THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*

 

 

By

 

 

GEORGE N. H. PETERS

 

[* PROPOSITIONS 29, 30, 32, 33 and 38 from VOLUME 1 (pp. 230-233, 237-241 & 253-255).]

 

 

-------

[Page 230]

 

PROPOSITION 29. This Theocracy or Kingdom is exclusively

given to the natural descendants of Abraham,

in their corporate capacity.

 

 

This follows from the preceding Propositions and cannot be denied by any one without doing violence to the Scriptures. For the entire tenor of the Word shows that the nation was selected and favoured in this respect beyond all other nations. No others could enjoy the privileges and blessings which it conferred, and contemplated to confer, without being adopted into the nation, and provision for such a contingency, was early (Ex. 12: 48, Num. 9: 14) made.

 

 

OBSERVATION 1. The Proposition simply repeats, in another form, the idea to which it is desirable to give some prominence, since, it has an important bearing in tracing the proper conception of the Kingdom. It teaches that the Kingdom is solely given to the seed of Abraham, which embraced the Jews. For God condescended only to act as earthly Ruler in behalf of that one nation, the election being thus practically demonstrated in their nationality. If this Kingdom is to be given to any other than a believing Jew, we certainly, in view of the plain language confining it to such (Compare Proposition 24), ought to have the matter stated in the most express manner. If Gentiles, as Gentiles, without adoption or engrafting, so that they shall be legally regarded as Abraham’s seed, can receive this kingdom, then, in view of the numerous counter statements to the contrary, the most precise and determinate instructions should be presented, affirming the same. Now the lack of these - our opponents relying on pure inference - is evidence of the correctness of our position, that the Kingdom belongs to the faithful Jews and to those who are received as such because of faith in the Messiah, Abraham’s seed, however produced, natural or engrafted, receive the Kingdom.

 

 

PROPOSITION 2. So sure is this Kingdom to the seed of Abraham, by virtue of covenant and oath, that when the Lord was displeased with the nation at the establishment of the Theocracy and threatened its extermination, yet, to insure     the fulfilment of His word, He proposed that of Moses He would raise up such a nation. The same is intimated by John the Baptist (Matt. 3: 9) when, the Jews refusing to repent, he told them that God could, if it was requisite, raise up children to Abraham by - [resurrection’ (see Luke 20: 35, Phil. 3: 11, Heb. 11: 35, Rev. 20: 4-6, etc.) and] - supernatural power. Such instances teach that, rather than fail, God can work to any extent demanded, but always in the Jewish line - i.e. all who are ever to enjoy His special Theocratic favour must, in some way, be regarded as the descendants, the children of Abraham.

 

[Page 231]

OBSERVATION 3. This gives us one of the reasons why intermarriages with heathen were forbidden, why Ezra and Nehemiah manifested such zeal in purging the Jewish nation, why the amalgamation of the Jewish with other nations was prohibited. The introduction of others into the nation could only be lawfully preferred in accord with a proper confession of faith, and then they participate in the Theocratic privileges and blessings.

 

 

OBSERVATION 4. No reader of the Old Testament can fail to see that the Theocratic idea is the nation’s foundation principle, permeating all that pertains to it.

 

 

Why is it that in the Scriptures God passes by (excepting in a few hostile predictions) the mighty monarchies and kingdoms of the earth, which are the boast and pride of profane history, and centres His interest alone in the small Jewish nation? Unbelievers consider this a great defect, and ridicule its occurrence. But the answer is a consistent and logical one: God, in virtue of covenant and relationship, could not consistently take any other position in honour to Himself, and the nation which forms the basis of His Theocratic rule and manifestation.

 

 

OBSERVATION 5. This feature, the Theocracy alone pertaining to the Jews, was their proud boast, as seen e.g. Deut. 4: 32-40, Ps. 147: 20.

