THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM *
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS, D.D.
[* VOLUME TWO (pp. 524 -534.)]
-------
[Page 524]
PROPOSITION 151. This Kingdom is identified with the new heavens and
the new earth of Isa. 65:
17
and 66:
22,
of 2 Pet.
3:
13, and
of Rev.
21:
1.
Having shown that the new heavens and
new earth of Isaiah and Peter are identical, another step in the discussion viz., to prove that the same is also
denoted in Rev. 21: 1, or, that one and the same state is meant by the three
prophets. This comes the more
necessary since many attempt to invalidate our doctrine by denying their
identity, separating them, and making them descriptive of different eras of
time. Thus e.g. some make the heavens, etc., of Isaiah and
Peter something of the past and present, while those of John are still future;
others make Isaiah refer to the Millennial era, while Peter and John follow
that period; others again make Isaiah and Peter relate to the Millennium and
Johns heaven, etc., succeed it.* We
believe that they all refer to the same thing and to the same time; and for which belief the following
reasons are assigned (comp. Proposition 148)
* In this connection one party has much
to say respecting a Davidic age and a Solomonic age, making the reigns of David and
Solomon typical (Solomon ought to have turned out it better man to form a type)
of those future periods, the Millennial and succeeding. But
we cannot receive these types, which are not only merely conjectural, but
opposed to the fact that when Messiahs Kingdom commences it is under one Head
and eternal (see Proposition 159, on duration of Kingdom). Admitting that at
the end of the Millennium its glory may be greater, etc., yet such increase is
not thus to be measured by Solomons reign. Excellent and able men indorse this
view, but to us it seems harsh and unjust; because
even Davids Kingdom is no type of Christs but a
reality when Davids Son at the appointed time is to inherit, i.e. the
same Theocratic throne and Kingdom over the same elect people. (See Proposition 122.)
OBSERVATION 1. It is not necessary to repeat the arguments
which show the connection of Isaiah and Peter. This has been done in the
immediate preceding (e.g. 148 and 149) Propositions, to which, in justice to us, the
reader will please refer. The views of the Jews, the correspondence of language
with their belief, the reference direct to Isaiah by Peter. etc., must, in
order to make the line of argument complete, be duly
considered. To one party of our opponents, let it be said,
that conceding as they do a Pre-Millennial Advent of Jesus and His reign during
that age, they must explain how this
is to be reconciled with Peters delineation of the scoffers and their
language, which cannot be thus applied to accord with their theory, or with
their expressed views of the Day of God. But
the connection of Isaiah and Peter will appear more fully and distinctively by
noticing how John corroborates it.
The position of e.g. Langes Com., 2 Peter, loci, is alone tenable, viz., that
of identifying Isaiah and Peter as describing the same new heavens and earth: This hope (i.e. [Page 525] expressed by Peter) is founded on the word of prophecy, Isa. 65:17; 66: 22; 30: 26; Cf. Rev. 21: l.
OBSERVATION 2. Before showing the latter, the reader ought to determine
that the separation of Johns account of the new heaven and new earth from its direct
relationship to the Millennial age in ch. 20, or the finding it
recorded after the account given of that era (and upon which so much stress is
laid by some), is no proof whatever that its realisation must also succeed that period.
This is so fully granted by many of those who differ from us, that it should
not, in itself, be used as an argument against us.* It
eminently deserves (to avoid confusion, etc.) a separate and distinctive
description, which connected by parallel utterances, sufficiently, as a
comparison evinces, identifies the period of its coming.
*As illustrative we select several as
follows: Prof. Bush (Mill.,
p. 94) says that it is in accordance with a feature
of the sacred writings of incessant occurrence, in which events, whether
historically or symbolically related, are transposed out of their first chronological
order, and quotes Lightfoot (Works, vol. 2, p. 61), It is a well-known and well-grounded maxim among Jews, that
non est prins et posterus in Scriptura. Their
meaning in it is this, that the order and place of a text as it stands in the
Bible doth not always infer or enforce the very time of the story, which
the text relateth; but that sometimes - nay it occurreth very oft - stories are laid out of their natural and
chronological place, and things are very frequently related before
which, in order of time, occurred after; and so e contra. Nor is this
transposition and dislocation of times and texts proper to the evangelists
only, but the same Spirit that dictated both Testaments alike; laying texts,
chapters, and histories out of the proper place in which, according to natural
chronological order, they would have lain. Horne, Intro.,
gives, On the
Interpretation of Scripture Prophecy, p. 388, vol. 1, the following
rule: The order of time is not always to be looked for
in the prophetic writings; for they frequently resume topics of which
they have formerly treated, after other subjects have intervened, and again
dismiss them. Victorinus (Apoc. 7: 2), one of the
earliest expositors, fully recognizes this principle: The
order of the things said is not to be regarded, since often the Holy Spirit,
when He has run to the end of the last time, again returns to the same times,
and supplies what He has less fully expressed. Many expositors,
especially of the Apocalypse, express themselves in the same way, and point out
a number of instances (as e.g. the last Seal embracing things under the sixth, ch. 7, ch.
