THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS
[*PROPOSITIONS 105 & 106 from VOLUME
1 (pp. 689-701).]
-------
[Page 689]
PROPOSITION 105. The
Lord’s Prayer is indicative of the fact that
the Church is not the covenanted
Messianic Kingdom.
Jesus, in teaching His
disciples to pray for a future,
coming Kingdom, undoubtedly taught them to pray for the same Kingdom covenanted, predicted, and
which they preached. He certainly desired them to pray understandingly, and,
therefore, the views entertained by them respecting the Kingdom remaining
uncontradicted to the end (Acts 1: 6), and
which must have inspired the use of
the petition, are certainly correct (compare Propositions 37-45,
and 54-68)
We call the student’s attention to the fact that we have already
quoted numerous able opponents, who frankly admit that down at least to the
ascension the disciples of Jesus fully entertained the idea of the Kingdom
expressed by us. A multitude more might be thus quoted,
as evidenced by their enforced and fatal concessions when commenting e.g. on Acts 1: 6. We refer to this in order to say: Is it reasonable to suppose that
Jesus would give His disciples a prayer in behalf of the Kingdom, knowing as He
must what construction they would place upon it, unless, if mistaken in their
apprehension of it, He would also enlighten them, as to its meaning, so that
they could offer it up intelligently and with a proper hope? The fact
that we do know with what sentiments these preachers of the same Kingdom prayed
this prayer - specially instructed, too, as we are told, in private - goes far
to sustain our position. If candid, those who oppose us will find this prayer,
as understood and used by the disciples, a blow to their excessive
spiritualising of the promises.
OBSERVATION 1. The petition “Thy Kingdom come”
(Matt. 6:
10, Luke 11:
2) cannot appropriately be prayed by one who is already in the Kingdom, for the sentiment
expressed looks to futurity. The disciples to whom it was
given, and evidently used it, had no idea whatever of the modern notions
engrafted on the prayer. They prayed it looking, as we have in detail proven
(as many of our opponents frankly admit), for a Kingdom to come visibly - [to
this divinely “cursed” earth (Gen. 3: 17; cf. Rom.
8: 19-22, R.V.)] - in the future, and this Kingdom was the Theocratic-Davidic restored under the Messiah. We may well ask, How
could the Divine Master give them a prayer with such a clause in, which, as all
the facts show, they - if the modern [Anti millennial] view is correct - grossly
misunderstood, without some explanation? Our line of argument conclusively proves
that such an explanation was unnecessary (and hence was not given) because they
had the true idea of the Kingdom, when they prayed for
the
There is an exquisite delicacy (which man could not have
conceived) in the prayer, “Thy (i.e. the
Father’s) Kingdom come.” The
delicacy and propriety arises from Christ’s position in the performance of an
allotted mission, and in thus avoiding the word “My” [Page 690] (which, as He and the Father are one, He might truthfully have employed), and in expressing the Theocratic
relationship that the Kingdom sustains to the Father, and implying that the
Kingdom is given (Proposition 83) by the Father, because of the
obedience of Jesus (Proposition 84). Again, foreknowing His
ultimate rejection by the nation and the consequent postponement of the
Kingdom, the petition is purposely crouched in language indefinite as to the
time when it should come. Again, the clause annexed to this petition, “Thy will be done on earth,” etc., is indicative of the
result of this Kingdom coming, as stated by the prophets. But we add:
The simple fact is evident that God’s will is not verified in the Church, as
her chequered history attests, and so long as she remains in tier mixed [and apostate] condition, cannot be. The “will” of God respecting the earth is easily read [and understood] if we but direct the eye of faith either
to the past or to the future, as given in the Word; in the past it is reflected
before the fall, and ill the future, it shines forth in the renewed earth. It is, therefore, readily perceived, and any view [or teaching (doctrine)] that fails to grasp these two marks of the “will”
falls immeasurably below the reality. To make it manifested now is to cover it
over with the weakness, frailties, passions, etc., of poor humanity, and is to
ignore the plainest statements in
the predictions (e.g. 2 Thess.
2) relating to the Church.
OBSERVATION 2. The petition “Thy Kingdom come,” is
a prayer that one
distinctive [divine] Kingdom should come [to this earth], not two or more; not that one should
be within the other, not that one should be a prelude to the other. The
disciples only recognised in the petition one Kingdom; the early Church adopted
the same belief, and we see no reason for a change of faith, seeing that the covenanted and predicted Messianic - [and Millennial (cf. Rev. 2: 25-27, 3: 21 with Rev. 20: 4, R.V.)] - Kingdom, as expressed in the plain
grammatical sense, is the one evidently denoted.