 

 

OBSERVATION 6. This is the Key to the significant superscription of the cross: This is the King of the Jews.” But whilst we must not forestall coming phases in our argument, leaving them to arrive in their regular historical and logical order, yet it may be in place to urge the reader to consider why Jesus should be specifically designated on the cross only as the King of the Jews,” and not of Jews and Gentiles or of nations generally. There must be some valid reason why, as the King of the Jews, He becomes the King over all nations.

 

 

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

 

[Page 232]

PROPOSITION 30. The Prophets, however, without specifying the

manner of introduction, predict that the Gentiles shall participate

in the blessings of this Theocracy or Kingdom.

 

 

This needs no special proof, for the fact is satisfactorily evidenced that, although the prophets announced it and Jesus declared it, the apostles even did not understand how it could consistently (in view of our preceding Propositions) be done, until the principle and order under which it could be accomplished revealed to Peter (Acts 10 and 11), and acknowledged in a council (Acts 15). Hence it is called a mystery revealed (Eph. 3).

 

 

OBSERVATION 1. If these predictions were not given, a strong proof of God’s foreknowledge and determination to carry on His Divine Purpose would be lacking. Even already by Moses (Deut. 32: 21, 43) it is foretold, and as the anticipated unbelief and perversion of the nation arises and its rejection for a time is insured, the announcement becomes more bold and frequent.

 

 

OBSERVATION 2. If such prophecies were wanting, then the objection would arise that God had not revealed a definite Plan, or made provision in that Plan for the temporary failure of the Jewish nation. Therefore, aside from their relationship to its believing Gentiles, they are exceeding precious predictions, indicating completeness in the Divine Purpose.

 

 

OBSERVATION 3. The very manner in which the predictions are given manifest the wisdom of God. One feature is carefully kept in the background until the time has arrived for fulfilment, viz.: how the Gentiles are to have part in the blessings of Abraham, seeing that the promises pertain to Abraham’s seed. While the kingdom belongs to the Jews, and the nations renders itself unworthy of it, and God’s Purpose is to turn to the Gentiles, yet the mode of incorporating these Gentiles is left for future revelation. The call of the Gentiles is given in a way that implies that certain events connected with it must first be fulfilled and additional revelation be given before it can be properly comprehended. In the very nature of the case, it could not be otherwise, for if every event, link after link in the chain of Providence, had been revealed systematically and minutely, it would have interfered with the moral freedom of man, or it would have placed him in a position from which to consider himself the victim of unalterable predestinated circumstances. Thus e.g. had the Word predicted all the events respecting the First Advent and its result, the conduct of the Jews, Romans, etc., in such a form, as necessary preliminaries to the call, it would have been terribly depressing, and it would materially (2 Cor. 2: 8) have interfered with the fulfilment of [Page 233] events. There is, consequently, a deep wisdom such as man could not evince, in those isolated, broken predictions. A blessed sufficency is given to vindicate God’s knowledge, to impress His mercy, and to invite trust in His power, that the Messiah will be (as the Jews also held, Mac. 2: 7, 14) the King of the world.”

 

 

OBSERVATION 4. The reader will notice, too, that this calling of the Gentiles, while in a few places spoken of as a result of Jewish unbelief and punishment (as e.g. Dent. 32: 21), is more generally, almost universally, predicted by the prophets to occur in connection with the Jewish nationality. It is a matter either taken for granted or directly mentioned in immediate combination with the Jewish nation. The reason for this is, that while the Gentiles enjoy special favour during the period of the nation’s dispersion, yet, as Paul (Rom. 11: 12, 15) asserts, they shall realise immeasurably greater blessings when God’s kindness and faithfulness shall restore the nation to its former Theocratic position. The privileges and rich results of the Theocracy restored are to be enjoyed by the Gentiles (thus e.g. Isa. 11: 10-16, chs. 60, 55, 62, etc.).