11, ch. 12, ch. 13, ch.
16, ch. 17,
etc.) in which events previously referred to are afterward taken up more in
detail. Indeed, however men may differ in the application of the principle in
particular instances, every interpreter must, in simple
consistency, more or less adopt it.
OBSERVATION 3. Again, as one party seeks to make its view that of the early fathers, Barnabas and Tertullian (see Proposition 148, Observation 4), it may be as
well to state, that the references made by Barnabas and Tertullian do not
relate at all to the non-identity of these new heavens and earth. They simply
declare, what we also hold, that a complete restoration of all things will not
be fully witnessed until the close of the Millennial
period. On the other hand, we have the most positive proof that so far as the new
heavens, etc., of
John is concerned, they believed it to be fully
correspondent with and embracing the Millennial era. Thus
e.g. Tertullian (B. 3, Ag. Marcion,
ch. 24) says: For we also
confess, that a Kingdom is promised us on earth: before that in heaven, but in
another state, viz., after the resurrection, for it will be for a thousand years in a city of divine
workmanship, viz., Jerusalem brought down from heaven; and this city Ezekiel knew and the Apostle John saw,
etc. After declaring that this is the city for the saints at that time, he
closes: This is the manner of the heavenly Kingdom. Barnabas,
in his argument respecting the covenant being fulfilled in the seventh chiliad,
makes the latter the Sabbath, [Page 526] the blessed
rest, when we have received the righteous promise, when iniquity shall be
no more, all things
being renewed (Rev. 21) by the Lord,
etc. Whatever views the Fathers may have entertained respecting succeeding ages
and even changes, it is apparent from their writings that they made no
distinction between Isaiah, Peter, and John, on this point, but quote from all of them directly or inferentially, as
pertaining to the same period of time. They speak of the perpetuity of the state introduced at the Millennial
era, of the eternal [Gk. aionios] duration of the Kingdom
then established, and of the everlasting blessedness then bestowed, and in such
comprehensive, terms that this new heaven and earth enters into the eternal ages without being destroyed or passing
away. Admitting
their liability to error, yet, if sustained by Scripture, a logical
consistency, which is to their credit, supports that general unanimity among
them.
OBSERVATION 4. The matter, however, must be decided by a direct appeal to
the Scriptures, and as this decision is dependent upon
time, when Rev. chs. 21 and 22 will be fulfilled, it is in place to
point out the reasons
why they must be linked with the Millennial period. (1) The phrase new heaven and new earth corresponds accurately with Isaiahs and Peters language. This is so much felt that some
have made Isaiahs heaven typical of the other. (2) But that it is no
type, and will not be superseded by the heaven of
Peter or John, is evident from the announcement that the heaven of Isaiah when
once created will not pass away (Proposition
148, Obs. 4). God
appeals to that heaven as indicating His unfailing
faithfulness (Isa. 66: 22), and the inhabitants (Isa. 65: 18) are to be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; thus disposing of the typical theory,
teaching the perpetuity of the heaven and earth introduced at
the Millennial era, and informing us how to understand the fleeing away of the
heaven, etc., in Rev. 20: 11 (Proposition 148,
Obs. 4). In
reference to the last passage, in
addition to its being parenthetical, given to identify the Person on the throne
and convey an idea of irresistible power by what He had already
performed, it may be said that the action described accords with what really
transpires (as Millennial predictions show), when the Millennium is introduced;
that from the creation of the new heaven, etc., at the Millennial era, owing to
its perpetuity, no place
was found for the old; that it is not asserted that the
new Millennial heaven fled away, but, simply the earth and heaven; that if it is maintained
that the Millennial new heaven, etc. flee away, giving place to another, then
we have a violation of the order laid down by Peter, who tells us that the
present heaven and earth are to be changed, not for Millennial ones, and then afterward for another
substitution, not a thousand years after the Second Advent, but at the Second
Coming. He only recognises one such creation after the present one,
and in this sustains the perpetuity ascribed to the Millennial heaven by all the prophets,
who with one voice describe at the coming of the Mighty One a glorious
restitution which is perpetual in
its nature. Taking also the view presented under Propositions 147,
and 148,
that the phrase heaven
and earth embrace the import, according to Scriptural usage, of
