086-Prop. 83. This Kingdom is given to the Son of Man by God, the Father.
Prop. 83. This Kingdom is given to the Son of Man by God, the Father. THIS BESTOWAL OF THE KINGDOM TO THE SON OF MAN BY THE FATHER, IS CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY TAUGHT IN THE COVENANT. HENCE IN AGREEMENT WITH IT, WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE OF DAN 7:13-14; ISAIAH 49; LUK 22:29; LUK 1:32, ETC. THE DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY INSURES IT UNTO HIM.
Daniel (7:14) says that “there was given unto Him (the Son of man) dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people,” etc. Luke (1:32): “the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David,” etc. (comp. Psalm 2 and 110, etc.). The Saviour Himself seems to refer to this fact in the Parable of the Ten Pounds (Luke 19:15), “that when he was returned, having received the Kingdom,” etc. It may be added: in view of the angel announcing that “the Lord God shall give,” we have “the Ancient of Days” (in Daniel) interpreted as the Father (for to make the Son of man and the Ancient of Days the same is both harsh and inconsistent with the analogy of the Word). Because of the Theocratic nature of the Kingdom, and the Father bestowing this Kingdom upon the Son of David, it is sometimes called (Matthew 26:29) the “Father’s Kingdom” (Matthew 13:39-43), “the Kingdom of the Father;” because in this Theocratic ordering the Father and the Christ are one, both are associated together as in Revelation 11:15; Revelation 22:3; because of the covenanted relationship of Jesus, it is more frequently spoken of as His throne and Kingdom. The different aspects under which this Kingdom is represented because of its Theocratic nature-the Divine participating in and enforcing the rule of the humanity-already enforces the idea of the perpetuity of the Kingdom (comp. Prop. 159). While it is difficult to say, on grammatical grounds (so Winer, Olshausen, Com. loci), that in Titus 2:13 the great God and the Saviour Jesus Christ refer to the same person, yet it may be said: (1) that if it does (to Jesus), as many maintain (e.g. Beza, Clem, Alex., Mack, Matthies, Whitby, Bull, Usteri, Olshausen, Wiesinger, Horne, Middleton, Barnes, Bloomfield, etc.), then is it verified in the Theocratic personage and position of Jesus, in and through whom the Father is manifested (see Prop. 200). (2) On the other hand, if it refers to two persons or subjects, the Father and the Son as many others declare (as Ambrose, Grotius, Wetstein, Heinrichs, De Wette, Channing, etc.), then there is an evident allusion either to this period when the Father gives this Kingdom to the Son of man, or to the fact that a pure Theocratic ordering requires the intimate and enduring association of the Father with the Son in such a rule, so that the Father is manifested in and through the Son.
Obs. 1. This giving of the Kingdom by the Father to the Son of Man, shows, what has already been observed, that this Kingdom is something very different from the general Divine Sovereignty exercised by God. The Kingdom is an outgrowth from it, and the Divine Sovereignty will be exhibited through it, being constituted in the Theocratic form, which in its initiatory form was separated in its Rulership by two persons (i.e. God and David) but is now happily conjoined-making it thus efficacious, irresistible, and ever-enduring-in one, i.e., “the Christ.”
Obs. 2. This Kingdom is given to the Son of Man at a particular, definite time. Now without entering into a discussion (see e.g. Prop. 121) concerning the period of time designated by Daniel, we only, at present, remark: (1) that as this Kingdom is unalterably associated with David’s Son restoring the fallen Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom (so both covenant and promise), and as such a restoration has not yet been experienced, it must, in the very nature of the case, be still in the future; (2) that the peculiar phraseology, corroborated by the prophets and applied by Jesus, unmistakably refers it to the Second Advent, which we have already seen (e.g. Props. 56-68), is the designated time for taking the Kingdom. Down to the present the covenant remains unfulfilled, and the Kingdom continues postponed until the times of the Gentiles have elapsed. The investiture, visible, is delayed for wise, and, to us accounted worthy to reign, glorious purposes. Hence, whatever may be alleged respecting the Divine nature of Christ, it is an established and plainly seen fact, that the Seed of David, as such, does not now reign as the covenant requires and the prophets described (i.e. a reign here on earth in the restored Theocratic order), but we are assured, both by the oath of God and the provisions already made, that when the proper time arrives, this will be verified.