 

 

OBSERVATION 5. The Kingdom being given to the nation, and this being based on covenants and promises confirmed by oath, (1) no other nation can obtain it without a recall of the covenant relationship; (2) such a recall is nowhere asserted, but the   perpetuity of the same is most explicitly and repeatedly affirmed; (3) the nation, for a time suffering the withdrawal of God’s special Theocratic ordering, does not vitiate the covenant relationship; (4) hence, the participation of the Gentiles in the covenanted relationship (and through this, to an inheriting of the blessings of the Kingdom), must depend (as has been stated) upon their being, in some way, adopted as the seed of Abraham. Precisely here was the mystery, which baffled even the apostles until specially enlightened.

 

 

OBSERVATION 6. The original bestowment of the Theocracy being in a most solemn, public manner, if ever the Jewish nation is to forfeit its relationship to that Theocracy, this must be done in as public manner, or, at least, the most explicit statement must come from God to this effect. This has not, cannot be done - although multitudes, misled by the temporary punishment of the nation, infer it - without violating God’s pledged word. Hence, the importance of closely tracing the call of the Gentiles, and noticing the connection with the Jewish nation.

 

 

OBSERVATION 7. Infidelity has never yet attempted to explain by what mental process the prophets could predict this call of the Gentiles when so directly opposed to Jewish election and covenanted relationship. Unbelief cares not to study the delicate and most admirable traits of Divine Wisdom in the predictions, given in general terms, and leaving, for the best of reasons, the filling up of the web of events to the time of fulfilment. Unbelief [by Christians] cares not to contemplate prophecies given thousands of years ago, and most wonderfully fulfilling, without interfering with moral freedom, for this would lead to the supernatural.

 

 

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

 

[Page 237]

PROPOSITION 32. This Theocratic Kingdom, thus incorporated with

the Davidic, is removed when the Davidic Kingdom is overthrown.

 

 

The spirit of prophecy, which expresses the opinion of God in this matter, is emphatic and clear. Thus e.g. take Ps. 89, and the Davidic throne, which it is asserted the Messiah, “the Holy One of Israel,” shall occupy, is represented as completely removed, the throne and crown cast down, God himself having withdrawn in his wrath at the nation’s sinfulness. Numerous predictions, to avoid repetition, will be given hereafter.

 

 

OBSERVATION 1. The Proposition is evidenced, (1) by the continued overthrow of what God called His throne and Kingdom, (Ezek. 21: 25-27, Hos. 3: 4, 5, etc.); (2) by the Prophets not recognising any other Theocratic Kingdom than the one thus connected; (3) by the restoration from Babylon, building of the temple, - [by the Man whose name is “the Branch” (see Zech. 6: 12, 13, R.V.)] etc., being never likened to this Kingdom, for although blessings were vouchsafed to the nation from God through His general divine Sovereignty, yet God did not act as their King, which is seen, e.g. in the Jews being still “servants” and others had dominion over them” (Neh. 9: 36, 37), being placed under tribute, (Ezra. 4: 13 and 7: 24) ; (4) by the simple fact that, neither in the temple rebuilt nor in any subsequent political position of the Jews, was God directly accessible as Ruler, to be consulted, etc.; (5) by the Jews themselves, in their future political and religions status, never supposing, after the overthrow of the Davidic Kingdom, that it or the Theocracy connected with it was restored, but constantly and ardently looked for its re-establishment; (6) by the withdrawal of God, more and more decided, so that even for centuries the voice of prophecy was silent. In brief, all the circumstances indicated, that the distinctive features which manifested a Theocracy, were withdrawn, and the religion, the ceremonial, indispensably necessity for the moral preparation and culture of man, was alone continued. The nation was undergoing divine punishment for its non-appreciation of Theocratic privileges.

 

 

Some writers, evidently through inadvertency, misuse the word “Theocracy,” when they speak of the “re-establishment of the Theocracy” at the return of Ezra to Jerusalem B.C. 147, distinguishing it from “a free and independent Theocracy” by designating it “a dependant” one. This is to make a partial restoration of the nation and religious rites a Theocracy, when Ezra and the nation were subjects to the sway of Babylon, etc. The latest reflection shows the misuse of the term, and especially to make “dependent,” without restoration (as we shall show) of David’s throne, etc.

