Page images
PDF
EPUB

The predominant characteristics in the Old Testament are, that he is to be a King, to reign over Israel, and subdue all nations; to be surrounded by every object that will exhibit and render impressive his power and his magnificence; he is to sit on David's throne, and reign for ever and ever. Ps. II, XLV, LXXII, cx, and a multitude of passages in Isaiah and other prophets, all hold the Messiah up to view in such a light as this.

What now did the Jews think and say, when he made his appearance among them in a lowly condition, as a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief?" They thought it impossible that he could be the Messiah. They said that he was an impostor. They despised, neglected, persecuted, crucified him, because he did not appear in the manner and condition which they believed were predicted by the prophets of their nation; and they believed thus, because, like Mr. D., they interpreted the Scriptures literally.

This, then, is the very same mistake, so far as interpretation is concerned, which Mr. D., and all who harmonize in opinion with him, are now committing. They must needs have a literal exegesis of all passages of Scripture which relate to the future kingdom of Christ. So said and thought the Jews. And because the Messiah made his claims only to a spiritual dominion, they would not receive him. And because Christians in general believe in only a future spiritual reign of Christ on earth, Mr. D. and others reject the views which they entertain, and treat them with disregard or even with contumely. Such is the parallel which is now fairly before us.

A sober man, well versed in the language of Scripture, will easily perceive and acknowledge, that of necessity the ancient prophets spoke as they did of the future coming of Christ in the flesh, and of the kingdom which he was about to set up. Their representations must be borrowed, in order to be understood, from objects before the minds of their hearers or readers, with which they were familiar. All the mysteries of prophetic diction, if any there are, are easily unfolded by such considerations. The prophets took it for granted, that in speaking of a spiritual Redeemer, and of his kingdom, their language must be spiritually interpreted.

Why now, in speaking of the advanced and more complete state of the same kingdom, should not the same prophets, or the New Testament writers, employ language in a similar way? I can see, or feel, no rational objection.

[ocr errors]

This brings us to our ultimate point. Is the kingdom of Christ essentially moral and spiritual? And must, therefore, all descriptions of it be interpreted in a manner that comports with this fundamental principle?

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS SPIRITUAL. So the Saviour has most explicitly declared: “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or lo there! for behold, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU," Luke 17:20, 21. So says Paul: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," Rom. 14: 17. So said Jesus to Pilate: "My KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD... my kingdom is not from hence," John 18: 36.

highest rewards?

The whole tenor of the Bible declares this to be true. It lies on the very face of all its requisitions, commands, and promises; on the face of the qualifications insisted on with respect to all who can belong to it. What must be done, that a man may enter it or belong to it? He must undergo a spiritual change? What must he do in order to remain faithful to his allegiance? He must combat and conquer his spiritual enemies. What must one do in order to attain its "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;" and "the pure in heart shall see God." The battles of Christ's servants are 66 not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers, even wicked spirits in the aerial regions," Eph. 6: 12. Christ's coming to extend and complete his kingdom, is no more evidence that his kingdom is visible and an object of sense, than his coming to set up his kingdom at first, is an evidence that this kingdom was then visible. Christ himself assumed a visible appearance then, only that he might take on him our nature and die for sin, Heb. 2: 9, 14. When he appears a second time, there is no necessity of assuming such a nature; he will appear, i. e. he will give manifest tokens of his presence, only for the purpose of salvation-salvation spiritual, not temporal; Heb. 9:28. The characteristics demanded of his servants, their rewards, and the punishment of his enemies, all combine to show that his kingdom is spiritual.

If then I am asked, why I give a spiritual exegesis to all those passages that respect his future reign on earth, my answer is, that I do it for a reason like that which leads me to explain all the anthropopathic expressions concerning God and the

future world in a spiritual manner, i. e. because any other exegesis would be utterly opposed to the well known and certain nature and condition of the Messianic reign. The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; it is spiritual, internal, moral. The happiness for which it prepares men, is of this character; and therefore the preparation itself must be congruous and appropriate.

In fact, one might just as well appropriate and assign all our bodily qualities to spirits, as appropriate to Christ's kingdom the qualities of a temporal, earthly, visible kingdom.

No principle which belongs to the science of hermeneutics is better established than this, viz., that language is always to be regarded as TROPICAL, when, if literally interpreted, it would make a sense absurd, frigid, incongruous, or inconsistent with the context or nature of things. Now Mr. D.'s literal interpretation of many passages leads to some or all of this; and therefore I cannot admit it. On the other hand, when these passages are interpreted analogically with other parts of the Bible which have respect to the Messianic development and work, nothing but consistent and rational views of Christ's kingdom are the result. I cannot hesitate which of these methods of interpretation I am to follow.

