097-Prop. 94. The overlooking of the postponement of this Kingdom is a fundamental mistake, and a...

Prop. 94. The overlooking of the postponement of this Kingdom is a fundamental mistake, and a fruitful source of error in many systems of Theology.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS CONNECTED WITH THE HISTORY OF JESUS (PROPS. 58, 66, ETC.) IS ENTIRELY IGNORED BY THE MULTITUDE; AN EVENT, TOO, PLAINLY STATED, AND UPON WHICH RESULT FEARFUL (TO THE JEWS) AND MERCIFUL (TO THE GENTILES) CONSEQUENCES. THIS REMARKABLE EVENT, INTERWOVEN INTO THE VERY LIFE OF JESUS AS A CONTROLLING FORCE, IS THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE ONCE TENDERED KINGDOM TO THE SECOND ADVENT.

Obs. 1. This doctrine, noticed by, and influencing the faith and hope of the Primitive Church, is now, under spiritualizing and mystical ascendancy, passed by in numerous Commentaries, Lives of Christ, Systems of Divinity, Introductions to Theology, Histories of Doctrine, Practical Theology, and Exegetical Works, just as if it had no existence. The fact is, that many writers, with their minds prejudiced and blinded by a previous training, never even suspected its existence; for, following the lead of others, swayed by previously given systems of belief and exegetical endorsements by favorite authors, they receive their guidance without mistrust as in accordance with the truth. The leaders themselves proceed thus: overlooking the postponement of the Kingdom, and assuming that a Kingdom was somehow established, they proceed, one in. this fashion and another in that, to find this Kingdom somewhere, if not visibly at least invisibly, associated with the Church or the Divine Sovereignty. In their estimation, and assumption of an unproven theory, a Kingdom must be erected, if it takes four, six, eight or more Kingdoms in different stages and places, with various meanings attached (comp. Prop. 3), to make it out, and this molds the interpretation of Scripture, for every passage not in harmony with it must be spiritualized until it is forced into an agreement. And this creature of pure fancy, so antagonistic to the covenanted Kingdom, which they are pleased to give the title of “the Kingdom of God,” some even, like the author of Ecce Homo (p. 23), consider “greater than prophecy had ever attributed to the Messiah Himself.” In brief: the Prophets and the Covenants are “too materialistic,” “too Jewish” for this refined spiritually conceived Kingdom. Alas! men, eminent for piety, ability, and usefulness, materially aid in this wide departure from the primitive truth. While some of those theories form pleasant pictures, and are finely portrayed, still, like some of the imaginary paintings of the old masters, they have no reality upon which they are based-they, however widely spread and deeply rooted, are only the results of human suppositions. The writer has often been saddened to find believers, from whom he has derived much valuable information on various subjects when entering into the discussion of the progress of doctrine, entirely discard the Primitive Church view as if it had never been so generally and publicly entertained, although the postponement forms the basis of the call of the Gentiles, the establishment of the Christian Church, and the distinctive Chiliastic views of the early Church (referring the Kingdom, etc., to the Second Advent). Some writers even suppose that the preaching of Jesus as the Christ is the present realization of the Kingdom in the person of Jesus. They illogically make the “preaching of the things concerning the Kingdom” the equivalent of the Kingdom itself.

