THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE N. H.
PETERS
[* PROPOSITIONS 29, 30, 32, 33 and 38 from VOLUME
1 (pp. 230-233, 237-241 & 253-255).]
-------
[Page 230]
PROPOSITION 29. This
Theocracy or Kingdom is exclusively
given to the natural descendants of Abraham,
in their corporate capacity.
This follows from the preceding
Propositions and cannot be denied by any one without
doing violence to the Scriptures. For the entire tenor of the
Word shows that the nation was selected and favoured in this respect beyond
all other nations. No others could enjoy the privileges and blessings
which it conferred, and contemplated to confer, without being adopted into the
nation, and provision for such a contingency, was early (Ex. 12: 48, Num. 9: 14) made.
OBSERVATION 1. The Proposition simply repeats, in another form,
the idea to which it is desirable to give some prominence, since,
it has an important bearing in tracing the proper conception of the Kingdom. It
teaches that the Kingdom is solely given to the seed of Abraham, which embraced the Jews. For God
condescended only to act as earthly Ruler in behalf of that one nation,
the election being thus
practically demonstrated in their nationality. If this Kingdom is to be
given to any other than a believing Jew, we certainly, in view of the plain
language confining it to such (Compare Proposition 24), ought to have the matter
stated in the most express manner. If Gentiles, as Gentiles, without adoption or engrafting, so that they shall be legally regarded as Abraham’s seed, can receive this kingdom, then,
in view of the numerous counter statements to the contrary, the most precise
and determinate instructions should be presented, affirming the same. Now the
lack of these - our opponents relying on pure inference - is evidence of the
correctness of our position, that the Kingdom belongs to the faithful Jews and
to those who are received as such because of faith in the Messiah, Abraham’s
seed, however produced, natural or engrafted, receive the Kingdom.
PROPOSITION 2. So sure is this Kingdom to the seed of Abraham, by virtue of covenant and oath, that when the Lord was displeased
with the nation at the establishment of the Theocracy and threatened its
extermination, yet, to insure the
fulfilment of His word, He proposed that of Moses He would raise up such a
nation. The same is intimated by John the
Baptist (Matt. 3:
9) when, the Jews refusing
to repent, he told them that God could, if
it was requisite, raise up children to Abraham by - [‘resurrection’
(see Luke 20: 35,
Phil. 3: 11, Heb. 11: 35, Rev. 20: 4-6, etc.) and] - supernatural power. Such instances
teach that, rather than fail, God can work to any extent demanded, but always in the Jewish line - i.e. all who are ever to enjoy His special
Theocratic favour must, in some way, be regarded as the descendants, the
children of Abraham.
[Page 231]
OBSERVATION 3. This gives us one of the reasons why intermarriages
with heathen were forbidden, why Ezra and Nehemiah manifested such zeal in purging the Jewish nation,
why the amalgamation of the Jewish with
other nations was prohibited. The introduction of others into the nation
could only be lawfully preferred in accord with a proper
confession of faith, and then they participate in the Theocratic
privileges and blessings.
OBSERVATION 4. No reader of the Old Testament can fail to see that the Theocratic idea is
the nation’s foundation
principle,
permeating all that pertains to it.
Why is it that in the Scriptures God passes by (excepting in a
few hostile predictions) the mighty monarchies and kingdoms of the earth, which
are the boast and pride of profane history, and centres His
interest alone in the small Jewish nation? Unbelievers consider this a great defect, and ridicule its
occurrence. But the answer is a consistent and logical
one: God, in virtue of covenant and relationship, could not consistently take any other position in honour to
Himself, and the nation which forms the basis of His Theocratic rule and
manifestation.
OBSERVATION 5. This feature, the Theocracy alone pertaining to the Jews, was their proud
boast, as seen e.g. Deut. 4: 32-40, Ps. 147: 20.
OBSERVATION 6. This is the Key to the significant superscription of the
cross: “This is the King of the Jews.” But
whilst we must not forestall coming phases
in our argument, leaving them to arrive in their regular historical and logical
order, yet it may be in place to urge the reader to consider why Jesus should
be specifically designated on the cross only as “the King of the Jews,” and not of Jews and Gentiles or of nations generally. There must be
some valid reason why, as the
King of the Jews, He becomes the King over all nations.