Obs. 3. By simply keeping in the line of the covenanted Kingdom which the Father in the appointed time, still future, will bestow upon the Son of David, we know how to estimate that vast mass of mystical conceptions and spiritualistic descriptions given by Origen, Swedenborg, Randolp, and a host of others, of the predicted Kingdom being now already realized in some form, or to be experienced immediately after death. The Kingdom to exist necessitates, as a primary condition, the restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom, seeing that the Theocratic ordering is bound up with the same. A Theocracy, without such a restoration, is, as covenant and promise teach, an idle dream. This serves to throw light on the rendering of Acts 3:21, a passage disputed by the Lutherans and Reformed (Olshausen’s Com., vol. 3, p. 221, and footnote of K.). The English version, although condemned by the Form of Concord, is evidently correct, seeing that the Kingdom is promised and given to the Son of Man as the Seed of David. Hence Peter, in strict accord with the facts as existing, represents Jesus as one whom the heavens receive until the time when He is manifested as King, and not as one who receives the heavens.
Obs. 4. Because we are told (Hebrews 10:12), that “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever sat down on the right hand of God,” it is inferred that this exaltation of the human nature embraces the predicted rulership of the Son of Man. But in this very connection (next verse, Hebrews 10:13), as if to guard us against such an inference, it is added: “From henceforth expecting” (Barnes, etc., “waiting,” ) “till His enemies be made his footstool.” All commentators agree that this overthrow and subjection is still future, and the Scriptures teach in the plainest manner that it is connected with His Second Advent. This, therefore, fully corresponds with our argument, for the passage must be considered and interpreted in connection with many others.
Some press the word “forever” to an extent that would forbid a Second Advent; others, as Bloomfield, Barnes, etc., connect the phrase “forever” with the sacrifice (i.e. he never comes again to make a sacrifice); the writer has his doubts whether the sense of the Greek is correctly given, seeing that “forever” does not give the force of the preposition and of a word understood with which the adjective agrees. It is merely suggested, that as Jews were addressed and the subject was the covenant, the word was not supplied, being understood. Might it not be rendered, to keep up the connection, “according to or in conformity to the everlasting covenant,” or in something similar, i.e. to verify this covenant it became necessary, etc. However rendered, one thing is certain: it cannot conflict with express covenant promises.
Obs. 5. The Sovereignty of the Father is the foundation, the security, that David’s Son shall obtain this Kingdom at the allotted time, and, therefore, this Sovereignty is also represented as giving up into the hands of this Son of Man all his enemies. Hence, in view of the Oneness of the Father and Son, one class of passages intimate that the enemies of Christ are given into His power by the Father, and yet when the work of subduing these enemies is specifically stated and in detail, it is one assigned to the Son (sustained by His relationship to the Father), because the Father commits all judgment and the Judgeship to Christ as the Son of Man, and Jesus, at His revelation, is described as coming in vengeance, etc. Therefore it becomes the student to allow both classes of passages their due position and weight in the order of procedure.
Waggoner (Ref. of Age, p. 128), confining himself exclusively to the one class of passages, lays down this caption: “The work of subduing His enemies is never in the Scriptures ascribed to Christ, but that the Father subdues the enemies of Christ and puts them under His feet.” The simple fact is, that the Father does this in and through Christ Himself, Christ acting as the agent, and hence Christ is frequently represented in the Scriptures as the One coming in wrath, in vengeance to perform this work. Waggoner is induced to take this position in order to support a singular and favorite theory, viz.: the one thousand years’ reign in heaven. But for the time he overlooks his own argument, and makes (p. 134) the following concession: “(1) The Father gives them (the enemies) to the Son. (2) The Son breaks them with a rod of iron and dashes them in pieces; which dashing, as has been shown, takes place at His Coming.” But to reconcile this incongruity, he resorts to a quibble unworthy of the subject, viz.: that “there is a great difference between having His enemies put under Him, and His destroying them.” Indeed, admitting a difference (in the way we have indicated), how comes it that those very enemies, instead of being “subdued,” etc., are represented (Revelation 19, etc., comp. Props. 115, 123, 161, etc.), as arrayed in open hostility to Christ, making war against Him, and are only brought into subjection, etc., by Christ and His armies. We dare not ignore the action ascribed to this Son of man at His coming, and what the Father performs through Him.