It is it matter of surprise that able
and eminent men pervert this prayer by making out a variety of Kingdoms prayed
for, as e.g. one writer (Bernard)
has three Kingdoms petitioned for, viz.: “The
[Page 691]
OBSERVATION 3. Attention is directed to the fact
that critics (like Lightfoot, Schoetgen, Gregory, etc,). indorsed by various
commentators, assert that Jesus collected this prayer out of Jewish Eschatologies,
and prove the assertion by giving every sentiment expressed in full as drawn
from them. If this be allowed, and Jesus did this purposely, it is only another
proof of the correctness of our interpretation and application, seeing that
Jesus thus, in the highest possible manner, indorses the Jewish views (compare Propositions 40,
44,
41,
20,
21,
etc.) of the Kingdom by taking their own
expressions, and framing them into a petition to heaven. Every
Jew who employed it would, of course, use it in the sense indicated, and it is
a mere begging of the question to declare that Jesus placed one sense on it and
the Jews quite another; for if this were true, which it is not, it would
invalidate the integrity of the Teacher, making Him to conceal the truth and
leave His hearers under a wrong impression and in error.
We refer, as illustrative of the Observation, to what Barnes, Com. Matt.,
p. 83, footnote, says of the usage or language of the Jews,
and which “were doubtless familiar in the time of
Christ.” Thus, he says, that the Rabbins
declared, “That prayer in which there is no mention
made of the Kingdom of heaven is
not
a prayer.”
OBSERVATION 4. The quite early Church entertained our view of this
petition, as is apparent from the Eschatology affirmed by them, seeing that they looked for the
speedy Advent. etc. The modern engrafted views were foreign to their simple
faith. The extracts
that we have already given from them, exhibiting their belief in the covenanted
Kingdom, forbids any other view, and so
imbedded was this in the Church that Augustine
(Cumming, Lects. on Romanism,
p. 207) could not transmute this Kingdom into “the
Kingdom of Grace” (as was done by Ambrose and others),
but held that it meant “the Kingdom of glory.”
Tertullian (De Oratione) makes
this prayer to be one for the coming of the Kingdom at the Advent still future, and thus urges this petition to be
used: “Wherefore, if the appearing of God’s Kingdom
belongs to the will of God and to our earnest expectation, how can some pray
for a lengthening out of the age,
when the Kingdom of God, for which we pray that it may come tends to the consummation of the age? We wish to reign earlier, and
not to serve longer. Even if it were not prescribed
in the prayer, about praying for the
coming of the Kingdom, we should, of our own accord, offer that petition,
hastening to the fruition of our hope.
... Yes,
Lord, let
Thy Kingdom come with the utmost speed! The wish of Christians, the confusion of the
heathen, the joy of angles, for which
we struggle; yea, more, for which we pray.” Cyprian and
others refer the petition to the Kingdom still future, Cyprian e.g. saying: “That we who first are His subjects in the world may hereafter reign with Christ, when He reigns.”
The early Church linking, as Paul does, “the appearing
and Kingdom” together, virtually made this petition a prayer for the
Second Advent of Jesus, and the petition of Rev.
22: 20
one including the Kingdom. In unity with this early view of the petition, the
student will find many utterances since the Reformation, e.g. Luther’s (Meurer’s “Life of,” p. 33), Bish. Latimer (Investigator, vol. 1, p. 170), Archb. Cranmer (Brooks’s Essays,
p. 12), Bish.
OBSERVATION 5. The petition “Thy Kingdom come” assumes, by its allusion to futurity,
that the Kingdom did not then exist. This forms corroborative proof of the
position taken by us in previous Propositions, over against the utterances that
it was present when Christ gave the prayer.
We have already presented numerous testimonies respecting the
assertion that the Kingdom was already actually in existence. Others, as
illustrative, may be added. Prof. Lummis (The Kingdom and the Church) quotes Dr. Warren, Pres. of Boston University, as saying: “The Christian Church is the
OBSERVATION 6. The expression “Thy Kingdom come” expresses faith in the realisation of
the covenant, and the predictions based upon it. What Kingdom is the proper
subject of prayer, if not the Theocratic-Davidic? Faith, in its usage, is manifested that God’s oath to David will be respected,
that it is His determinate purpose to have it restored, and that God will
institute the means and arrangements for its recovery. The Theocracy is, as we have proven, God’s own Kingdom; He being the Ruler in it, gives force to
the “Thy.”