 

 

OBSERVATION 2. The highest position, politically, occupied by the nation afterward under the brilliant reign of the Maccabean Princes, was never [Page 238] regarded as a return to the Davidic or Theocratic rule. The Asmoneans were not in the Davidic line, and God was not the Theocratic King as once before.

 

 

The Theocracy, the Kingdom of God, being withdrawn is the reason why (compare Observation 4 below) Daniel’s prophecies, which give an epitome of the world’s history down to the re-establishment of this Theocracy under the Messiah, make no mention (as they consistently could not) of a Kingdom of God on earth running contemporaneously (as many would have us to believe against fact) with the Gentile empires delineated by the Prophet. God’s Spirit does not contradict itself.

 

 

OBSERVATION 3. The highest religious position afterward arrived at, when the Temple was restored with magnificence, did not meet the Theocratic features. The second Temple, among other deficiencies, possessed not the manifestation of the Divine Presence of the great King - [our Lord Jesus Christ] - in the Holy of Holies, and gave not forth, as the first Temple, the responses of an earthly Ruler. With all the veneration attached to it by the Jews, they never regarded its erection and their worship there, as the enjoyment of a restored Theocratic government. They still lamented the loss of the once enjoyed precious boon.

 

 

Warburton (Div, Leg., B. 5, 8. 5) labours to show that the Theocracy existed down to the Coming of the Christ. A more recent writer (Wines, Com. on the Laws, p. 495, etc.) indorses this view, and says:It (Theocracy) was democratical till the time of Saul, monarchical from his accession to the throne till the captivity, and aristocratically after the restoration of the Jews to their own country; but through all these revolutions it retained the Theocratic feature.” This is a serious mistake, utterly opposed to his own definitions (which we have freely given, Propositions 25, 26. etc,) of a Theocracy, which he leaves for a lower one of his own framing. It utterly ignores the Scripture testimony; it vitiates the predictions of a restoration; it makes it impossible to understand the covenant and prophecies; and it presents us a Theocracy with its life taken out, its essential meaning removed, its throne and Kingdom overthrown. Alas! that men of ability are so misleading.

 

 

OBSERVATION 4. The reader, although perhaps premature in our line of argument, will notice that this feature has its decided influence in shaping the peculiar and striking manner in which the Bible is written and placed together. Unbelief has made itself merry at the early historical narrative of the Jewish nation when contrasted with the mighty empires of the world, at the sudden breaking off of the same, its non-resumption (in the Bible) to present the splendid achievements of the Maccabees, etc. But under all this lies a profound reason. The mighty empires of the world arc as nothing to God when compared to His initiatory Theocratic ordering. Small as the latter is when contrasted with Kingdoms that embraced immense territories and a multitude of nations; weak as the subordinate Theocratic kings were when compared with an Alexander or Cyrus or Caesar, yet in the estimation of Deity, there was in this nucleus, this earnest of government, something that outweighed the grandeur of all earthly Kingdoms. This was the Theocracy. God shows due respect to His own ordering, and hence confines Himself almost exclusively to the history of the Jewish nation. Other Kingdoms are, indeed, mentioned, but only to show their relationship to the Jewish nation and to pronounce their doom, or the final result when the Theocracy shall be triumphantly re-established. This gives the Bible its remarkable cast of expression and its historical connection. Thus e.g. there is a regular tracing of the rise of the nation, the establishment of the Theocracy, and then comes the regular [Page 239] history of the Theocracy to its downfall or rather withdrawal. Everything which led to it, that was connected with it, that led to its abandonment, is as a matter of interest. Briefly, but boldly, the outlines, the essentials, for a correct apprehension, are presented down to the last King. Then follows the account of the Captivity; of a partial restoration; of the return not meeting the requirements of a restored Theocracy; of God’s fulfilling His Word in punishing; of prophets who predict the re-establishment of the Theocracy; of a long silence of centuries, a sufficiency of prediction having been given and the history of the nation being unworthy of record; of what occurred at the coming of the Messiah, and the mention of continued punishment, of a few predictions confirmatory of the Old Testament, but no attempt to verify them, for in the unbroken silence, the dignity of prophecy is enhanced by the fulfilment being taken for granted as something needing no proof, being ever present in history.

