087-Prop. 84. As this Kingdom is specially given to the Son of Man as the result of his obedience...
Prop. 84. As this Kingdom is specially given to the Son of Man as the result of his obedience, sufferings, and death, it must be something different from His Divine nature, or from “piety” “religion” “God’s reign in the heart,” etc. OUR ARGUMENT ALL ALONG INVOLVES THIS, FOR WE HAVE (1) THE KINGDOM PROMISED TO DAVID’S SON; (2) THIS PROMISE BASED ON THE FORETOLD AFFIRMATIONS THAT THIS SON SHALL BE SPOTLESS, WITHOUT SIN; AND (3) THE CONTINUED BLESSEDNESS AND PERPETUITY OF THE KINGDOM ASSERTED IN VIEW OF THE PERFECT CHARACTER OF THIS DESCENDANT OF DAVID. NUMEROUS PASSAGES DECLARE THIS; HENCE, WHEN WE COME TO THE APOSTLES, THEY PLAINLY INFORM US THAT HIS EXALTATION AND RECEPTION OF DOMINION IS DUE TO HIS OBEDIENCE, SUFFERINGS, AND DEATH. TWO PASSAGES ALONE CLEARLY PRESENT THIS TO US, VIZ.: HEB 12:2; PHP 2:8-9. THE LATTER PART OF THE PROP. FOLLOWS AS A NATURAL SEQUENCE.
We now enter into a detailed statement in following Props,, to show that the Church is not the covenanted and predicted Messianic Kingdom, in any sense whatever. This is the more requisite, seeing that able Pre-Mill. writers, forsaking the strictly logical and Scriptural ground, also-with our opponents-make a Kingdom to exist in the heart (God’s reign), another in the Church, and a third still future which is to come. This is misleading, and perverts the precise portrayal of the Kingdom as given by covenant and prophecy. Hence the space devoted to this subject, and the meeting of every possible objection urged against us. The Christian student, desirous for truth alone, will candidly weigh our reasons assigned, and give them proper credit in so far as they are supported by the Word.
Obs. 1. The first clause of the Prop. is fully admitted by Commentators (as e.g. Barnes, etc.), and by Theologians (as e.g. Knapp, Ch. Theol., p. 351 and 355), as “acquired,” so that in the language of Knapp, “He received it (the government) from His Father as a reward for His sufferings, and for his faithful performance of the whole work, and discharge of all the offices intrusted to Him by God for the good of man.” This, of course, corroborates and confirms our previous Propositions respecting the Divine Sovereignty of the Father and of the Son, and of the Kingdom being promised to the human nature of Jesus and not merely to the Divine. It is matter of surprise to find, after the frank acknowledgment of writers on this point, that many of them subsequently overlook it, and ascribe this Kingdom solely to the Divine nature. Another thing must also here be noticed, while it is true that the Kingdom is thus acquired, it is not correct to conclude as e.g. Knapp does: “this government which Jesus administers, as a man, is not natural to Him, or one which He attains by birth, but acquired.” This is opposed to the covenant promises, for it is distinctly announced as a prerequisite that He must be of the royal line of David. It is the distinctive Son of David to whom this Kingdom belongs by covenanted Divine right. He only confirms His right and title to it, as the Representative Ruler in such a Theocratic Kingdom, by the life and death which He manifested. Hence by these expressions we ought not to be led to reject the claims which Jesus has by virtue of His birth. This, as seen by previous Propositions, would be a grave mistake. The Father only confirms His right. As illustrative of the doctrinal position of multitudes, we quote Reuss (His. Ch. Theol. of Apos. Age, p. 154), who says: “The Kingdom of God, which Jesus desired to make a reality, commences with His personal appearance on the theatre of the world. His Advent and the setting up of the Kingdom are one and the same thing, because He is the Head and cause of the Kingdom, and the cause cannot exist without the effect.” Jesus is also e.g. the Head of the firstborn from the dead, and the Agent of the renewal of the earth, but the resurrection of the saints and the renewal has not yet transpired. This reasoning would be conclusive, if it could be proven that there was no postponement of the Kingdom. As it is, it begs the whole question, for we assert that there is nothing that our opponents allege concerning Christ’s reign in the heart and Headship over the Church, which we cannot, and do not, cordially receive, claiming, however, that all this does not constitute a Kingdom, but is purely a provisional, spiritual, and providential oversight and rule tending toward the ultimate realization of the Kingdom itself. We distinguish between the means and the end; those who oppose us either blend the two together, or assume the former to be the latter. In the extract just given, the personality of the Saviour is made equivalent to the Kingdom’s introduction (so many), and no heed is given to any Scriptures which restrict it, at least, to succeed an obedience rendered. Others, to save themselves from this difficulty, postpone the setting up of the Kingdom to His resurrection, or ascension, or to the day of Pentecost, but in their efforts to avoid one obstacle, plunge themselves even into greater difficulties (as e.g. if the Kingdom is “God’s reign in the heart,” was that postponed until then?), making it requisite to have a number of Kingdoms to meet the various contingencies.