John Ruskin, in The Lord’s Prayer
and The Church (Contemp. Review, repub. In The Library Mag., Jan.,
1880), observes: “I believe very few, even of the most
earnest, using that petition (viz.: Thy Kingdom come), realise that it is the
Father’s - not the Son’s - Kingdom, that they pray may come, although
the whole prayer is fundamental on that fact: ‘For
Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory.’ And I fancy that the mind of the most faithful Christians
is quite led astray from its proper hope, by dwelling on the reign - or the
Coming again - of Christ; which, indeed, they are to look for and watch for, but
not to pray for. Their prayer
is to be for the greater Kingdom to which He, risen
and having all His enemies under His
feet, is to surrender His, ‘that God may be All
in All.’” Here are quite a number of mistakes, resulting from a total
misapprehension of the covenanted Kingdom. 1.
The Divine Sovereignty is not the Kingdom, Propositions 79 and 80. 2. The Kingdom is both the Father’s and the Son’s; being Theocratic, Jesus is the
representative of God, e.g. Proposition 200. 3. Admitting the doxology (comp. Lange’s Com. loci, New Version of New Test.), Variorum of
New. Test.), the “Thine” refers to this Kingdom being given to David’s Son (Proposition 81), and that the
fulness of the Godhead sustains it. 4.
The oneness of the Father and Son cannot be thus ignored.
5. The perpetuity of Messiah’s
Kingdom is thus, flatly denied (compare Proposition 159). 6. The ignoring and denial of prayer for the coming and reign of
Jesus, in the light, e.g. of Rev. 22: 20, Tit. 2: 13, 1 Pet. 4: 7, etc., is
surprising.
OBSERVATION 7. “Thy Kingdom come” embraces the idea of a conspicuous,
visible, external coming, so that every one would be cognisant of its coming. The adoption of the Jewish language
itself, which included this,
is evidence sufficient to inculcate it. But aside from the reasons already
assigned, and others that will appear under appropriate headings, it amply
subserves our present purpose to say, that the Jewish view (which is eminently
Scriptural), that an extraordinary exhibition of the Supernatural would be manifested (as e.g. in the resurrection of the righteous)* with the
re-establishment of the Kingdom, alone enforces this idea.
[* That is, by a resurrection of those ‘accounted worthy’ to ‘inherit
the Kingdom! Compare Luke
14: 14 and Luke
20: 35, with Matthew
5: 20 and Ephesians
5: 5, R.V. Messiah’s ‘Kingdom’ is a reward (not ‘the free gift of God,’ Rom.
6: 23) - for
those with His imputed righteousness! Overcomers only, will be resurrected ‘out from the dead’ (Phil.
3: 11) at
His Return to inherit the Messianic Kingdom, (Rev.
2: 25; 3: 21, etc.).]
The establishment of the Church did not introduce the
supernatural results confidently anticipated in the resurrection of the saints,
the removal of evil, etc., but, while preparatory in its nature and imparting
inestimable blessings, it left the righteous still under the curse, oppressed, burdened, chastened, etc.
The visible consequences, as delineated by the prophets to be the
immediate issue of the restored Theocracy, were all lacking. Hence no
coming of a Kingdom was witnessed as covenanted and predicted, [Page 693] for instead of a visible organized Theocracy, uniting Church and state, all-powerful
and all-conquering, the Church exhibited an organization persecuted by the
state, sustained by the blood of martyrdom, struggling and fighting to maintain
an existence against encroachments from within and without. If we are to follow
the teaching of the Word, we must conclude that the Jewish view, held by the
disciples, is the correct one, viz.: that so marked are the distinguishing characteristics of the reintroduction of
this coming Kingdom under the Messiah that no one can possibly mistake its time
of commencement. Now, over against this, observe, as we have largely quoted,
the conflicting views of our opponents, who select various beginnings, several
of them united, etc. We give another illustration: “An
Inquirer,” in the Ch. Union, Jan. 16th, 1878, makes the
Christian Church to be organised at the time of the Translation. The Editor
(evidently recalling how eminent men fixed the same at the birth of Jesus, His
baptism, the confession of Peter, His public entry, His death, His resurrection.
His ascension, the day of Pentecost, and the destruction of
OBSERVATION 8. Prophecy, if the Church is the Kingdom prayed for, should, by way of
encouragement, and in answer to faith, show that the prayer is realised in its
delineation of events. But the reverse of this is
true, as e.g. seen in Dan. 2 and 7. Auberlen. (The Proph. Daniel) remarked
the absence of any portraiture of the Church (and its sham imitation of a
Theocracy when Church and State were united under Constantine) when God unfolds the history of the Fourth Monarchy,
the Roman world-power excepting only as it suffers under the persecution of earthly
Kingdoms. (The same absence is noticeable in the epitomes of Matt. 24,
Mark 13, Luke 21,
2 Thess. 2.) Now if our opponents are correct with their theory, it seems reasonable that
when an Empire is leavened and transformed into a nominal Christian power by
the Church, such a change ought to be recognised, if it is a legitimate answer
to such a petition. On the contrary, down to the end “the beast” remains “a beast.”
