THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS
[* PROPOSITIONS
201, 202 and 203
from VOLUME THREE (pp.
544-556).]
-------
[Page 544]
PROPOSITION 201. If a Kingdom, such as is covenanted to the Son of
Man, David’s Son, is not set up, then
God’s efforts at government
in and through an earthly rulership
proves a failure.
God has
had a visible King here on earth; owing to the sinfulness of the people the
goal contemplated by its erection
was not reached; instead of such
a Kingdom as would have been exhibited if
the nation had been obedient (e.g. Ps. 81: 8-16, etc.), it was taken from them, postponed, and
will only be restored after a definite time fixed by God; now if such a
restoration here on earth is not effected, it places God in
the position of a Ruler who in His attempt at an earthly rule has been defeated, and who has been unable to erect His
Kingdom in a permanent and universal form. If not restored in greater power and
glory, God has failed to establish a Theocracy. Well may it then be asked, is not His own honour involved in a final re-establishment? (Compare Proposition 117,
Observation
6.)
OBSERVATION 1. Our argument proves that the covenants, the prophecies, the continued incarnate relationship of Jesus - in brief,
all that has been thus far advanced
- clearly show that God will not fail in His Theocratic Plan - His proposed
OBSERVATION 2. Let the reader turn to Proposition 200, Observation 5, and see what Kurtz (who utters the views of many able writers) says of God being “earthly King over
Take e.g. the meaning given to the
Theocracy by Fairbairn (Typology,
p. 379), viz., that “the Jewish Theocracy was an
attempt to realise, on the visible theatre of the present world
and within a circumscribed region, the idea of the
OBSERVATION 3. The Church does not meet, as we have previously shown, the
conditions of the Theocracy. The Theocratic incorporated throne and
It may be added, as history too
plainly attests, that the union of State and Church
does not meet, owing to human infirmity, the requirements of a
Theocracy, for wherever the trial has been made the State has lorded it over
the church, bringing her into servitude, or else the Church has trampled the civil rights under her
feet. The union, while biblical only in the manner and time which
God has indicated, is unnatural and forced in the present - [evil and apostate
age or]
- dispensation. Men
endeavour to forestall God’s own appointments and to antedate the period
and power designated by Himself, and thus only bring calamity and reproach upon
themselves. There is a foundation of
truth even in the extremest Erastianism, viz.,
that we are to derive belief and worship from the civil power; there is
force and pertinency in many of the statements of Hooker (Eccl. Polity), Grotins (Treat, and Annots.), and others, but only as we refer them
for a practical application in the still future Theocratic reign of “the Son of Man,” in which State and Church will be
safely and permanently united. To commingle now things
which are (in consequence of human weakness, etc.) opposed one to the
other, i.e. in interests, aims, motives, results, etc., is only to add to our
disappointments.
OBSERVATION 4. God bas instituted, as something pertaining to Himself, a
Theocratic ordering. He has embraced this in a covenant, confirmed its
certainty by oath, reiterated His determination again and again to have it
realised, instituted a series of preparations having decided reference to this
end - how can then the
restoration of the Theocracy prove a failure? It is utterly
impossible. When in the Coming [Messianic and Millennial] Kingdom at the Second
Advent, as predicted, this “God-King” (so Kurtz significantly calls this Theocratic King) is restored in
actual rule, men will be surprised that this Theocratic feature so plainly revealed should ever have been doubted; [Page 546] seeing
that, all things, including the very
Person of the Christ, tend to show that God’s
Plan of Government cannot fail, because Jesus is most admirably,
most wonderfully fitted to exhibit the supervision of a “God King.”
Divinity, humanity, and royalty being thus combined in the
Son of Man, there is a return to the old form (i.e. Theocratic, with additions
and changes to adapt it to the renewed regime) in the restored commonwealth by
which the religious commandments again become political and the political
become religious - in which the civil, political, and religious are happily blended under one All-wise, All-powerful Theocratic Headship. God’s rule in the covenanted form cannot fail; we must, if
believing and honouring God, look to the future for its realization.