Obs. 2. A truth so fundamental to a correct understanding of the Doctrine of the Kingdom, is buried under a load of prejudice, preconceived opinion, mysticism, etc. Infidel and Orthodox, unbelievers and believers, alike maintain on this point a friendly relation. Thus e.g. Renan (Life of Jesus) makes Jesus set up an ideal Kingdom, which is to appear immediately, and which, he tells us, is established. Dr. McCosh, in replying to Renan (Christ and Positiv., p. 243), admits the establishment of the Kingdom, and designates it a spiritual one. Rejecting the early church view (founded on the plain, unmistakable, grammatical sense of Scripture, and received directly from inspired men), which found a profound meaning in this postponement, and heartily embracing the Origenistic interpretation, which sadly mars the covenants and recognizes no postponement, this must necessarily have a molding influence, a coloring power over all related subjects. One of the most radical defects in modern theology is found on this point, and, so long as persevered in, certain avenues of knowledge are closed; mystical interpretation; vain attempts to conciliate the Divine utterances with prevailing theories of church and state; labored, unavailing efforts to trace a methodical progress in the teaching of the Savior and disciples; spiritualistic applications which effectually degrade the ancient faith of the church; the overshadowing and ignoring of highly important truth-these and other evils attend such a position. Thousands of volumes attest to the fact that, with this link missing, it is in vain to form a complete, perfect chain in the Divine Purpose, and at the same time preserve the integrity of the preaching of John, Jesus, and the disciples. The sad consequences of overlooking this postponement is e.g. duly exemplified in the work (John on the Apoc. of the N. Test.) of Rev. Desprez (commended by Drs. Noyes, Williams, and Stanley). This writer, no doubt urged on by the critical attacks of unbelief in this direction, fully and frankly acknowledges all that we have stated concerning the preaching of the Kingdom and its expectation by the apostles and their immediate successors; but overlooking the plain and distinctive Scriptures which portray its postponement, he arrives precisely at the same conclusion with the destructive critics, viz.: that all this matter referring to a Jewish Kingdom, to the Second Coming of Christ, and to the final re-establishment, must be ruled out as no part of the Word of God (being the result of Jewish prejudice, misapprehension, etc.), because the lapse of time has fully demonstrated that nothing of the kind occurred as they expected. Alas! when accredited ministers of the Gospel give themselves up to such fearful destructive and delusive criticism to the delight of unbelievers! Of course, such an attitude at once eliminates a large proportion of the teaching of the Gospels and Epistles, utterly rejects the Apocalypse as revolving around a chimera, sets aside the covenants and God’s oath as untrustworthy, and overshadows all the remainder with a heavy pall of doubt. If Desprez is correct, what confidence can we possibly have in the apostles, or in the utterances of any of the inspired writers; for if in error on the leading important subject of the Kingdom, why not also in error on the resurrection, the atonement, and, in brief, all other doctrines? No! never can such outrageous, dishonoring interpretation be received, although Desprez boasts of a phalanx of interlaced shields (of proof), for it lacks coherency in that it totally ignores the proof given by these writers themselves respecting the postponement of the Kingdom. The past is no criterion in the sense alleged by Desprez (although it proves the correctness of the postponement), and he had better wait until “the times of the Gentiles “are fulfilled before he thus decides. If Gentile domination ceases, if the Jewish nation is restored, and Jerusalem is no longer downtrodden, etc., and then the Kingdom does not come, it will be in place to receive his criticism; until then it amounts to nothing.

Obs. 3. The rejection of the postponement of the Kingdom, is a rejection of the only key that can unlock the singular and otherwise mysterious sayings of Jesus. The consistency of the Divine narration of Christ’s Life, and of the faith and conduct of His disciples before and after His death, is alone preserved by its adoption. We have learned and able treatises on this life of Jesus, which give varied and subtle theories in order to reconcile events and sayings, and to preserve the unity of Purpose, but every one of them, even those written by believers (as Neander’s, Lange’s, Cave’s, Fleetwood’s, Milner’s, Pressense’s, Taylor’s, Farrar’s, Beecher’s, etc.), must, more or less, resort to the favorite “germ” theory, to “a hidden leaven development,” by which is understood that the truth is at first concealed or enveloped in language which-if understood as it reads, according to the letter, is error-the “growing consciousness” of the church, by a spiritualizing process through such men as Origen, Augustine, Jerome, etc., is to bring forth in its developed form, having discarded “the husk.”

Volumes, some from most gifted, learned, and pious writers, are filled with just such mystical and philosophical reasoning, and all arising from a misconception of the covenanted Kingdom and an ignoring of its postponement. Another class of learned writers, rejecting in part the Origenistic principle of finding a concealed meaning or another sense, subjecting the New Testament to a searching grammatical interpretation, find that such a Kingdom, as we argue for, was promised, preached, and fondly expected, but, overlooking this postponement so explicitly declared, tell us that Jesus, failing in the designed restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom (expecting but not receiving aid through angelic interference-so Renan), He then contented Himself, under the pressure of circumstances, to sacrifice His life and found a spiritual Kingdom. Some men (Wolfenbüttel Fragments, pub. by Lessing, etc.) declare that Jesus in His efforts to establish a Kingdom, failing of the popular support, miserably perished, the victim of ambition. Becker (in his Univ. His. for the Young, quoted by Hurst, His. Rat, p. 190) thinks that Jesus received the idea of putting forth His claims from John and John’s father, and that an arrangement was made between them to take advantage of the predictions relating to the Messiah in the Old Testament, with the same result. Bahrdt, and many others recently, exult and triumph over this fancied interpretation, without in the least noticing how the expressive language and predictions of Jesus, in postponing this Kingdom, refutes their scandalous and vindictive assertions. What must we think of men who only take as much of the Record suitable for the purpose of condemnation, and carefully leave unnoticed the very testimony included in the same?