 

 

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

 

[Page 240]

PROPOSITION 33. The Prophets, some even before the Captivity, foreseeing the overthrow of the Kingdom, both foretell its downfall and its final restoration.

 

 

Thus., e.g., Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah deliberately predict the withdrawal of God’s protection as Ruler on account of the rebellious spirit of the nation, the abolishment of the Kingdom, and the destruction of the very place of the Ruler’s special manifestation. But they also announce, just as distinctly, that at some period in the future there shall be a complete restoration of the same Kingdom under David’s son, and a restoration, too, - [at “the age to come,” (Heb. 6: 5, R.V.)] - pre-eminently glorious.

 

 

OBSERVATION 1. This, from what preceded and will follow, needs no special proof. Such passages as Amos 9: 11, Luke 1: 32, 33, Ezek. 37: 21, 22, Jer. 33: 14, etc., it is admitted by all men, do in their plain grammatical sense distinctively teach such downfall and restoration. This is denied by no one; but we are informed by eminent and pious men, that this is not the sense (excepting only as it pertains to downfall) intended by God. Aside from the inconsistency of charging God with employing a sense - the one, too, in common usage between men - that fairly expresses this idea and fosters corresponding hopes, we hold with the Primitive Church and shall prove as we proceed, that it is the only sense which consistently maintains God’s covenant, oath, promises, and election of the nation.

 

 

OBSERVATION 2. Let the reader but pause and consider: God has had a veritable Kingdom here on earth; He was the earthly Ruler of the nation exhibited in and through this Kingdom; now is it conceivable that He, owing to unbelief and sin of the nation, will give up this Kingdom forever - that He will permit Himself to be defeated in the establishment of such an open, outward, manifested Theocracy? Men, the multitude, say such is the fact, but we do not read the Bible as asserting the same, for this would be dishonouring to God, making Him to undertake a work that He is unable to accomplish, and this would make the [divinely inspired] Prophets predict falsely, making them plainly to prophecy what shall never come to pass. (Compare Proposition 201.)

 

 

OBSERVATION 3. It has been generally acknowledged (no matter how afterward explained or spiritualised) that the basis of prophetical teaching is this Kingdom constantly and uniformly connected with the National and Religio-Political constitution of the people of Israel. Why, then, dare to reverse this, without the most explicit and direct command from God? The change that is made by the many in these prophetical utterances, as will be shown, is based purely on inference. Solemnly, sadly is the [Page 241] protest given: Should we not, in so weighty a matter, have far more than merely inferential proof? If the grammatical meaning of the Word is to be changed, should not God Himself plainly tell us of the change, and not leave it to uninspired men, centuries after the canon is completed, to inform us of it?

 

 

OBSERVATION 4. When the elements of disunion, disruption, etc., appeared in the Davidic Kingdom, then also a change took place in the Prophetic voice. This has been noticed by Kurtz (Sac. His. p. 228, etc.) and others; it is only necessary to add that in view of the now foreseen and determined withdrawal of the Kingdom, much more is said, by way of encouragement under coming trial, respecting the period, when, under the promised Messiah, the Kingdom should be restored never more to end. This was a token of mercy to stimulate the faith and hope of the repentant, pious portion of the nation; for while God withdrew the Kingdom and attendant blessings, He did not, as He promised even by Moses, utterly forsake the nation.