The consequence of all this is, that I feel just as well satisfied, that the predictions respecting the future state and prosperity of Christ's kingdom are to be spiritually interpreted, as I do that the declarations of Scripture respecting the hands, feet, eyes, ears, mouth, etc., of the divine Being are to be spiritually interpreted. We must give to these latter declarations a sense, which will make them compatible with the well-known nature of spirits. And in just the same way, and for reasons equally cogent, we must interpret the expressions respecting Christ's future kingdom in a spiritual way. Our exegesis does not dispense with facts in such a case; nay, it is built on facts that respect the nature of Christ's kingdom, and it presupposes facts in regard to it which I may well say are more real and permanent and immutable, than any facts in respect to an earthly kingdom that is visible, palpable, and politico-ecclesiastical, possibly can be.

Let us assume for a moment the other position, and see some of the consequences. Glorified saints, with spiritual bodies, will leave the heavens and come down to earth, mingle with saints and sinners in the flesh, partake of their occupations, and man

66

age their concerns. The Redeemer must quit, for a long time, the throne of glory in the heavens on which he is seated, to preside in and reign over a city or kingdom on earth. It is not possible to conceive of such a condition, either in respect to him or the saints, without feeling that it is a condition of exile. In "the presence of God is fulness of joy, at his right hand are pleasures forevermore." There only can we see and know, even as we are seen and known." Elsewhere all is mutable, perishable, and comparatively unsatisfactory. The Bible gives us no intimation, that when the glorification of saints is once begun, it will be thus interrupted. Nor is there any object to be achieved by all this, which may not be equally well accomplished without it. According to Mr. D., a great portion of the nations unchristianized will suffer excision, at, or soon after, the coming of Christ. The work of converting the rest is to be speedily accomplished, when the Jews are gathered in—and what then remains still to be achieved?

The literality, moreover, which our author proposes for our guide, must of necessity introduce boundless confusion and darkness. Guided by this, we must decide, that David in propria persona will be raised up, and be the literal king, yea king forever, of the Jews; see Ezek. 37: 24, 25. Another sacred writer, if interpreted by the same rule, will oblige us to believe, that the king Messiah, after his coming, will in his own person make literal war; that he will bring home to his palace many captive princesses; that he will wed one of these, and retain the others in his Harem; and that his own literal progeny will be kings and princes in all the land; for all this the 45th Psalm of necessity obliges us to believe, when interpreted in the literal way. In the millennial day, too, the wolf and the lamb will literally dwell together; the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the little child shall lead the calf, the young lion, and the fatling; the cow and the bear shall feed together; the lion will eat straw like the ox; yea, the very hills shall break forth into singing, and the trees of the field shall clap their hands; see ls. XI. and Lv. 12.

In my own view, Mr. D. has no right to refuse the literal exegesis of all these passages; because, following his own example in other cases, we are fairly entitled (not to say necessitated) so to explain them. Much less can he refuse the following consequences, (several of which, indeed, he has ex

pressly admitted and even insisted upon), viz., the rebuilding of a literal temple at Jerusalem; the resumption of the ancient ritual and priesthood; the monthly and weekly flocking of all nations to worship there, Is. 66:23; the universal subjugation of the Gentiles to the Jews as tributaries and servants, Is. 61: 6. 60: 5, 11, 12, 16. 49: 22, 23.

7-14. He tells us down," Eph. 2: 14.

But enough. What end now, we may well ask, is to be answered by all this? Paul has undertaken, more than once, to show that Gentiles are as really and as much the children of Abraham, as Jews; Rom. iv. and Rom. 3: 29, 30. Gal. 3: that "the wall of partition is broken Who then is to build it up? Who is to show me, if I am a Christian, that I am not entitled, in every proper sense of this word, to as many privileges as any of the Jews? Paul, John, Christ himself, the Old Testament also, speak of all the children of God as being made kings and priests, and being entitled to a crown of glory. If then all Christians are to be kings and priests, who are to be the servants and underlings of the Jews? The whole assumption, and all that is built upon it, is in direct opposition to the great first principles, to the fundamental and constitutional arrangements, of the Christian system. Yea, the assumption, in its very nature, is not merely un-scriptural but anti-scriptural. It is in fact a real defamation of the free, glorious, and all pervading grace of the Gospel.

Has any man ever yet made out even a tolerable account of the end to be subserved, by the reassembling of the Jews, and the reinstitution of the Mosaic ritual? Sacrifices are no more needed; are no more acceptable. The time has come,

when neither in Samaria, nor yet at Jerusalem, are men to worship God. He seeks other worshippers. But beyond this; the Jewish nation now amount to considerably more than three millions of people. How are these to settle down and subsist in Palestine, with all their descendants? Death is rarely to occur in the Millennium, according to Mr. D. The period of youth is in bloom at the age of 100 years. Then surely the Jews must double every 10 years (for they are a most prolific race); and in a single century they will at least number three thousand millions. Are these all to live within the apportionments of Ezekiel as drawn out in chap. XLVIII.? Besides; to what number are they to amount, provided they increase in the same ratio for 1,000 years? And where are

« PreviousContinue »