It may be suggestive, if not instructive, to contrast two classes, who both ignore the reasons assigned for and the predictions of Jesus relating to this postponement. In Ecce Homo, the writer informs us: “He (Jesus) conceived the Theocracy restored as it had been in the time of David, with a visible monarch at its head, and that monarch Himself.” “Christ announced the restoration of the Davidic Monarchy, and presented Himself to the nation as their King; yet, when we compare the position He assumed with that of an ancient Jewish king, we fail to find any point of resemblance.” Now let us consider the reply of Ecce Deus (p. 333) to Ecce Homo, viz.: that the Davidic Kingdom was only “typical” (just as if the covenant included a type) “of government and purpose which lie beyond the merely political horizon.” And the writer argues from the fact that because such a restoration was not effected at the First Advent and since, Jesus never announced the restoration of the Davidic Monarchy (i.e. the language descriptive of it is “typical” of something else), and then, satisfied with his illogical reasoning, in his own fancy triumphantly concludes: “If the facts contradict the theory, what confidence can be placed in the theorist?” Precisely so: both writers ignore plain facts as given by Jesus and the apostles respecting the Kingdom, and not content with leaving these out of the question, confess that their unbelief is grounded on a non-fulfillment of prophecy and prediction, just as if God is bound to fulfill them, not according to His own Purpose and Time, but, to accommodate Himself to their mode of exercising faith. Such writers had better wait until “the times of the Gentiles” have ended, until the elect are gathered out, until the Second Advent arrives, until Christ’s intermediate predictions are fulfilled, before rashly giving us those conclusions. We see from this what estimate to place on rationalistic criticism, which concludes, because the Kingdom that was covenanted, predicted, and preached was not at once realized; that, after all, Christ’s relationship to the Old Testament was one of mere accommodation to circumstances; and this is arrived at by persistently turning away from Scripture, which tells us why it has not yet been realized and when it is to be witnessed. The same is true of that class, who, because the Kingdom did not appear in the form grammatically expressed, declare that the language applicable to it must either be understood spiritually or as pertaining to the Church-i.e. a Kingdom, in some form, visible or invisible, must be recognized to suit preconceived views.

Obs. 4. Let the student reflect over the singular attitude of the Primitive Church, viz.: in view of this very postponement laying the greatest stress upon Eschatology or doctrine of the last things, looking forward with hope and joy to a speedy Advent, the re-establishment of the glorious Theocratic Kingdom under the Messiah, etc., and can such a state of things be satisfactorily explained to take place under inspired teachers and their immediate successors without condemning the doctrinal position of the early church and reflecting upon the founders of the church, unless the same doctrinal teaching is accepted as Scriptural? Leaving the history of the doctrine for future reference, it is sufficient for the present to say that the idea of the postponement of the Kingdom had a most powerful influence, for at least three centuries, in molding the doctrinal views of the church. Hagenbach (His. of Doc, vol. 1, p. 74), in summing up the general doctrinal character of the early church period, indicates this feature, when he says: “The doctrine of the Messianic Kingdom ruled the first period. This turned upon the point that the Lord was twice to come: once in His manifestation in the flesh, and in His future coming in judgment.”

It has been remarked by many (as e.g. Ecce Homo, p. 22), that at the First Advent there was a general expectation that the Messiah would, by an irresistible and supernatural exertion of power, crush His enemies and establish His Kingdom, and that “this appeared legibly written in the prophetical books;” that He was rejected by His countrymen because He refused to put forth such power, etc. We have seen, under various Propositions, why He refused to exhibit such power. The time had not yet arrived, for the moral conditions imposed were not observed by the nation. But notice: the Primitive Church, instead of spiritualizing those prophecies, only postponed the fulfillment to the Second Advent; the traditional doctrine, the general expectation derived from the prophets, still continued in the Church, only allied with the Second Coming of Jesus. The apostles, instead of correcting this opinion, favor it by speaking of Him as one who, in strict accord with the prophets, shall come with supernatural power to destroy His enemies, etc., while the last revelation (the Apoc.) informs us that He will come “to make war,” etc. The student, if judicious, will carefully consider this correspondence, and seek for its basis where alone it is to be found, viz.: in the Scriptures themselves. This meets the objections urged in various works, as e.g. Hengstenberg’s The Jews and the Ch. Church.

