THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS, D.D.
[* PROPOSITIONS
149 & 150, VOLUME TWO (pp. 506-523.)]
-------
[Page 506]
PROPOSITION 149. This Kingdom is preceded
by the conflagration of 2 Pet. 3: 10-13.
This is self-evident, since this Kingdom is identified with
the establishment of “the new heavens and new earth”
of Isa. 65:
17, and 66:
22. Peter expressly alludes to these two passages in Isaiah
and appropriates
them as descriptive of “the new heavens and new
earth” presented by himself, in the specific phraseology, “according to promise.” The Millennial
new heavens and new earth thus claimed by the Apostle, and
which are associated with the Kingdom itself, are necessarily preceded by the
fire described. As this forms the leading objection to our doctrine, and
as some have wrongfully (against the most explicit language
of Peter) endeavoured to locate this fire after the thousand years, it is proper to thus
definitely state the facts and assume their weight.
Simply to indicate the perplexity of
commentators (fettered by a pre-conceived idea of the extent of Peter’s
conflagration), and the unwarranted liberties taken with the prediction, we refer e.g. to Dr. Moore (American Translation) in Lange’s Com.,
Isa., p. 113. Acknowledging (1) that Peter refers to those promises in Isa.;
(2) that he evidently regards the
fulfilment to follow the conflagration; (3)
that the condition described is only compatible with the continuation of mortal
men, etc., he then produces the following as a reconciliation: the new heavens
and new earth follow the conflagration, while the remainder of the same
prediction (e.g. verses 20-25) is to precede the fire! Thus he
arbitrarily divides the predictions (Isa. 65: 17-25); 66: 22-24) that God
has joined together, and makes that to precede which
is to occur in the new heavens and earth. All such interpretations indicate a
serious eschatological defect.
OBSERVATION 1. It has been noticed by various Commentators, etc., that the
Jews, before and at the time Peter wrote, expected that the Millennial era,
i.e. the times of Messiah’s reign, would be introduced by great convulsions and a terrible fire. Knapp, if using the word “perishing”
as many do, goes too far when he says (Christ. Theol., s. 155, II. 2): “This doctrine is the perishing of the world by fire was
unquestionably prevalent among the Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles,
although Philo does not accede to it.” That the Jews
believed in a mighty change, in a renovation, purification, regeneration (see Knapp, same place, quoting Philo), etc., of the earth, and that in
some way fire (as the prophets
predicted) should be employed as an agency, seems certain from various
testimony, but that they believed in so widespread and extensive a
conflagration as moderns have fastened upon, Peter, is not only unproven but hostile to the
expectations they had concerning the Messiah’s Kingdom. A little
reflection should suggest, that a people who looked for the restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic
Kingdom over the nation in the flesh, which kingdom was ultimately to embrace
the Gentile nations, could not, and
did not, believe
in that which would utterly demolish all hope. But, as
stated, they did believe that this Kingdom would be preceded by the awful
judgments [Page 507] of God, and that fire would he used in connection with them.
Now the language of Peter accords with
the belief that before the Millennial period could be introduced, such a Pre-Millennial Judgment by fire must be
inflicted; and his undoubted reference to the only promises relating to the new heavens and new
earth in Isaiah would immediately and inevitably - with the prevailing belief - direct the Jewish mind to the Millennial prophecies. If
the latter are to be understood, as so many now teach,
to be fulfilled prior to this conflagration, then Peter took the very means and language to confirm his readers in the opposite view. We
hold that there is no antagonism between Peter and the Jewish belief on the subject.
Houbigant (Pref. to the Prophets), referring to 2 Pet. 3, makes
“the scoffers” to be Jews, who reject Jesus as
the Messiah, because no change, such as the prophets describe, was realised at
His Advent; and profess that it is not to be realised, and that Peter acknowledges
that such a change is to be expected (that changes have already transpired in
the past) at the Second Advent of this same Jesus, thus fulfilling the
prophets. Judge Jones, who refers to Houbigant (Theol. and Lit.
Journal, Jan., 1856), justly doubts whether these “scoffers” are Jews only, saying: “There is more reason to suppose that, for the most part,
they will be from among the Gentiles.” Jews, like the “Reformed” or “Liberal,”
are rapidly drifting into this scoffing position, imitating the larger
proportion of unbelieving Gentiles.
OBSERVATION 2. If we refer to the promises acknowledged by Peter and given by Isaiah, we
find this view strengthened by the context. Thus e.g. Isa. 66:
22 is preceded by “the Lord will come with fire and with His
chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury and His rebuke with
flames of fire. For by fire and by His sword
will the Lord plead with all flesh,” etc. While Isa. 65: 17 only mentions the sword as preceding, yet, if we take the prediction
and turn to its strictly parallel mates, we find that fire also is connected with its
ushering in, as evidenced by the same things being delineated as then taking
place. Thus e.g. take Isa. 51, and at the very time that God will “plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the
earth,” that the redeemed
return with singing and everlasting joy, the judgments of the Lord shall be
poured upon the wicked and “the heavens shall vanish like smoke,” etc. At least one
thing is apparent, that in the context of Millennial predictions (as Ps. 97: 3; Joel 2: 30; Mal. 4: 1, etc.) there are sufficient intimations
to warrant the Jewish belief that there would be, before Messiah’s Kingdom is established, an
extraordinary manifestation of fire in some form, and that Peter in his prediction adopts this very belief by linking his prophecy with Isaiah’s.
Attention is called to the fact that Peter’s agreement with Isa. 66 and 65 is so apparent, and consequently its Millenarian
bias, that it may account for the opposition to the authority of 2
Peter. For, it is a singular fact that the first persons who expressed a
doubt concerning the reception of 2 Peter,
are the men who were the most instrumental in opposing Millennarianism, viz., Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius
(comp. Lardner’s Works,
vol. 6, p. 255), and the prefaces to 2 Pet. in coms. generally).
This, too, may have largely influenced later opposers (as e.g. Davidson, Introd. New Test).
OBSERVATION 3. The reader will observe that Peter, instead of giving the least intimation
that the Millennial period antecedes, in his account knows nothing of the
Millennial era preceding, and gives statements utterly opposed to the notion
that it will be witnessed previous to the conflagration. Without pressing into service his
well-known views respecting the nearness of and looking for, the Advent of
Jesus Christ (which is antagonistic to such an idea), it is sufficient to notice that he speaks of the wicked existing continuously and boldly down to this very
period, and of believers being subjected to their scoffing, etc., down to the same time.