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 232]
PROPOSITION 30. The Prophets, however, without specifying the
manner of introduction,
predict that the Gentiles shall
participate
in the blessings of this Theocracy or
Kingdom.
This needs no special proof, for the
fact is satisfactorily evidenced that, although the prophets announced it and
Jesus declared it, the apostles even did not understand how it could consistently
(in view of our preceding Propositions) be done, until the principle and
order under which it could be accomplished revealed to Peter (Acts 10 and 11),
and acknowledged in a council (Acts 15). Hence it is
called a mystery revealed (Eph. 3).
OBSERVATION 1. If these predictions were not given,
a strong proof of God’s foreknowledge and determination
to carry on His Divine Purpose would be lacking. Even already by Moses (Deut. 32: 21, 43) it is foretold,
and as the anticipated unbelief and perversion of the nation arises and its
rejection for a time is insured, the announcement becomes more bold and
frequent.
OBSERVATION 2. If such prophecies were wanting, then the objection
would arise that God had not revealed a definite Plan, or made provision in that Plan for the temporary failure of
the Jewish nation. Therefore, aside from their relationship to its believing
Gentiles, they are exceeding precious predictions, indicating completeness in
the Divine Purpose.
OBSERVATION 3. The very manner in which the
predictions are given manifest the wisdom of God. One feature is carefully kept in the background until the time has
arrived for fulfilment, viz.: how the Gentiles are to have part in the
blessings of Abraham, seeing that the promises pertain to Abraham’s seed. While
the kingdom belongs to the Jews, and the nations renders itself unworthy of it,
and God’s Purpose is to turn to the Gentiles, yet the mode of incorporating these Gentiles is left
for future revelation. The call of the Gentiles is given in a way that implies
that certain events connected with it must first be fulfilled and additional revelation be given before it can be properly
comprehended. In the very nature of the case, it could not be otherwise, for if
every event, link after link in the chain of
OBSERVATION 4. The reader will notice, too, that this calling of the
Gentiles, while in a few places spoken of as a result of Jewish unbelief and
punishment (as e.g. Dent. 32: 21), is more generally, almost
universally, predicted by the prophets to occur in connection with the Jewish nationality. It is a matter
either taken for granted or directly mentioned in immediate combination with the Jewish
nation. The reason for this is, that while the Gentiles enjoy special favour
during the period of the nation’s dispersion, yet, as Paul (Rom. 11: 12, 15)
asserts, they shall realise immeasurably greater blessings when God’s kindness and faithfulness shall restore the nation
to its former Theocratic position. The privileges and rich results of the
Theocracy restored are to be enjoyed by the Gentiles (thus e.g. Isa. 11: 10-16, chs. 60, 55, 62, etc.).
OBSERVATION 5. The Kingdom being given to the nation, and this
being based on covenants and promises confirmed by
oath, (1) no other nation can obtain it without a recall of the covenant relationship;
(2) such a recall is nowhere asserted, but the perpetuity
of the same is most explicitly and repeatedly affirmed; (3) the nation, for a time suffering the withdrawal of God’s special
Theocratic ordering, does not vitiate the
covenant relationship; (4) hence,
the participation of the Gentiles in the covenanted relationship (and through
this, to an inheriting of the blessings of the Kingdom), must depend (as has
been stated) upon their being, in some way, adopted
as the seed of Abraham. Precisely here was the mystery, which baffled
even the apostles until specially enlightened.
OBSERVATION 6. The original bestowment of the Theocracy being in a most solemn, public
manner, if ever the Jewish nation is to forfeit its relationship to that
Theocracy, this must be done in as public manner, or, at least, the most
explicit statement must come from God to this effect. This has not,
cannot be
done -
although multitudes, misled by the temporary punishment of
the nation, infer it - without violating God’s pledged word. Hence, the importance of closely
tracing the call of the Gentiles, and noticing the connection with the Jewish nation.