Obs. 5. Writers commenting on the passage, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth, it is good for you that I go away; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you,” etc. (John 16:7), have much to say concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit as an advance doctrinally, etc., but fail to tell us why the Holy Spirit, whose special (for He had been previously present), manifestation is thus announced, could not come unless Jesus went away. This was necessary, because the sinfulness of the nation had postponed the predicted promised Coming of the Spirit with the Kingdom (comp. Prop. 170), hence a special interposition of the Savior was requisite both to prepare the way for the gathering out of the elect and to give an assurance of a future fulfillment by an inchoate fulfillment secured through the obedience and exaltation of Christ. THIS ALSO ENABLES US TO ANSWER THE QUESTION PROPOSED BY UNBELIEF, WHY JESUS CHRIST DOES NOT PERSONALLY MANIFEST HIMSELF, AT LEAST NOW AND THEN, TO REMOVE THE UNBELIEF OF THE WORLD. THE REPLY IS, THAT HAVING BEEN REJECTED BY THE COVENANTED ELECT NATION, AND THAT NATION SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH REJECTION, THE KINGDOM ITSELF BEING POSTPONED UNTIL THE TIME ARRIVES FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE INFLICTIONS IMPOSED, THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE MESSIAH IS PART OF THAT PUNISHMENT ENTAILED. UNTIL “THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES” ARE ENDED, AN OPEN, VISIBLE MANIFESTATION CANNOT BE REASONABLY EXPECTED. BESIDES THIS, THE ENGRAFTING OF GENTILES IS, AS WE HAVE SHOWN, DONE ON THE PRINCIPLE OF FAITH AND NOT OF SIGHT. IT ILL BECOMES THE DIGNITY OF THE KING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TIME FIXED FOR THE CESSATION OF PUNISHMENT AND THE GATHERING OUT OF AN INCORPORATED PEOPLE BY FAITH. KILLEN (THE ANC. CHURCH, P. 46) ASKS THE QUESTION, WHY SO LITTLE NOTICE IS TAKEN OF THE SEVENTY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, AND ANSWERS, BECAUSE IT WAS TYPICAL OR SYMBOLICAL OF THE FUTURE TRANSMISSION OF THE GOSPEL. THEY COULD, HOWEVER, BE NO TYPE OF THE FUTURE, OWING TO THEIR EXCLUSIVE MISSION AND MESSAGE. THE ANSWER IS FOUND IN THE SPEEDY POSTPONEMENT OF THE KINGDOM ENDING THEIR MISSION TO THE NATION, AND A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED TO SHOW BOTH THE TENDER OF THE KINGDOM AND THE REJECTION OF THE MESSIAH.

Obs. 6. The postponement of the Kingdom (with the events connected therewith), being the truth itself joining other truths in an intelligent and satisfactory manner,-is admirably adapted to meet and remove the objections of the Jews. The Jews, abiding by the plain statements of the Old Testament, survey the various prevailing theories, advanced respecting a present existing Messianic Kingdom, and finding them one and all antagonistic to the covenanted and predicted promises, reject Christianity itself,-as if this humanly interpolated view was a part of Christianity (which it was not for the first three centuries). Compare Prop. 193.

Thus e.g. the objection urged by Rabbi Crool (Restoration of Israel), against Jesus as the Messiah, is, that He did not sit on David’s throne or set up the Davidic Kingdom as it was predicted by the prophets and as covenanted; and also, that the Jews, instead of the promised peace, joy, exaltation, etc., under the Messianic Kingdom (if it really commenced at or immediately after the First Advent), found trouble, suffering, dispersion, etc. Now to such objections, the postponement, with the Scripturally given reasons for its occurrence, affords the only satisfactory reply, seeing that we leave the covenanted Kingdom intact, the covenants and predictions just as they are written, and the promises to the Jewish nation, in its covenanted relationship, to be yet fulfilled in all their greatness and glory.

Obs. 7. This acceptation of the taught postponement effectually removes the chief argument against, what some are pleased to call, “prophetical literalism.” Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 495, Ap. F.) attempts to make the charge preferred against his system (viz.: that it is calculated to repel Jews), to recoil upon us by boldly asserting that “prophetical literalism, essentially Jewish,” aids the Jews in rejecting Christ, because we claim that many things referring to Christ still remain unfulfilled. (Comp. preceding Observation.) This is unfounded: for we show a sufficiency, already fulfilled, literally, in Jesus to justify His being received as the Messiah, while the main leading objections relating to the covenants, the Kingdom, the covenanted position of the nation, its supremacy as predicted, etc., are answered by us without any perversion of Scripture under the plea of spiritualizing, accommodation, a better sense, etc. The proof is found in the conversions effected by the relative systems.