Deliverance is anticipated only when this era preceded by the conflagration arrives;
and hence that Millennial glory, etc., which some describe as anteceding this conflagration is something that Peter fails to
portray or intimate. More than this:
the apostle links this era with the
Millennial predictions by designating it “the day of the Lord,” and “the day of God,” which all at that time understood as
referring to the day (e. g Proposition 138,
etc.) when these Millennial
prophecies would be fulfilled. It was the
distinguished time when God should remarkably manifest His power in behalf of
His people. The apostle only recognises the one day
future associated with this
conflagration. This is in agreement with the general analogy. To illustrate: Mal. 4 describes the day of the Lord “that shall burn as
an oven,”
utterly consuming the outrageous wicked and only leaving the righteous, and previous to this
announced day there is no Millennial rest and blessedness for God’s children. So Joel 2
and 3, the day of the Lord comes when He shall “show wonders
in the heavens, and in the earth blood, and fire,
and pillars of
smoke,” and then
follow the Millennial blessings. Peter, imbibing the same spirit of prophecy,
introduces no discordant element.
The language of Peter only suits a Pre-Millennial period; for the
language expressive of warning, expectedness of warning and denial of Advent, perdition of the ‘wicked’ [kingdom-apostates ( see Num. 14: 21-23; cf.
Num. 16: 26-30, R.V.
etc.)] -
merciful delay only agrees with a time
such as ours, in view of its connection
with well-known previous statements of “the holy prophets” and “the apostles of the Lord,” which are, of primary
importance (verse 3) as a practical inducement to holiness and watchfulness. If this related only to that which
occurs after the Millennial age (of which we have the most meagre statement in Rev. 20), then
the Apostle would not have linked it with persons living in the present
dispensation - [or
this Christless and apostate ‘age’], as something in which they were personally
interested and which they should behold. The very setting of the predictions
favours our position, and the earnestness with which (verse
12) it should be desired by them, is confirmatory
of our view.
OBSERVATION 4. It is admitted, generally, that the scenes
described by Peter follow the Second
Advent. When Christ comes, He comes “in flaming fire taking vengeance,” etc. (2 Thess. 1: 8), with “fiery indignation” (Heb.
10: 27) that shall consume His enemies. It is at this Advent that believers - [some
being ‘left’ to endure Antichrist’s persecutions
(Rev. 3: 10, cf. Luke
21: 34-36,
etc.)] - are also delivered and exalted. The
language of Peter, the entire tenor and scope of his description, evinces that he
places the Advent - object of terror to the wicked and of joy to the [obedient (Acts 5: 32) and
repentant
(see Luke 13: 3,
5; Mark 6:
12, cf. Matt.
18: 3)] righteous - at this period of time. This, therefore, is utterly irreconcilable
with the theory, (Shimeall and
others), that this conflagration follows a thousand years after a personal
Pre-Millennial Advent of Christ. The “appearing and the Kingdom” are united, and consequently the
appearing, the glorification of believers, the
fiery vengeance upon living [disobedient believers - “For he
that doth wrong…” (
Let the reader e.g. turn to Joel 2:
31 and
kindred prophecies, and if it is admitted
that “the great and terrible day of the Lord” is
introduced by the Second Advent of Jesus (as general analogy teaches), then it
follows that such a fearful time (coinciding with Peter’s description) is succeeded
by a Millennial period, as the
connection shows. The same is true of Zeph. 2:
3; Isa. 24; Deut. 32: 22; Mal. 4, and
numerous other predictions, all descriptive of a fiery vengeance that shall consume the earth (which we know from the most positive declarations is
imposed at the personal Coming of the Son of Man), followed by a glorious Millennial
period, in which the Jewish
nation is pre-eminently blessed, and
in which the Gentile nations joyfully participate. Now, when the [Holy] Spirit [Page 509] lays down this
order, and does this repeatedly, we certainly should
be guarded lest we reverse it.
OBSERVATION 5. The reader will notice that the Kingdom (as our entire line
of argument shows) is introduced at the Pre-Millennial Advent of Jesus, and that Christ then receives His
inheritance [see Ps.
2: 8, 110.& 72. etc.] as David’s Son. These two facts alone
set aside the views of those (as e.g. Shimeall
in I Will Come
Again, and Lincoln in Lects. on Rev., and Burgh, Tyso, and Ogilvy), who
make conflagration Post-Millennial, introductory to an eternal
state of things. Now on the other hand the Scriptures make the glorious
Theocracy established at Jesus’ return one that is perpetual, ever-enduring
(Comp. Proposition
159, where this is considered in detail), and consequently it does not run
the risk of ever being removed or destroyed by the universality of the
conflagration. The promises of God forbid it, and therefore, as e.g. in Dan. 7 (where
the fire of vengeance, verse 10, 11, precedes or is connected with the establishment of the
Kingdom) the Kingdom set up at the Coming of Jesus is declared to be one which
shall not pass away or be destroyed. Again - to advocate such
an opinion is virtually to say that Christ’s
inheritance, promised
under oath in perpetuity to Him, shall be swept away by a conflagration - an
inheritance too for which He suffered and died, which is to be to Him a desire
and joy and glory, and which He has already (Isa. 65 and 66) retouched with His creative energy. Surely the
brethren who hold to the above opinion do not see that, in the attempt to avoid
difficulties connected with Peter’s account of the conflagration, plunge
themselves into far greater by the adoption of such a Post-Millennial view. The
fire of Peter must, of necessity, be so interpreted as to preserve the unity of divine
teaching, and how this is to be done will be the subject of the next Proposition.
For the same reasons we must reject the opinion of Fausset (Com., 2
Pet. 3, and Rev.
21: 1)
that the fire of Peter is in part Pre-Millennial and in part
Post-Millennial, the latter the most extended and destructive. Now,
aside from Peter describing only one fire and the introduction of only
one “new
heavens and new earth,” which exists forever because righteousness dwells in it -
which this view arbitrarily makes to
be two - it is sufficient to say that the Kingdom and inheritance of Christ
forbids the entertaining of such an opinion, because derogative to both. So Elliott (Hor. Apoc.)
makes a Pre-Millennial restricted fire, limiting it to the Roman earth, but
does not exclude “the idea of some other and more
universal conflagration at the general judgment.” We cannot, consistent
with the reasons assigned accept of such interpretations, which sweep away an
eternally constructed
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 510]
PROPOSITION 150. The establishment of this Kingdom
is not affected by the extent of Peter’s
conflagration.
It is important to notice this in
detail (and the reader will please observe that the following Propositions
are part of the discussion) since two classes make the conflagration of Peter
an insuperable objection to the reception of the doctrine of the Kingdom. Those
opposed to Millenarianism, as Brown,
Steele, Barnes, Waldegrave, and
many others, inform us that owing to the universality of the fire it is
impossible to conceive how nations in the flesh, Jewish and
Gentile, can survive it to form the subjects of the Kingdom. Every work written
against us produces the stereotyped difficulty, as if irremovable. Recently
some Millenarians, as Shimeall and
others (through an amiable weakness which impelled them to remove what they
call “the great stumbling-block in the way of an
acceptance of the truth”), have repeated this objection, locating the
fire of Peter after the Millennial age.* It hence deserves
special consideration.