Auberlen,
thoroughly Chiliastic as he is, and able in his prophetical studies,
embarrassed by an existing, invisible Church-Kingdom, explains the omission by
saying, that as the prophet only describes “the course
of the world-powers, hence the Kingdom of God enters the horizon at
that point where it begins to be a real and external power of the world - that
is, at the Second Advent of Christ.” This explanation, while
unsatisfactory to those who hold the visible Church to be a Kingdom, is equally
so on any hypothesis that it is a Kingdom, seeing that the distinctive
characteristics belonging to a Kingdom are only manifested at the coming of the
Son of man, when the fourth beast and his brood are to be destroyed. The
existence of such a Kingdom must first he proven, before its omission is thus
accounted for in a prophecy. The omission itself, as conceded, decidedly
favours our view. We insist that (as Proposition 35) the prophets and covenants
describe only one [millennial and Messianic] Kingdom; they know
absolutely nothing of those additional assigned by human reason, prejudice, and
ambition.
OBSERVATION 9. This petition must be, if Scripture is to give in its whole testimony,
viewed in the light of the postponement of the Kingdom (compare Propositions 58,
66,
67,
etc.). The simple fact that the Kingdom believed in by the disciples, and for
which they prayed when using this phrase (and for which Jesus gave it to them),
was postponed to the Second Advent, forbids our incorporating with or
substituting for it any other Kingdom, alleged to be visible or invisible. If
we do this we take an unwarranted liberty with the same.
In addition to our reasons previously
assigned in detail for the postponement of the Kingdom, the attention of the
advanced student is directed to an exceedingly
interesting Scripture, which, if we are to take the general analogy, teaches
the postponement, and shows us how to understand this petition. We refer to Dan. 9: 26, to the clause “shall
[Page 694] Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself.” It is admitted by able commentators
that the rendering “but not for Himself” was
adopted (so Barnes, etc.) “from
the common view of the atonement - that the Messiah did not die for Himself,
but that His life was given as a ransom for others.” Barnes, however, asserts that the
marginal reading is the correct rendering: “And shall
have nothing.” So Hengstenberg insists upon translating, “and
is not to him,” i.e. “there was nothing to him,”
that is, the authority, dominion over the covenanted people would cease. Tregelles’ rendering is, “and there shall be nothing to Him,” i.e. no Kingdom. He says (On Dan., p. 102) that the common application to
Christ’s sacrifice must be rejected as “placing a most
true and important doctrine upon an insufficient basis,” and adds: “I believe that the words simply imply ‘and there shall be nothing for Him;’ He will be rejected, and His earthly Kingdom will be a
thing on which He will not enter.” Now this position is amply
sustained by the facts in the history and the declarations of Jesus, viz.: that when thus cut off,
rejected and crucified, He did not
establish a Kingdom, but it was
postponed to the Second Advent, when, according to promise, He will come again and erect it. This
reference to not having, as Messiah, a Kingdom by the expressive “nothing”
(compare Barnes, Lange, etc.), should certainly prevent
us from attributing to Him, in this direction, something of a Messianic
Kingdom. The unity of the Word forbids it, for as e.g. in the parable of the
nobleman, the Kingdom is distant and the position of the servants in this [evil
and apostate] dispensation
is assigned. Even the admissions of our opponents
strengthen our position, as e.g. Dr.
Brown (Christ’s
Second Coming, ch. 3), quoting Dr. Urwick,
and conceding that Luke 19: 11-27, Matt. 25: 19, shows that the Kingdom to be set up was to be
long delayed.
OBSERVATION 10. Eminent divines take this petition, and in dedication and missionary
sermons, employ it to denote the present existing Church, and vigorously and eloquently
exhort their hearers or readers to help, by special labour and efforts, to make
the Kingdom come. That which is the special work
of the Lord Jesus (Proposition 121),
etc.), under the Divine bestowment of the Father (Proposition 83), men, by a perversion
and misapprehension, undertake to perform themselves (Proposition 175).
This widespread notion is found in thousands of published works and appeals. Simply
to illustrate: The official oath required of ministers in Prussia, established
in 1815 and renewed in 1835, was one in which they swear that they will “extend in my congregation the Kingdom of God and of my Lord
and Master Jesus Christ.” They may have succeeded, by God’s grace, in
urging piety, spiritual growth, etc., upon some, but as to a Kingdom, judging
from the history of the Church in
OBSERVATION 11. “Thy Kingdom come” is the prayer of those who are “heirs,” for they have an interest in it. It is the
prayer of those who are [Page 695] “called,” and the usage of this
petition indicates an appreciation of their “high calling.” It is a prayer designed to stimulate faith and hope,
to wean from the world, to qualify
us for a future “abundant entrance.” It is a prayer which honours the
Father who bestows it, honours the Christ who receives its glory, and honours
the Holy Spirit, whose wonder-working power will be exerted in its behalf. It
is a prayer that fell from the lips and heart of David’s Son, expressive of His
own desire, and it has encouraged, consoled, and strengthened the hearts and
lives of multitudes of believers. To appreciate it properly, we must study its
distinctive meaning, denoting as it does a well-defined (“Thy”) Kingdom, which the Father has
promised most solemnly under oath, and which David’s Son receives from the
Ancient of Days at the allotted period - a Kingdom bringing completed
Redemption and the most precious blessings.
