092-Prop. 89. Christ in view of this future Kingdom, sustains a peculiar relationship to the Church.
Prop. 89. Christ in view of this future Kingdom, sustains a peculiar relationship to the Church.
CHRIST, NOW, IN VIRTUE OF HIS DIVINE NATURE, HAS ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER ALL NATIONS, OVER THE CHURCH, ETC., BUT HE ONLY EXERTS THAT SOVEREIGNTY (PROPS. 79 AND 80) AS GOD IN PROVIDENCE, ETC., NOT AS THE SON OF MAN (E.G. PROPS. 81-83), DAVID’S SON, IN HIS HUMAN NATURE. THAT NATURE IS ALSO HIGHLY, IMMEASURABLY EXALTED BECAUSE OF ITS UNION WITH THE DIVINE, AND OF ITS BEING INTENDED FOR THE COMING VISIBLE THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT TO BE (PROP. 200) THE REPRESENTATIVE RULER OF GOD. THIS RULERSHIP NOW BELONGS TO DAVID’S SON, IS HIS BOTH BY RIGHT OF COVENANTED BIRTH AND OBEDIENCE, BUT IS NOT YET REALIZED AND WILL NOT BE UNTIL THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM. FOR, WE HAVE NO DISTINCTIVE ANNOUNCEMENT OF ITS ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN REIGNING AS COVENANTED UNTIL THE SECOND ADVENT, AT WHICH TIME IT IS PLAINLY AND SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE REIGNS NOT MERELY AS THE SON OF GOD, BUT REALLY AND TRULY AS THE SON OF MAN.
Obs. 1. Indeed, if we refer to the covenant, this must be the case, for the Kingdom directly covenanted to David’s Son is not a reign over other worlds, over the universe, or over the church as a church-is not even a reign in the third heaven, or some place outside of this earth-but is pointedly stated to be a reign over David’s Kingdom, which is extended to embrace the whole earth. To say then, whatever may be the honored position of Jesus in heaven, that He now is reigning in the covenanted, predicted Kingdom of promise, is directly opposed to God’s oath-bound covenant. This gives us then the proper idea of Christ’s relationship to the church. As Divine, One with the Father, the church is under His care and protection; as Son of Man He sustains a Headship over the church; as the future revealed King, His interest in the church is deep and abiding.
Obs. 2. To avoid misconception, and the charge of lowering Christ’s dignity or position, it may be in place to repeat that we most cordially receive and hold to what is said concerning Christ in Ephesians 1:20-23, and other passages. But with the aid of a comparison of Scripture, we avoid the conclusion that many arrive at, as e.g. in Ephesians 1:20-23, that the authority vested in Him is now in all respects exercised. We hold, that so far as its actual exercise and realization is concerned, part of it must be regarded prospectively, as seen e.g. by Ephesians 1:22 compared with Hebrews 2:8, i.e. that part referring to the Davidic covenanted Kingdom, in the world to come. (Comp. Alford, Steir, Meyer, etc.)
Obs. 3. The Headship of Christ over the church refers not so much, as is supposed, to Rulership over the church as to His being the Chief or Head of Rulers, i.e. that the church is in some peculiar and distinctive manner associated with Him. What this is, will appear under the Props. (154 and 156) relating to the reign and priesthood of the saints. Christ Himself intimates this distinction when He calls faithful believers “brethren” and not “servants.” The church is represented as Christ’s body, simply because that body are “co-heirs,” joint inheritors with Him in the Kingdom, and therefore they are purposely never called “the subjects of the Kingdom”-a phrase coined by man and contradictory to both the honor and position of the body, which takes a much higher rank. It is inconsistent, to say the least, to call “inheritors” of a Kingdom, the subjects of it.142 [Note: 42 142. The reader will of course discriminate here: the Church is subject (Ephesians 5:24, etc.) to Christ, and this, in the very nature of the case, is indispensable, but this subjection is preparatory to the future glorification and exaltation of the Church, for when allied with Him in glory, this subjection is swallowed up in joint rulership, etc. with Christ, though still subordinate, as David’s Son is to the Father; and hence our argument merely is, that believers, in view of their future position, are never called “the subjects of the Kingdom,” which is opposed to their being “kings and priests reigning with Christ” in the Kingdom. Believers are “heirs,” and not the subjects of the covenanted Kingdom. Origen (Ag. Celsus, B. 4, ch. 10) refers “the Kingdom of God,” as “reserved for those who are worthy of becoming its subjects;” we prefer the Scriptural phraseology, if it were only to remind us of future exaltation and glory.] Individual subjection or allegiance does not constitute a Kingdom, lacking as it does the essentials of a Kingdom, such as are promised. Jesus is called, and by right, and in the covenanted manner, is, “the King of the Jews,” “King of Nations,” “King of the World,” but is never called “the King of the Church.” The nearest approach to the latter is found in our English version Revelation 15:3, where He is called “King of the Saints,” but this is opposed by some of the earliest of the MSS. (as e.g. the Sinaitic and Alexandrine) and various versions, so that it is rendered “King of the Nations,” “King of the Worlds,” “King of the Ages,” and in the Greek texts in general use, it is given “King of the Nations” (comp. Lange, Alford, etc., loci Tischendorf’s N.T. etc.), which is more in accord with the general tenor and spirit of the Word. The saints, elected to be associated with Christ in Rulership, are indeed subordinated to Christ. He is the Head, the Chief, and they being also kings with Him, it is rightfully His title to be styled “King of Kings,” seeing that the latter are inferior to Him, but while subordinate, their rank, etc., elevates them as brethren and joint rulers above that of mere subjects in the ordinary use of the Word. They are truly subjects in one sense only, viz.: in the one given, e.g.1 Corinthians 11:3.