OBSERVATION 5. The nearest approach to this Theocratic rule by a representative, is that afforded by the Roman Church, in its
professed vicegerent, the Pope. But this, notwithstanding its claims, power, etc., is an arrogant imitation and assumption of the rights and privileges of the Son of Man, David’s Son. Forgetting under the favouring Origenistic interpretation, that the
covenants and promises all delegate this earthly representation of God in a
visible Kingdom to the seed of David alone, they assume to spiritualise these,
making the reign of the Son of Man in heaven, delegating His earthly rule to
the Papacy, and, in the boldness of profanation, actually proceeding to apply
covenant and prophetic promises, exclusively belonging to David’s Son, to the
Popes personally (even the titles of “the Christ” have been thus prostituted).
Their theologians, seeing in themselves more of the outward
manifestation of a Kingdom under a consolidated form and guiding head, claim on
this ground a decided superiority over Protestantism, and that if it did not
thus exist in such a manner, then a Kingdom under the rule of God’s
Representative as predicted is a failure, for no such Kingdom, unless in their Church,
can elsewhere be found. To this the Word
replies: it is not necessary to look for it now existing, for it stands postponed until He comes whose right it is to re-establish it. When Jesus so
plainly predicts its postponement to the Second Advent, it is pure assumption in men to profess to found a
OBSERVATION 6. If we are never to see this
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 548]
PROPOSITION 202. If the Kingdom of the Son of Man, as
covenanted,
is not established, then the earth will lack in its history
the exhibition of a perfect government.
The idea, given by God in His unbounded wisdom and thus far developed, of a “God-King,” alone
meets the notion of a perfect government. The union the human and the divine in
the Ruler, and the perfection of the King Himself, these form the
solid foundation for a complete
Kingdom.
OBSERVATION 1. The Bible emphatically teaches, in its Millennial descriptions, a Kingdom
here, on the earth over man in the flesh, which shall exhibit in a striking
administration the principles, laws, results, etc., of a beyond all others,
and adapted in every respect to meet all the requisites to secure
stability, happiness, etc. (comp. e.g. Isa. chs. 60, 54, 61, etc.). Simply admit that the oath-confirmed covenant will
be verified just as it grammatically reads, and then notice that the Son of
Man, as constituted, will be this King, that associated with Him are His chosen
brethren as associated rulers, that the Millennial portrayals describe this
reign as still future, and it will be seen how this
perfect government can, and
will be realised. On the other hand,
reject these things, confine the Kingdom to the Church, limit the reign of the
Son of Man to Heaven, etc., and you have not, and cannot receive, such a visible,
outward universal Kingdom or dominion, in all respects perfectly adapted to the
civil as well as the religious wants of humanity, as the Word of God tells us -
if we take its plain grammatical sense - to anticipate.
The essential idea of such a visible,
outward world-Kingdom is strongly advocated by recent
leading theologians, and the Chiliastic idea (however represented logically
defective) is doctrinally incorporated to suit their systems. Thus e.g. Martensen (Ch. Dog., S. 281) proclaims his
faith, that Christianity will not merely be a “struggling
power in the world, but a world-conquering, a world-ruling power likewise.”
“The State and institutions of municipal life shall
then be governed by Christian principle,” etc. But
he forgets to tell us how to reconcile all this with e.g. S, 279), where down to
the Second Advent he gives no place for such a Millennial theory. The fact is,
the teaching of Scripture is decisive of such a time and rule coming, and it is
equally decisive in giving no such time and rule between the First and Second
Advents. It follows, therefore, that in accord with primative teaching and the
scriptural statements, it must follow the Second Advent.
OBSERVATION 2. God, in view of the conditions of nature, and to exemplify His own power in constant impressions upon man, etc.,
does not produce the perfect fruit at once; His method of procedure, as seen in
nature and in grace, embraces an ascending scale, the reaching of an intended
goal by preparatory, processes and means. This holds good
in the matter of this Theocracy. Therefore, considering what God has done and
is doing in [Page 549] this direction, we may well expect
the ultimate completion of His Plan in actual manifestation. Otherwise, if God
is not again to be manifested in union with an earthly
Ruler - yea, as Kurtz and others, is
not to stoop to become an earthly Ruler Himself - what avails, and how are we
to understand, the interest that God has once taken in earthly government. Has that
interest failed, or, is the highest of all earthly powers, that of government to be cast aside as unworthy of God’s continued and special interest? If
this is so, then, indeed, earth will never witness a perfect government, simply
because such is human imperfection, the depravity of man, the deceitfulness of
power and corresponding wealth, etc. (as evidenced down to the Advent itself in
wars, rumours of war, etc.), that the help - direct - of heaven is requisite to lift the government of the race upon a higher plane. The Kingdom of the Son of Man is
alone the hope of the world.