We only add: The Kingdom that we pray
for is not one that shall fall terribly oppressed under the Antichrist; it is
not one whose members shed their blood in behalf of the truth, reaping the
vengeance of earthly powers, but it is a Kingdom which the Word, truthful and
consistent, always represents as exalting its rulers in honour and glory, and
in extending peace and happiness to its subjects. To this divine portraiture
we cling; for it we long and pray. In reference to the ardent praying and
longing for this Kingdom, compare e.g. Olshausen,
Com. loci.,
Nast, Com. loci., Alford, etc., Nast
remarks: “According to Olshausen the one leading idea is the ardent longing after the
Kingdom of God, which constitutes the burden of all the prayers of God’s
children.” But, it may be added, we, should
pray intelligently as the disciples - to whom the prayer was given and who
preached this Kingdom - prayed. Much prayer in this direction is confused, and
mingled with human opinions. In sadness, too, we must say that multitudes, if
they really apprehended that the coming of this Kingdom is inseparably linked
with the Second Advent, and that to pray for the one is really to pray for the
other, would feel no interest in the prayer - yea, would dread its use -
although identified with “the blessed hope” and perfected redemption. So long as they can apply it to the Church, or to the third heaven,
or to a very distant future, they can employ it, but to give it the ancient
Chiliastic interpretation and application, although amply supported by the
analogy of the Word, is beyond their personal desires, for the speedy coming of
the Messiah, although it be “unto salvation,” is
unwelcome or visionary to them.
OBSERVATION 12. Pre-Millenarians are a unit in the application of this
petition to a future Messianic Kingdom at the Second Advent. Some, indeed,
as we have pointed out, being under the influence, more or less, of the
prevailing views respecting the Church-Kingdom theory, think that the Church is
also embraced in the petition (which we deem illogical and inferential), but
such an application is expressly affirmed to be secondary or a lower sense. And
it must, moreover, be borne in mind that even then,
not one of these contends that the Church is, in any sense, the covenanted and predicted Messianic
Kingdom. They unite in regarding it as simply preparatory to the Kingdom of covenant and of Dan. 2,
7, etc., which is to be manifested at the Second Coming of
Jesus. Therefore all Pre-Millenarians unite in
regarding the petition as embracing that still future Kingdom.
We thus again call attention to this uniformity
of belief, as some of our opponents have called
it into question, as if we prayed, longed, and hoped for different
Kingdoms at different times. Thus e.g. Dr.
Brown (Christ’s
Second Coming, ch. 7) professes himself to
have gotten “entangled and nearly despairing,”
at the variance and confusion of Pre-Millenarians respecting “the period and the nature” of Christ’s Kingdom. This
is hardly complimentary to himself, seeing, that they are easily classified: (1) Those who
make the Church simply preparatory, and have the
We turn from such an interpretation of
the Lord’s Prayer to those given by Pre-Millenarians with thankfulness, as
evidence that the early faith is expressed in hope. Bh. Newton (Diss. on Proph., p. 587) observes : “In the general, that there shall be such a happy period as
the Millennium; ‘that the Kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the
Kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the
people of the saints of the Most High’ (Dan. 7: 27); that Christ shall have ‘the heathen for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession’ (Ps. 2: 8); that ‘the earth shall be
full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover
the sea’ (Isa. 11: 9) ‘that the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, and all Israel shall be saved’ (Rom. 11: 25, 26); in a word, that the
Kingdom of heaven shall be established upon earth, is the plain and express
doctrine of Daniel and all the prophets, as well as of St. John; and we daily pray for the
accomplishment of it, in praying ‘Thy
Kingdom Come.’” Hon.
