094-Prop. 91. The Kingdom of God is not the Jewish Church.
Prop. 91. The Kingdom of God is not the Jewish Church. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT BY WHICH STATE AND CHURCH WERE UNITED; FROM THE SAME AS ADMINISTERED UNDER THE THEOCRATIC-DAVIDIC ARRANGEMENT; FROM THE OVERTHROW OF THE THRONE AND KINGDOM WHILE A CHURCHLY ARRANGEMENT REMAINED; FROM THE PREACHING OF JOHN, JESUS, AND THE DISCIPLES, SAYING “THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND,” SHOWING THAT IT DID NOT THEN EXIST BUT WAS PROMISED TO BE “AT HAND” OR “NEAR” ON CONDITION OF REPENTANCE; AND FINALLY FROM THE REJECTION OF THE KINGDOM AND ITS POSTPONEMENT UNTIL AFTER “THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES.” WHATEVER CHURCHLY OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION EXISTED AMONG THE JEWS AFTER THE OVERTHROW OF THE KINGDOM, THEY THEMSELVES, AS WE HAVE SHOWN, DID NOT REGARD THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS EXISTING JUST PRIOR TO THE FIRST ADVENT.
Obs. 1. This Proposition in this form is the more necessary, since many writers spiritualizing this reign into “God’s reign in the heart,” “piety,” etc., endeavor to make out that the Kingdom was actually realized without the cognizance of the Jews, and in opposition to the first preaching. We would rather accept of the expectations of the pious Jews, of the direct preaching of the disciples, etc., than of such a theory, simply because the former is in accord with the most solemnly pledged covenant of the Word, while the latter totally ignores the oath-bound promises.
Obs. 2. This Proposition is yielded to us by many of our opponents, some already quoted, who make the Christian Church something new, and hence a Kingdom in a form in which it did not previously exist, although a continuation of the Jewish Church. But if the Christian Church is a prolongation of the Jewish in another form with increased light, privileges, etc., it goes far toward establishing the Propositions that follow concerning the church. If the one was no Kingdom as admitted, then the other following is none, for these writers to make out a union between them, tell us that members of both are justified by faith, saved by grace, adopted by God, and participate finally in the same promises and redemption. Real consistency requires both to be elevated to the position of a Kingdom, which some do, although hostile to covenants and promises. Logically there is no escape here, and those writers are really the most consistent (although opposed to the facts as they existed), who make no discrimination between the Jewish and Christian Churches, pronouncing both to be the Kingdom of God for the reason that the characteristics of believers at the present day in the church are precisely the same (as e.g. faith, obedience, love, hope, etc.), that they were in the Jewish Congregation. Hence, if certain traits, qualifications, characteristics, as many assert, denote the Kingdom, then the Kingdom existed in both churches. The latter, however, remains unproven.
Obs. 3. We find on this point the most contradictory statements. Writers who fully admit that the Kingdom is to be established only under Christ, and who even tell us that this dispensation is thus distinguished, are forced by the interpretations given to the Kingdom itself to locate it back of this dispensation in the Jewish Church; and then to reconcile their theory inform us that the Kingdom existed in one form in the Jewish Church and now it is exhibited in another in the present Church. But all this is antagonistic to the most prevalent and confidently given interpretation of the Kingdom. If the Kingdom is what Dr. McCosh, and others, inform us, “God’s rule in the hearts of men,” then no difference should be made between the churches, for such a rule has ever been manifested. Such a Kingdom has ever existed even before the Theocracy was set up; such an experience is compatible without the establishment of a Kingdom here on earth, as we see in Adam, Abel, Enoch, etc. Gratefully accepting of God’s Sovereignty, of the duty of obedience to Him, etc., it does not follow, as shown by preceding Propositions, that this constitutes the predicted Kingdom. If it does, then covenant language has no definite meaning; then the Prophets and the early Preachers miserably mistook this Kingdom, promising as in the future what learned men tell us ever existed. No! that class of writers, equally learned and more scriptural, are correct when they assert that the predicted Kingdom is one that had no existence at the time of the Advent, and that it is one which Christ Himself is to establish.