OBSERVATION 7. Infidelity has never yet attempted to explain by what
mental process the prophets could predict this call of the Gentiles when so
directly opposed to Jewish election and covenanted relationship.
Unbelief cares not to study the delicate and most admirable traits of Divine
Wisdom in the predictions, given in general terms, and leaving, for the best of
reasons, the filling up of the web of events to the time of fulfilment.
Unbelief [by Christians] cares not to contemplate prophecies given thousands of years ago, and most
wonderfully fulfilling, without interfering with moral freedom, for this would
lead to the supernatural.
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 237]
PROPOSITION 32. This
Theocratic Kingdom,
thus incorporated with
the Davidic, is removed when the
The spirit of prophecy, which expresses the opinion of God in
this matter, is emphatic and clear. Thus e.g. take Ps.
89, and the Davidic throne, which it is
asserted the Messiah, “the Holy One of Israel,”
shall occupy, is represented as completely removed, the throne and crown cast
down, God himself having withdrawn in his wrath at the nation’s sinfulness.
Numerous predictions, to avoid repetition, will be given
hereafter.
OBSERVATION 1. The Proposition is evidenced, (1) by the continued overthrow of what
God called His throne and Kingdom, (Ezek. 21: 25-27, Hos. 3: 4, 5,
etc.); (2) by the Prophets not recognising
any other Theocratic Kingdom than the one thus connected; (3) by the restoration from Babylon, building of the temple, - [by the Man whose name is “the
Branch” (see Zech. 6: 12, 13, R.V.)] etc., being never likened to this
Kingdom, for although blessings were vouchsafed to the nation from God through
His general divine Sovereignty, yet God did not
act as their King, which is seen, e.g. in the Jews being still “servants” and others had “dominion over them” (Neh. 9: 36, 37), being placed under tribute, (Ezra. 4: 13 and 7: 24) ; (4)
by the simple fact that, neither in the temple rebuilt nor in any subsequent
political position of the Jews, was God directly accessible as Ruler, to be
consulted, etc.; (5) by the Jews
themselves, in their future political and religions status, never supposing,
after the overthrow of the Davidic Kingdom, that it or the Theocracy connected
with it was restored, but constantly and ardently looked for its re-establishment;
(6) by the withdrawal of God, more
and more decided, so that even for centuries the voice of prophecy was silent.
In brief, all the circumstances indicated, that the distinctive features which manifested a Theocracy, were withdrawn, and
the religion, the ceremonial, indispensably necessity for the moral preparation
and culture of man, was alone continued. The nation was undergoing divine
punishment for its non-appreciation of Theocratic privileges.
Some writers, evidently through inadvertency, misuse the word
“Theocracy,” when they speak of the “re-establishment of the Theocracy” at the return of Ezra to
OBSERVATION 2. The highest position, politically, occupied by the nation
afterward under the brilliant reign of the Maccabean Princes, was never [Page 238] regarded as a return to the Davidic or Theocratic rule. The Asmoneans were
not in the Davidic line, and God was not the Theocratic King as once before.
The Theocracy, the Kingdom of God,
being withdrawn is the reason why (compare Observation 4 below) Daniel’s prophecies,
which give an epitome of the world’s history down to the re-establishment of
this Theocracy under the Messiah, make no mention (as they consistently could
not) of a Kingdom of God on earth running contemporaneously (as many would have
us to believe against fact) with the Gentile empires delineated by the Prophet. God’s Spirit does not contradict
itself.
OBSERVATION 3. The highest religious position afterward arrived at, when the
Warburton (Div, Leg.,
B. 5, 8. 5) labours to show that the Theocracy existed down to the Coming of
the Christ. A more recent writer (Wines,
Com. on the Laws,
p. 495, etc.) indorses this view, and says: “It (Theocracy) was democratical till the time of Saul, monarchical from his accession to
the throne till the captivity, and aristocratically after the restoration of
the Jews to their own country; but through all these revolutions it retained
the Theocratic feature.” This is a serious mistake, utterly opposed to his own definitions (which we
have freely given, Propositions 25, 26. etc,) of a Theocracy, which he leaves for a lower
one of his own framing. It utterly ignores the Scripture testimony; it vitiates
the predictions of a restoration; it makes it impossible to understand the covenant
and prophecies; and it presents us a Theocracy with its life taken out, its
essential meaning removed, its throne and Kingdom overthrown. Alas! that men of ability are so misleading.