 

 

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

 

[Page 253]

PROPOSITION 38. John the Baptist preached that this Kingdom,

predicted by the Prophets, was nigh at hand.”

 

 

This Kingdom was to be offered to the Jewish nation, and John’s mission was to prepare the nation for its acceptance. However men may explain the Kingdom itself, the fact stated is not disputed.

 

 

OBSERVATION 1. But right here, at the very beginning of the New Testament narrative, pious and good men, under a mistaken view of the Kingdom to which John’s preaching does not correspond, endeavour to lessen the knowledge and the importance of John. This is done by misapplying a passage of Scripture, so that the idea is boldly advanced that John’s teaching, in comparison with what is now taught, is of comparative little value. One commentator even informs us that the lowest teacher in the church - a Sunday-school teacher is mentioned - stands higher than John. So low a scale in knowledge and standing, it is vain to expect them to give us a consistent and scriptural view of the Kingdom of God.

 

 

Before preceding, it is necessary to vindicate the standing of the first New Testament preaching from the disparaging views announced by Barnes (the comment at or alluded to), Scott, Clarke, Nast, and others, and found in almost every Life of Christ. It is a gross mistake (as Farrar, Life of Christ, vol. 1, p. 294) “the humblest child of the New Covenant more richly endowed than the greatest prophet of the New Covenant more richly endowed that the greatest prophet of the Old,” Lange, Matt. 11: 7-15, gives several interpretations, all more or less defective. Dr. Schaff, foot-note to Lang’s Com., Matt. 3: 1, unable to follow the wild interpretations usually presented, justly makes the comparison one of “standpoint and official station,” but hampered by the idea of its being still in some way related to the present church weakens its force. Jones, Notes on Scripture (p. 65), gives the best comment and interpretation that we have seen consistent with fact and the analogy of Scripture. Hengstenberg (Christol., B, 3, S. 460) defends the higher character, etc., of John. The passage referred to, supposed to teach the low standard of John in comparison with believers of this dispensation, is found in Matt. 11: 11 and Luke 7: 28: “Verily, I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist; notwithstanding he that is least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Our Saviour, undoubtedly, refers to the Kingdom of heaven as it will be established at His Serond Advent, as our Propositions tend to show, for the church is only preparative to that still future, coming [Millennial] Kingdom, in which the least that inherits is greater in official standing, more highly honoured, than John was in his official position. Leaving what follows to indicate the truthfulness of this application of a perverted passage, it may be only added: it certainly requires great assurance for any one, teacher or not, to assert, from the language of Jesus, that he is, or that his fellows are, superior to John, in view of John’s character, inspiration, and mission. Admitting fully the blessings, privileges, and increased       knowledge of some things that we now enjoy, yet a little reflection over the constant attendance of the Holy Spirit, the sublimity of that authoritative preaching by which he commanded all to repent, the consciousness of His being a Forerunner of the Messiah, the spotless character maintained, the faithfulness unto death, should cause persons to suspect, at once, that reference is made to those who - [will be judged by Christ Jesus as ‘accounted worthy’ to] - actually inherit the Kingdom; who have actually become, and realise their honour and glory as kings and priests; who will then - [i.e., during ‘the age to come’ (cf. Heb. 6: 5 with Lk. 20: 35 and Phil. 3: 11, etc.)] - be greater than John in every respect, while John, also, in that [Page 254] Kingdom will occupy a still higher position than the one sustained at the First Advent. (Compare following Propositions.) Fairbairn (Typology, p. 48) accords with the present general view that “the most eminent in spiritual light and privilege before were still decidedly inferior even to the less distinguished members of the Messiah’s Kingdom” (i.e. according to his view of the Kingdom, the present Church). But feeling a certain incongruity in such an application (which so unjustly contrasts, an inspired man with uninspired), he gives us the following note which speaks for itself: “Matt. 11: 11, where it is said respecting John the Baptist ‘notwithstanding he that is least in the Kingdom of heaven, is greater than he.’ The older English versions retain the comparative, and rendered ‘he that is less in the Kingdom of heaven’ (Wycliff, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva) and so also Winer, Greek Gr., * 36, 3,‘he who occupies some lower place in the Kingdom of heaven.’ Lightfoot, Hengstenberg, and many others approve of this milder sense as it may be called; but Alford in his recent Com. adheres still to the stronger ‘the least;’ and so does Steir in his ‘Reden Jesu,”who in illustrating the thought, goes so far as to say, ‘a mere child that knows the catechism, and can say the Lord’s prayer, both knows and possesses more than the Old Testament can give, and so far stands higher and nearer to God than John the Baptist,’ One cannot but feel that this is putting something like a strain on our Lord’s declaration.” Fairbairn indeed relaxes “the strain” somewhat, but continues it.

