of a future [and literal] fulfilment by an inchoate fulfilment secured
through the obedience
and exaltation of Christ.
This also enables us to answer the
question proposed by unbelief, why Jesus Christ does not personally manifest
Himself, at least now and then, to remove the unbelief of [Page 625] the world. The reply is, that having been rejected by the covenanted
elect [but afterwards apostate] nation, and that nation suffering the consequences of such rejection, the
Kingdom itself being postponed until the time arrives for the removal of the
inflictions imposed, the withdrawal of the Messiah is part of that punishment entailed.
Until “the times of the Gentiles” are ended, an open manifestation cannot be reasonably
expected. Besides this, the engrafting of Gentiles is, as we have shown, done
on the principle of faith and not of sight. It ill becomes the dignity of the
King to appear before the time fixed for the cessation of punishment and the
gathering out of an incorporated people by faith. Killen (The Anc. Church, p. 46) asks the question, why so little notice is taken of the seventy in
the New Testament, and answers, because it was typical or symbolical of the
future transmission of the Gospel. They could, however, be
no type of the future, owing to their exclusive mission and message. The answer is found
in the speedy postponement of the Kingdom ending, their mission to the nation,
and a sufficient amount of evidence being produced to show both the tender of
the Kingdom and the rejection of the Messiah.
OBSERVATION 6. The postponement of the Kingdom (with
the events connected therewith), being the truth itself joining other truths in
an intelligent and satisfactory manner,- is admirably
adapted to meet and remove the objections of the Jews. The Jews, abiding by the
plain statements of the Old Testament survey the Various Prevailing theories,
advanced respecting a present existing Messianic Kingdom, and finding them one
and all antagonistic to the covenanted and predicted
promises, reject Christianity itself,- as if this humanly interpolated view was a part of Christianity (which it was not for
the first three centuries). Compare Proposition 193.
Thus e.g. the
objection urged by Rabbi Crool (Restoration of
Israel), against Jesus as the Messiah, is, that that He did not sit
on David’s throne or set up the Davidic Kingdom as it was predicted by the
prophets and as covenanted; and also, that the Jews, instead of the promised peace,
joy, exaltation, etc., under the Messianic Kingdom (if it really commenced at
or immediately after the First Advent), found trouble, suffering, dispersion,
etc. Now to such
objections, the postponement, with the Scripturally
given reasons for its occurrence, affords the only satisfactory reply, seeing
that we leave the covenanted Kingdom intact, the covenants and predictions just
as they are written, and the promises to the Jewish nation, in its covenanted relationship,
to
be yet fulfilled in all their
greatness and glory.
OBSERVATION 7. This acceptation of the taught postponement effectually removes the chief
argument against, what some are pleased to call, “prophetical
literalism.” Fairbairn (On Proph.,
p. 495, Ap. F) attempts to make the charge preferred against his system (viz.:
that it is calculated to repel Jews), to recoil upon us by boldly asserting
that “prophetical literalism, essentially Jewish,”
aids the Jews in rejecting Christ, because we claim that many things referring
to Christ still remain unfulfilled. (Comp. Preceding Observations).
This is unfounded: for we show a
sufficency, already fulfilled, literally in Jesus to justify His being received as the Messiah,
while the main leading objections relating to the covenants, the Kingdom, the
covenanted position of the nation, its supremacy as predicted, etc., are
answered by us without any
perversion of Scripture under the plea of spiritualising, accommodation,
a better sense, etc. The proof is found in the conversions effected by the relative
systems.
We hold to the covenants as given to the,
Jews; accept of the predictions received by them, indorse as they did the
literal fulfilment respecting the Kingdom, so that we are not guilty of that spiritualising
of promises into a vague and invisible fulfilment so exceedingly unsatisfactory
to a Jewish mind. We do not take the promises expressly given to the Jewish
nation and heap them, without regard to their connection, upon the Gentiles. Our position, and the proving the fulfilment of covenant and promise
in the future; our showing a postponement to the Second Advent of predictions
especially near [Page 626] and dear to the
Jewish heart, must necessarily be more acceptable to Jewish faith than the
wholesale disclaimers of popular systems. The Jew finds in our system of belief
a harmony with the language of Scripture that he sees in no other; and so much
is this the case that many Jews have accepted of the
Messiah under its influence, as witnessed in the numerous Jews who have been Millenarians,
publishing Millenarian works and editing Millenarian periodicals. Indeed Fairbairn breaks tile force of his own
objection, for if our “prophetical literalism is
essentially Jewish” it cannot be hostile to, but must be favourable
to, the Jews. Besides this, it is worthy of notice, when once the principles of
interpretation of the Alexandrian school (indorsed by Fairbairn) predominated, conversion among the Jews became fewer and
fewer, until finally, under the spiritualising system, they for centuries
almost entirely ceased. And it was only after a more literal interpretation of
the Bible was revived, that conversions among them increased. (Comp. works of McNeil, Margoliouth, Brooks, Bicheno, etc., and sermons before the
London Soc. for the Conv. of Jews, by Cooper,
etc., etc.)