OBSERVATION 3. The reign of this Son of Man strictly in
accordance with the covenant, and the union of the saints with Him in such a
rule, will alone satisfy the cravings of
humanity for a strong and most blessed government, which shall break down forever the
opposing, clashing interests of nations, dispel their jealousies, and unite
them, freed from evils, under one common, visible, and accessible Head.
Then humanity, both in Christ and His saints, exalted and placed beyond the
evils inherent in the present life, still sympathetic and desirous to bless,
will proceed to the work of elevating man, not merely in his individual, but
likewise in his social, national, and universal life. Then that which the
heathen Zeno faintly painted, as a
longing or earnest desire of his heart, will be abundantly
verified. viz., that “men should not be
separated by cities, states, and laws, but that all should be considered as
fellow-citizens and partakers of one life, and that the whole world like a
united flock should be governed by one common law.” Plutarch (Lives, Alex. i. c. 6) vainly thought that Alexander’s conquest of nations and uniting them in one general empire was a
fulfilment of Zeno; and others
besides Plutarch idly dream of such
a consummation outside of the covenanted line of procedure; but all such forget, that
unless a power can be exerted over depraved nature to restrain or save it, and
over nature itself - [see
Rom. 8: 21; cf. Gen.
3: 17, 18, R.V.)] - to
restore it in harmony with such a government, its stability will be like Alexander’s. The Bible places our hope, and the gratification of the longings
of depressed man, in the Coming again of this Son of Man and the establishment of His [Messianic and Millennial]* Kingdom, for He is the rightful Heir
to whom it belongs, and the One for whom alone it is designed by the Father.
[* See Ps.
2: 8; cf.
Ps. 110: 1-3; Rev. 2: 25; 3: 21, R.V. etc.]
The simple faith even of the heathen Virgil condemns the belief
of some professed [and regenerate] believers, when he speaks of the “God-like Child” that shall rule a reconciled world,
and of “the golden race” that shall arise,
uttering the prayer: “Begin to assume, I pray, your
sovereign honour, majestic Child. See the world nodding with its ponderous
vaults and lands and planes of sea - see how all things exult in the age to
come.”
OBSERVATION 4. Accepting the phraseology of Ullman,
Neander, and others, that “Christianity is Christ developing Himself in humanity,”
we add - to perfect the idea - for the purpose of its future visible manifestation in Him and His saints
in behalf of the race in an exhibited perfect government, the highest and most honourable
position in which it can be placed. Now the connection with humanity is only
preparative; then it will be operative on a scale that insures Redemption in all the relations of society and life. [Page 550] So also, keeping the covenants before us, we receive the
idea “that Christ is God-man in so far as He
represents in His own Person the perfect unity of the human and the divine,”
but we add to complete the picture: which representation, now accepted by faith
and made necessary by covenant and promise, shall
in due time be practically evidenced in His return and Theocratic reign, thus forming the perfect means for the
accomplishment of a perfect end. Reference is thus
made to these things, because the great design (without discarding others)
intended by this very God-manship, viz., to qualify Him for His covenanted reign on the
Theocratic throne, is by many left entirely out of sight, as if
it were not an important and distinguishing feature of the Divine Purpose,
while from the covenant standpoint it is most
essential. Admitting, as nearly all do, that in Him at
His Second Coming we find a perfect God-man, such as the covenanted mercies
describe, we have only- as appertaining to the highest glory of David’s Son -
to take another step by admitting His reign and Kingdom, and thus find the perfect earthly Kingdom which the Bible describes. The one stands related to the other; the
latter is a resultant of the former.
OBSERVATION 5. Taking into consideration the ardent desire expressed by
the prophets, that this God-man should show Himself and reign in a glorious
manner - or the longings of the heathen, in fact including almost all men, that
the Divine might interfere to remove the present disturbing elements, and
introduce a reign of peace and blessedness - we may well ask in view of such an
almost universal desire, expressed in all religious and entertained in all
ages, whether, judging front the expressed wishes of man, enlightened and
unenlightened, it is not a fact that the highest
possible position in
which we can place the Kingdom of God in its relation to humanity, is that of
regarding it as a State or Empire, Theocratic Universal, over the earth,
founded, governed and developed under direct personal divine authority,
personally manifested, thus consisting
a perfectly reliable and infallible Head and Rule?