OBSERVATION 4. The reader, although perhaps premature in our line of argument, will
notice that this feature has its decided influence in shaping the peculiar and
striking manner in which the Bible is written and placed
together. Unbelief has made itself merry at the early historical
narrative of the Jewish nation when contrasted with the mighty empires of the
world, at the sudden breaking off of the same, its non-resumption (in the
Bible) to present the splendid achievements of the Maccabees, etc. But under all this lies a profound reason. The mighty
empires of the world arc as nothing to God when compared to His initiatory
Theocratic ordering. Small as the latter is when contrasted with Kingdoms that
embraced immense territories and a multitude of nations; weak as the
subordinate Theocratic kings were when compared with an Alexander
or Cyrus or Caesar, yet in the estimation of Deity, there was in this
nucleus, this earnest of government, something that outweighed the grandeur of all earthly Kingdoms. This was the Theocracy. God shows due respect
to His own ordering, and hence confines Himself almost exclusively to the history of the Jewish nation. Other Kingdoms are,
indeed, mentioned, but only to show their relationship to the Jewish nation and
to pronounce their doom, or the final result when the
Theocracy shall be triumphantly re-established. This gives the Bible its
remarkable cast of expression and its historical connection. Thus e.g. there is
a regular tracing of the rise of the nation, the establishment of the
Theocracy, and then comes the regular [Page 239] history of the Theocracy to its
downfall or rather withdrawal. Everything which led to
it, that was connected with it, that led to its abandonment, is as a matter of
interest. Briefly, but boldly, the outlines, the essentials, for a correct
apprehension, are presented down to the last King. Then
follows the account of the Captivity; of a partial restoration; of the return
not meeting the requirements of a restored Theocracy; of God’s fulfilling His
Word in punishing; of prophets who predict the
re-establishment of
the Theocracy; of a long silence of centuries, a sufficiency of prediction
having been given and the history of the nation being unworthy of record; of
what occurred at the coming of the Messiah, and the mention of continued
punishment, of a few predictions confirmatory of the Old Testament, but no
attempt to verify them, for in the unbroken silence, the dignity of prophecy is
enhanced by the fulfilment being taken for granted as something needing no
proof, being ever present in history.
* *
* *
* * *
[Page 240]
PROPOSITION 33. The Prophets, some even before the Captivity, foreseeing
the overthrow of the Kingdom, both foretell its downfall and its final
restoration.
Thus., e.g., Isaiah,
Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah deliberately predict the withdrawal of God’s protection as Ruler on account of the
rebellious spirit of the nation, the abolishment of the Kingdom,
and the destruction of the very place of the Ruler’s special manifestation. But
they also announce, just as distinctly, that at some period in
the future there shall be a complete
restoration of the same Kingdom under David’s son, and a restoration, too, - [at “the age to
come,” (Heb. 6: 5, R.V.)] - pre-eminently
glorious.
OBSERVATION 1. This, from what preceded and will follow, needs
no special proof. Such passages as Amos 9: 11, Luke 1: 32, 33, Ezek. 37: 21, 22, Jer. 33: 14, etc., it is admitted by all men, do in their plain grammatical sense distinctively
teach such downfall and restoration. This is denied by no one;
but we are informed by eminent and pious men, that this is not the sense
(excepting only as it pertains to downfall) intended by God. Aside from the
inconsistency of charging God with employing a sense - the one, too, in common
usage between men - that fairly expresses
this idea and fosters corresponding hopes, we hold with the Primitive Church
and shall prove as we proceed, that it is the only sense which consistently maintains God’s
covenant, oath, promises, and election of the nation.