OBSERVATION 8. The most amiable piety, as well as the grossest
unbelief, is alike arrayed against an acknowledgment of this postponement, owing
to the pervading influence of the church-Kingdom theories. It is observable that the former even in its comments on things which
are utterly inconsistent with the state of the predicted Messianic Kingdom
(which the prophets make one of peace, release from suffering, deliverance from
enemies, etc.), endeavours, by the force of
the sheerest inference, to conciliate such a state of things now existing with the prophetic delineation
of a Kingdom in a peaceful and flourishing existence.
Thus, to illustrate: Steir (Lange’s Com. Matt., vol. p. 1199, Doc. 1) attributes the
intimations of Jesus that His disciples must endure persecution, tribulation,
etc., to the fact that a Kingdom very different to the one expected
must intervene. But where is this intervening, Kingdom,
combined with suffering, etc., covenanted or predicted? Jesus, too,
nowhere says that His followers must endure tribulation in His Kingdom; more than
this, in view of the covenanted and predicted blessings, He could not
truthfully say it, for one single utterance of this kind would raise up an irreconcilable antagonism. The
New Testament perfectly agrees with the Old, fully sustains the gladdening consistency,
by attributing to and associating with the Messianic Kingdom only happiness,
blessing, honour, and glory. Once to be in the Kingdom is freedom from all evil
and deliverance from the curse. The
peculiarity has already been noticed, that in the Old Testament, so far as the Kingdom is concerned, there is no discrimination
between the First and Second Advents. So much is this the case, that if we had
only the Old Testament and knew nothing of the First Advent, as separate and
distinct from another, we also, like the Jews, would
believe this Kingdom to be subsequent to His First Coming. (We have shown why
this feature became necessary, because of the tender of the Kingdom at the First
Advent.) While this is true, the postponement of the Kingdom, in view of the refusal
of the nation to comply with the required moral conditions, indicates what
coming is meant, not the coming to humiliation, rejection,
and death, but the coming in glory. We are therefore, not at liberty to
change the nature of the Kingdom in order to accommodate it to the
state of things existing during this period of postponement.
OBSERVATION 9. The Kingdom being thus postponed,
and the process of the gathering out of the
elect now going on, is sufficient reason why no additional Revelation is
necessary. The Apocalypse of John, to encourage our faith
and hope, includes all that is additionally required to be known, appropriately
closing the direct Divine communications,
and confirming the voices of the Prophets, Jesus Himself refrained from penning
down anything, contending Himself with the testimony of chosen witnesses, because He foresaw that such writing, if given,
would have been perverted by His enemies and employed against Himself in accusation
to the Roman power (as was even done
through His reported words).
For the same reason, in part, the Apocalypse is given in symbolical language, and the apostles (as Paul
in Thessalonians) are guarded in their
expressions. After the reader has [Page 627] passed over our entire argument, the reader will find abundant
reason why the Kingdom is mentioned in the Gospels
and Epistles without entering into the specific details given by the prophets, and
why
the same is represented under symbolic forms in the Apocalypse. Taking
into consideration the nature of the Kingdom, the restored Theocratic-Davidic throne
and Kingdom which necessarily embraces a restored Jewish nation, etc., a more extended
and detailed notice would necessarily (owing to the postponement)
have excited the jealousy, hostility, and persecution of the
OBSERVATION 10. Jesus having come to fulfil the Prophets, and that
fulfilment being in large part postponed to the Second Advent, the statements
of the Prophets remain and include in them a sufficiency of information needed. To fully know what His mission was, and how it will be
eventually realised, we must refer not, merely to His life, to the preaching
and testimony of His disciples, but also to what the Prophets have written,
ever remembering that the covenants form the basis of all
pertaining to the Kingdom. From these united, the doctrine of the Kingdom can
be clearly adduced.
We strongly suspect
(giving it as a suggestion) that in view of the postponement, and this being
merely a preliminary stage to the final ushering in of the Kingdom, He, foreseeing
(as has happened) how the words of the prophets, descriptive of this [promised Messianic] Kingdom would be perverted from their literal meaning and torn
from their connection to sustain Church and hierarchical claims - He,
foreknowing how His own words as reported would be changed in their meaning for
the same purpose, left as little as possible on record endorsing the
preliminary nature of this dispensation, in order to avoid additional
perversion and spiritualising of
language; and in order, above all, to make the covenants, and predictions
pertaining thereto, the objects of continued humble faith and hope. The prophecies that He has fulfilled,
the testimony of Himself and disciples, the incorporation of all of this in a
regular Divine Plan possessing unity of Purpose, and which is only sustained and
manifested when the prophecies which He is to fulfil at His Second Coming are included,
evince that we possess a sufficient guide.