We hold to the covenants as given to the Jews; accept of the predictions received by them; endorse as they did the literal fulfillment respecting the Kingdom, so that we are not guilty of that spiritualizing of promises into a vague and invisible fulfillment so exceedingly unsatisfactory to a Jewish mind. We do not take the promises expressly given to the Jewish nation and heap them, without regard to their connection, upon the Gentiles. Our position, and the proving the fulfillment of covenant and promise in the future; our showing a postponement to the Second Advent of predictions especially near and dear to the Jewish heart, must necessarily be more acceptable to Jewish faith than the wholesale disclaimers of popular systems. The Jew finds in our system of belief a harmony with the language of Scripture that he sees in no other; and so much is this the case that many Jews have accepted of the Messiah under its influence, as witnessed in the numerous Jews who have been Millenarians, publishing Millenarian works and editing Millenarian periodicals. Indeed Fairbairn breaks the force of his own objection, for if our “prophetical literalism is essentially Jewish” it cannot be hostile to, but must be favorable to, the Jews. Besides this, it is worthy of notice, when once the principles of interpretation of the Alexandrian school (endorsed by Fairbairn) predominated, conversion among the Jews became fewer and fewer, until finally, under the spiritualizing system, they for centuries almost entirely ceased. And it was only after a more literal interpretation of the Bible was revived, that conversions among them increased. (Comp. works of McNeil, Margoliouth, Brooks, Bicheno, etc., and sermons before the London Soc. for the Conv. of Jews by Cooper, etc., etc.)

Obs. 8. The most amiable piety, as well as the grossest unbelief, is alike arrayed against an acknowledgment of this postponement, owing to the pervading influence of the church-Kingdom theories. It is observable that the former even in its comments on things which are utterly inconsistent with the state of the predicted Messianic Kingdom (which the prophets make one of peace, release from suffering, deliverance from enemies, etc.), endeavors, by the force of the sheerest inference, to conciliate such a state of things now existing with the prophetic delineation of a Kingdom in a peaceful and flourishing existence.

Thus, to illustrate: Steir (Lange’s Com. Matt., vol. p. 199, Doc. 1) attributes the intimations of Jesus that His disciples must endure persecution, tribulation, etc., to the fact that a Kingdom very different to the one expected must intervene. But where is this intervening Kingdom, combined with suffering, etc., covenanted or predicted? Jesus, too, nowhere says that His followers must endure tribulation in His Kingdom; more than this, in view of the covenanted and predicted blessings, He could not truthfully say it, for one single utterance of this kind would raise up an irreconcilable antagonism. The New Testament perfectly agrees with the Old, fully sustains the gladdening consistency, by attributing to and associating with the Messianic Kingdom only happiness, blessing, honor, and glory. Once to be in the Kingdom is freedom from all evil and deliverance from the curse. The peculiarity has already been noticed, that in the Old Testament, so far as the Kingdom is concerned, there is no discrimination between the First and Second Advents. So much is this the case, that if we had only the Old Testament and knew nothing of the First Advent, as separate and distinct from another, we also, like the Jews, would believe this Kingdom to be subsequent to His First Coming. (We have shown why this feature became necessary, because of the tender of the Kingdom at the First Advent.) While this is true, the postponement of the Kingdom, in view of the refusal of the nation to comply with the required moral conditions, indicates what coming is meant, not the coming to humiliation, rejection, and death, but the coming in glory. We are, therefore, not at liberty to change the nature of the Kingdom in order to accommodate it to the state of things existing during this period of postponement.

Obs. 9. The Kingdom being thus postponed, and the process of the gathering out of the elect now going on, is sufficient reason why no additional Revelation is necessary. The Apocalypse of John, to encourage our faith and hope, includes all that is additionally required to be known, appropriately closing the direct Divine communications, and confirming the voices of the Prophets. Jesus Himself refrained from penning down anything, contenting Himself with the testimony of chosen witnesses, because He foresaw that such writing, if given, would have been perverted by His enemies and employed against Himself in accusation to the Roman power (as was even done through His reported words). For the same reason, in part, the Apocalypse is given in symbolical language, and the apostles (as Paul in Thessalonians) are guarded in their expressions. After the reader has passed over our entire argument, the reader will find abundant reason why the Kingdom is mentioned in the Gospels and Epistles without entering into the specific details given by the prophets, and why the same is represented under symbolic forms in the Apocalypse. Taking into consideration the nature of the Kingdom, the restored Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom, which necessarily embraces a restored Jewish nation, etc., a more extended and detailed notice would unnecessarily (owing to this postponement) have excited the jealousy, hostility, and persecution of the Roman Empire.

Obs. 10. Jesus having come to fulfill the Prophets, and that fulfillment being in large part postponed to the Second Advent, the statements of the Prophets remain and include in them a sufficiency of information needed. To fully know what His mission was, and how it will be eventually realized, we must refer not merely to His life, to the preaching and testimony of His disciples, but also to what the Prophets have written, ever remembering that the covenants form the basis of all pertaining to the Kingdom. From these united, the doctrine of the Kingdom can be clearly adduced.