Obs. 4. Any definition of the Kingdom under Christ, which affirms nothing more than was experienced by the pious Jews at the First Advent, is most certainly defective. Such are “God’s reign in the heart,” “religion,” etc. Such definitions should, in the very nature of the case, excite a mistrust that there must be error somewhere, because opposed in spirit to express prediction and promise. The Jews, such as Simon and others, were utterly ignorant of the honor they possessed of being already incorporated with a Kingdom they waited, looked, and prayed for. Such definitions, however well meaning, are virtually a lowering of Scripture promise and of the intelligence of ancient worthies. Feeling this deeply, sadly, we write plainly for the sake of the truth.
Obs. 5. The reader’s attention is recalled to our argument which clearly shows, under Propositions pertaining to the covenants, etc., that the Church itself as it existed before the formation of the Theocracy was no Kingdom here on earth; that such a Kingdom was first presented when the Theocratic form of government was instituted, God Himself condescending to act in the capacity of an earthly Ruler over the nation, and State and Church were firmly united in mutual support. After this government was overthrown or temporarily set aside, owing to the unworthiness of the nation, the Church remained as previous to the Theocracy; but it is never recognized by the Prophets as the Kingdom-the believer being directed to look for and await its coming This posture of waiting the pious portion of the nation occupied.
Obs. 6. It is right, therefore, to say, that the Church has always existed; and even, as some do, to declare, that the Christian is a continuation of the previous Church in another form and with added privileges; but it is wrong to assert that the Church, without the previously ordained visible Theocratic order in actual union with it, is the Kingdom of God in the sense given by covenant and Prophet. It lacks the God-given distinguishing Theocratic arrangement which can alone elevate it to the position of a Kingdom here on earth, viz.: God through man acting in the manifested real capacity of earthly Ruler.
Obs. 7. To illustrate how the Jewish Church is elevated, in a circumlocutory way, to the position of a Kingdom, we select an example. Thus, Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 65) affirms (quoting Owen’s Prel. Diss. to Hebrews to sustain his point), that the Church has always existed; that Christ did not take one away to set up another; that the Christian Church is the same as that before the Advent; and afterward in his work calls this Church, which he has made identical, the Kingdom of God. The truth is, that all who take Fairbairn’s position respecting the Church, and then designate it “the Kingdom of God,” cannot avoid logically making (notwithstanding their disclaimers to the contrary that Christ’s Kingdom was only established at His Advent, and is the only Kingdom of promise), the Jewish Church the same Kingdom.
Obs. 8. This last is attempted in another quarter, judging from the book notices in the Evang. Review (Oct. 1873), and Scribner’s Monthly (Dec. 1872). Abbey, in a work called “The City of God and the Church Makers,” takes the ground that the Christian Church and the Jewish are not only the same, but that they are one, beginning in Eden, basing their essential likeness as the same Christian Church, City of God, or Kingdom of heaven in Christ, He being an eternal person, etc. While there is propriety in the efforts to rebut the antagonism which some erect between the Old Testament and New Testament churches, yet there is the same old mistake of recognizing the Sovereignty of God or of Christ as constituting the Kingdom, and an ignoring of the plain covenanted fact that the Kingdom is promised to Jesus Christ, not merely in virtue of His divinity, but as Son of David, the predicted Son of Man. This simple and undeniable truth, in connection with the history of the covenanted development, overturns all such theorizing. All notions of the Kingdom that do not stand the test of the Covenant must be discarded.
Those who affirm that the Church is the Kingdom of God, and claim that John the Baptist was in the Kingdom, are met and confounded by even a single passage, Matthew 11:11, where the least in the Kingdom is represented as greater than John, showing that by the Kingdom something else than the Church is denoted. Some, such are the contradictions involved, forgetting their own definitions of the Church as a continuous Kingdom, apply this passage, for fulfillment, to believers after the day of Pentecost. (Comp. Prop. 39). The least reflection will show that the Jewish Church had not the covenanted characteristics of the Kingdom, for as Daniel (7:22) says, the time had not yet come that the saints possessed the Kingdom, etc.