government, dominion, and their supporters, it follows (as will be more fully
shown, under Proposition
159) that such a substitution after the Messiahs Kingdom (which is
everlasting etc., and established at the ushering in of the Millennial era), cannot take place. 1 (3)
If the new heaven and new earth of the Millennial era shall pass
away, then the language of [Page 527] Rev. 21: 1, that the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, would not describe it, seeing that
that of the Millennium is not - admitting the very statements of our opponents
- the first, for they have the changing of the present (first) heaven and
earth into a new Millennial, and then the changing of the second one into
another new one. The
mention of the word first guards us against the typical application, and shows which heaven and earth is changed. (4) The phrase and there was no
more sea, which is supposed to present a serious objection to our view, indicates
that the Millennial heaven and earth of Isaiah is denoted. It is assumed that because sea is sometimes used in its literal
sense, it must be literally understood here. But - however the literal to some
extent might, for aught we know, accompany it - we find in Dan. 7: 2; Ps. 65: 7; Rev. 13: 1; Ps. 93: 3, 4; Hab. 3: 8, and numerous places, flood and sea, mighty waters, etc., employed to
denote the agitation, unsettled condition,
revolutionary tendencies, anarchy, warlike and turbulent commotions of nations.
Take this meaning, so emphatically exhibited in prophetic usage, and it is
predicted that during this period the nations (showing also that they survive)
are disposed to peace under the Theocratic reign of Jesus,
thus happily corresponding with many descriptions of the Millennial state which
make this peculiarity, freedom from war, etc., a distinguishing excellence.
King Jesus at His appearing and Kingdom will introduce such an order of
things that the turbulence of the sea will be unknown, and war between nations
will cease. 2 (5) In Rev. 19:
7, 8, 9, just before the one thousand years,
it is said that the marriage of the Lamb hath come, and His wife hath made herself ready, etc. This conclusively shows that Rev. chs. 21 and 22 are retrospective, and that they do not describe a new order of things after the Millennium. Would it not be
strange, when the marriage is come, and the Bride is ready, to postpone the marriage a thousand
years? Why does the Spirit assert the former, if
we are not to understand that the marriage with (Rev. 21: 9) the Bride, the Lambs wife, is then consummated, without so long an intervening period?
With the
1. Some, as Shimeall, etc., admit that in the Millennial
era, or new heaven and new earth of Isaiah, there is, a
most signal change, so that it will extend to
the removal of the curse from the ground and also from the circumambient air
which envelops the earth. In brief, a return to the
paradisiacal condition. We ask, if the curse is thus removed from the ground and air, and animals,
etc., wherein arises the necessity of their destruction as
given by Peter? Will God destroy what He has again made good? Will He destroy
the inheritance thus resituated of the saints and of Christ for a time enjoyed?
Can we believe that a restored
2 Numerous German, English, American,
and other writers could be presented indorsing the
figurative use of the word men, but they are
not needed in the light of assigned Scripture usage. Should it be thought that
the rising up of Gog and Magog is an exception which forbids such an
interpretation, we reply (1) That it
would also prevent us from receiving the predictions of the Millennial era,
which promise universal and continuous peace, the utter removal of war, the
destruction of warlike material, etc.. It is,
therefore, like many others, a general statement, which is true, the solitary
exception occurring after so long an interval, only
indicating or manifesting its correctness; and (2) this exception may not, in a strict sense, prove to be one. The
reason why the promise is given is evidently the implied comfort or idea that
no sea can exist in that period
of time which will cause the least injury to the saints or to the new
heaven and new earth established. Hence, when Gog and Magog arise, the saints
and the Kingdom are not affected by it, seeing that
immediate and swift destruction comes upon Gog from the Lord.
3 Some few, as Waggoner, to avoid this difficulty, have the marriage consummated
and Bride and
Bridegroom both return to heaven and remain until the close of
the thousand years; but this is opposed to the entire order of events, and introduces inextricable confusion to a fair
exposition. This will be noticed hereafter, in
connection with the Millennium. Now, it is sufficient to say that such a view
entirely misconceives the nature, locality, etc., of the covenanted
Theocratic-Davidic Kingdoms, and ignores the restoration of the Jewish nation,
the perpetuity of the race, etc.