Obs. 6. The Kingdom being given by the Father to the Son of Man, we can, keeping this fact in view, appreciate the fact stated in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, viz: “But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifested that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him,” etc. (Comp. usage of present tense, Prop. 65, Obs. 9). As this point will be brought up under the perpetuity (Prop. 159) of the Kingdom, it is only necessary to add, that a Theocracy-in the very nature of the case, as seen in the form of the Kingdom, in its past history as given, and in the manner of its future restoration under David’s Son-must ever retain the position of being subordinate to the Divine Will of the Father. This Theocratic idea Paul seeks to impress, and this very subordination is essential to our doctrine of the Kingdom, being indicative of a Theocracy here on earth. This subordination is manifested in the investiture as described by Daniel 7, and will be most strikingly exhibited at “the holy mount.” The place of public inauguration by “the Ancient of Days” will be noticed under Prop. 166.
OBS. 7. EVEN IF (WHICH WE DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE) WE SHOULD BE MISTAKEN IN ASCRIBING CHRIST’S PRESENT REIGN TO THE DIVINE NATURE (MAKING IT IDENTICAL WITH GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY) AND NOT TO THE HUMAN, AND WHICH IS SPECIALLY EXERCISED OVER THE CHURCH, AND YET NOT SO SPECIFICALLY, OUTWARDLY, VISIBLY (AS COVENANTED), SO THAT THE CHURCH CAN NOW BE STYLED THE PROMISED KINGDOM, IT DOES NOT BY ANY MEANS FOLLOW THAT CHRIST AS THE SON OF MAN HAS NOT STILL A FUTURE KINGDOM TO COME HERE ON THE EARTH OVER WHICH HE WILL REIGN. WHATEVER VIEW MAY BE TAKEN OF THIS INTERMEDIATE STATE OF JESUS, THE COVENANT PREDICTIONS RELATING TO THE FUTURE ARE TOO MANY AND DECISIVE TO BE SET ASIDE. IT IS PROPER TO STATE THIS, SINCE EVEN SOME MILLENARIANS, LOSING SIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC PROMISES OF THE COVENANT, AND OVERLOOKING TO WHOM THIS KINGDOM IS GIVEN, VIZ.: TO THE SON OF MAN, ALSO DEPART FROM THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH VIEW, IN SO FAR AS TO ENDORSE THE POPISH NOTION THAT JESUS, AS SON OF MAN, NOW REIGNS IN THE COVENANTED KINGDOM OVER THE CHURCH, WITHOUT HOWEVER DISCARDING THE DOCTRINE OF THE FUTURE VISIBLE THRONE AND KINGDOM FOR WHICH WE CONTEND. BELIEVING THIS TO BE AN ERROR CALCULATED TO EMBARRASS AND DESTROY A PROPER CONCEPTION OF THE KINGDOM, TO WEAKEN AND OBLITERATE THE LOGICAL AND SCRIPTURAL CONNECTION EXISTING BETWEEN COVENANT AND FULFILLMENT, WE THEREFORE, DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THINGS THAT DIFFER, THE MORE STRONGLY CLEAVE TO THE OATH-BOUND COVENANT, AND, UNTIL WE SEE A FULFILLMENT COMMENSURATE WITH GOD’S MOST SOLEMN DECLARATIONS, REJECT ALL THEORIES WHICH ARE PRESENTED IN PLACE OF THE KINGDOM ITSELF. Our position simply is this: that before the Kingdom pertaining to David’s Son can possibly be inaugurated there must be a restoration of the fallen Davidic throne and Kingdom; that any Sovereignty exercised by Divine right is not the covenanted Kingdom. The position of others is, that in connection with the future reign of Jesus here on earth, He has also a Kingdom now in the Church. As this theory will be examined in detail (Props. 89-110), we leave it with the remark: that opposers to Chiliasm sometimes endeavor to bring our doctrine into disrepute by concealing or denying that all Millenarians concede to Christ a present reigning, the one party as a Divine being (as God, being One with the Father) and exercising special care over the Church as its Head, Mediator, Intercessor, and Advocate; the other party, as the Son of man over the Church, the latter being regarded either as a visible or invisible Kingdom, to give place finally to a new and higher stage at the Second Advent. No Millenarian writer ever noticed by the writer but ascribes to Jesus, in some form, a present reigning-a present exercise of exalted power.