* Shimeall (I Will Come Again) writes many excellent things
worthy of attention, but he certainly, with the amount of proof given in
support of his own position on this point, goes too far when he charges distinguished Millenarians (Dr. Cumming by name, Pref., p. 19) with holding to “a stupendous theological misnomer,” of “greatly damaging that system of revealed truth,” of
forming “the great stumbling block in the way of
inquires after the truth,” and of “a Judaizing
and carnalising the future state and condition of Christ and His saints.” Charity should influence us always to
remember that in the details of prophetic fulfilment, however cordial our
agreement in the great leading outlines, yet, owing to the vastness of the
subjects, the difficulties connected with them, the necessity of close
comparison, and our own limited capacities, we, ought reasonably to expect some
diversity of opinion. Let us add that with the light before us we fail to see
how Shimeall’s modern addition adds any weight to the doctrine of the early Church (it virtually degrades it as carnal, etc.), or how it aids to make
Millenarianism one iota more credible and respectable for the sake of a “distinguished Post-Millenarian clergyman.”
Millenarianism depends on immensely more than our comprehension of Peter’s conflagration, viz., on the
covenants and the promises of God, etc. If the latter do not urge the student
to a Millenarian bias, certainly an accommodating interpretation of Peter’s
fire will not cause it.
OBSERVATION 1. As stated in preceding Proposition, the language of Peter was in accordance with the views
of the Jews. They evidently did not consider the fire so disastrous in its
effects that no nations would survive
and that the Kingdom could not be set up over the nations as Daniel predicted. The proof is, that all the
Jewish converts and churches, as far as we know, never supposed that this passage controverted such an opinion. Instead being a stumbling-block in the way, this passage was thought to be confirmatory of their belief of the dreadful fire
which should devour the adversaries (Dan.
7: 10, 11, “fiery stream,”
“the burning flame”), when [Page 511] the Messiah would come. Jewish
believers held that Peter only transferred that
which they had believed would occur at the First Advent, to the Second Advent.
Hence the apostle’s statement strengthened them (by his appeal to Isaiah and using the phrase, “day of the
Lord,” etc.) in
the faith, expressed by the Babylonian Targum (on Gen. 49: 10), “Christ shall come, whose is
the Kingdom, and all nations shall be subject unto Him.” Peter’s
description, therefore, raised no controversy between the
Jewish believers and others.
The critical student will please ponder the weight to be attached
to this reasoning. (1)
We have the entire Primitive Church universally Millenarian in sentiment; (2) now, if the language of Peter, as
moderns (Brown, Waldegrave, etc.) assert, forbids the Pre-Millenarian view, then an antagonism would have sprung up in
reference to the meaning of his prediction; (3) but instead of such a controversy arising, it was accepted as in
complete accord with prevailing views; (4) this could only have resulted from its being explained as so
limited in its effects as not
to interfere with the restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom and with
the perpetuity of the race, as e.g. in the restored Jewish nation and the
spared Gentile nations. The first converts were all Jews, who clung with
faith to the covenants and prophecies insuring such a fulfilment, and they
believed in Jesus as the Messiah, who at His Second Advent would perform this
work. Now, if they had supposed that Peter’s language raised
up an irreconcilable difficulty, we certainly would have transmitted to us the
impression of such an antagonism. On the other hand, they
were conversant with the usage of Scripture language, which expressed itself
with a degree of universality, when limitations were intended, so that for the
sake of vividness and impressiveness universality was expressed to denote
extensiveness, greatness, vastness, etc, Thus e.g. take the expressions, Gen. 6: 7: “And the Lord said, I
will destroy man, whom I have created, from the
face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping
thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them:” or verse 13 “The end of all
flesh is come before me, behold I will destroy
them with the earth;” or verse 17; “to destroy all flesh, wherein
is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die,” and
yet, notwithstanding this alleged universality, God found means to save the
life and the flesh of those in whom His divine purpose would be carried out.
So the early Christians confidently rested in the
promises of God that, notwithstanding this terrible judgment of fire, those
would be saved - in the flesh also - in whom the Divine Purpose would be
strikingly manifested.
OBSERVATION 2. The early Church, receiving its teaching direct from inspired teachers
(and appealing to them, as Papias, Justin, Irenaeus), found no such limitation as was afterward engrafted upon Peter’s language. That
Church which claimed (as Semisch, Herzog’s Cyclop. speaking of Justin’s, Dial. with Trypho, doctrinal
position) its “belief as the Keystone of orthodoxy,”
which in the person of Papias (as
stated by Jerome*),
directly named Peter’s instruction, received the epistle without, regarding it
as presenting the slightest objection to their doctrine of the Second Coming
of Jesus, the fearful overthrow (fire as an agency) of His enemies, the
exaltation of the resurrected saints, the re-establishment of the Davidic
throne and Kingdom over the restored Jewish nation and the spared Gentile
nations. One and all held to the fulfilment of
the covenant and the prophecies based upon it as succeeding this conflagration: This is clearly
announced in their writings. It may be justly claimed, that
men who were so near to apostolic teaching, and acquainted with the
language then spoken, were qualified to judge how far Peter’s statement of the fire was to
be pressed.
* See Brookes, El. Proph. Inter., p. 37, etc.,
where the extracts, with remarks, are given from Eusebius and Jerome.
So Shimeall (Eschalol., p. 64), who quotes; “He did not [Page 512] follow various opinions, but had the apostles for his authors, and that he
considered what Andrew, what Peter said, what Philip, what Thomas, and
other disciples of the Lord; as also
what Aristian and John the Senior, disciples of the Lord, what they spoke,” etc. Another passage refers to his
having “learned from the elders,”
etc., but does not mention Peter by
name.
OBSERVATION 3. It is noticeable that no Millenarian author has taken advantage of the
doubts cast upon the canonical authority, of the Second Epistle. This has been done by our opponents and not by us. That epistle was never urged in the first centuries as antagonistic to Chiliasm, for the leading objection to it was that derived
from its being too favourable to our doctrine, owing to its “Jewish conceptions.” If we were to accept of its rejection - as suggested by opposers -
that would at once end the discussion, seeing that the only passage relied upon to prove that the perpetuity
of the Jewish nation and the race is irreconcilable with the universality of
the fire at the end of the age, is to be found in this
Epistle. But we are not forced to dispute its genuineness or authority, being
willing to receive it, on the testimony alleged in its favour, as canonical.* The opposition to the Epistle, if so
fatal to our doctrine as assumed by many, ought to have come from Millenarians
and not from its opponents.
* Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius cast doubts upon it. If we could accept
of the reasons assigned by Dr. Neander
(His. Plant.
Ch. Church, vol. 1, p.
376), to prove the spurious character of the 2nd
Epistle, then all difficulty would vanish. Pressense
(Early Years of
Christianity, note 1, attached to p. 213) declares it impossible to
admit with any certainty the authenticity of the second epistle. He refers to
others who doubted it, and includes Calvin
as expressing a doubt. This is mentioned to
indicate to the reader that in such a discussion, if disposed, some
weight might be attached to
the grounds given for its rejection upheld by such men, etc. But
we have no desire to place ourselves behind the shield thus provided for us,
still believing that the objections presented against its authenticity, etc.,
are too slight - when compared with the evidence in favour - to set aside this
portion of the authorized canon. (Comp. Alford’s
Prolegomena,
vol. 4, p. 1)
OBSERVATION 4. If there is a passage which
should be examined and explained according to “the
analogy of faith,” it certainly ought to be this one of Peter’s.