OBSERVATION 2. Let the reader but pause and consider: God has had a veritable Kingdom here on earth; He was the earthly Ruler of the
nation exhibited in and through this Kingdom; now is it conceivable that He,
owing to unbelief and sin of the nation, will give up this Kingdom forever - that He will permit Himself to be defeated in the establishment of
such an open, outward, manifested Theocracy? Men, the multitude, say
such is the fact, but we do not read the Bible as asserting the same, for this
would be dishonouring to God, making Him to undertake a work that He is unable
to accomplish, and this would make the [divinely
inspired] Prophets predict falsely, making them plainly to prophecy
what shall never come to pass. (Compare Proposition 201.)
OBSERVATION 3. It has been generally acknowledged (no matter how afterward
explained or spiritualised) that the basis of prophetical teaching is this
Kingdom constantly and uniformly connected with the National and
Religio-Political constitution of the people of
OBSERVATION 4. When the elements of disunion, disruption, etc., appeared in
the
* *
* * *
* *
[Page 253]
PROPOSITION 38. John
the Baptist preached that this Kingdom,
predicted by the Prophets,
was “nigh at
hand.”
This Kingdom was to be offered to the
Jewish nation, and John’s mission was to prepare the nation for its acceptance.
However men may explain the Kingdom itself, the fact
stated is not disputed.
OBSERVATION 1. But right here, at the very
beginning of the New Testament narrative, pious and good men, under a mistaken
view of the Kingdom to which John’s preaching does not correspond, endeavour to lessen the knowledge and the importance of
John. This is done by misapplying a passage of Scripture, so that the idea is boldly advanced that John’s teaching, in comparison with what is now taught, is
of comparative little value. One commentator even informs us that the lowest teacher
in the church - a Sunday-school teacher is mentioned - stands higher than John.
So low a scale in knowledge and standing, it is vain to expect them to give us a consistent and scriptural view of the
Before preceding, it is necessary to vindicate the standing of
the first New Testament preaching from the disparaging views announced by Barnes (the comment at or alluded to), Scott, Clarke, Nast, and
others, and found in almost every Life of Christ. It is a gross mistake (as Farrar, Life of Christ, vol. 1, p. 294) “the humblest child of the New Covenant more richly endowed
than the greatest prophet of the New Covenant more richly endowed that the
greatest prophet of the Old,” Lange,
Matt. 11:
7-15,
gives several interpretations, all more or less defective. Dr. Schaff, foot-note to Lang’s Com., Matt. 3: 1, unable to follow the wild interpretations usually
presented, justly makes the comparison one of “standpoint
and official station,” but hampered by the idea of its being still in
some way related to the present church weakens its force. Jones, Notes on Scripture (p. 65), gives the best
comment and interpretation that we have seen consistent with fact and the
analogy of Scripture. Hengstenberg (Christol.,
B, 3, S. 460) defends the higher character, etc., of John. The
passage referred to, supposed to teach the low standard of John in comparison
with believers of this dispensation, is found in Matt.
11: 11
and Luke 7: 28:
“Verily, I say unto you,
among them that are born of women there hath not risen
a greater than John the Baptist; notwithstanding he
that is least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
Our Saviour, undoubtedly, refers to the Kingdom of heaven as
it will be established at
His Serond Advent, as our Propositions
tend to show, for the church is only preparative to that still future, coming [Millennial] Kingdom, in which the least that inherits is greater in official standing,
more highly honoured, than John was in his official position. Leaving what
follows to indicate the truthfulness of this application of a perverted
passage, it may be only added: it certainly requires great assurance for any
one, teacher or not, to assert, from the language of Jesus, that he is, or that
his fellows are, superior to John, in
view of John’s character, inspiration, and mission. Admitting
fully the blessings, privileges, and increased knowledge
of some things that we now enjoy, yet a little reflection over the constant
attendance of the Holy Spirit, the
sublimity of that authoritative preaching by which he commanded all to repent, the consciousness of His being a
Forerunner of the Messiah, the spotless character maintained, the faithfulness
unto death, should cause persons to suspect, at once, that reference is made to
those who - [will be judged by Christ Jesus as ‘accounted worthy’ to] - actually inherit the Kingdom; who have actually
become,
and realise their honour and glory as kings and priests; who will then - [i.e., during ‘the age to come’ (cf. Heb. 6: 5 with Lk.