Gerard T. Noel (Prospects of the Church of Christ, p. 10) says: “It may confirm the view here
given of the future (Pre-Millennial), to inquire into the nature of that felicity which our Lord Himself has taught
us in our prayers to expect. It
would be natural to suppose, that in the selection of blessings which He condescended to make the
subject of our prayers to God, the consummation
of His own work of mercy would find a marked place. The supposition is
consistent with fact. He has concentrated a prayer for the completion of His
own work, in the two remarkable expressions: ‘Thy
Kingdom come,’ ‘thy
will be done on earth as in heaven.’ Can we refuse to
admit that [page 697] our Lord here bounds
our view to this scene on earth? In heaven, that is, in the other
regions of the universe of God, His will is already done;
but here we are surrounded with a scene of rebellion, anarchy, and sorrow. Does
He then teach us to pray for a translation from this unquiet land to
another and distant orb? He puts no such request within our lips; He
directs us to pray for the establishment of His Kingdom, and this Kingdom
appears to belong exclusively to this material earth. ‘Thy will be done in earth, as in heaven.’ Is not the inference twofold: first, that the
earth is the theatre of His Kingdom; and secondly, that conformity to His will is the absolute enjoyment
of heaven? and that no loftier supplication can be
associated with our thoughts than that the hallowed sceptre should be replaced
in human hands, even in the hands of the mighty Antitype, ‘the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.’” Such testimonies could be reproduced
from many able and eminent Chiliasts, and eloquently expressed (as e.g. by Bonar, Seiss, Bickersteth,
Brooks, etc.). In addition to this,
we might readily bring forth a mass of evidence to show that many writers of
ability, cannot, and do not, limit this petition to the church as now
constituted, but refer it to the future, after the Second Advent. Thus e.g. Baxter (Saint’s Everlasting
Rest, p. 438), in the peroration of his work, after expressing his
most fervid desires for the speedy coming of Jesus and the resurrection of
believers bursts forth: “Return, O Lord, how long? O
let ‘Thy Kingdom come.’ Thy desolate ‘bride saith, Come’ for Thy Spirit within her saith, Come; and teacheth her
thus to ‘pray with groanings, which cannot be uttered’; yea, ‘the whole creation
saith, Come, waiting to be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.’”
We conclude with the utterance of one of the Reformers. Archbishop Cranmer wrote (so Burnet’s His,
vol. 3, B. 4), the Catechism drawn up by the English Prelates, and authorised
by Edward VI. in
1553, and the following question and answer will be of interest, as indicative
of the views then entertained. “Question: ‘How is that
petition, Thy Kingdom come, to
be understood?”
“Answer: We ask that His
Kingdom may come, for that as yet we see not all things subject to Christ: we
see not yet how the Stone is cut out of the mountain without human help, which
breaks into pieces and reduceth to nothing the image described by Daniel; or,
how the only rock, which is Christ, doth possess and obtain the empire of the
whole world given Him of the Father. As yet
Antichrist is not slain; whence it is that we desire and pray that at length it
may come to pass and be fulfilled; and that Christ alone may reign with His
saints, according to the divine promises; and that He may live and have
dominion in the world, according to the decrees of the holy Gospel, and not
according to the traditions and laws of men, and the wills of the tyrants of the
world.”
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 698]
PROPOSITION 106. Our doctrine of the Kingdom
sustained by the temptation of Christ.
The Church-Kingdom view endeavours to sustain
itself by referring to the temptation of Jesus, informing us that He tempted by
Satan “to adopt the worldly idea of Messiah’s Kingdom,”
i.e. to receive just such a literal Kingdom as covenant and prophecy describe,
but which we are to discard, as it is alleged Jesus did, as “sinful,” and substitute a “spiritual Kingdom.”
OBSERVATION 1. This, however, is far from being sober, sound exegesis, being
wrongfully inferred. The Kingdom offered to Jesus, as our opponents
admit when they explain Rev. 11: 15 or Dan. 7: 14, 27, etc., is, taking their own explanations (as we have already
seen), the very Kingdom and
world-dominion tendered by Satan. And in this
consists the force of
the temptation: the first temptation is
based on the actual existence of hunger and of real power lodged in the
Christ; the second on the protection promised to servants of God, and God’s
ability to protect; and so the third is also based on facts,
viz.: the promised Kingship of the Messiah on David’s throne and Kingdom, and
the consequent attainment of Supreme Rulership over the world. Each
temptation depends upon the reality of
the thing proposed, and hence none of the things around which it entwines for
support are to be removed, but only the manner of
presentation and the design intended by the tempter are to be controverted.
(For temptation, see Matt. 4: 1-11; Luke 4: 1-13; Mark 1: 12, 13.)
OBSERVATION 2. Hence, it is inconsistent to withdraw that from the temptation, which these same
writers in their comments on Rev. 11: 15 admit will ultimately be realised,
viz.: “a real world-dominion.” The far-fetched and one-sided comments of some who find in the
third temptation “a negation of all the Chiliastic
schemes of the synagogue” are
refuted (1) by third temptation,
having no point or force if it had not, like the others, been
based on the promises of God in that direction, and by Jesus not
denying that this honour would indeed be His, but, as in other cases,
emphatically objecting to the manner in which it was to be obtained.