Infidelity now objects to the Word on the ground of such a desirable.
Theocratic rule not being manifested, but overlooks the Record which promises it,
to supply a great need. It is singular, and certainly worthy of reflection,
that God’s P1an of Government falls within the line of man’s wishes, if we will
only receive the covenants, prophets and apostles in their true grammatical sense. Judging then
simply from a long-felt and expressed want in the world, which has excited the
desires alluded to, it seems eminently suitable for just such a Kingdom under the Son of Man. as is predicted, to be
established on [this] earth. With it, any one call readily see how the
Redemptive process, embracing not merely individuals but the nations and the
race, can be carried on until it culminates into completed Redemption.
Treatises, tracts, books have appeared
from age to age indicative of the desirableness of a change in the condition of
things, and proposing plans by which, at least, it might be ameliorated. The advocacy of a Congress of Nations, a Universal code of Laws, a
General confederation under a Central Head, a Union of Church and State, the
paramount and pre-eminent, claims of this and that church as a Leader, the
general adoption of Republicanism, [secular] Education, Philosophy, etc., are all based on the
desire to realise in some form or other such a position. The history of
the past and present plainly shows the sad deficiency of the highest of human relations, that of government. Man’s nature and
will have too often made human government the engine of spoliation, oppression,
war, cruelty, and grievous wrong; and
the very best are far from being free of injustice, corruption, and bloodshed.
History, with its multitudes of
attesting facts of weakness and [Page 551] depravity,
causes us to adopt, in view of the precious hope of deliverance set before us, Dr. Bonar’s language: “Weary of man’s rule, we long
for God’s.” In the Church itself, in view of the differences,
dissensions, divisions, etc., who has not longed for an infallible head,
teacher, and guide, seeing that the most pious and devoted are thus separated both in doctrine, practice, and
government. Our hope is in the Second Coming of One in whom is
lodged all power and wisdom.
OBSERVATION 6. The student of the Word will not fail to notice, that God’s
idea of a perfect government embraces the union of Church and State, as
exhibited in the Theocratic ordering. But this, in
order to be effectual, must be under an infallible Divine Headship. In the hands of mortal,
fallible men it is only conducive to evil (as history attests), but in the
guidance of God directly it is productive of good and happiness. (Comp. Propositions
154, 155,
205,
etc.)
The most eminent men have advocated,
as the highest possible development, the union of Church and State, both
forming one, as e.g. Rothe (comp,
his Life,
by Nippold). Dr. Arnold (Life of, by Stanley,
vol. 2, p. 103), in a letter to Bunsen,
says: “Connected with this is
Rothe’s book, which I have read with
great interest. His first position - that
the State and not the Church (in the common and corrupt sense of the term),
is the perfect form under which Christianity is to be developed - entirely agrees
with my notions.” The manner of realisation, through
the agency of “the Christ” has been given by us
in detail. Men have sought this realisation before the time, and
through human agency, and the result (comp. e.g. Baptisit Noel’s Essay on the Union
of Church and State, and others) has always proven baneful and
one-sided. While, therefore, it is right and proper to oppose
such a union, as a virtual forestalling of God’s own ordering and as a mere
caricature of His Plan, because of its invariable painful consequences, it is
an extreme, on the other hand, to assert (as the Scottish Church, D’Aubigne’s Germ., Eng., and Scotland, p. 158)
that it never ought to be accomplished (basing it on the passage, “My Kingdom is not of this world,” comp. proposition 109),
for this is opposed to God’s ultimate Purpose. Some writers, totally
misapprehending the Theocratic idea, when speaking of the
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 552]
PROPOSITION 203. The exaltation of the Christ is not lessened
or lowered by the referring the promises
of the Kingdom
to an outward manifestation in the
future.
If
we say that Christ will do what Jehovah previously (Proposition 200, Observation 10)
performed, this cannot lower Him. In making the Messiah to do the Will of the
Father, whatever that Will may be, we honour Him. In
saying that Jesus will fulfil the Covenant’s sealed
and attested to by His blood, we exalt Him. In placing Him ultimately
on the restored Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom, and through the same
exerting an universal dominion, we honour and exalt His humanity, as David’s Son and Heir,
without diminishing or detracting from His divine nature or the Divine
Sovereignty, He may, in virtue of the divine, wield with the Father. What is
divine ever belongs to Him, and while employed in the Theocratic order, is not
bounded by His rule as the Son of Man.
