THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM*
By
GEORGE N. H. PETERS,
D.D.
[* PROPOSITION
56. VOLUME
1, (pp. 366-374.)]
-------
[Page 366]
PROPOSITION 56. The Kingdom was not established
during the ministry of Christ.
This necessarily follows from the
preceding; for no such a covenanted Kingdom as promised, no such a restored David
throne and Kingdom as predicted appeared. He (Luke 19: 11-27) had to
leave, before he would receive (Proposition 83) the Kingdom.
OBSERVATION 1. The men who were the preachers of this very Kingdom, and who, above all others
(especially modern theologians), ought to have known whether it was instituted
or not, had no knowledge whatever of its
being thus erected. These persons, preachers,
and singled out to be witnesses to
the truth, are more reliable, vastly more, in their belief and
testimony, than theologians with their spiritualistic and philosophical
conceits concerning the kingdom and its husk envelope. Is
it conceivable, can it be credited, that such special
chosen ones, upon whose testimony the faith of others was to be
founded, should, after their own
preaching, after all their private
and public instruction for several years, and after
the particular forty
days (Acts 1: 3), speaking of the
things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, be ignorant of the fact (if it be as alleged) that a
promised Kingdom was (as eminent theologians now gravely inform us) actually in
existence? No! Such a supposition is damaging, fatally so,
to preachers and Teacher, and cannot
possibly be entertained.
Theologians, to carry out their
Church-Kingdom theory, assert that Jesus established the kingdom during His
life. Thus e.g. Ebrard
(Gosp. His., p. 135) says: Jesus manifests Himself in Galilee as Rabbi, announces that
the
OBSERVATION 2. The apostles, the best judges in the matter, knew nothing about a Kingdom set up; and therefore, consistently with covenant and prophecy, with
former preaching and instruction, with desire and hope ask, (Acts 1:
6), Lord,
wilt Thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?
The
reply of Jesus confirms
their view of existing facts; for instead of telling them that they were mistaken in their idea of the Kingdom, that the
Kingdom already existed, etc. (according to the Alexandrian [Page 367] formulas), the answer, referring to
the times and seasons, implies on its very face that they did not misapprehend the nature of the Kingdom (compare Proposition 43). They, like Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15: 43), also waited for the
Commentators frankly admit the views
of the apostles. Thus e.g.
OBSERVATION 3. Jesus, before His death, declared the Kingdom to be still
future (compare Propositions
58,
66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74,
etc.). Take e.g. one of His last utterances (Matt. 26: 64) to Caiaphas, the High Priest:
Hereafter
shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in
the clouds of heaven. This was taken from the prediction of Daniel, applied to Himself to occur hereafter, and was well understood by all Jews
to refer to the Messiah and the Kingdom of the Messiah. The charge of blasphemy
corroborates this view. This is so
clear that even Renan (Life of Jesus,
p. 331) says: The high
priest adjured him to say whether He was the Messiah. Jesus confessed it, and proclaimed before the
assembly the speedy coming of His heavenly Kingdom. So also a little
later before Pilate, He reiterates this direct reference to His Kingdom as
future, when He says (John 18: 36) But now (i.e. at present, during [Page 368] this order of things) my Kingdom is not from hence (compare Joness admirable Notes on this verse, and see Proposition 109).
OBSERVATION 4. The significant fact
that our opponents cannot tell when this
promised Kingdom was set up, although professing that it was established is
corroborative evidence in our favour. They cannot agree in the time, giving various periods (Proposition 3) although it is a
Kingdom that prophets describe as so manifest,
when re-established, that men shall see and rejoice in it. This
Proposition is the more necessary, in order
that these conflicting opinions may be presented to the reader - opinions, too,
that never would have been entertained if the
grammatical sense had not been yielded under the pressure of
a spiritualistic Church-Kingdom theory, Some tell us that the Kingdom already
appeared under John the Baptist, but this is disproven in Proposition 41, etc.