Obs. 8. The exact time when the Father will give this Kingdom to “the Son of Man” is not revealed. Signs are indeed given in the fulfillment of predictions, etc., by which an approximative (comp. Props. 173 and 174) knowledge may be gained, but the precise time is reserved by the Father as something exclusively pertaining to Himself, Acts 1:7; Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36. THIS GIVES US A CLUE TO THE PERPLEXING PASSAGE GIVEN BY MARK (13:32), THAT THE SON DID NOT KNOW THE DAY OR HOUR. NOW LET IT BE NOTICED THAT THIS KINGDOM IS GIVEN BY THE FATHER TO “THE SON OF MAN” AT THE SECOND ADVENT; HENCE IT FOLLOWS, (1) THAT JESUS SPEAKS OF THIS FUTURE PERIOD AS “THE SON OF MAN,” I.E. AS DAVID’S SON; (2) THAT THE FATHER RETAINING THE PREROGATIVE OF BESTOWING THE KINGDOM, THE TIME OF THE ADVENT CONNECTED WITH THE SAME IS ALSO THUS RETAINED AS INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH IT. CONSEQUENTLY THE DIVINE, THE FATHER IN CHRIST, COULD NOT REVEAL WHAT EXCLUSIVELY BELONGED TO THE FATHER-WHAT PERTAINED TO THE DIVINE PREROGATIVE-AND, THEREFORE, WHILE THE DESCENDANT OF DAVID IS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED WITH THE DIVINE, YET THE DIVINE IN SUCH A MATTER (FOR “MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I”) MAY DENY TO THE HUMANITY-DAVID’S SON-THE PRECISE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DAY AND HOUR, FOR THE REASON ASSIGNED. FOR DAVID’S SON TAKES THE THINGS BELONGING TO THE FATHER, AND SHOWS THOSE THAT ARE ALLOWED, THE HUMAN BEING SUBSERVIENT TO THE WILL OF THE FATHER AND TO THE KNOWLEDGE IMPARTED. TILLOTSON, SER. ONMAR 13:32-33, ATTRIBUTES THIS NOT KNOWING TO THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST, REFERRING TO LUK 2:52, ETC., SHOWING THAT THE HUMAN NATURE DID NOT NECESSARILY, BY VIRTUE OF ITS UNION WITH THE DIVINE, KNOW ALL THINGS, OR OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT, AS MAN, BE SAID TO GROW IN WISDOM, ETC.
Obs. 9. When this Kingdom is given by the Father then will be perfected the covenanted arrangement concerning “the Man,” as indicated in 2 Samuel 7:19 and 1 Chronicles 17:17 (comp. the Davidic covenant under Prop. 49). Then in a completed sense can it be said, taking Bh. Horsley’s rendering: “And this is the arrangement about the Man, O Lord Jehovah,”-“And Thou hast regarded me (David) in the arrangement about the Man, that is to be from above, O Lord Jehovah.” Therefore it follows, taking covenant promises for our guide, that this Plan respecting the Kingdom is made in virtue of the humanity of Christ, His relationship to Man in the Davidic line; and God the Father will not allow this Plan to fail, but will in due time exhibit His Theocratic rule in and through “the Man ordained.”