090-Prop. 87. The postponement of the Kingdom is the key to the understanding of the meaning of t...

Prop. 87. The postponement of the Kingdom is the key to the understanding of the meaning of this dispensation. SO IMPORTANT IS THIS FACT THAT BEFORE ENTERING INTO A DIRECT DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATION THAT THE CHURCH SUSTAINS TO THIS DISPENSATION AND TO THE KINGDOM, WE TAKE THE LIBERTY OF REFERRING THE READER TO WHAT HAS BEEN PROVEN CONCERNING THIS POSTPONEMENT, PROPS. 58-68. IF OUR POSITION IS CORRECT (AND WE DEEM IT, AS THE EARLY CHURCH DID, IMPREGNABLE) THEN IT FOLLOWS, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, THAT MANY THINGS NOW APPLIED BY DIVINES TO THIS DISPENSATION HAVE NO RELATION WHATEVER TO IT. The great point overlooked by many theologians is this: that there was a time in the history of Christ when the proclamation of a Kingdom near at hand totally ceased, as we have already shown; yea, not only ceased but gave place to an entirely different tone of preaching, viz.: the postponement of that Kingdom to the Second Advent. This, of course, materially aids, as our entire argument indicates, in showing why the present ordering is established and continued to the Second Coming. Another feature forgotten is the following: that it is impossible to comprehend the Kingdom without going back to the Old Testament idea of it, which conception once received and entertained prevents an improper view of the present dispensation. While the Old Testament idea is plain, having been carried out partially in an outward, external Theocratic manifestation, yet men, to evade its force, contend that it has proven a failure, not keeping in mind (1) that the failure was not in God’s plan but in man’s depravity, and (2) that God is providing the means, as predicted, for the ultimate realization of His Purpose, so that there shall be no failure in the future (comp. e.g. Prop. 201 and 202). If, as Neander and others, it is insisted that God originally desired such an outward Theocratic Kingdom, but, owing to man’s perversity, gave up its prosecution in that form, and so modified His Plan that the present dispensation alone gives us a kind of spiritual Theocratic Kingdom in the Church, then it follows-(1) that God, starting out with the intention of instituting such a Kingdom, has been foiled in His own Plan; (2) that the perverseness of man can change God’s purposes, although announced under oath (as to certainty) in the Davidic covenant; (3) that this dispensation, instituted to overrule that very depravity and insure the future realization of God’s original Plan, which in no shape or form exhibits the previous Theocratic idea (as presented in its initiatory form and as given by covenant), must be viewed as an evidence of God’s changeableness and inability to carry out His own Purpose of government.

Obs. 1. It is a rule, more frequently violated than observed, that for a correct understanding of Scripture we should pay attention to the particular dispensation to which portions of it are intended to apply. Volumes, otherwise containing valuable matter, are vitiated by bringing nearly all Scripture to be applicable to the present time, or dispensation. The distinctions made in Holy Writ respecting the promises and blessings are broken down, and the blessings, en masse, are heaped upon the Gentile believers. The “dispensation of grace to the Gentiles” (Ephesians 3:2) is fully and completely identified with “the dispensation of the fulness of times” (Ephesians 1:10), and the result is an interpretation which mingles and interweaves that which God’s Purpose separates. The definite postponement of the Kingdom, once entertained, preserves us from this free and plastic molding of Scripture to suit our own ideas of the fitness of things.

Just as the Old Testament points us to a future coming Messiah, so also does the New; just as the Old directs us to a still future incoming age of Messianic blessedness, so also does the New. Properly to discriminate is to understand. As God has fully evidenced the literal fulfillment of the prophecies pertaining to Jesus in the past, and-instead of abrogating such a continued fulfillment in the future by substituting a spiritual one-thus urges us to Abrahamic faith respecting the unfulfilled, we receive, with gladness, this distinctive feature of the New Testament (corroborated by the Old), and unhesitatingly cleave to it in hope. Men too often interpret Scripture to suit their own ideas of what is suitable. When the Duke of Somerset (Ch. Theol. and Mod. Skep.) sarcastically refers to Paul’s allegory: “After all this confusion of types the allegory fails, as commentators remark, in the very point which it was adduced to illustrate; since, according to Scripture, the Son of the bondwoman and his posterity were free of the law, whereas Isaac’s descendants-the children of promise-became the slaves of the law;” and then in apparent triumphant triumph asks, “Are Protestants expected to receive Paul’s allegories as the Word of God?”-we answer, Yes, by receiving Paul’s own statement as to the time of fulfillment; not locating it in the past or present, but in the glorious future, when all the children of promise are gathered and inherit.

Obs. 2. Among the things which the postponement of the Kingdom effectually removes, is the prevailing opinion that the Church is the promised Kingdom of the Messiah. Admit the postponement, and it will be impossible to make the church, as present constituted, said Kingdom. For, if postponed, how could it be in existence? This prevents us from giving the church in its present fighting and struggling condition those exaggerated eulogistic praises which only pertain to it in the dispensation still future. This leads us carefully to discriminate what things appertain to past dispensations, what to the present dispensation, what to the church as now constituted, what to the church as she shall finally be manifested in glory with the King, what to the Kingdom itself, what to the future dispensation, and what to the eternal ages. The importance of such a position cannot be too highly urged, since upon it largely depend the views we take of numerous prophecies and promises. This position also forbids many extravagances, as e.g. the Shakers (Nordhoff’s Communistic Soc., p. 133), dating the last dispensation from the establishment of their church under Mother Lee, calling themselves the “Church of the Last Dispensation,” or that of the Swedenborgians, Mormons, etc., applying to their rise, society, etc., promises that belong to a still future dispensation. These utterly ignore both covenant and postponement, and overlook the continued design of this dispensation (comp. Prop. 140, etc.). These extremes are only an outgrowth of conceptions, with which the Church is largely leavened, as will be hereafter shown.