Others locate the beginning of the Kingdom at the birth of Jesus; some place it
at the commencement of His ministry; others, when He commissioned His
disciples; some, at the confession of Peter; others, at His death; some, at His
resurrection and ascension; others, at the day of Pentecost; and still others,
at the destruction of
OBSERVATION 5. That no Kingdom, as covenanted, was set up, is corroborated
by the entire tenor of the Gospels and Epistles, and forbids, if sheer
inference is laid aside, the notion to be entertained. As evidence that those
opinions have no weight, we point to the twofold work of Christ. The first work
was to offer this Kingdom, on the condition of repentance,
to the nation. This He faithfully performed, and in the act, at least,
eliminated the elect, chosen ones from the mass. But as the
result of this part of the mission was foreknown, there was, in consequence,
connected with it (as a sequence) His second work to accomplish the Redemption
(by the shedding of His blood), even of those, who had been previously chosen,
and of those who would be among the elect in the future, and this was performed
through the sacrifice of Himself, thus making provision
for the fulfilment of the covenants
in the age to come. This
mission positively forbids the idea of the establishment of the
Kingdom.
Provision was to be made in vindication of the majesty of
moral law, by which not only sins could be remitted, but
that those who obeyed the truth
could be ultimately delivered from all the effects of the curse and become co-heirs with Jesus in the restoration
of the forfeited dominion of Adam. This provision
was accomplished by the life and death of Jesus, confirmed by His resurrection,
established by His ascension and exaltation, thus sealing, and making sure the
Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, through the fulfilment of which such a
dominion shall be exercised. During
this period of His mission, having, those definite objects in view, intending
the performance of a great and precious preparatory work, designing to make
us inheritors with Himself of a coming Kingdom through the efficacy and
resultant power of His sacrifice - during such a period there is no
room for the Kingdom. No! Instead of a Kingdom His work
required humiliation, suffering, and death; instead of exaltation to
power and Kingship, it was a veiling of power and kingly authority, an emptying
of Himself, of honour and glory in our behalf. The two states are in
antagonism and cannot coexist in the First Advent of the blessed
Redeemer. This Lord and Son of David came to suffer
many things instead of reigning, it behoved
Christ to suffer, so that the Father, instead of giving Him the [Page 369] Kingdom predicted by Daniel, described by the prophets and covenanted in
the sure mercies of David, gave Him the exceeding bitter, sorrowful cup to drink for us. Instead of a Kingdom, He
was despised and rejected of men; He came to His own and His own received Him not, for
they all forsook Him and fled, Instead
of reigning, He was betrayed, reproached, spit on, crowned with thorns, mocked
as king, and crucified. Tell us not that Davids Son reigned, as
covenanted, during such trials. Any effort to unite the two is a
violation of what the prophets have written and the Gospels have
recorded, and opposed to express passages which teach us, among other reasons, why
Christ endured all this, Phil. 2: 6-11; Heb. 12: 2; Rom. 14: 9, etc.
And (which is a remarkable and decided
proof that Scripture embraces a Divine, not human, Plan) that this humiliation,
suffering, etc., of Davids Son is, according to Davids own predictions concerning his Heir, a necessary prelude to
reigning as an immortal Son of Man on Davids throne, and a requisite preparation
to qualify Him pre-eminently for the lofty position of a universal Theocratic
King. We are,
therefore, abundantly sustained in our position by converging evidence taken
from different points, while a mass of confirmatory proof still to be presented
as we advance in the argument.
OBSERVATION 6. This nighness of the Kingdom to the nation was evidenced not merely by the
offer of the
Kingdom, but by the tender of it in the person of Jesus Christ. He was the
predicted King, the Son of David who should reign, and in virtue of this the Kingdom, in a manner, has
come nigh in His Person, He being a representative of the Kingdom, or, rather,
in Him it is lodged as Divine royal right. So that, as the
King of Babylon is called the Kingdom in Daniel 2: 38, 39,
so also the Kingdom was vested in Christ, but with this material difference
(which many overlook), that whilst in Him as of divine and legal right it was not then manifested, the right, for
certain reasons and purposes, was not then entertained and pressed to an actual realisation. The
Kingship was held in abeyance because of the foreseen
result.