OBSERVATION 11. By this postponement the special Davidic covenant remains unfulfilled (excepting
that David’s Son and Lord is born, and qualified for the immortal reign), and “the tabernacle of David” continues
“fallen down” and “in ruins,” - “The house” remains
“desolate.” It demands the harshest interpretation to deny or spiritualise
away existing facts. Let men, involved in a system which, of necessity, must have
the predicted Kingdom in actual establishment, endeavour to get rid of all this
in the most summary way. Thus e.g.
take any prediction relating to the Messiah reigning on David’s throne (as Isa, 9:
7, etc.), and see how it is
connected with (1) a fearful overthrow
of the nation, preceding, and (2) a
deliverance of the same nation, contemporaneously with the reign. Take prophecy after prophecy, and notice how the rule of David’s Son is inseparably allied by the Prophets with the Jews nationally, and well may we stand surprised at the bold presumption which rudely severs this connection made by inspired men,
giving the curses to the Jews and the blessings (promised to the same nation), to Gentile nations. Why such an unjust and
arbitrary interpretation? Simply because the Alexandrian-monkish theory, having the
predicted Kingdom unpostponed,
must in some way bend these prophecies to suit its pre-determined condition.
Alas! great and good men have been engaged in this destructive work, forcibly reminding us that “the wisdom of man is
foolishness with God,” and that “the things of God” can only be obtained by observing
what the [Holy] Spirit has recorded and retaining what is written unaltered.
We give numerous illustrations from eminent
men, who, with an honest desire to honour Jesus, deliberately change the divine
record of facts. Unbelievers take a much [Page 628] shorter method to get rid of the covenanted and predicted
Kingdom, as e.g. Tuttle (The Career of the
Christ. Idea in History), who reiterates and compresses an old view:
“He (Jesus) was actuated by a grand
political motive, which met with a sad defeat; then we observe the sorrow of
disappointment. The temporal scheme is laid in the dust.” Both parties, the
one believing and the other unbelieving, do
not allow the Scripture to present their own testimony on the subject: both
come to the Word with preconceived views of its teachings,
and under a pious prejudice or a hostile
feeling, explain the same as to make it harmonise with their respective
opinions. Both do injury to the truth as revealed: the one, by so dressing it
up that its natural appearance disappears; the other,
by attempts to destroy it. The one party may, indeed, plead
a sincerity of purpose, and the other may give as its motive the claim of
reason, etc.; but the truth, God’s truth, as written, is dependent for its realisation upon neither of them, and will find
its ultimate verification notwithstanding the misconception of its friends or
the cavils of its enemies. Some few, however, properly discriminate, and
realise the importance of this postponement. One of the best articles on the
subject is from the pen of Dr. Craven
(Lange’s Com. Rev.,
p. 95), which fell under the writer’s notice after these Propositions had
been worked out. It was a gratification to find the same so strongly corroborated
by such a scholar; and the student will be amply repaid
by a perusal of his “Excursus on the Basileia.”
OBSERVATION 12. The evidence in behalf
of this postponement has already been given Propositions 58, 65, 66, 67, 70, etc.),
but it may be instructive to notice how the
passages affording it are treated by many. Thus e.g. consider what Jesus said to the Jews (Matt. 23:
37-39; Luke 13: 34, 35), respecting His leaving their house desolate until a certain period elapsed, viz.: until “the times of the Gentiles,” were fulfilled, and until
the predicted time (as c. g. Zech. 12: 9-14; Joel 3: etc.), of their repentance and willingness to receive the Messiah. This “house” receives singular treatment at the hands of those who
overlook the postponement of the Kingdom. Forgetting how this word is used in the Davidic covenant and by the Prophets, we have a variety of significations given, which are
not in accordance with the covenant, or the Prophets, or the facts
as they existed when Jesus spoke. Grotius, Meyer, and others make “the house” to be the city of
The careful strident will observe
that, owing to this foreknown postponement, certain prophecies are framed to meet
its foreseen condition, and others to correspond with it as an already determined
fact. Thus e.g. Dan. 2 and 7, as connected with the
ultimate re-establishment of
OBSERVATION 13. To Millenarians it may be observed, that a remarkable announcement of the postponement of this Kingdom,
its ultimate establishment in the restoration of the tribes of Israel with the
glory that shall follow, is found in Isa. 49: 1-23 (Comp. Alexander’s version), in
Micah 5: 2,
3, 4 (“give then up until,” etc.), in Zech. 13:
7-9. etc. This feature, the postponement,
will be corroborated by many succeeding
Propositions, - forming a regular series of connected
reasons confirmatory of
this important characteristic of the Divine Plan.