OBSERVATION 1. The objection intimated in the Proposition against our
doctrine, proceeds from a one-sided
view of the Person of
Christ, exalting the
divine as if exclusive, and leaving
out the human as if it were no longer a
factor in Redemption. We are afraid that those who are engaged in lauding and
magnifying Christ until in their laudations the divine is made to swallow up or
absorb the human, under the impression that they are honouring Jesus, will find
themselves seriously mistaken when God the
Father reveals Himself, through that Son, as a covenant-keeping God. Such practically ignore David’s Son, and thus degrade Him. (1)
By denying His present continued Davidic relationship;
(2) and by refusing to believe that
the covenant promises can only be
realised through David’s Son.
As the objection
that we lower Christ in advocating such a Kingdom and reign is offensively
paraded in numerous works, (men thus presuming to set themselves up as the
judges respecting what it is right and proper for Jesus to do in this matter),
and as it undoubtedly has impressed sincere and pious hearts with
prejudice against us, it is
suitable that attention is called to this subject. Well-meaning persons, unable to
discriminate between the general Divine
Sovereignty and this specially covenanted Theocratic Kingdom, etc., may
honestly entertain such an opinion to our discredit, but those who know the
foundation of this reigning, its Theocratic nature, its glorious results, etc.,
will be slow to receive it. Really so sensitive, apparently, are some writers
on this point, and so pressingly insist upon the force of the objection that
the writer has sometimes wondered that in the excess of zeal and theory they
have not combated the incarnation and death of Jesus as a degradation of the divine. Surely if the Christ
came, in the covenanted way, as a babe, if He died on the cross after a life of
humiliation - is it unreasonable or a lowering of Him to expect His return in
great power and glory, and to anticipate a [millennial] reign which only shows Him forth its the Mighty Redeemer and
the King of kings. (Comp. also Propositions 182, 183, 196, 197, etc,,
which serve to remove current prejudice.)
OBSERVATION 2. In exalting Jesus as “the Son of Man,” in His descent from David, in His
proper covenanted humanity, we, as a corresponding result [Page 553] honour the divine which is inseparably united with it. The
simple biblical truth is, that in bringing forth the
covenanted King, seated as the Son of Man on the throne of His glory, attention
is directed to the distinctive covenanted Christ, who is then
engaged in fulfilling the oath-bound promises of the Father. What position greater or more honourable than this!
Certainly we cannot degrade the Saviour when we make His humanity
(as well as the divine), as the Bible does, a continued and most important
factor in the progressive work of Redemption, actively and visibly engaged in
its accomplishment (compare Propositions 81-85 and 196-202).
OBSERVATION 3. Regarding the Incarnation as part of the continuous unfolding of the
Divine Purpose, especially in reference to this very [Messianic] Kingdom, we certainly exalt it, when
showing how necessary and
indispensable it continues to be in order to carry out that Purpose
as contained in the covenants and
revealed by the prophets. That is, the Theocratic ordering as
covenanted, and which is so admirably adapted to meet the longings and remove
the burdens of a groaning humanity, cannot possibly he realised (Proposition 120)
without the Advent of the King and the resultant [millennial] reign. But
He comes and reigns as “Son of Man,” as David’s Son (Propositions 49, 81 and
122).
OBSERVATION 4. This reign of the Son of Man, including the fulfilment of God’s pledged
Word and the Salvation of a world, is invariably represented in Scripture as
not only a constant source of gladness and exultation in those who [are ‘accounted
worthy’ to] participate in its blessings, but of praise, honour, and glory to
Christ and the Father. Read the Millennial
descriptions of - [God’s
accountability truths and conditions
for a disciple’s entrance (Matt. 5: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 20; cf. Gal. 5: 13-21; Eph. 5: 1-5, 7, 8; Rev. 3: 3, 19 and 21,
etc.) into] - this covenanted Kingdom, and they are full of passages
expressive of the great glory awaiting the Son of David when He
enters upon His Theocratic reign. Surely then when the [Holy] Spirit, knowing the things of the
future, leads thus in honouring the Christ when ascribing to Him this future
reign, we cannot mistake in following His
guidance.