We strongly suspect (giving it as a suggestion) that in view of the postponement, and this being merely a preliminary stage to the final ushering in of His Kingdom, He, foreseeing (as has happened) how the words of the Prophets descriptive of this Kingdom would be perverted from their literal meaning and torn from their connection to sustain Church and hierarchical claims-He, foreknowing how His own words as reported would be changed in their meaning for the same purpose, left as little as possible on record endorsing the preliminary nature of this dispensation, in order to avoid additional perversion and spiritualizing of language; and in order, above all, to make the covenants, and predictions pertaining thereto, the objects of continued humble faith and hope. The prophecies that He has fulfilled, the testimony of Himself and disciples, the incorporation of all this in a regular Divine Plan possessing unity of Purpose, and which is only sustained and manifested when the prophecies which He is to fulfill at His Second Coming are included, evince that we possess a sufficient guide.

Obs. 11. By this postponement the special Davidic covenant remains unfulfilled (excepting that David’s Son and Lord is born, and qualified for the immortal reign), and “the tabernacle of David” continues “fallen down” and “in ruins,”-“The house” remains “desolate.” It demands the harshest interpretation to deny or spiritualize away existing facts. Yet men, involved in a system which, of necessity, must have the predicted Kingdom in actual establishment, endeavor to get rid of all this in the most summary way. Thus e.g. take any prediction relating to the Messiah reigning on David’s throne (as e.g.Isaiah 9:7, etc.), and see how it is connected with (1) a fearful overthrow of the nation, preceding, and (2) a deliverance of the same nation, contemporaneously with the reign. Take prophecy after prophecy, and notice how the rule of David’s Son is inseparably allied by the Prophets with the Jews nationally, and well may we stand surprised at the bold presumption which rudely severs this connection made by inspired men, giving the curses to the Jews and the blessings (promised to the same nation), to Gentile nations. Why such an unjust and arbitrary interpretation? Simply because the Alexandrian-monkish theory, having the predicted Kingdom unpostponed, must in some way bend these prophecies to suit its pre-determined condition. Alas! great and good men have been engaged in this destructive work, forcibly reminding us that “the wisdom of man is foolishness with God,” and that “the things of God” can only be obtained by observing what the Spirit has recorded and retaining what is written unaltered.

We give numerous illustrations from eminent men, who, with an honest desire to honor Jesus, deliberately change the divine record of facts. Unbelievers take a much shorter method to get rid of the covenanted and predicted Kingdom, as e.g. Tuttle (The Career of the Christ. Idea in History), who reiterates and compresses an old view: “He (Jesus) was actuated by a grand political motive, which met with a sad defeat; then we observe the sorrow of disappointment. The temporal scheme is laid in the dust.” Both parties, the one believing and the other unbelieving, do not allow the Scriptures to present their own testimony on the subject; both come to the Word with preconceived views of its teachings, and under a pious prejudice or a hostile feeling, explain the same so as to make it harmonize with their respective opinions. Both do injury to the truth as revealed: the one, by so dressing it up that its natural appearance disappears; the other, by attempts to destroy it. The one party may, indeed, plead a sincerity of purpose, and the other may give as its motive the claim of reason, etc.; but the truth, God’s truth, as written, is dependent for its realization upon neither of them, and will find its ultimate verification notwithstanding the misconception of its friends or the cavils of its enemies. Some few, however, properly discriminate, and realize the importance of this postponement. One of the best articles on the subject is from the pen of Dr. Craven (Lange’s Com. Rev., p. 95), which fell under the writer’s notice after these Propositions had been worked out. It was a gratification to find the same so strongly corroborated by such a scholar; and the student will be amply repaid by a perusal of his “Excursus on the Basileia.”

