THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS
[* PROPOSITIONS
40 and 41. VOLUME
ONE (pp. 260-265.)]
-------
[Page 260]
PROPOSITION 40. The hearers of John believed that
he preached
to them the Kingdom predicted by the
Prophets,
and in the sense held by themselves.
This follows from the preceding Propositions, and is also admitted by many eminent writers.
OBSERVATION 1. The Jewish belief in a restored Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom has been noticed (Proposition 20),
as supported by the grammatical sense of the prophecies (Proposition 21), and the
election of the nation (Proposition 24),
etc. The preaching of John, giving no explanation of the Kingdom, indicative
that the Kingdom is something well known (Proposition 19), and the enjoyment of current phraseology
without change of meaning (Propositions 22 and 23, etc. - all proves the correctness of our position.
OBSERVATION 2. The grammatical sense was the only one then used in relation to the Kingdom, producing unity of
belief in a restored
Even the Rabbins, who had already
largely perverted Scripture by allegorical and mystical interpretations, still
clung with unswerving faith to the plain grammatical sense when it related to the
Kingdom. The testimony on this point is overwhelming; as much of it is presented under various Propositions, it need not be
repeated.
OBSERVATION 3. The unity of belief in the same restored Kingdom is evidenced
by John’s preaching of the Kingdom raising up no disputation concerning it. Had
he preached the modern view, it would inevitably have excited disputes and
appeals to the prophets.
OBSERVATION 4. The exclusiveness (Proposition 29) of the Jewish nation, the
prophecies describing but one Kingdom (Proposition 35), etc., forbid the idea that there
was an antagonism of belief between the preacher and
the hearer. There might be a difference
of opinion respecting the imposed condition of repentance, but there could be
none concerning the Kingdom so far as related to its
essential nature.
OBSERVATION 5. This fact of a unison of view respecting the Kingdom alone satisfactorily accounts for the exceeding
brevity with which it is mentioned. It is taken for granted that no difference of opinion existed.
OBSERVATION 6. The unity of agreement also accounts for so little descriptive of the
Kingdom being given in detail in the New Testament. It
was fully known and described in the prophets; now to
have entered into a detailed statement and particularised the restored
[Page 261]
Cimarus and
others have made this feature an objection to John the Baptist and Jesus, viz.:
that devoted to the Jewish ideal of a Kingdom, the restored Davidic, they
virtually became conspirators against the authority of the Caesars. This is
nothing new, for it was this accusation that influenced
Pilate to give up Jesus to crucifixion, and led to the just superscription of
the cross. The whole matter rests upon the priority of claims, the justness
of conquest, the authority of God, the manner of introducing the Kingdom etc. Foreseeing, as we shall show, the result, the greatest prudence was
exercised in this matter to avoid unnecessary persecution, and when it was
finally known that the Kingdom was postponed to the Second Advent, to be
introduced by the power of Jesus Christ,
then,
in view of the prophecies which foretold their continued existence down to the
Advent, believers were taught that the existing governments were ordained or
appointed by God - not that they were sacred (as claimed), but allowed as a
necessary requirement, etc.
OBSERVATION 7. This unity of agreement is also seen in John
doing his preaching in the wilderness - that is, cast from
If the modern prevailing view of the Kingdom is the correct
one, no reason can be assigned for John’s avoidance of
the centres of influence, as e.g.
OBSERVATION 8. The agreement of opinion is seen in the disciples
of John, who, as far as is known, hold to the coming of the restored
OBSERVATION 9. John and his hearers certainly had no other views than those entertained by
following preachers of the Kingdom, as e.g. the apostles;
see Acts 1: 6.
OBSERVATION 10. The agreement of opinion is frankly admitted by many of our opponents,
whom we have quoted, and whom we shall hereafter quote, as e.g. Knapp (Ch. Theol.),
Neander (Life of
Christ, etc.), and others.
OBSERVATION 11. It is in view of such agreement of opinion that Ecce Homo declares (p.
13, etc.) that John tried to renew the old Covenant by promising the restoration
of the ancient Theocracy,” adding, “he had renewed the
old Theocratic Covenant with the nation. But not all the nation was in such to
remain in such a covenant,” etc.
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 262]
PROPOSITION 41. The Kingdom was
not established under John’s ministry.
It could not be, because no restored
Theocracy, such as the prophets predicted, the covenant demanded, and
he preached, followed. This is seen by the
failure of John’s mission, which was designated to prepare, if
possible, consistently with moral freedom, the nation for the [promised] Kingdom.
OBSERVATION 1. John was not conscious of a Kingdom being established,
as is noticeable in the message that he sent, shortly before his death, from prison
to Jesus.