 

 

OBSERVATION 2 Others, attain, in the way of eulogizing John as a preacher of the coming Kingdom, exalt him beyond what the language and facts will bear. Thus e.g. Judge Jones (Notes) correctly rejecting the interpretation of Barnes, etc., adds: “None greater than he will ever appear till all things shall be restored, and the Kingdom of God shall come.” The language of Jesus, however, only says that none greater had arisen to that time, and we have no authority to continue the comparison down to the Second Advent. The apostles were also preachers of this [coming Messianic] Kingdom, also specially called, specially inspired, etc., and are specially honoured as the founders of the Christian Church. So also Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test., p. 37) informs us that in John “prophetism attains its point of culmination.” But this is opposed to fact: others prophesied after John, as e.g. Paul in Thess., Jesus in lengthy and remarkable predictions, and John the Revelator giving us the words of Jesus in the Apocalypse. John predicted but little in comparison with those who followed him.

 

 

OBSERVATION 3. John preached the gospel of the Kingdom,” just as Jesus, the twelve, and the seventy afterward preached it. Attention is simply directed to this, because some assert that there is no preaching of the Gospel unless a crucified Redeemer is proclaimed. But we have here and previous to the death of Jesus the gospel of the Kingdom proclaimed to the nation.

 

 

OBSERVATION 4. Some able writers (as e.g. Bernard, Bampton Lectures, “The Progress of Doctrine,” Lec. 2) take the position that “The Gospel, considered as fact, was begun at the Incarnation and completed at the Resurrection; but the Gospel, considered as Doctrine, began from the first preaching of Jesus was completed in the dispensation of the Spirit.” This is, however, too circumscriptive, for the Gospel was announced previously to the preaching of Jesus by John, and was contained in the Old Testament. The facts pertaining to the Gospel extend beyond the resurrection, even to Christ’s present exaltation, through this intermediate period down to the Second Advent. To make the Gospel perfect, faith must accept as facts (owing to certainty and assurance of fulfilment) things that are future. The Gospel could be no Gospel to the Gentiles until their calling [Page 255] and adoption was divinely assumed and demonstrated, i.e. in an official manner. The Gospel, when employed as a general term to embrace all that relates to Salvation, cannot be thus circumscribed; in particulars (as e.g. relating to call of Gentiles, to the Person or Life of Jesus, etc.) it may be limited.

 

 

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

 

 

The Restoration of Israel: Amos 9: 11-15.

 

 

In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David,

And wall up its breaches;

I will also raise up its ruins

And rebuild it as in the days of old;

That they may possess the remnant of Edom

And all the nations who are called by My name,”

Declares the LORD who does this.

Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD,

When the plowman will overtake the reaper

And the treader of grapes him who sows seed;

When the mountains will drip sweet wine

And all the hills will be dissolved.

Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel,

And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them;

They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine,

And make gardens and eat their fruit.

I will also plant them on their land,

And they will not again be rooted out from their land

Which I have given them,”

Says the LORD your God.

 

 

-------

 

 

To be continued, D.V.