The reason is apparent; it is the only passage of Scripture
which our opponents allege as conveying an irreconcilable difficulty in the way
of accepting what (as we have shown) is taught in the naked grammatical sense
in Covenant and Prophecy, and what was unmistakably believed in by the
primitive Church. To make a single passage overthrow the Jewish faith, the early Church
faith, and, above all, that constant harmony of Scriptural
statement down to that point, and to make it the necessity for introducing a
spiritualistic interpretation of preceding Scripture, is imposing too much upon
one text and is violating the proportion due to the doctrines of the Bible. The
rules given by Horne (Introd.,
vol. 1, p. 342, etc.), are worthy of attention, and if applied will inevitably relive our
doctrine of the kingdom from any alleged incubus said to be imposed by
Peter. Surely when our doctrine of the [Lord’s
Messianic and Millennial] Kingdom is
founded in the oath-bound covenant
given to David, is reiterated by prophets, is preached, etc., as Proposition
after Proposition
has proven, then it ought not to be set aside, or weakened, or
condemned by one passage; then the passage assumed to be contradictory ought to be explained in the light of that vast amount of testimony preceding
it; then the lesser ought to be interpreted by the greater, the more brief by the more extended,
the doubtful by the plainly revealed.
[Page 513]
If we only had Peter’s description of
the conflagration, it might be supposed to be as destructive as many tell us it
will be; but unless - having numerous other passages referring to the same - we
find this corroborated by other parallel passages, we may easily make a
mistake. The apparent unlimited phraseology is no infallible criterion: for as
all concede, it is the custom of Scripture to employ the most general language
when a limitation in point of fact exists. Thus e.g. “it is appointed unto all
men to die,” but
some we have through Paul will not die, but be changed - so “all Judea” went up, etc., teaching us both that we should ascertain whether all passages
sustain the universality supposed to exist, and that the current usage of such
language ought also to be considered. Take e.g. the apparently unlimited
expressions of Deut.
32: 22;
Isa. 24:
19, 20, etc. which certainly cannot
be exceeded by Peter’s language, and we
find even in the following context that they are to be so limited as not to
destroy the land, the Jewish and Gentile nations. If we
were to take such prophecies isolated, and
insist that the language must be literally fulfilled just as they read, without
any regard to the context or other passages, and without considering that the
vengeance of God is thus represented to indicate its intensity, severity, and
certainty of extended searching range, we could readily rear up a host of
alleged antagonisms.
OBSERVATION 5. Peter’s representation of the Kingdom, as given in his own writings, would be vitiated, if we accept of the extravagant estimates
made concerning the extent of this fire. Omitting the allusion to Isa. 65:
17 and 66: 22) and to “the day of the
Lord” as used by
the prophets and Jews, sufficient remains to show that he looked for a Kingdom to appear on [this] earth after this fire, and in the form advocated by us. In this same Epistle, Ch. 1, he shows no other Kingdom than the future everlasting [Gk.
‘aionios’] Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ;
for which he urges the brethren to
strive, faith in which was confirmed by the Transfiguration (Proposition 153),
and which he represents (as Pet. 4: 7) as not
very distant, thus connecting it with this same Advent and conflagration.
Now in the First Epistle, in harmony with the Second, he
makes the inheritance and salvation, “ready to be
revealed in the last time,”
dependent (1 Pet. 1:
7, 13;
compare with 2 Pet. 3: 13, 14) upon “the appearing of Jesus Christ;” and “the grace that is to be
brought unto you at the revelation of
Jesus Christ” corresponds with “the new heavens and new earth.” In both
Epistles believers are “pilgrims and strangers,” suffering, etc., and urged to hope for deliverance, etc., at the
Second Advent. The entire spirit expressed is, a deferring of the Kingdom -
promised by the prophets 1 Pet. 1: 11, 13 - until this period. This
ignoring of a present Kingdom, and looking for one future, at the Advent, to
fulfil the prophets - who locate Messiah’s Kingdom on earth as we advocate - is
evidence, if we will but accept of it, that he himself had no idea of the
prediction, such as multitudes fasten upon it, seeing that the “everlasting [Gk.
“aionios”] Kingdom”
once established is ever more perpetuated, and hence is not to be destroyed by
fire at the end of the thousand years.
The reader is urged
to observe the following facts additional, established under previous propositions.
The times of refreshing and restitution (Proposition 144), the Regeneration (Proposition 145),
the deliverance of creation (Proposition 146), the Rest [see
Heb. ch. 4] (Proposition
143), etc., all begin with
this Second Advent and the manifestation of the sons of God, and a glorious
period of deliverance and salvation is experienced, which is invariably
described as unending. Now, after such restitution and such blessedness, after a marvellous restoration to forfeited
blessings and an exhibition of Christ’s dominion, can a single reason (unless it be derived - as is done -
from 2 Pet. 3) be
assigned for a universal and total conflagration? Is it reasonable, that the work
of Christ, exemplified by a thousand years of practical reigning and results, should suddenly be blotted out of existence by a devouring
conflagration? It seems to us derogatory to Christ’s honour and glory, as well
as to the saints, who are co-heirs with
Him, to thus summarily dispose of the glorious
Millennial [Page 514] earth, described by the prophets in
the most glowing terms. A renewal (for e.g. Prof. Robinson makes in N. T. Lexicon.
“kainos” “new,”
to be “renewed,” “made
new,” as used in 2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 6: 15) is predicated both of the earth
restored to Edenic condition) and of the Kingdom (Davidic tabernacle rebuilt),
and this is associated by the Scriptures, Jews, and early Christians with a Pre-Millennial
Coming of the Messiah. This renewal, whatever additions successive ages may add
in their progress, is always represented as perpetual,
never
ending. “The world to come” is the
Millennial world, as we have sufficiently proven (Proposition 137), and its
perpetuity is invariably asserted, for with the obtaining of the same is linked
the ever-enduring blessedness of the saints. When Jesus said
“My Kingdom is not of this world,” He used the
word “cosmos” and not “aion”
(as some erroneously suppose, building an argument on the error), the same word
used, John 15: 19,
“Ye are not of the world,” importing the renewal
of the disciples, and hence this “cosmos” or “this world” experiences a change or renewal before “the everlasting Kingdom” is introduced in it,
becoming “the world to come.”
OBSERVATION 6. It must be observed, that while the Second
Advent of Jesus is spoken of as a coming in “flaming fire,” etc., to destroy His enemies etc.,
it is at the same time represented as a coming
to bless the earth, so that the earth is called upon to rejoice
in His Advent, as e.g. Ps.