Obs. 4. The Kingship of Jesus Christ, as David’s Son, the Theocratic Ruler, is to be manifested in a period of time, called by way of pre-eminence “the day of the Lord,” “the day of Jesus Christ,” etc. This will, under Prop. 138, be shown to be still future, dating from the time of His Second Advent. The covenant promises, if actually fulfilled, require this; and hence until their realization, the church occupies the position of waiting (e.g.1 Peter 1:7; 1 Peter 1:13) for this Revelation of Jesus as King. During this expectation all things are working in behalf of the election, the contemplated gathering, the manifestation of the Sons of God. The Head is preparing the members, by the bestowal of blessed privileges, sacred ordinances, rich experience, and His own ever-abiding Presence, for the coming exaltation of the Kingdom. Communion with Christ and with each other necessitates a churchly arrangement, so that the requisite elect may be taken out from among the nations to place the future Theocratic Kingdom on an immovable basis. As simply illustrative of the conclusions adopted against us, we refer to a writer in the Princeton Review (Ap., 1851, p. 196), who endeavors to prove that “the Church is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,” in view of a spiritual reign in the heart and the Headship of Jesus. But aside from the numerous considerations hereafter presented by us against the theory, we may well ask, whether such an alleged Kingdom is a restoration of the Kingdom of God withdrawn from the Jewish nation on account of their sinfulness. Is there a single mark by which an identification can be made out, when we are assured by God Himself that the same Kingdom (Theocracy) overthrown is the identical Kingdom reestablished? To resort, by way of apology and explanations, to types and spiritualizing, is to declare that God’s words, sworn to, mean one thing in the plain grammatical sense, but are to be understood in a sense which men add to it to accommodate their respective Kingdom theories.
Obs. 5. In this postponement of the Kingdom, specifically promised to the Son of Man, we do not, by any means, detract from that power which is given to Jesus, or deny that to His will all things are subject. The question to be answered is, does He now exercise that power and make manifest that subjection in the covenanted Kingdom? The reply comes unhesitatingly, that we see no such Kingdom yet established which meets the requirements of covenant and prophecy, if the latter are received in their plain grammatical sense. Indeed, our opponents concede to us that so far as the church itself is concerned, that power is held in abeyance and its manifestation delayed, as is evidenced by the existence of tares mingled with the wheat, of different forms of evil, of kingdoms opposed to His will, etc. This conception, in the light of the covenant, the preaching of Jesus, the postponement of the Kingdom, etc., we apply to the church so far as the Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom are concerned, showing that the former cannot with any consistency be substituted for the latter.
Obs. 6. Overlooking the design of the establishment of the Christian Church, viz.: to raise up a seed unto Abraham by gathering out of the nations a people for His name, until the throne and Kingdom, now desolate, shall be restored to its covenanted position, has led to some remarkable features in philosophizing. Deeming the church a Kingdom, and seeing how little in its external history it exhibited the ideas we attach to a Kingdom, some eminent writers have presented us with a kind of Christianized pantheism, which endeavors to make out a systematic organic development by asserting a continuation of the Divine and human natures of Jesus Christ in believers through the church, thus elevating the latter into a Kingdom. To make out such an organic history, the Papacy and a host of outgrowths are embraced, as in the main legitimate results of Christianity itself, etc. If a spiritual interpretation does not suffice, a mystical is added to exalt the church into the proportions of a kingdom; and when stripped of its persuasive generalities, it resolves itself into “a perpetually growing incarnation of God and deification of man,” or “the development of the Divine essence in man.” The trouble is, that this dragnet draws too much weight for the strength of its meshes. When compared with the simplicity of the covenant, with the history of believers and of the church, with the union and fellowship as presented by the Word, it is merely man’s hypothesis. Its refutation has preceded, and will follow.
Thus e.g. Rev. S. Miller, advocating Dr. Nevin’s theory, in his Mercersburg and Mod. Theology, p. 41, etc., forms a Kingdom, embracing the divine-human life, drawn from Christ, which he designates a “new Kingdom,” not in the sense of renewed, but entirely new. This Kingdom, according to his view, was only inaugurated by the divine-human life of Jesus, and is entered by the person who partakes of the divine-human nature of the Christ. This mystical conception is, as our line of argument conclusively shows, utterly opposed by covenant, prophecy, the preaching of John, Jesus, the disciples, and apostles, etc. The Word always speaks of this Kingdom as something visibly, externally manifested in the form covenanted. Even if we were to adopt Miller’s notion that the Church is an organism starting in the person of Christ, and being “a continuation of the Incarnation” by the imparting of the humanity or life in Jesus, it would not follow that it is the covenanted, predicted Kingdom. In a conversation with him (for he was an honored uncle of mine) on this point, he said he might receive Chiliasm and still retain his view, on the ground that this was preparatory, or as a stage in his development theory. Shortly before his death, he made Chiliasm a study (with what result the writer does not know), being deeply impressed by the historical argument in its favor. One remark of his deeply impressed the writer, viz.: that Eschatology had not received the attention that it deserved, in view of the end contemplated by Redemption, for, evidently, the prevailing views were defective, lacking Scriptural unity.