4 To illustrate: they cannot quote Isa. 60, etc., without deriving the perpetuity
assigned, or having part fulfilled in the Millennial age and part in the age
following, etc.; they cannot quote Rev. 21 and 22
without repeating Millennial phraseology which, against Millennial predictions,
they tell us will not be realised until after that period. Such
inform us that the New Jerusalem is a symbolic representation of the saints who
are with Christ, and, if the theory is consistently carried out, then the
saints only come down from God out of heaven upon the earth after the
Millennial era, which is opposed to numerous testimonies to the contrary, as
e.g. Zech. 14,
etc, Thus also the reign of the saints, identified with the New Jerusalem, is
after the Millennial period, which is opposed by Rev.
20, etc. So
the dwelling of God with man - the Theocratic relationship thus expressed - is
after the same, which cannot possibly be admitted. Admitting, as we cheerfully do, that [Page 530] the work of God is progressive as it relates to the race and the earth
during these thousand years, yet the new heaven and new earth begin with that
era, and with it also the New Jerusalem state.
5 Let the reader compare e.g. John 14: 1-3, fulfilled when Jesus comes again, with 1 Pet. 1: 4, 5, 7, 13, realised
at the same time, and he must be impressed that the mansions and the inheritance
then obtained are eternal, ever-enduring, and not to be superseded by their
removal and the substitution of others. But we
conclusively show that those mansions and that inheritance are gained by a
Pre-Millenarian Advent, and hence we insist upon their perpetuity, (Comp. also Proposition 170
on the Fathers House.)
6 Delitzsch (Bib., Psych., P. 556) informs us that V. Hofman and
Karsten hold to the New Jerusalem
being in the Millennium; Delitzsch,
however, maintains that it is after that period, and explains the healing of the nations or heathens to denote
only the increase of power, blessedness, etc., of the Redeemed in eternity, or,
as Von Berlach
expresses it, a reception of Gods gifts of grace, as
of the tree of life in Eden, an eternal becoming and growing. So also Rinck and others. But this is a far-fetched explanation, especially when it is
said that the expression health must not exactly
presuppose sickness, but indicates the perfect state of mature growth into the
image of God, etc. But the phraseology does
not by any means indicate a perfect state of mature
growth, but a state of imperfection which demands a
healing process to bring to a perfect state
of mature growth. Delitzschs interpretation is governed by that on Rev. 21: 1, but which we have proven is wrong, because
making Isaiah and Peter correspond (according to
promise), it is easy to show that all three prophets are
in agreement. According to Lange (Rev., p.
389) we must, in consistency, preserve the idea of the highest sanative operation of nature (as then manifested),
That physical healing is denoted, is seen (1)
from the effects of the fall; (2)
from the Divine Purpose inculcating a complete redemption that includes the
physical; (3) from the Millennial
predictions incorporating such temporal and physical deliverance.
7 For the reasons thus assigned, we cannot receive the view of Hofman (Prophecy and
Fulfilment), Ebrand (The Rev. of John), Brookes (Maranatha), Guiness (Approaching the End) and other able
writers, who locate the renewal, the new heavens and earth, and the New
Jerusalem state after the thousand years, thus forbidding the Patriarchs and
others from receiving their inheritance and looked-for city until a long
interval has intervened. The fact is, that such concessions made by Millenarians (as e.g. Birks in Four
Proph. Empires, ete.) are taken advantage of by Brown (Ch. Sec. Coming), Gipps (First Res.), and others, as evidence of weakness and
antagonism, and the discrepancy is shown that the lauded Millennial heavens and
earth are swept away with all their glory, and that the
New Heavens and New Earth agree with their own Post-Millennial theory.
The same reactions forbid our accepting of Lincolns
(Lects. on Rev. vol.