Sometimes these references of the [Holy] Spirit are presented under such a figurative garb
that their full force can only be appreciated by close attention. Thus e.g. Isa. 4: 2, which
many able commentators (comp. Barnes,
loci)
and others apply (as also Chaldee Parap.) to the Messiah - some to His human
nature, others to the human and divine combined - and, however to be understood
in detail, is highly expressive of His glory, it being declared that He “shall be beauty and glory” (Alexander’s version “be for honour and for glory”) “for exaltation and
ornament,” Alex. Vers.
“for sublimity and beauty”). That is, He shall be the chief, great object that shall give
honour, distinction, splendour, and glory to this period of the world. It is suggested to the critical reader that the phrase “the fruit of the earth” - which is by many critics
referred to the human nature of Christ, and by others simply to express in
Hebrew parallelism the same meaning embraced in the first member “the Branch of the Lord” (which some think denotes the
divine nature, i.e. the Offspring of the Lord, the Son of God, and others
believe is expressive of the human nature, the Branch of David raised up
through the power of the Lord or pertaining to the Lord) may include in it, as
descriptive of the Christ, a reference to His resurrection, being raised up out
of the earth, etc.
OBSERVATION 5. This reign of David’s Son and Lord, presents to us here on earth a
realisation of that yearning after a
perfected humanity which has characterised man’s
history. This earnest longing is found in the oldest systems of religion in
various phases, especially in the man elevated gods of
It is a singular and noteworthy fact that, as recently insisted on both by
believers in Christianity and some of its opponents, the idea of incarnation is
“a want,” a “necessity”
fully recognised by man in all ages. It seems a providential movement
that as the Coming of the Son of Man approaches, there should arise on
all sides a renewed and marvellous interest in the Incarnation itself. While Christian writers dwell upon it as a leading factor in the
work of redemption, and draw arguments from it to show the adaptation of the
Christian religion to human nature, the accessibility of the Godhead through
it, the relationship it sustains to divine law, to the Plan of Redemption, and
to the race of man - on the other hand, many liberal and unbelieving writers
enlarge upon it in such a way, that, without denying in direct terms the
Incarnation of Christ, they detract from its exclusive Christian or biblical
relationship by endeavouring to show how the doctrine of Incarnation is a prime
element in other religions. Instead of concluding how
this only evinces the desire of man to have God communicate Himself personally
through humanity as through an accessible and satisfactory Mediumship adapted
to man, the latter conclude that since the yearning is not confined to the
Christian religion, the doctrine of the Incarnation is a legitimate deduction
of reason resulting front a felt “want,” but
endeavour to weaken its force by making it indicative of a sort of pantheistic
relation to man, which is found, more or less, in all men. Some recent
writers (as e,g. Goodwin,
Christ and
Humanity, 1875) while making Jesus “the
archetypal man” and the incarnation of the divine, even speak (like Kingsley’s Hypalia) of its pre-existence, as a
sort of anticipative development or illustration of the divine idea. However vitiated as all these theories may be by a refined
pantheistic tendency, by the assumption of a divine common in all men but more
strikingly and profusely exhibited in Jesus, by a complete ignoring of the
Theocratic Plan and its essential requirement in the Person of the Theocratic
King, yet in all of them it is fully admitted that the Incarnation is “a necessity” - something required in behalf of humanity. The discussion
as it progresses in numerous able works, evinces the
paramount importance attached to the doctrine. It
clearly and unmistakably reveals that man - and includes the deepest thinkers
and most profound reasoners - feels the necessity of Deity assuming, or in some
way identifying Himself with, humanity in order to secure elevation and
accessibility unto Him; that, in some form, it is a bridging over of the chasm
now existing between the finite and the infinite; that it [Page 555] is
essential for God to be thus manifested in order to enable us to comprehend
Him, and through His aid to experience salvation from evil. A recent
Liberal writer (Johnson, Oriental Religions, 483) candidly acknowledges this, affirming that it is requisite to
religious sentiment, although exhibited in various phases; that philosophy affirms - the heart pleads - the
disciples of every positive religion insist - and the devout thinker says: “It
must be so - it is so.” Discarding the pantheistic
notions delivered from this fact (as utterly antagonistic and fatal to covenant
and fulfilment) as warranted and opposed to the truth, we accept of this
general, if not universal, feeling as a proof that a want so intensely felt and
expressed, so thoroughly incorporated with religions, and so vividly delineated
by philosophy as essential, is fully and perfectly met by the
incarnation of “the Christ,” but expressly -
which, alas! so many totally overlook - in His
openly manifested Theocratic position and reign. May every reader deeply ponder
this inexpressibly precious and elevating truth. We only add that a Theocratic Plan so complete, so admirably
adapted (according to the numerous concessions of unbelief), to meet tile wants
of a burdened humanity, could not possibly be evolved by “ignorant fishermen,” seeing that the essentials of a Plan for Redemption are identical with
those that the highest reason affirms
must be requisite factors in a satisfactory and perfect work.