The Kingdom thus connected with the person of Jesus may serve to
illustrate and explain some peculiar phraseology, such as is contained in the
Kingdom coming nigh, upon, or among them. But as these
passages deserve a separate notice, we pass them for the present with the
simple caution, that such language must not be pressed (as many do) beyond its
legitimate meaning and application. While it is true that Jesus
never denied, even in the face of death, His royalty, His Kingship,
His divine and legal right to reign as covenanted, yet it is likewise true,
that, foreseeing His rejection by the nation, and appreciating the work before
Him to be performed, instead of urging His claim He veiled it, giving us only
an occasional glimpse of it, and that when solicited by some (not the
representative men of the nation), He refused to be made King.
OBSERVATION 7. The reader will observe that there is not a single declaration of Christs which asserts that the Kingdom was then, in actual existence. It is simply inferred by others against covenant promise and prediction. One
of the strongest passages from which such an inference is drawn is that of Matthew 12: 28,
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God,
then the Kingdom is come unto you. Leaving a full
answer to follow in succeeding Propositions,
we now only remark that in the establishment of this kingdom (as predicted) the
miraculous and supernatural (Propositions 6 [i.e. intimately
connected with the supernatural] and 7 [
being a
manifestation of the supernatural, miracles are connected with it])
is required, and the miracles of Christ are a
foreshadowing and evidence of the future fulfilment of the promises. To
this evidence Jesus simply appeals, as
confirmatory of the tender of the Kingdom made to them, of its
sincerity and surety; for His miraculous power exerted, evinced that the
Kingdom was nigh unto to them,
both in the person of the King, although in humiliation, and in His possessing the adequate power to re-establish it,
if they made the necessary choice.
[Page 370]
Observe, also, that this language was
addressed to captious persons who rejected Jesus. Hence, the Kingdom is come unto or upon you, certainly does not allude in their
case to an actual possession, but merely to its being offered
to them. Again, its critics have often noticed, the phrase is come is frequently used to denote a drawing nigh,
a divine purpose not then actually accomplished, etc., as (e.g. Gen. 6: 13; Isa. 60: 1; Heb. 12: 22, etc.
OBSERVATION 8. Renan [the apostate] (Life of Jesus.
p. 249), after telling us that
Christ had an apocalyptic theory of the
Kingdom (which in another place, he defines to be a literal fulfilment of Daniel),
adopts very much the prevailing view of the Messianic Kingdom by saving: He often declared that the Kingdom of God has already commenced (?) that every man carries it in himself (?), and may, if he be worthy of it, enjoy it; that each
creates this Kingdom (?) quietly by the true
conversion of the heart, and then interprets the Kingdom to mean the good, the reign of
justice, or, the liberty of the soul.
He gives as proof, Matt. 6: 10, 33, Mark 12: 34, Luke 11: 2, 12: 31; 17: 20, 21. Such a total misapprehension of the Kingdom
(which ignores express covenant and prediction) is foretold
by the usage of eminent theologians. For the present, we only reiterate our
conviction, that the disciples on the ground were far better able to judge concerning the Kingdom and what Christ declared
respecting it, than Renan is
prepared to do at this late day.
OBSERVATION 9. Olshausen, Neander, Lange, and many others are compelled, in order to preserve consistency
in their theory of a spiritual
Kingdom, to make this Kingdom
commence somehow with the First
Advent. Now while it is true that the Kingdom in a certain sense. (Observation 6)
was in Christ, and brought nigh by
Him to the nation, yet it is wrong and misleading to infer from this that it was established. The contrary, as held by the early Church, is the truth. It is in view of
this unwarranted inference that such writers take the great and
unauthorized liberty of changing the phrase nigh at hand into now
founded, now already present, etc.