96: 11-13; Ps. 98: 4-9, etc. Creation,
as we have seen Propositions 145 and 146,
is to exult in this Coming for deliverance,
so that it is declared to follow as a
result from the antecedent humiliation, death, and exaltation of Christ, the
resurrection of His saints, etc., as
e.g. Ps. 69: 34 (noticing how the previous portion of the Psalm
is applied to Jesus in his death,
etc. See Proposition 126). Now
such deliverance of creation,
such a rejoicing of the earth in the removal of the curse, is
not witnessed down to the Advent, and if fulfilled, as written and promised, necessitates, in the very nature of the case, a very material limitatation to the
destructiveness of this fire. Any endorsement of the sweeping assertions made
respecting its universality and totality introduces at once antagonism (unnecessary)
between one passage and a host of others relating to the same time. This is the
reason why so many (Proposition 146) employ language respecting
the deliverance of creation, insist upon complete restoration, etc., and yet
are afraid to mention the animal kingdom or animate nature, fearful that
Peter’s conflagration would prove all objection to its utterance. Surely there must be something wrong in an interpretation,
which builds up from this passage irreconcilable features to other portions of the Word.
In order to show how
our opponents raise up an antagonism, and involve themselves in the gravest
contradictions, the following illustration (out of a multitude) is appended; MacKnight (On the Epistles), while advocating an utter destruction of the
world by fire (in support of his Popish view of the judgment day, etc.), gives
us this pharaphrastic interpretation of 2 Pet.
3: 13,
which contains the most ample refutation of his own theory: “Nevertheless, according to God’s promise to Abraham, as
explained, Isa. 65: 17, we who believe firmly expect the creation of new heavens and
of a new earth, wherein righteous men shall dwell forever.” Now, let the reader
turn to Isa. 65
and see how utterly irreconcilable the description of the new heavens and
earth is to his complete and utter destruction of the world by fire; for mortal
men in the flesh, engaged in worldly occupations, living to a great age - according to his own
reference - still exist, notwithstanding his utter destruction of all
things, and survive in this renewal. And then
his reference to Abraham - to whom this earth, and not another, was
promised - likewise invalidates his wholesale deductions from Peter’s language.
To indicate how opponents, after employing 2 Pet.
3 against us, and positively affirming its
meaning to be opposed to our view, refuse to give an exposition of the chapter,
we refer to Dr. Brown. In a Review of Dr. Bwown’s “Life and Works,”
in the North. Brit.
Review, Aug. 1860, it is stated that he published comments on
various parts of the New Testament, including the First Epistle of Peter and
the first chapter of the Second Epistle, and it is significantly added: “He would not, however, venture to expound the
remaining chapters till ‘better
informed and more fully [Page 515] assured,’
for many difficulties occurred in them; a token
that he was now feeling one of the symptoms of age, in being afraid of that
which is high.’”
While we may admire the modesty of the man, which recognized the difficulties
(as e.g. the connection with Isa. 65: 17, etc.)
of reconciling this chapter with his system of belief, yet it
certainly finds no expression when employing the same against Millenarianism.
OBSERVATION 7. As just intimated, any view of Peter’s statement which
makes an imperfect redemption, in not restoring the earth, the animate
creation, and the race of man to their forfeited position, ought at once to be
rejected as inconsistent with the
Divine Purpose respecting Redemption as given in covenant and promise, and with
the perfection, honour, and glory of the Redeemer (Proposition 140, Obs.
7).
To make this earth, animated creation, and the race of man,
as such, all to be destroyed, rooted out of existence, or (as a climax) to have
it all one mass of fire, perpetuated in this state to constitute (so Pres. Edwards’ His Redemp., p. 421) an eternal
hell (!) for sinners and devils - this is to make Redemption incomplete, to keep this earth forever under the curse, to restore
only a few of the forfeited blessings, and
to diminish, with fearful rigor, some of
the most comprehensively precious promises that the Bible contains.
Strange indeed that men should allow one passage to crush the hope engendered in a groaning creation, in
a sin-cursed earth, in the longings of nations, and to limit the rich and full
restitution of all things and the expressed ability and willingness of the
Mighty King to perform it. The early Church could not be so illogical.
Hence it is that a vast multitude of writers,
whatever view they take of the extent of the conflagration, coincide with the
statement of the Ency. Brit., art. “Conflagration,” viz., “it
is more consistent with the narrative itself, as well as with physical science,
to consider it as introductory to a new and better state of things - a new
heavens and new earth.” The difficulty of otherwise reconciling Peter’s
language with that of the prophets has evidently led to the view expressed by
this writer, “some learned and able expositors, among
them Lightfoot and Owen,” make it figurative, and “have referred it altogether to the destruction of
OBSERVATION 8. Having clearly shown from the covenant made with David.
etc., that the land and
the earth is Christ’s, that the Jewish nation as
such (associated with the Theocracy), and other nations through it, belong to
Christ, that both form “the
inheritance” of
David’s Son, it is presuming to fasten such an interpretation upon 2 Pet.
3 as will at once and forevermore destroy the very inheritance which is
promised to Him. “Feeble and
Weak” as the apostolic and primitive Fathers were, in some respects,
when compared with the profound (?) learning of modern theologians, yet none of
them has been guilty of so great a
violation of propriety as
to introduce a doctrine which sweeps away the inheritance of Jesus and that of
His saints; which makes it utterly impossible for either to inherit promises
most solemnly attested to by the oath
of the Eternal One. It was preserved for men of
real intellectual strength and
mental ability to do this; for those ancient worthies, relying upon the simplicity of the Scriptures, and that every
word of God is equally true, could find no such doctrine in [Page 516] Peter. Explaining (as justice and reason both suggest) Peter by the two promises of Isaiah, they
found, as we also find to day, ample evidence that Christ’s promised inheritance is
not affected by the extent of
the conflagration. Turn again to those two passages and see
how associated with the new heavens and new earth is the restoration and
perpetuity of the Jewish race, of Gentile nations, and even the continued
existence and change of animals, and it will be seen how impossible it was for
a faith which clung both to the covenant given to David and to
Peter’s undoubted linking of Isaiah’s predictions with his own portrayal of
what should take place in connection with this fire, to adopt an interpretation
which virtually denies to David’s Son His own
covenanted throne,
Kingdom, people, land, etc. It is
true, that those who do this strive to give to Him something
which they esteem far better, and thus suppose that
they honour Him the more; but this also is done at the expense of ignoring the covenant and going
beyond the record.