Obs. 12. The evidence in behalf of this postponement has already been given (e.g. Prop 58, 65, 66, 67, 70, etc.), but it may be instructive to notice how the passages affording it are treated by many. Thus e.g. consider what Jesus said to the Jews (Matthew 23:37-39; Luke 13:34-35), respecting His leaving their house desolate until a certain period elapsed, viz.: until “the times of the Gentiles” were fulfilled, and until the predicted time (as e.g.Zechariah 12:9-14; Joel 3 etc.), of their repentance and willingness to receive the Messiah. This “house” receives singular treatment at the hands of those who overlook the postponement of the Kingdom. Forgetting how this word is used in the Davidic covenant and by the Prophets, we have a variety of significations given, which are not in accordance with the covenant, or the Prophets, or the facts as they existed when Jesus spoke. Grotius, Meyer, and others make “the house” to be the city of Jerusalem; De Wette and others, the city and temple; Theophylact, Calvin, Ewald, Barnes, and others, the temple; Lange, and others, the temple, city, and land. But how could those be “left desolate,” i.e. remain in continued desolation; for history shows that the temple (as indicated Mark 13:1-2, etc.), by the additions made by Herod, was a splendid edifice, while the city and land were far from being desolate. The same history, however, informs us what was desolate and remained desolate, viz.: the Davidic Kingdom which was overthrown,-the Davidic tabernacle which was fallen down,-for the Jewish nation, instead of having their former covenanted Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, were under the rulership of the Roman Emperors. This corresponds precisely with what David himself predicted, Psalms 89:38-45. Let the careful student but reflect: if Jesus came to fulfill the Prophets, He will use the word “house” as they employed it, and especially as it was given in the covenant. This He did, taking the word to denote the fallen Davidic house or Kingdom, which was indeed “desolate” for a long time, and, being left by Him in that state, continues so to the present day. Let the reader but notice how the word is employed in the covenant itself, how it is used by the Prophets, (as e.g.Jeremiah 22:5, “this house [Davidic] shall become a desolation”), that neither temple, nor city, nor land were desolate at the time the words were spoken, and be will see that consistency requires the interpretation that we have given. This might be abundantly confirmed by quotations taken from the Prophets, but one or two references will be amply sufficient. Thus Amos 9:11 explicitly states that the tabernacle of David itself, fallen and made desolate, shall be restored, and no ingenuity can make this fallen throne and Kingdom or house the throne of the Father in the third heaven (to which the Davidic throne is likened by many writers). So likewise Hosea 3:4-5. Christ, as our argument evinces, could not, owing to the nation’s disobedience, restore this fallen, desolate tabernacle of David, and therefore tells the nation that this desolate “house” shall be left thus until another era, when the words of the Prophets shall most assuredly be verified. The careful student will observe that, owing to this foreknown postponement, certain prophecies are framed to meet its foreseen condition, and others to correspond with it as an already determined fact. Thus e.g. Daniel 2 and 7, as connected with the ultimate re-establishment of Israel, does not refer in the slightest manner to the first Coming of the Christ. The subject-matter is Gentile domination, and as the Messiah’s Kingdom, which is to supersede the same, was not then set up but postponed, the prophecies only, and in strict accordance with what has taken place, direct our attention to the Second Advent, when this will be accomplished. Thus also Jesus, after He announced the postponement, gives an epitome of Jewish destiny (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), and only when the Second Advent arrives does Jewish tribulation cease. Thus again the Apocalypse is so framed, that from beginning to end it directs the eye of faith to a Second Advent in power and glory, which shall overcome all enemies and bring in a realization of covenant promises. In none of these, extended as they are, is the slightest hint of a Messianic Kingdom already existing (as many teach), but the postponement being assumed as an accomplished fact, believers are spoken of as suffering, tried, tempted, persecuted, etc.-enduring things which never, never can be-as the prophets predict-associated with the Kingdom of the Christ.

Obs. 13. To Millenarians it may be observed, that a remarkable announcement of the postponement of this Kingdom, its ultimate establishment in the restoration of the tribes of Israel with the glory that shall follow, is found in Isaiah 49:1-23 (Comp. Alexander’s version), in Micah 5:2-4 (“give them up until,” etc.), in Zechariah 13:7-9, etc. This feature, the postponement, will be corroborated by many succeeding Propositions,-forming a regular series of connected reasons confirmatory of this important characteristic of the Divine Plan.

Obs. 14. Neander (Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 36) sees clearly that to preserve unity, it is requisite to advocate a restoration of the Theocracy, but, unfortunately, overlooking this postponement and wedded to a church-Kingdom theory, he connects such a restoration with the First Advent instead of placing it, where the Scriptures do, at the Second Advent. No Theocracy has been established, as covenanted, from the First Advent down to the present, for that which is the kernel or life of the Theocratic idea is lacking, viz.: God condescending to rule over man in the capacity of an earthly Ruler.

Obs. 15. This doctrine of the postponement rebuts the unbelieving attacks against the Messianic Kingdom and the attempted explanations concerning it. AS E.G. THAT JESUS HAVING FAILED TO REALIZE THE KINGDOM “BY POLITICAL MEANS,” AND SEEING “THE FOLLY OF MILITARY MESSIANISM,” HE THEN “RELIED IMPLICITLY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HIS MESSIANIC THRONE BY THE MIRACULOUS DISPLAY OF THE DIVINE POWER;” BUT THIS FINALLY GAVE PLACE TO “THE IDEA OF SPIRITUAL SUPREMACY, THROUGH THE RELIGIOUS REFORMATION OF HIS PEOPLE.” (SO ABBOT, P. 243, FREEDOM AND FELLOWSHIP, BEING A REITERATION OF RENAN AND OTHERS.) THIS IS A COMPLETE IGNORING OF THE RECORD, AND A REVERSING OF THAT WHICH IS PLAINLY WRITTEN, BEING PURE ASSUMPTION WITHOUT A PARTICLE OF HISTORICAL PROOF TO SUSTAIN IT. WHERE E.G. IS THE LEAST EVIDENCE THAT JESUS CHANGED THE POPULAR IDEA (ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN AT ONE TIME ENTERTAINED BY HIMSELF), OF THE MESSIAH INTO “THE SUBLIME IDEA OF A SPIRITUAL CHRIST RULING BY LOVE,” ETC.? ASIDE FROM NO SUCH A CHANGE BEING EXPRESSED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, IT IS ALSO REFUTED BY THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH BEING UTTERLY UNACQUAINTED WITH SUCH AN ALLEGED TRANSMUTATION.