Overlooking the Kingdom that is covenanted even under
oath, and spiritualising the promises, it is an easy matter to draw from Christs
language erroneous inferences.* Forsaking the expressly covenanted Kingdom
for something else, introduces widely antagonistic contrasts. The most
divergent theories are a natural result. Some of these have already been
mentioned; others are presented in the following note.**
* We will allow some to speak for themselves, leaving the reader to ponder a certain
undecisive tone. Storr (Diss. On the Kingdom) says, respecting this nearness, that the Kingdom
was present and actually realised, because Jesus
being born (Matt. 3: 2), the Kingdom in a certain sense (Luke 11: 20, and 17: 21; Matt. 12: 28) was come,
being promised to the offspring of David; and
it could not commence until He was born, and then the
Kingdom had so far come that the King by whom
it was to be administered was certainly present. From this he
takes it for granted that it was thus administered,
never attempting to prove the main fact, never considering that the presence of
one entitled to reign and the reign itself are not necessarily co-joined, and
never noticing that a part of the covenant promise (i.e. the descent) he takes
literally and the [future (see Heb. 4.)] rest (i.e. pertaining to the Kingdom he discards. It is possible to base so
important a matter as the founding of a Messianic
Kingdom, upon so slight and inferential a foundation?
Schmid (Bib. Theol., p. 244)
remarks: He describes the
Van Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test., p.
70), so also Thompson (The Theol. of Christ),
tells us that the Kingdom is something essentially
present. When He comes, it appears with Him; it is already in the midst of
those who are asking when it shall appear, Luke
17: 20, 21. From this it is inferred,
without noticing that if his argument is correct it will also hold true that
when He leaves the Kingdom leaves with Him.
A full reply to this favourite passage for inferential proof, taken from Luke, will appear under Proposition 110. It is only by
confounding (Propositions
79 and 80) the Divine Sovereignty with the specially
covenanted
** Thus e.g. Storr (Diss. on the Kingdom),
not
satisfied with his own declarations (Observation 9, note 1), adds: After the death of Jesus, from the period of His resurrection
and ascension into heaven, that heavenly Kingdom which the
ancient prophets had predicted was entered upon by the offspring of David.
It follows, then, that the commencement of the
Messiahs Kingdom, although in a certain sense it may be traced from His birth,
yet properly is to be reckoned from His ascension into heaven. Which proves
that a far different appearance was then given to the
Dr. Bascom (Sermons, series 1, ser. 4), brings us to a climax.
He informs us that the Kingdom (as delineated in the 110
Ps., called the Creed of David) here
described was witnessed in the covenant of redemption in
OBSERVATION 10. Here, at this preaching of the Kingdom as nigh at hand, so
many stumble and fall into serious error (compare Propositions 38, 42, 55).
Let us take Reuss
(His. Ch. Theol.), illustrative of a large class, which
rightly affirms that the idea of the Kingdom is fundamental, and then gives as a special means for comprehending
the nature of the Kingdom the epitomised formulas, the time is fulfilled;
the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel. Thus far correct; but instead of
looking at these formulas from the covenanted standpoint and from the Primitive
view, he regards them entirely from a modern position. More than this: he
overlooks the fact that the Jewish nation to whom this was preached refused to repent: the conditions then being altered and the
preaching of Jesus also (which he never notices) being changed, he proceeds on
the assumption of repentance and the immediate setting up of the Kingdom; and
then to find this Kingdom nothing, offered itself but the Church, or believers,
as the Divine Sovereignty, which, of course, under such an
illegitimate process of
reasoning (leaving out the conditions, whether actually complied with, upon
which the Kingdom was tendered) are elevated to the dignity of a Kingdom.