If this fire is, as multitudes
declare, a total destruction of this globe (and some even include the planets,
etc.), or if it is as destructive and terrible as the Seventh-Day Adventists and others make it during the thousand
years, how is it possible to verify the precise language given to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Proposition 49) that the identical land and countries through which they passed, upon which they reclined, and
which they beheld, should be their personal inheritance? Whatever changes
the fire may introduce, however terrible in its sweep of vengeance, the
promises of inheritance convey the idea that geographically (for the rivers Nile and
OBSERVATION 9. The time of this
fire is the time when “the harvest of the earth” is gathered and the tares (Matt. 13: 30, 39, 40) shall be “burned in the fire” (as “the ungodly men” mentioned by Peter), but this harvest
(Rev. 14: 14-20) occurs under the seventh trumpet preceding the Millennial
age. When this conflagration takes place it is associated with the resurrection
of the saints, for Peter encourages believers to expect a glorious deliverance
at that period; this accurately corresponds with
the resurrection (Rev. 11: 15-18) and rewarding of the saints under the last trumpet when “the sovereignty of this world” shall be wielded by Christ. The mention of “the Day of Judgment”
(compare Propositions
133 and 134) with a knowledge of the Jewish and
Scriptural method of speaking of that day, viz., to be followed by Messiah’s
Kingdom here on earth as the Millennial prophecies declare; these are
additional reasons why we should not force
upon Peter an interpretation which must result in introducing an element of
discord, thus preventing a harmonious adjustment between the Old and New
Testaments.
Compare preceding and following propositions. Hence
we cannot receive the expressed views of able writers, as e.g. that given by Brookes (The Truth, vol. 2, No. 12, p. 357),
who lays down the following procedure at the close of the thousand years: “Then will follow the burning of the earth and the works that
are therein, the new heavens and the earth wherein dwelleth righteousness,”
etc., and we find plenty of concessions respecting the inheritance of the
Patriarchs and of the Son of David, the Millennial new [Page 517] heavens
and new earth of lsa. 65 and 66, the
perpetuity of Millennial blessedness, the
Pre-Millennial Advent and fiery indignation, etc., scattered through his interesting
writings, which amply refute this view. Indeed, we cannot see how brethren,
when the
perpetuity of the Millennial heavens and earth
is expressly
affirmed by the Spirit, can possibly have a conflagration of such an
inheritance. On the other hand, we admire the logical
consistency of that class of writers (as e.g. Dr. Seiss in his able third discourse in The Last Times, D. N. Lord in various articles in The Theol. and Lit,
Journal, etc.), who make this fire Pre-Millennial, and have the
Millennial earth to pass into the eternal ages without losing a
particle of its glory by so terrific and destructive a conflagration.
Let the student consider that covenant promises and numerous predictions based
upon the same outweigh all such deductions of a deluge of utter destructive
fire, Pre- or Post-Millennial.
OBSERVATION 10. This passage has received various interpretations. (1.) One class to which we have alluded (Proposition 133, Obs.
1;
Proposition
141, Obs.
1,
etc.), being the most extravagant interpretation
to bear upon Peter, by which they evolve not only the utter destruction of
the earth but that of the planetary system. As the very prodigality of
expression and profuseness of imaginary extent is - aside from the arguments
herein presented - the best refutation of its unscriptural attitude, it may be
passed by without additional remark.1 There is another class, allied with these in a rigorous
interpretation, but far more moderate in their estimation of the ultimate
result of this fire. While advocating its universality and the burning up of
all things, etc., they at the same time deny that annihilation is denoted or
such complete destruction is intended as to forbid the
renewal and perpetuity of the same earth. In addition to the writers mentioned
(Proposition
140, etc.) who hold to this, many others could be added, as e.g. Augustine, Griffin, Jay, Gregory the Great, Fuller, Pope, Benson, Urwick, Hodge, James, Brown, Pye Smith, etc.
The distinguishing peculiarity of these two classes is,
that they make the conflagration post-Millennial. Another class, who make the fire. about as
disastrous as the second class noticed, and yet hold that it is Pre-Millennial,
that it will be followed by the setting up of Christ’s Kingdom as predicted in
the Millennial prophecies - are represented by Cumming* (The Gr. Trib., Lect.,
12), Irving (Orations), Gill (Divinity),
and others. These three classes, by the extent of the fire advocated, make no provision for the
Kingdom to exist in its expressed covenanted terms, and none for the deliverance of inanimate and animate
creation, having the same destroyed and an entire new creation erected from the
ashes, etc. Instead of the curse being removed from the existing world, the world falls beneath the curse and is
sacrificed, so that an entire new one which has never borne a curse may be created. The
position, however, of the one party, that the fire
is Pre-Millennial, is undoubtedly correct. (2.) Then we find a large class who make the entire fire a figurative description; and these again are
divided into different parties. Thus e.g. that one which makes the
destruction of the heavens and earth the overthrow of the Jewish polity, etc.,
and the new heavens and new earth the introduction of the Christian polity,
etc.; so Dr. Hammond, and various of the destructive critics. Others,
as Prof. Bush (Mill., p. 202, etc.), taking the
figurative view, apply it to the overthrow of systems of error, etc., by the
purifying influence of the truth (i.e. fire), which is yet [Page 518] to bring about “that renovated order of things, moral, mental, and political,”
etc. 2 Dr. Thomas (Elips.Israel), and Christadelphians generally, refer the destruction to the Jewish
polity, but explain the new heavens and earth to be still future, the introduction
of the new polity under the Messiah at His Second Coming (thus separating by a
long interval what Peter unites in succession). In
regard to such applications of the figurative sense, it may be observed, that
the destruction here presented, whatever it may denote, is inseparably
joined with the Second Advent, the Day of Judgment, and the Day
of the Lord, and hence is still future; while the contrasting with the literal
perishing at the deluge indicates that more must be attached to it than the
simply figurative. Mede (Works, Exp. Peter),
and others, in adopting the figurative conflagration, are more logical and
consistent with the tenor of Peter’s statements when they make it adumbrating
or symbolising the overthrow of governments, systems, etc., at the close of this dispensation,
preparatory to the establishment (comp.). Lord, Apoc., 21: 5) of the Kingdom or government under the Messiah.
It must be admitted, when the figurative language of
Scripture is consulted and compared (see Sir
I. Newton’s Obs. on Proph., p. 1, Ch. 2; Faber’s
Dis. on Proph.,
Daubuz, Perp. Com. on Rev.,
writings of Brookes, Bickersteth, etc.) with each other and
with Peter’s language, there is sufficient
force in the
comparison instituted to lead to a belief that it is, at least, included. The Scriptures
sometimes include the physical with the moral, etc., as in the birth, death,
and resurrection of Jesus, etc. To make it entirely figurative destroys at once
the express contrast instituted by Peter
respecting the perishing of the old world by water; and to make it entirely
literal is to ignore the Scripture usage of such language.