Consider the position of John in prison, and imagine the
thoughts that must have arisen in his mind while confined for several months in
the fortress. He had preached the coming of the Kingdom conditioned on
repentance; he had seen and announced the Messiah, through whom, as
he fondly anticipated, the Kingdom was to be established. Just before his imprisonment he had expressed the hope that the Messiah
would be received, and hence looked for a speedy visible Messianic Kingdom. Now
it is supposed (e.g. Neander’s Life of Christ,
S. 135) that doubts arose in John’s mind respecting Messiah on
account of the delay. But this could not possibly be, owing to
John’s specific mission, his testimony to Jesus, his having seen the attesting
divine manifestation, and his having heard the coming voice from heaven. John
had no
doubts concerning the Messiahship
of Jesus. How, then, interpret the action
of sending his disciples to Jesus? The explanation follows naturally from the
hopes entertained by him, and the condition in which he was
placed. Being imprisoned, the hope of a speedy establishment of the
Kingdom (for had he not seen the Messiah?) implanted the hope of a speedy
release from his prison; for then, under the reign of the Messiah as predicted by the prophets, he
would necessarily experience deliverance from his enemies (as Zacharias believed, Luke 1: 74). Such
thoughts must, from the very nature of his belief, hope, and situation,
have passed through his mind. To satisfy his mind respecting release,
whether the Kingdom would be soon established, he
sends two of his disciples (Matt. 11: 2, 3), with, in his estimation, a test
question: “art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?” Now if we but reflect that
(As Olshausen, Com. loci
has well remarked, compare
[*
See also Acts. 2:
31-34; John 14: 3; cf. Luke 20: 35; Heb. 11: 13, 35; Rev. 6: 9-11, R.V.
etc.]
OBSERVATION 2. That no Kingdom was established is evident from the continued
style of preaching the Kingdom after John’s
imprisonment and death, for Jesus, the disciples, and the seventy announced it,
not as actually present, but still future.
OBSERVATION 3. The imprisonment, and death of John itself is indicative of our position, for it
shows that, instead of a Kingdom, suffering is allotted: the Forerunner is
rejected, and the Kingdom cannot be obtained without blood shed in its behalf.
A martyred Forerunner is in appropriate
foreground to a crucified King, and [He] reminds us - [His ‘Disciples,’ (i.e., ‘Christians’ Acts 11: 26, cf.
2 Tim. 2: 5, 11, 12, etc.] - how dearly this very Kingdom is
purchased.
Leathes (The Religion of
Christ, Bampton Lectures for
1874), while misapprehending and
spiritualising the Kingdom that John preached, yet fully admits: “he certainly died without seeing the Advent of that Kingdom
which he had proclaimed as near.” We cannot see how any one who holds the Ch. Church that was established on the day
of Pentecost to be this Kingdom, can logically hold any other view. Hence many writers occupy Leathers’ position, and concede our Proposition. Our opponents involve
themselves in the most glaring inconsistencies and contradictions by not
adhering in strictness to their own Church-Kingdom theory. Thus
e.g. Barnes and others (even
including such as Nast, etc.) make
the Ch. Church to be the Kingdom established on the day of Pentecost after the
death of Jesus, but then again and again they tell us that the Gospel with its
resultant spiritual reign is this
Kingdom, and that this Gospel was preached and result gained in John’s time
(thus making this Kingdom not to exist and then again to exist); and then,
without seeing the absurdity of the proceeding, when commenting on Matt. 11: 11, they make out that John is not in
the Kingdom of heaven, but that the least one in it (i.e. the Church) is
superior to John, owing to privilege, etc., after having declared in other
places that John was in it and caused his hearers to press into it. Alas!
what confusion arises, when men forsake the plain sense
of covenant and prophecy.
OBSERVATION 4. This satisfactorily answers the question, why John continued
his ministry after the public appearance of Christ. The
solution is found in John baptising not only in view of a Messiah to come, but of a Kingdom to come. The Kingdom, and meetness for it,
was the burden of his preaching, and the foundation motive for urging repentance. Now if the Kingdom had appeared, as some
writers contend, as soon as Jesus was baptised by John or even earlier, then John’s mission
would have ended; but as the Kingdom was not manifested,
John could continue his own ministry without change. Jesus only commenced (Matt. 4: 17) His preaching when John was imprisoned.