2, ch. 19) portraiture, of the last chapters of the,
Apocalypse, because he has some parts delineating the Millennial state and
other portions the eternal state following, making it partly Millennial and
partly Post-Millennial and eternal. This introduces confusion, and mars the symmetry of the prediction, and is the
inevitable result of his believing, (against the testimony of Scripture) that
the Millennial earth, Christs glorious inheritance, is to be utterly destroyed
by fire. So also Smiths (Key to Rev.,
p. 385) theory that the new heavens, etc., is
a figurative description of heaven, and not a
portraiture of something pertaining to the earth, must be rejected as
utterly untenable, and evidencing an utter abandonment of covenant and
prophecies relating to the earth. The opinion of Calvin, Prest. Edwards, and others that the new
heavens and earth of Isaiah commences with the
Gospel dispensation (in moral regeneration, etc.) and extends to the final goal when it will be superseded
by an entire new creation, is thus shown to be unscriptural, for Peters direct
reference to Isaiah evidences its futurity and relationship as we have proven;
and the past has never, as a matter of fact, evinced such a fulfilment of Isa. 65: 17-25 and 66: 15-24 as to make
it corroborative of such it view. It is a fact that some (as
e.g.
OBSERVATION 5. Now, in justice to our subject, and to meet, according to our
design, all forms of objections, a point must be noticed, which, if we were to
consult simply feeling and the esteem with which we regard differing brethren,
otherwise might be passed by. Our allusion is to the opinion
entertained by some (as e.g. Waggoner)
that Christ and the saints are not upon the earth during the thousand years,
but come to it and reside on it after those
years are expired; to the view held by others (as e.g. Butler), that Christ and the saints go to
the third heaven, and
reign from thence in the Millennial period (so also Hess, who concedes, however, that the
monarch of this so flourishing Kingdom would indeed, as in the days of His
resurrection, appear again visibly on earth, when some more important end
requires He should), making the New Jerusalem a continuation of the
same, etc.; to that of others, who (as e.g. Melville), think that when the Millennial age is introduced the
saints shall be caught up to meet Christ, and that both the saints and Jesus
will be in the New Jerusalem, not upon the
earth, administering the Kingdom then set up; to that of others,
who (as e.g. Shimeall) believe that
when the Millennial age begins, Christ and the saints will be in the air, as the capital of His universal earthly
empire (to avoid the
charge of caricaturing, see p. 316 of his I Will Come Again) the New
Jerusalem state following the Millennial; to that of others, who (as e.g. some
editors of the old series of Proph. Times), believe that when [Page 532] the Millennial age is ushered in Christ and the saints will be in the New
Jerusalem, but separated and distinct from the earth - in brief, suspended
above it.* Writers from these respective classes
have much to say concerning the aerial thrones,
and the general
superintendency conducted from the air or the heavens,
etc. The identification of the new heaven and new earth of Isaiah, Peter, and John, being a
representation of what is done, not in the air, or in a place separate and distinct
from the earth proper, or in the third heaven, but here on the earth, is a
confutation of all such theories. More than this, a correct apprehension of the
kingdom as covenanted to Davids Son and as predicted by
the prophets positively forbid such a withdrawal in part or whole of Davids
Son and His brethren
from the very place specifically
promised (not the air,
but the earth) to Him and His saints. The
* This last view is by far more logical and consistent than the
others, seeing that it not only admits the identity of the heaven and earth of
Isaiah, Peter, and John, but, in a manner, associates
them. Some of the reasoning following, therefore, is not relevant to it.
** In this
connection we may
introduce a passage of Scripture, Eph. 1: 14, the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession.
This earth is, evidently, that purchased possession
which the meek inherit (not the air or some other locality), for simple consistency
demands that the promises to the Patriarchs, etc., of the land through which
they passed, saw, etc., should be their inheritance - an inheritance obtained
for them through the Christ. But that we may not be
charged with forcing a meaning out of Eph. 1: 14, we refer
to one of our most prominent opponents, and give his comment. Fairbairn (Typology,
vol. 1, p. 306) opposes the tendency to make the last clause, redemption of the purchased possession, equivalent to
the Church or purchased
people, and favours the idea of acquired possession
or inheritance in view of its being something prepared for us, an inheritance
separate from the person himself, something to be accomplished for us and not
in us, etc. He correctly holds that its needing,
to be redeemed shows that it is something alienated
from us, but is again to be made ours; not a possession altogether new, but an
old possession, lost, and again to be reclaimed from the powers of evil, which
now overmaster and destroy it. He argues that just with the redemption of
the body, so with this possession; it is something recovered, and not simply to
be made - something alienated and under the power of evil that is to be restored, and that this is the earth under the curse, promised
as an everlasting possession to Abraham and his
seed. We, therefore, insist upon it that any theory, however plausibly
presented, which separates in the slightest degree the Patriarchs and saints
from direct contact with their promised inheritance, is thus far defective, and dishonours the
completeness of Redemption, for it virtually makes the earth still
unsuitable for the saints.
-------
To
be continued, D.V.