Taking into consideration the views then prevalent derived from the prophets,
the style in which the prophecies are given, and the fact that both things
(viz., the overthrow of all human governments and the renovation of the earth)
are really embraced at this period, it seems the
most consonant to
believe that Peter comprehends both, that as
water was used to destroy the old world, materially and in its governmental
arrangements, so fire (not excluding other agencies) shall be employed in
modifying and changing the present heavens and earth, materially and in the
overthrow of earthly governments, and that the result will be the introduction
of a new heavens, and new earth, materially renewed, and in the establishment
of the Theocratic Kingdom. The old “heavens” really did not perish excepting as
they adumbrate governments, etc. The contrasting of the three worlds - the
three heavens and earth - seems to demand something like this interpretation, that the truth lies somewhere between the
figurative and literal application, embracing both in the manner pointed out. For, let
us impress a reader with a fact, already noticed in Paul, that the apostles, in
view of the enmity and persecuting spirit already prevalent, and which they
knew was yet to come, could not be too cautious to
express their views respecting the certain
overthrow of certain governments; and that all such teaching, to
avoid bitter animosity and persecution, had, in the nature of the case, to be
couched in prophetic language. The wisdom and admirable tact of Peter
(as in Acts
3, using restitution) is
noticeable, in his taking language not only correspondent with, the usage of the prophets, but even in accordance with that employed
by the nations around him,3 and which
virtually comprehends both. (3.) Then again there is an able and growing party who advocate that
the fire of Peter will be literally
experienced, but that it [Page 519] is confined to
localities (some few writers have confined it to Judea or Palestine, others to
the Roman earth, and still others have made it local, and by slow degrees,
gradually extending over the earth), and will not be so disastrous or extensive
as many suppose.4 This view was early
presented, has more or less continue, and recently has had a number of writers
to express it in a most forcible manner. D. N. Lord in several of his writings, Dr. Seiss in his Last Times (see it eloquently
presented in Third Dis., also “Day of the Lord”),
and others, have argued against the universality of the fire (1) from the declared perpetuity of the
earth; (2) the Noacic covenant, which
promises no such destruction ill the future as that of the deluge;5 (3)
the saint’s inheritance; (4) the
meaning of Peter’s phraseology; (5)
the design of the fire, “the perdition
of ungodly men;” (6) the agreements of Peter’s language with the descriptions
of volcanic eruptions, etc.; (7) the
language of the prophets describing the same events, etc. They exhibit those fires as dreadful and connected with “terrific phenomena.”
In conclusion: looking at those various interpretations, the
dispassionate student will certainly feel inclined - considering the Oneness of
the [Holy] Spirit through whom holy
men spake - to give the preference to those who, instead of taking Peter’s
prophecy isolated and then proceed to build upon it a
series of tremendous doctrines, endeavour to ascertain its meaning by a comparison with the analogy of faith,
with other predictions given by the same [Holy]
Spirit. Caution must be engendered by the simple fact that equally as strong
language as Peter
uses is employed by Nah. 1: 5 in reference to
* [From bottom of page 517] And yet, in justice to Dr.
Cumming, it must be said that in various places he expresses himself as if
limiting the general destructiveness of the fire, as e.g. in the context of the
oft-quoted passage: “Look at the floor on which you
tread,” etc. See also his Sermon on Rev.
20: 6.
1 See e.g. a specimen given by Dr. Seiss, p. p. 67, Last Times, which he appropriately calls “sublime nonsense.” The descriptive powers of some men
are exhibited in what may aptly be called “fire-theology.” To give another illustration: in Priest’s View of the Millennium, we have the
following: “The planets dash against each other,”
fly toward the sun and “will dash one against the
other, which indeed will be a wreck of matter and a crush of world on fire.”
Somehow or other, while this dashing of planets is going on,
our earth still remains in its orbit to pass through the appointed ordeal; it “hangs amid the trembling air,” which air is caused to
tremble by Gabriel’s voice that is equal to “the
treasured thunders of ten thousand years bursting from their iron vaults”
(whatever that may mean), and “the great solar vortex
breaks forth in flames of fire,” “lakes of
fire, rivers of melted glowing matter, ten thousand volcanoes vomiting flames
all at once, thick darkness, and pillars of smoke twisted about with wreaths of
flame like fiery snakes, mountains of earth thrown into the air and the heavens
dropping down in lumps of fire,”
until finally the earth becomes “a molten sea
of fire,” and it “shall be thrown from its orb
to where a hell of fire in the deep recess of eternal night hath its place.”
Alas! that numerous such specimens can be found in Roman Catholic and Protestant
writers, so derogatory to the Plan of Redemption and the honour and
glory of Jesus Christ. It is saddening to read such views as are given by
Prest. Edwards in his History of Redemption, by Scott in his Com. loci, (which is approvingly quoted by Bloomfield, Com. loci, as reducing all things “to as confused a chaos as that from which it was first
created;” and who also indorses Shakespeare’s oft-repeated saying respecting “the great globe” dissolving “And
like the baseless fabric of a dream, leave not a wreck behind.”); by Barnes, Com. loci, and others. We are forced to ask whether the doctrine of many divines does
not accord with that of Sophocles, as quoted by Justin. On the Sole Gov. of God:
“That time of times, shall come, shall surely come,
When from the golden ether
down shall fall
Fire’s teeming treasure,
and in burning flames
All things of earth and
heaven shall be consumed;
And then when all creation
is dissolved,
The sea’s last wave shall
die upon the shore,
The bald earth stript of
trees, the burning air
No winged thing upon its breast shall bear.”
2 Others, favouring a present development through existing means,
interpret it to denote “a universal renovation of
manners, sentiments, and actions throughout the world,” or “a universal triumph of political freedom, general wisdom,
and exalted piety” - but how it is to remove the curse, make the earth
beautiful, etc, as portrayed in Millennial descriptions, they fall to tell us -
only asserting that it will. See an eloquent reply to this in [Page
521] Dr. Seiss’s Last Times,
pp. 82 and 83; also John Wesley’s Sermon on
Rev. 21: 5, where he rebukes those who would limit the New
Heavens and New Earth “to the present state of things”
or make it “fulfilled when Constantine poured in riches and honours upon the Christians,”
saying, “What a miserable way is this of making void
the whole counsel of God, with regard to all that grand chain of events, in
reference to His Church, yea, and to all mankind, from the time that John was
in Patmos unto the end of tile world!”
3
That the Stoics and many others
advocated a renovation and the agency of fire, has
been noticed by numerous writers.See. Writings of Philo Judaeus, vol. 4, p. 32, etc., Oregin, Ag. Celsus (B 5, ch. 20, etc.), Wetstein on 2 Pet., Burnet’s
Theory of the
Earth, Commentaries on the passage which, almost all, refer to the fact. For other views, Clarke’s Ten Religions, Mallet’s Northern Antiquities, Northern
Mythology, by Thorpe, Howitt’s Lit. and Romance of
4 Thus e.g. Bonar (Redemption, p. 117, etc.) limits it to Papal
Christendom, making it the same as the burning in Dan.
7 and Rev.
18, chiefly exhibited in
5 Which reminds one of Lederer (Israelite Indeed, May, 1867), that
if God made a covenant not again to destroy all flesh, as He did by the flood,
and we deny this by saying that He will do it, then “we
admit the interpretation of some Rabbies of old, who said that God swore never
to destroy the earth by water, but He may destroy it by fire, or in some other
way, to be correct. Then God would have sworn an oath with mental
reservation, which He would condemn in Man, His frail creature.”