Uhtman (The Sinlessness of Jesus) has well observed that
Jesus was tempted both as man and as the Messiah. Two of the temptations appeal
to Jesus “if He be the Son of God,” but one
significantly omits this phrase, thus tacitly assuming the covenanted Messiahship
to David’s Son - “the Son of man.” A friend. Rev. Rowe,
suggests that as there is a declaration of “being forty
days tempted of the devil,” we way have, in the narrative, only the wore salient or significant temptations selected and
reproduced.
OBSERVATION 3. So unguardedly do able men express themselves on this subject
that we find Neander (life of Christ,
ch 2 s. 27) declaring, “He
regarded the establishment of a worldly Kingdom as inseparable from the [Page 699] worship of the devil;” and argues from
this that Christ’s yielding to the establishment of such a Kingdom would have
been “sinful.” It is admitted that the manner suggested by the
devil would have been sinful, and to this Christ
properly objected, but Neander
travels beyond the record and confounds things that are different when he
asserts that the possession of “all the Kingdoms of this world” would have been in itself sinful. If this is necessarily sinful; then the promises which bespeak this very
thing are sinful; then the Kingdom under
the Theocracy uniting State and
Church, then the literal language
of the prophecies which describe it, then the
visible outward world dominion embracing in its rule all earthly Kingdoms, as Neander advocates in his Ch. His.,
etc. - all these too are sinful.
It is true, that under the Messiah’s reign such earthly Kingdoms would undergo
a change to fit them for that
delightful union of Theocratic union of Church and State, but the very tender
of the devil is such that, nothing is reserved of them, but given for any
purpose or transformation that might, suit the Saviour. Therefore
we firmly and consistently abide by the record which teaches that Christ rejected the worship of Satan by which the tender was
bound, and not that He refused because He would not have “a world-dominion” here on the earth. Besides this, as
we have seen, Propositions 83-9, the [coming
Messianic and Millennial] Kingdom is [to be] given to the Son by the Father, and
the acceptance of the offer of Satan would have
been a direct insult to the Father.
Out of a multitude of assertions that
Satan presented the Jewish and covenanted idea of the Messiahship, which
tempted Jesus, and which He rejected owing to its “falseness
and carnality,” we give, the following illustrations: Shenkel (Hurst,s Life and Lit., p. 122) says: “He was tempted to believe that the Messianic Kingdom was
merely to take the Prophecies of the Old Testament in their literal
signification. The Jews were full of the Old Testament Messianic idea, and
Christ was inwardly tempted to accord with it. His whole triumph over these
inward stirrings was His great preparatory work for the accomplishment of His
design.” Alas! what a Saviour this presents! Woolsey (The Religion of the
Present and Future, p. 35, remarks of the temptation: “It was an endeavour to divert Jesus from the aim of setting up a spiritual Kingdom, and
to induce Him to establish such an one as His countrymen were
wishing for and expecting.” (Why, then, e.g. leave the preachers of the
Kingdom - if this spiritual - in ignorance down to His ascension, Acts 1: 6?) Woolsey (p. 29, etc.) correctly lays stress on the point that the temptation
was specially intended “for
Jesus in His official station as the Messiah,” but he utterly
misapprehends the meaning of Messiahship when he says that it was designed to
test Him “whether He, would remain true to the
spiritual idea of the Messiah.”
The temptation is accounted for from Woolsey’s
standpoint, viz.: that the official title and office is wholly spiritual, a position which cannot be proven from
covenant, prophecy, or promise. Much is written on
this point irrelevant, imaginary, and derogatory of covenant and prophecy.