Obs. 2. Some of the most eminent writers and commentators not knowing how to escape the dilemmas incident to their theory of a present existing Kingdom of promise, gravely tell us that this Kingdom is “piety,” or “religion,” or the most favorite phrase (as e.g. Dr. McCosh, and others), “God’s reign in the heart.” We leave them to reconcile a Kingdom of promise, specially covenanted to the Son of David in the line of his humanity, and for which He rendered Himself worthy on account of obedience, with such interpretations as these. If piety, religion, God’s reign in the heart, etc., is the Messianic Kingdom, we may well ask what need of such promises of the Kingdom in the Davidic line and why not then date the Kingdom from Adam down to the present, seeing that “piety” or “religion,” or “God’s reign in the heart,” has existed continuously? A host of questions suggested by our various Propositions indicate the utter absurdity of such a definition. Piety, religion, etc., are prerequisites to attain to this Kingdom, and are to exist in the Kingdom itself, but are far from constituting the Kingdom.
Obs. 3. The tender of the Kingdom to the Jewish nation, its rejection, postponement, the peculiar style of preaching of the first preachers-all go to show that “piety,” etc. existed with a certain portion of the Jews, without the establishment of the Kingdom. Yet even those who advocate that Christ’s Kingdom was only inaugurated after His death take this unguarded position, just as if these things were not previously exhibited. Their definition is inconsistent with their own admissions, and fatal to a distinctive Kingdom given to the Son of Man. It is not necessary to press this point. An illustration, however, showing the inconsistency may be in place. Many eminent writers enforce this heart-reigning Kingdom theory (comp. Prop. 110), but when they come to explain the predictions (e.g. Daniel 2 and 7) relating to this Kingdom they forget their own theory of a heart-kingdom, and affirm that the prophecies are realized in a visible, external manner through the establishment of the Christian Church.
Obs. 4. It may, however, be well to give an illustration of the inconsistency of writers who insist on this Kingship of Christ’s being exercised before He showed Himself thus worthy to receive it. Aside from many found in this work which declare that the Kingdom was manifested when Jesus appeared, lived, etc., (and mainly derived from this “piety,” “God’s reign in the heart” theory), we refer to, in many respects an admirable writer, Pressense. In his Sermon “On Jesus Christ as King,” he has (1) Jesus King even in His humiliation; (this we admit, but the Kingship was held in abeyance); (2) Jesus King on the Cross (this we admit, but hold that His royalty was not manifested); (3) Jesus King in a signal manner after the resurrection; and all this to show that His Kingdom was established and manifested continuously from His birth. To all this, in connection with previous arguments against such a view, we only now say, how can such a Kingdom ruled over by Jesus during His life and at the time of His death be reconciled with the Scriptures which speak of, and the countless admissions of our opponents which advocate, an acquisition of a Kingdom of promise in virtue of His obedient life and death? Our theory is consistent and requires just such a position in the Son of David. The Divine Sovereignty only bestows, this acquisition, and, when given, enforces it, but only in the covenanted Davidic line. Hence, to refer to the Divine attributes lodged with Jesus (such as His power over the angels, etc.), and from thence infer that He then exerted regal power, is evidence that the party making such an inference has no idea of the Scriptural difference existing between the Divine Sovereignty and the Kingdom (through which that Sovereignty will be gloriously displayed) distinctively promised to David’s Son.
Obs. 5. This evinces what the covenant, etc., demands, viz.: a Ruler, who is such in virtue also of His humanity; and includes, that this Ruler has shown what no other Theocratic Ruler can do, His perfect adaptability for the position, i.e. to carry out the Divine Will in government. Keeping in view the goal of Theocratic government and its requirements, we find in the honorable obedience of Christ the most ample and satisfactory assurance that in His occupancy of the Davidic throne and Kingdom, He will indeed be a truthful and stable Representative of God. Therefore Peter says, 1 Peter 1:21, etc. In conversation with Rev. Dr. Rodgers on this point, he suggested that one reason why the sinfulness of the ablest and most highly honored of the Theocratic Kings (as e.g. David and Solomon) is so plainly recorded in Scripture, arises from the fact that thus is shown (1) the failure of mere mortals, through infirmity, to sustain the position perfectly, and (2) to evidence, by way of contrast through trial, the perfection of Jesus as Theocratic King.