PROPOSITION 11. The climax of unbelief in this direction is reached by Deprez (John, or the Apoc. of the New Test.), a professed believer. Admitting that the Kingdom was believed and preached as covenanted;
confessing that it was not set up, as thus received, during the First Advent
and since; informing us that the apostles and Primitive Church universally looked for the coming of
this Kingdom, locating it at the Second Advent of Jesus, he then proceeds, in
the coolest possible manner, to suggest that all such references to the Kingdom
and Advent connected with it are to be
rejected as spurious, as additions given under a gross
misapprehension of the truth. This interpretation and remedy (indorsed
by eminent men) is simply a total perversion of covenant and Scripture, a fatal blow
at the integrity and authority of the Word itself. It
follows, as a natural result, front three things, all of which are taken for granted: (1) that the Kingdom now exists,
in a form so widely different from the expectations of the early Church and the
descriptions of the Word, that it is impossible to reconcile them; (2) that the most solemnly given
Scripture, viz.: the covenant (given under oath and the basis of the Kingdom),
is to be also ignored as incapable of fulfilment; (3) and that Holy Writ, descriptive of
the postponement of this Kingdom to the Second Advent, is not to have any weight in the consideration of this
subject. In other words, Deprez, whether intentional or not, sets himself up as the judge of Scripture (what to receive and
what to reject), without allowing Scripture to testify in its own behalf. If no such Kingdom exits now,
certainly it is no more than simple justice demands to permit
Scripture to assign its reasons for the same (compare Propositions 57-68).
[Page 373]
OBSERVATION 12. In the light of Scripture there is no excuse for the
prevailing interpretations respecting the
Kingdom, for, over against the meanings engrafted by man, there, is an abundance to satisfy the reverent student that
they are utterly untenable. Without attempting to
forestall the proof that the following Propositions contain, it may be well to say
that numerous passages directly affirm, or imply, our position. Take e.g. Matt. 26:
29, Mark 14:
25,
and Jesus in the expressions until that day locates the Kingdom in the future, which is made more emphatic by Luke (22:
18) saying: Until the
OBSERVATION 13. The distinctive preaching of Jesus, based as it is on the
covenants, throws light on the vexed
question pertaining to the relation that He sustained to the law. He observed
the law Himself and enjoined it upon others, and yet intimated, in the
destruction of the temple, etc., the abrogation of the Mosaic law. But we must carefully
distinguish when the latter was done, viz. after the representative men of the nation
had conspired against Him, and after He had
revealed His rejection by the nation. We hear much about Jesus being no Jew in
spirit, etc. Even believers largely, indorse, the language of [the apostate] Renan
(Life of Jesus,
p. 207), Jesus, in other
words, is no longer a Jew. He proclaims the
rights of man, not the rights of the Jew; the religion of man, not the religion
of the Jew; the deliverance of man, and not the deliverance of the Jew
(Compare Proposition
69). Against all such inferential, cosmopolitan reasoning, we need
only place one passage (
This deserves more attention. The preaching of Jesus indicates that He was a
Jewish preacher to Jews. The covenants, the promises, the predictions all demand
this, and hence His exclusive mission to the Jews. The cosmopolitan results are
invariably
linked with, first, a fall of the Jewish nation, and, secondly, with a recovery of the same nation. The Gentiles are reached and blessed through the Jews, for it is ever tme that Salvation is of the
Jews. Paul affirms, what simple consistency requires,
that Jesus exercised His office of Messiah with special reference to the covenanted
people, the Jews. He could not, with covenanted truth before
Him, occupy any other position. Besides this, as the law
was obligatory upon the nation, and had formed part of the Davidic institution
or Theocratic rule, it was essential that the Heir, the promised Son of David,
should, as Son of man, render obedience to that law (until set aside) thus
vindicating His fitness, sinlessness, reverence for Gods appointments, and
worthiness to be the Ruler on Davids throne (compare Propositions 83, 84,
etc.). What changes would have resulted had the Jews received Him, we
cannot tell, seeing that Gods Plan was determined in view of this foreseen
rejection. The grace and mercy extended to Gentiles, as will be more clearly
stated hereafter, through the unbelief of the Jews, does not alter Christs
Jewish [Page 374] attitude or lessen His being a
minister of the circumcision. When the nation fell and the times of the
Gentiles continued on, the Mosaic ritual was abrogated
by the very force of circumstances. And it is a
curious and striking exhibition of Christs delicate feeling toward His own specific
mission to the Jewish people, that, what Paul afterward so boldly proclaimed as
no longer binding, Jesus only intimated in an indirect manner. He respected and
honoured His mission.
-------
To
be continued, D.V.