OBSERVATION 4. The temptation would have failed in cogency and adherence, if such power had not, in some
way, been the object or design of Christ’s mission. It was
derived from the covenant itself, and its allied predictions, and promises of
supreme authority and acknowledged Rulership over the earth. It pertained to the humanity of Christ, and not merely to His divine nature: to
the former was the rulership covenanted, the former was tempted and tried, and
the former came forth out of the temptation pure and sinless, just such a King
is the predicted Theocratic Kingdom restored needs in order to secure the
solidity, stability, etc. connected with it. Even such writers as the
author of Ecce Homo, who endeavour to make the temptation of Jesus a
mental operation, still insist that the Saviour must have had in view the
Messianic predictions which represented the Messiah
enthroned in
As this temptation is unjustly urged against us, men forgetting that Jesus, while rejecting the
manner of Satan’s proposals,
did not
deny either the miraculous
power, the tender of Divine protection, or the ultimate world-dominion
belonging to Himself - it may be well to add a few words. Kurtz (Sac. His., s. 130) remarks : “The three forms of his temptation were governed by one
design - to induce Him to adopt the carnal Messianic expectations of the Jews;
these converted the
OBSERVATION
5. In this
connection, the conjecture of Ecce Homo is very
derogatory to the character of Jesus. The
supposition that Christ was tempted to employ force in the establishment of the
Kingdom and that this is the key to the whole matter, is utterly unfounded, and, notwithstanding the faint
praise and professed laudation of Christ, stabs vitally. It is true that the
Messiah was so influenced by the prophecies that He was Himself tempted to
grasp the Kingdom by violence, but milder thoughts prevailed; what, then,
becomes of the character attributed to Him, and which He justly claimed? The
theory is unworthy of Christ, and borders on the blasphemous; it destroys the
clear conception of His mission and removes His oneness with the Father. The
theory is broached under the idea that, mistaken in
one Kingdom, an outward dominion, as the prophets predict, another, inner and
spiritual, is substituted. Proposition after Proposition,
[Page 701] in reference to preaching, covenant,
postponement of Kingdom, etc.,
refutes such a notion so unworthy of Jesus.
The conjectures, that it is mythical,
added afterward to exalt the character of Jesus that He was tempted perhaps by
one of the Sanhedrim to entrap him; that it was merely suggested to Him, or a
dream, are not worthy of a reply, because we see ample reason for this
temptation as a test or trial of One who was to occupy the covenanted Davidic
Sonship and the Second Adamic position. It vindicated His complete fitness for the
Theocratic glory - being one who was in perfect union with the Father.
OBSERVATION 6. The reality of the world’s possession by Satan is claimed by him: “All this
power will I give Thee, and the glory of them, for that is delivered unto me: and to whomsoever I will, I
give it” (Luke 4: 6). This reality is abundantly sustained by the titles given to
him, “the prince of this world,” “the
god of this age.”
He endeavours to assume the lordship and dominion forfeited by Adam, and how he
succeeds is vividly portrayed in the Apocalypse. etc., especially
exhibited just before the open revelation of Jesus, in the person and
confederation of the Antichrist. Therefore it
is that Revelation represents Satan as bound, so that
the Sovereignty of this world is securely in the hands of the once tempted
Jesus.
Jesus, to whom “all
power is given,” now leaves Satan,
“Prince of this world,” but will, as promised,
eventually “take to Himself His great power and reign.”
The reason for this delay is involved in the merciful provision made to gather
out a people who, like the Master, shall be made perfect under temptation and trial. We refer to this under several Propositions.
OBSERVATION 7. Ebrard on the temptation of
Jesus (Gospel
His., p. 207) remarks: “But when Satan
offers the whole world to Jesus, he reminds Him of the power which he exercises
over this world of sinners. The promise which he makes, if He will but worship
him, involves, therefore, the tacit threat, that he will let loose the whole
terrible force of sin to resist His progress, if this proskunesis is refused. This threat on the one hand, and on the other the possibility of
ruling over the whole of this glorious earth in carnal security and ease, were
calculated to render the choice so difficult, that only one in whom the fulness
of absolute holiness put forth fresh energy from moment to moment, could have
been in a condition to resist the temptation.” How soon, terribly, and extendedly
the powers of sin were let loose, history, in the person
of Jesus and the progress of the Church, painfully attests. But
this threat, tacitly implied, culminates in the final great struggle, when all the forces of Satan are marshalled
against Jesus and His army, to prevent Him, if possible, from securing this
world-wide dominion (compare Propositions 161, 162, 163).
Krummacher, in a
sermon (quoted by Nast, Com. Matt. 4: 1-11), remarks
that Satan “makes with his offer the covert
insinuation that, by virtue of his dominion in heathendom, he has the power to
turn the whole world against Jesus if He rejects the proposal.” Many writers declare that this was a
falsehood of Satan’s - an assumption of power beyond his ability. Fully
admitting and joyfully receiving the fact that Jesus eventually. because of His resistance of temptation and obedience, becomes the
victor, yet Satan is truthful also in this claim of power as frequently
partially manifested in the past, and ultimately completely exhibited in the
culminated Antichrist with the kings of the earth and their armies, prostrating
the Church in dire persecution, and arraying themselves against Jesus (compare Propositions
enumerated, and likewise 164, 165, 115).
* *
* * *
* *
“It is high time for Christians to interpret
unfilfilled prophecy
by the
light of prophecies already fulfilled.
The
curses of the Jews were brought to pass literally;
so also
will be the blessings.
The
scattering was literal;
so also
will be the gathering.
The
pulling down of
so also
will be the building up.
The
regection of
so also
will be the restoration.”
J. C. Ryle.
To
be continued, D.V.