OBSERVATION 14. Neander (Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 36) sees clearly that to preserve unity, it
is requisite to advocate a restoration of the Theocracy, but, unfortunately,
overlooking this postponement and wedded to a church-Kingdom theory, he
connects such a restoration with the
First Advent instead of placing it, where the Scriptures do, at the Second Advent. No Theocracy has been established,
as covenanted, from the First Advent down to the present, for that which is the
kernel or life of the Theocratic idea is lacking, viz.: God condescending to
rule over man in the capacity of an earthly Ruler.
OBSERVATION 15. This doctrine of the postponement rebuts the unbelieving attacks against
the Messianic [and Millennial] Kingdom and the attempted explanations concerning it.
As e.g. that Jesus having failed to realise the Kingdom “by political means,”
and seeing “the folly of military Messianism,” He
then “relied implicitly on the establishment of His
Messianic throne by the miraculous display of the divine power;” but
this finally gave place to “the idea of spiritual
supremacy, through the religious reformation if His people.” (So Abbot, p. 243, Freedom and
Fellowship, being a reiteration of [the apostate] Renan [Page 630] and
others.) This is a complete ignoring of the Record, and a reversing of that
which is plainly written, being pure assumption
without a particle of historical proof to sustain it. Where e.g. is the least
evidence that Jesus changed the popular idea (admitted to have been at one time
entertained by Himself), of the Messiah into “the
sublime idea of a spiritual Christ ruling by love,” etc.? Aside from no
such a change being expressed in the New Testament, it is also refuted by the
OBSERVATION 16. The postponement indicates that a very large Judaistic
element remains yet to be realised in fulfilment.
Neander (Ch. His.,
vol. 1, p. 339) and others assert that Christianity is “the fulfilment of Judaism.” This is true, but only in a limited
sense (as e.g. relating to the sacrificial and ceremonial law) for in the
higher sense (viz.: the Theocratic) there is still lacking the fulfilment of the covenanted Kingdom with all that
pertains to it. In the very nature of the case, if God’s promises are ever fulfilled in their plain, unmistakable grammatical
sense, much that is “Jewish” must eventually be incorporated. Our
argument will necessarily develop this feature as we proceed.
OBSERVATION 17. This view also shows how ungrounded is
the insidious (and to the philosophic mind, fascinating) theory, so prevalent,
of distinguishing between the Gospels, making them different types or stages of
expression.* The simple fact
is (compare Propositions
9 and 10), that the Gospels are a unit in representing the
leading subject of the Kingdom and of the King, and all of them have the same
Jewish covenanted position presented.
* As e.g, Bernard (Bampton Lectures, Lec. 2, The Progress of
Doctrine), making Matthew a Gospel from the Hebrew standpoint; Mark, a Gospel more disengaged from the Jewish connection,
adapted to Gentiles, with a “habit of mind coloured by
contact with Judaism;” Luke, a Gospel
passing front Jewish associations to those “adapted to
a Greek mind, then, in some sense, the mind of the world;” John, a Gospel still more removed from Judaism,
and planted upon universal principles, etc. The objectionable feature
(admitting characteristics and peculiarities belonging to each Gospel) in such unwarranted distinctions, is the total
ignoring of “the Jewish conceptions”
(necessarily) of each, the fundamental Jewish covenanted position of each, and
that none of them show any progress in the direction of Gentilism, but the reverse, viz.: striving to bring Gentiles to the acknowledgment of the Jewish
covenanted Seed as the Messiah (which is sustained by the Acts and Epistles, showing that Gentiles are urged
by the acceptance of this Messiah to become “the seed of Abraham,” etc.).
OBSERVATION 18. Unbelief, - rejecting the Messianic position, its rejection by the nation and
the resultant postponement, - endeavours to deteriorate the actions of Jesus by
ascribing to mere human passion what evidently was caused by the legitimacy of His station and His treatment by the nation.
Thus e.g. unbelievers assert that at the
beginning of His ministry, Jesus was most amiable and mild, but that a change
of disposition took place, owing to opposition and His expectations not being
realised, so that He sternly rebuked and denounced His opponents. This is artfully represented as a deterioration of character - an
indication of human frailty. The reader will observe, however, that the unity
of character was preserved to the end, as witnessed e.g. in His weeping over
To
be continued, D.V.