Obs. 16. The postponement indicates that a very large Judaistic element remains yet to be realized in fulfillment.

NEANDER (CH. HIS., VOL. 1, P. 339) AND OTHERS ASSERT THAT CHRISTIANITY IS “THE FULFILLMENT OF JUDAISM.” THIS IS TRUE, BUT ONLY IN A LIMITED SENSE (AS E.G. RELATING TO THE SACRIFICIAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW) FOR IN THE HIGHER SENSE (VIZ.: THE THEOCRATIC) THERE IS STILL LACKING THE FULFILLMENT OF THE COVENANTED KINGDOM WITH ALL THAT PERTAINS TO IT. IN THE VERY NATURE OF THE CASE, IF GOD’S PROMISES ARE EVER FULFILLED IN THEIR PLAIN, UNMISTAKABLE GRAMMATICAL SENSE, MUCH THAT IS “JEWISH” MUST EVENTUALLY BE INCORPORATED. OUR ARGUMENT WILL NECESSARILY DEVELOP THIS FEATURE AS WE PROCEED.

Obs. 17. This view also shows how ungrounded is the insidious (and to the philosophic mind, fascinating) theory, so prevalent, of distinguishing between the Gospels, making them different types or stages of expression.^{144 [Note: 44 144. As e.g. Bernard (Bampton Lectures, Lec. 2, The Progress of Doctrine), making Matthew a Gospel from the Hebrew standpoint; Mark, a Gospel more disengaged from the Jewish connection, adapted to Gentiles, with a “habit of mind colored by contact with Judaism;” Luke, a Gospel passing from Jewish associations to those “adapted to a Greek mind, then, in some sense, the mind of the world;” John, a Gospel still more removed from Judaism, and planted upon universal principles, etc. The objectionable feature (admitting characteristics and peculiarities belonging to each Gospel) in such unwarranted distinctions, is the total ignoring of “the Jewish conceptions” (necessarily) of each, the fundamental Jewish covenanted position of each, and that none of them show any progress in the direction of Gentilism, but the reverse, viz.: striving to bring Gentiles to the acknowledgment of the Jewish covenanted Seed as the Messiah (which is sustained by the Acts and Epistles, showing that Gentiles are urged by the acceptance of this Messiah to become “the seed of Abraham,” etc.).]} The simple fact is (comp. Prop. 9 and 10), that the Gospels are a unit in representing the leading subject of the Kingdom and of the King, and all of them have the same Jewish covenanted position presented.

Obs. 18. Unbelief,-rejecting the Messianic position, its rejection by the nation and the resultant postponement,-endeavors to deteriorate the actions of Jesus by ascribing to mere human passion what evidently was caused by the legitimacy of His station and His treatment by the nation.

Thus e.g. unbelievers assert that at the beginning of His ministry, Jesus was most amiable and mild, but that a change of disposition took place, owing to opposition and His expectations not being realized, so that He sternly rebuked and denounced His opponents. This is artfully represented as a deterioration of character-an indication of human frailty. The reader will observe, however, that the unity of character was preserved to the end, as witnessed e.g. in His weeping over Jerusalem and lamenting its doom, and in the utterances at His apprehension, trial, and crucifixion, when grossly insulted and deeply suffering. The alleged sternness and reproof was based on the rejection of the Kingdom by the representative men of the nation, who refused the condition of repentance and delighted in their sins. He, therefore, as was requisite to His position and tender, portrays their corruption and unfitness for the Kingdom. The Theocratic ordering perversely refused by non-repentance, exposed their own King-seeing their secret machinations for His death-to a righteous indignation, mingled with bursts of compassion. In the very nature of the case, such an indignation is not only just, but it is the very thing needed to complete the chain of evidence, since it is not merely enforcing holiness as a prerequisite, but it harmonizes with His claims of Messiahship. It is the rejected King speaking to His despisers, and His language, denunciatory and stern, adds force to the validity of His claims upon them, when He points out to them their moral unfitness for entrance into His Kingdom. He speaks as the Messiah, with authority, and His enemies felt the same. This whole subject of the postponement, also, proves how untenable are the theories of a late origin of the Gospels, for such a delicate and consistent presentation of the same could not have been the result of the periods alleged.