The testimony of Killen (The Ancient Church, p. 11), that the Jews “anxiously awaited the appearance of a Messiah,” is
that of every historian. But with this and as a
resultant, inseparably united, was the idea of the Messianic Kingdom. Hence the preaching was continued as preparatory to the
Kingdom. This, also, throws light on the baptism of Jesus, a difficult subject,
because Jesus needed not repentance. Some (Farrar)
make [Page 264] it to “prefigure the laver of
regeneration;” others (Shenkel), a vicarious or representative act; others (Bernard), an act humility, or (Barnes) an example sanctioning divine institutions,
or (Lange), to remove ceremonial uncleanness,
etc. This baptism was designed to indicate that the person receiving it was
prepared or qualified for the Kingdom, yielding himself to the supreme will of God, hence David’s Son could properly receive it.
OBSERVATION 5. The non-establishment of the Kingdom is shown in the
fact that the disciples of John, instructed by himself, and their adherents after
John’s death, even after the death of Jesus, formed a sect who still waited for
the coming of the Messiah (Gieseler, Ch. His. 1: 69, Lange’s Com., p. 69, etc.). This can only be accounted
for on the ground that, not seeing the Kingdom established as preached by John,
and unacquainted with or failing to appreciate its postponement to the Second
Advent of the crucified Jesus, they still looked for the manifestation of the Kingdom,
and, of course, then for the Messiah to restore it.
OBSERVATION 6. The brevity of John’s ministry is readily
accounted for; brief as it was, it was sufficiently long to indicate the
unfitness of the nation for the Kingdom (compare Lange, Com., Matt. 3: 1-12, p. 68, 2nd. col.). Different writers inform us that it was very successful and give us
glowing accounts how the multitude “pressed into”
the Kingdom; but we have the decided
testimony of the Lord Himself that, whatever degree of success attended
John’s efforts in the beginning, his mission to the nation was acceptable only to the few; the representative men of the nation were not gained, they did not
repent (Matt. 11: 18).
As this is an important point, and misconception here will
lead to misinterpretation, a few words may be added. The
passage adduced to prove the success of John’s ministry is Matt. 11: 12, and Luke 16:
16. We refer, by way of illustration, to Barnes’ Com. loci,
to show how comments are made. On this verse, he tells us of
the multitudes who “rush” and “press” for the Kingdom, and this state of things “has continued,” etc., and yet, when commentating on verse 18 of the same chapter, forgetting what he had
just penned, he then informs us that “this generation”
“were not pleased with him,” etc., The reader
is referred to the admirable comment of Judge
Jones (Notes
on the Scriptures, loci) on this passage, in which he consistently
proves (take Luke 16: 16 in connection as interpreter) that it teaches
that men pressed against, resisted the Kingdom, treated it with
violent opposition, although urged upon them. His criticism of the text
corresponds with the context, and makes it to harmonise with the facts as they truly existed (so also Lightfoot, Schneckenburger,
and others). Those, however, who retain a different rendering, to make it
consistent with fact, interpret it (as H. Dana, Ward, Proph. Times, Ap. 1874. p. 36), “every (wise) man presseth toward it,” or (as .J. G.
W. Proph. Times, vol. 11. No, 5, p. 72), “From the days of John the Baptizer until now, the Kingdom of heaven suffereth
violence” (permits a violation of ritualism), “and
the violent” (the earnest penitents) “take it by
force” (striving to enter into the strait gate, etc.). These, and others,
(comp. Lange’s Com. loci, Scott, etc.) are
more or less forced, while Jones’s interpretation
is natural and accordant with fact. That no national or wide extended repentance
was produced is evident from the deputation (John 1:
19-27)
and subsequent events. The extravagant eulogies of “a holy
violence,” and the making by some (Lange,
etc.), John and Jesus to be “the violent,” are
simply glosses; the violent - by conspiring to put the Messiah to death - took,
as we shall show in detail, the Kingdom away from the nation.
OBSERVATION 7. Some writers, in their eagerness to make
out a preparation for the First Advent which existed, and is temperately (e.g. Schaff, His. Apos. Church), described by others, tell us much of the
preparation of the Jewish nation for the same. But this is shown to be utterly unworthy of credence, in view of the failure of John’s mission, the rejection and
death of the [Page 265] Messiah, and the resultant judgments of God. (Compare character of Jews as
given by Jesus, Josephus, Harwood, Mosheim, Horne, etc.).
Often have we been pained and
surprised to find careful and able writers fall into extravagances in this
direction. Thus e.g. Dr. Luthardt (Bremen Lectures, Lec.
8, p. 128) says: “John the Baptist’s mission was to be bridesman. He led the
bride to the bridegroom, to be united with Him in
marriage, to be made one with Him. This is the end of the history of
-------
To be continued, D.V.