20: 35 and
Phil. 3: 11, etc.)] - be greater than John in every respect,
while John, also, in that [Page
254] Kingdom will occupy a
still higher position than the one sustained at the First Advent. (Compare following Propositions.) Fairbairn (Typology, p. 48) accords with the
present general view that “the most eminent in
spiritual light and privilege before were still decidedly inferior even to the
less distinguished members of the Messiah’s Kingdom” (i.e. according to
his view of the Kingdom, the present Church). But
feeling a certain incongruity in such an application (which so unjustly
contrasts, an inspired man with uninspired),
he gives us the following note which speaks for itself: “Matt. 11: 11, where it is said
respecting John the Baptist ‘notwithstanding he
that is least in the Kingdom of heaven, is greater than he.’ The
older English versions retain the comparative, and rendered ‘he that is less in the Kingdom of heaven’
(Wycliff, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva) and
so also Winer,
Greek Gr., * 36, 3,‘he who occupies some lower place in the Kingdom of heaven.’
Lightfoot, Hengstenberg, and many others approve of this milder sense as it may be called;
but Alford in his recent Com.
adheres still to the stronger ‘the least;’ and
so does Steir
in his ‘Reden Jesu,”who
in illustrating the thought, goes so far as to say, ‘a mere child that knows
the catechism, and can say the Lord’s prayer, both knows and possesses more
than the Old Testament can give, and so far stands higher and nearer to God
than John the Baptist,’ One cannot but feel that this is putting something like
a strain on our Lord’s declaration.” Fairbairn indeed relaxes “the strain”
somewhat, but continues it.
OBSERVATION 2 Others, attain, in the way of eulogizing John as a preacher
of the coming Kingdom, exalt him beyond what the language and facts will bear. Thus e.g. Judge Jones
(Notes)
correctly rejecting the interpretation of Barnes,
etc., adds: “None greater than he will ever appear
till all things shall be restored, and the
OBSERVATION 3. John preached “the gospel of the Kingdom,” just as Jesus, the
twelve, and the seventy afterward preached it. Attention is
simply directed to this, because some assert that there is no preaching
of the Gospel unless a crucified Redeemer is proclaimed. But
we have here and previous to the death of Jesus the gospel of the Kingdom
proclaimed to the nation.
OBSERVATION 4. Some able writers (as e.g. Bernard, Bampton Lectures, “The Progress
of Doctrine,” Lec. 2) take the position that “The Gospel, considered as fact, was begun at the Incarnation
and completed at the Resurrection; but the Gospel, considered as Doctrine,
began from the first preaching of Jesus was completed in the dispensation of
the Spirit.” This is, however, too circumscriptive, for the Gospel was announced previously to the preaching of Jesus by John, and was contained in the Old Testament. The facts
pertaining to the Gospel extend beyond the resurrection, even to Christ’s
present exaltation, through this intermediate period down to the Second Advent.
To make the Gospel perfect, faith must accept as facts (owing to certainty and
assurance of fulfilment) things that are
future. The Gospel could be no Gospel to
the Gentiles until their calling
[Page 255] and adoption was divinely assumed and demonstrated, i.e. in an official manner.
The Gospel, when employed as a general term to embrace all that relates to
Salvation, cannot be thus circumscribed; in
particulars (as e.g. relating
to call of Gentiles, to the Person or Life of Jesus, etc.) it
may be limited.
*
* * *
* * *
The Restoration of
“In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of
David,
And wall up its breaches;
I will also raise up its ruins
And rebuild it as in the days
of old;
That they may possess the
remnant of
And all the nations who are
called by My name,”
Declares the LORD who does this.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the
LORD,
“When the
plowman will overtake the reaper
And the treader of grapes him
who sows seed;
When the mountains will drip
sweet wine
And all the hills will be
dissolved.
“Also I will restore the captivity of My
people
And they will rebuild the
ruined cities and live in them;
They will also plant vineyards
and drink their wine,
And make gardens and eat their
fruit.
“I will also plant them on
their land,
And they will not again be
rooted out from their land
Which I have given them,”
Says the LORD your God.
-------
To
be continued, D.V.