OBSERVATION 6. In the Judgeship of Christ, in His august Kingship, we make “the Man ordained” just, as the Bible does, the central figure,
the culminating point in the salvation
realised in this Kingdom, without discarding or lessening the divine united
with Him. In the Humanity of the Seed of Abraham and David
manifested in the Theocratic order, we have heaven and earth united, indicated
by the predicted ascending and descending angels; we have the otherwise
invisible God dwelling with man (shown by the prophecies of Isaiah,
John,
etc.) bestowing the Adamic blessings once forfeited by sin; and we have man and
the earth restored to the goal originally intended. In this reign we
have the earthly brought up to the level of the heavenly, so that God’s will is
done on earth as in heaven, and the world, redeemed from the torturing power of
the curse, exults in more than Paradisiacal blessings. Surely in all this we honour the Sin and the
Father; we exalt find magnify in their ample and veritable
realisation “the everlasting Covenant.” Let no one, on this
ground, censure us for turning to the early Church doctrine, in which is
advocated, that, finally, at the Second Advent of the Son of Man, David’s Son,
the longing of ages, the feeling of the successive generations after a revealed
Incarnation of God - openly manifested in regal power - will be fully realised;
not in the now vain effort of man to find it in man himself as an outgrowth of
Deity, not in the finding of God in nature and hence in man as the highest
exhibition of nature, but in the Man, Jesus, in and through
whom the Father is seen, in and through whom perfected man is beheld, and in
find through whom man is elevated to the dignity of a recognised sonship with
God.
From all this the
reader can judge the propriety of a writer speaking of “the low and paltry conceptions of Millenarians, which they have formed of
the Second Advent,” when we thus introduce and honour the fulfilment of
the covenants, the faithfulness of the Father, the power and blessed reign of
Jesus, the reign of the saints, the realisation of a glorious dispensation, the
removal of the curse, the rescue of the human race, the restoration and exaltation
of the Jewish nation, the bestowal of Millennial blessedness. Dr.
Berg (Sec.
Advent of Jesus Christ not Pre-Millennial) declares that if Jesu4
thus returns and reigns it produces “a second humiliation,” that He must “lay aside His glory,” that He will dwell again “upon
a sin-cursed earth” “amid scenes of sin, suffering and
death,” etc. This is taking not
merely a superficial, but a low, degrading view of Christ’s inheritance, power,
and glory. It is virtually degrading what the Scriptures eulogize in the highest
possible terms; it is ignoring the praises tendered, because of it, by the “great voices,” Rev. 11: 15-18. and 19: 5, 6. On the other hand, Van Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol. 2), advocating
the Mill. Kingdom as entertained by us, says: “Such a manifestation
we may not expect before the return of
the Lord, but after this return we regard it - even [Page 556] apart from the letter of Scripture - as on internal
grounds, and, moreover, as in the highest degree worthy of God.”
Dr. Imbrie (The Rregeneration, Pre-Millennial Essays,
p. 159) after forcibly presenting
our doctrine, asks: “And what
now, in the presence of all this concurrent testimony, is the objection to this
view so plainly written? The objection is, alas! that
it is a carnal, earthly-minded view. Alas! Alas! Yes, says the objector, that plain
meaning is just the view which the old Jews in Christ’s
time held. It is a carnal view, and as such was rebuked
by Christ. How strangely must the plain declarations of Scripture lead astray,
if this is the case! But the objection is unfounded. It
is not a carnal view, nor was it ever rebuked by Christ. Is it carnal to look for the return of the Lord front heaven? or carnal to wish to see all the nations walking in holiness
before the Lord? or to see
-------
To
be continued, D.V.