6 This, therefore, answers the alleged insuperable
objection, urged and repeated by Brown,
Barnes, Hodge, and a host of opponents,
how it is possible for mortal
men in the flesh (as the Jewish nation and spared Gentiles) to be “tided over this all-enveloping, all-reducing deluge of fire”
into the new earth. We answer, precisely on the same
principle, that they allow the continuation of mortal men in the flesh in those
Old Testament passages (quoted in the text), where the earth is represented as
wholly consumed, destroyed, dissolved, etc., and yet - forced by the analogy of
Scripture - they admit, must be understood with limitations, because mortals
still survive and the earth is not literally destroyed, only the portions
thereof which experience the fire of vengeance. Now,
if they, in their comments on the Old Testament, can thus explain as consistent
and truthful (without a doubt) language fully as sweeping and “all-enveloping and all-reducing” as Peter’s, and tell
us that this is the expression of the Holy Spirit, why, when the same Spirit
in Peter employs similar phraseology must it be - nolens volens -
understood without limitation, when the most cogent reasons exist calling for
such a limitation. Simple consistency in their own interpretation of the
Spirit’s declarations ought to make them less dogmatic in insisting upon one
meaning only, and that the most destructive possible, to be given to 2 Pet. 3, in
order to raise up, if possible, an insurmountable objection to
Pre-Millenarianism.
OBSERVATION 11. But in this discussion we are not
concerned in advocating any specific interpretation of Peter’s language. Let it
be admitted, that all the explanations given are “pitiful subterfuges,” and that the fire is universal,
yet a believer in God’s Word
should find no difficulty even in this extreme statement of the case. Let the
conflagration be thus universal or local, universal by slow advances or
confined to the Roman earth, universal by uniting Pre and Post-Millennial
agencies, or entirely Pre-Millennial, one thing ought to be self-evident to the believer. viz., that this
fire, whatever it may be, and however extended in its effects, will not and cannot destroy the mortal men
in the flesh, the Jewish nation and spared Gentiles, whom God has determined to save. The difficulty is, as
alleged, that we cannot tell how, if the
conflagration is general, at the same time, these can be
preserved. Taking it for granted that it is thus universal, we are told
that we cannot give “a reason” for the hope that
is in us, and that our [Page 522] theory is “a stupendous theological misnomer,” etc.* Having,
already shown, in various places, the just connection existing between reason
and faith, it is not necessary to restate our position. While advocating the use
of reason, yet, after reason has once admitted the Omnipotence, etc., of the
Eternal One, it must be regarded as very unreasonable to limit the Divine attributes. It
is a characteristic of believers, in
Opposition to unbelievers, to receive all
that God, says He will perform, even if not able
fully or satisfactorily to explain or reconcile all His words and predictions;
- and this is properly based upon the reason (derived front reason apprehending
God as described), that the wisdom
and power of God will be found equal to any emergency that may
arise in the fulfilment (in order given) of His predictions, no matter how inexplicable they may appear unto
us. Indeed, one of the writers (Shimeall)
who expresses himself so strongly against us on the ground of impossibility,
etc., gives us in the very same book a sufficient reply to his own objection in the following just lesson of faith
urged against another party who lacked faith: “We
might ask, ‘is anything too hard for the Lord? Is our unbelief to be a measure of
his truth?’ If a few had objected, before the events,
the improbability, approaching not only to moral but to
physical impossibility, that
Messiah could ever be born of a virgin: suppose, further, he had objected to
the improbability of such a religion as that of Christ, with such apparently
inadequate support, and so contrary to men’s prejudices and passions, ever so
prevailing in the world, as that one day all nations should bow to Him -
how would such an objection
meet this antagonist but by arguments that would equally refute his own, viz., faith
in the truth and power of God.” If this is so,
why then urge “physical impossibility” against us, when we even by no means make the
emergency for such to arise in our interpretation of Peter? A moral
inconsistency or impossibility would be fatal to our argument, but that of mere
“physical
impossibility” (because
the objector cannot see how it is to be done) has no pertinency or force relating to the
accomplishment of any prediction that God has given, after the mighty
exhibitions of His ability to perform anything and everything that He has determined. Witness the saving of a remnant in the flesh when the deluge
encompassed the earth, the birth of Isaac, the salvation of Israel at the Red
Sea, the protection of the flesh and even the clothing of the Hebrews in the
intense heat of the king’s furnace, the conception of Jesus, etc., and surely
with such manifestations of God’s most wonderful ability to accomplish all
things, we must utterly repudiate the principle that we are at liberty to
reject any prediction, or to reverse its order of fulfilment, because we, forsooth, cannot comprehend
or explain how it is to be done or how it is to be reconciled with natural
causes. Apply this unbelieving principle to the conflagration itself, to
the resurrection of the dead, to the changing of the living saints, to the
miracles of Christ, creation, the mode of our existence, etc., and see how little these, as well as a multitude of other things, are dependent upon our amount of knowledge concerning them.
Prophecies, which before their fulfilment seemed of
impracticable (from a human standpoint) accomplishment were exactly realised;
and thus others are given (is it to test the faith of Abraham’s seed?) in
relation to the future, which will be verified in
like manner, no matter
whether believed or not, simply because God will indeed perform “a strange work,”
“a new thing,” and while engaged in it He is
abundantly able to “cover in
the shadow of His hand,” so that (Isa, 43: 2) “when thou walkest
[Page
523] through the fire, thou shalt not be
burned, neither shall the
flame kindle upon thee” (or as Delitzsch: “when thou
goest into fire, thou shalt not be
burned, and the flames shall
not set thee on fire”).**
* Reading such charges reminds us of what Dr. Auberlen says: “In a time like ours,
when not only the Gospel of the cross, but even the most elementary views of
God, of right and light, are foolishness to the Greeks, and often even to the
noblest of them, it is of paramount importance to be faithful in the simple and
fundamental truths which, however insignificant they may appear, are the
foundation of all the rest, and to give all honour to truth with manly, moral
and logical energy, not heeding the contemptuous shrugging of shoulders of either friend or foe.”
** The reader will find some very
impressive remarks on faith in the ability of God to perform His predictions in
Keith’s Harmony
of Prophecy, the last chapter. The expression of Tertullian, “Credo
quia impossibile est,” which has excited the ridicule of
multitudes, and is most sneeringly brought forth in recent works as evincing “unreasoning faith,” contains a sublime truth, being
simply founded on Christian faith, which most necessarily believe in that which
is impossible to man - otherwise redemption has no need of the supernatural intervening. The foundation laid in the
Person of Jesus the Christ, the superstructure, and the culmination - all demands
that which is impossible to man. But this very faith
in the impossible (as we will show under a following Proposition.) is the most
reasonable, because it alone meets the requirements of man. The reader will, no doubt, be pleased to be reminded of the quaint
remarks of Sir Thom. Browne (Relig. Medici,
sec. 9): “I desire to exercise my faith in the
difficultest point; for to credit ordinary and visible objects is not faith but
persuasion. Some believe the better for seeing Christ’s sepulchre; and when they have seen the
-------
To
be continued, D.V.