THE FARM.; SIA.*
[SECOND NOTICE.]
Ar the conclusion of our former notice of this work, we expressed a very favourable opinion of the author's treatment of our Lord's great prophetical discourse, on the Mount of Olives, of himself. The current expositions of it we cannot but think highly unsatisfactory, referring as they do some portions to the destruction of Jerusalem, and others to the consum- mation of all things, in a manner which seems to us purely arbitrary, and (we say it reverently) which presents the whole more in the garb of an ambiguous heathen oracle, than of a prophetic utterance of Christ. From this embarrassment the scheme which the author has adopted entirely frees it, and we think that he has succeeded in proving that in its primary mean- ing the whole has been realised in the events which accompanied the winding-up of the Old-Testament Dispensation. Thus viewed, it is an orderly prediction, the realisation of which can be traced in the events of history ; on the popular interpretation of it, it seems to us to present little else than a mass of confusion*
The proof that the prediction has relation to events then im- pending we think unanswerable. The whole address implies that it had a direct bearing on those to whom it was spoken ; and we cannot but think that theories of interpretation which require the interpolation of thousands of years between such expres- sions as " Immediately after the tribulation of those days," and their context, is barely respectful to the divine speaker. In fact, the time has arrived when all non-natural interpretations of Scripture must be abandoned, and with them the theories which have rendered them necessary. We also think that the author has finally disposed of the interpretation, which has been adopted by many eminent commentators, of yesex by the word " race," instead of " generation," in our Lord's affirmation, " This gener- ation shall not pass away, until all these things be fulfilled." This interpretation has been forced upon them by the over- whelming necessity under which their theories labour of referring this utterance to some distant period of time, instead of, in accordance with its natural sense, to the generation then living. But while agreeing with the author that the discourse in its primary meaning is a prediction of the winding-up of the Old-Testament Dispensation, and of the events by which it was accompanied, we cannot accept his conclusion that in a secondary sense it may not have a reference to events yet future. Our reason for this opinion is that a large portion of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament un- doubtedly bear this double application. In their direct reference, they were spoken of some person or event within the perspective of the prophet, but the language employed was of such a char- acter that it could be only fully realised in the person of the Messiah. We can see no reason why this discourse should not bear a similar application.
We own that the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel constitutes a difficulty, if we view it as a part of Christ's Eschato- logical discourse. But is this necessary ? It is omitted by both Mark and Luke. This omission would be extremely difficult to account for, if those Evangelists found it inserted in the accounts of it which they followed. We therefore conclude that they did not, and that it has been inserted out of its proper place in St. Matthew's Gospel. The theory that portions of the dis- courses have been arranged by the Evangelists out of the order in which they were delivered, is one which is fully accepted by the author, and we cannot see why it should not be applied here. At any rate, it is one far less involved in difficulties than that which the exigencies of his position have compelled him to propound, viz., that wherever the Eschatology of the New Testament has left no trace that it has been realised in the visible A Critical Inquiry into the Sea Testament Doctrine of Our Lords Second Coming. London: Dsldy, lobister, sod Co. 1878. sphere, we must assume that it has been so realised in the unseen world. To the adoption of this startling position we believe that he has been impelled by the exigencies of a rigid theory of inspira- tion. We agree with him that unless we set aside the natural meaning of language, it is impossible to read the New Testament without arriving at the conclusion that the Apostolic Church lived in the firm persuasion that the coming of our Lord was an event which would happen during that generation. But this theory of inspiration compels him to assume that it was impossible that the Apostles could have laboured under any misapprehension on this subject; and that to affirm that they did, would deprive of all authority their teaching on every other point in connection with Christianity. This position seems to us to contradict both the facts and the phenomena of the New Testament. The author must admit that during our Lord's ministry, they were so far under the blinding in- fluence of their Jewish prepossessions, that they misappre- hended the meaning of very important portions of our Lord's teaching. To this, he will doubtless reply, "The Spirit was promised to lead them into all the truth(' Et; Ttjm AxiBEMP ireioccv)." But we know as a matter-of-fact that this " leading" was not an instantaneous, but a gradual enlightenment ; and that it was frequently brought about, not by direct revelations, but by the teaching of the Spirit interpreting to their minds the truths referred to in his discourses through the medium of events. Of this, the evidence which is furnished by the Acts of the Apostles as to the mode of their enlightenment respecting the right of uncircumcised Gentiles to admission to the full privileges of Christianity, is an overwhelming proof- This, then, having been the case with respect to so fundamental a truth, we see no difficulty in assuming that the Apostolic Church was only gradually enlightened respecting the real nature of the prophecies as to future manifestations of Christ ; and that this was brought about, not by a special revelation, but under the guidance of Providence. But further, we have the direct affirmation of our Lord that the exact time of the Parousia of his great discourse (mean it what it may) was hidden from him, and was known to his Father only. The attempts that have been made to explain away this, the obvious meaning of his words, seem to us to be hopeless. Still more ; immediately before his Ascension, the Apostles put to him the question, " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?" Our Lord's reply was, " It is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put inhis own power.' These declarations convey to our mind only one natural meaning, viz., that points of this kind formed no portion of the Christian revelation, but that the truth respecting them would be only gradually unfolded by the events oProvidence. We see, there- fore, no difficulty in assuming that the Apostles continued ignor- ant, even after the communication to them of the Divine Spirit,. on many subjects connected with the Parousia.
We, therefore, object in Coto to the theory that the Parousia„ the Resurrection, and the Judgment are events which have taken place in the unseen world, in A.D. 70, and we consider any other mode of solving the difficulties with which we admit that certain passages in the New Testament are encumbered, to be infinitely preferable to such an assumption, and this for the following reasons :—First, it is no solution, but an evasion of them. Secondly, we take the same ground as the author has taken against several interpretations, to which he is opposed, viz., that we cannot discover a hint that the writers of the New Testament viewed these as events which were to take place in the unseen world, but everything which implies the contrary. Thirdly, it is impossible that events such as the author describes could have taken place without leaving a single trace in history.. Fourthly, the theory in question involves an interpretation of I. Corinthians xv., and other passages, which is in the highest degree forced and non-natural. Fifthly, it also involves what, in our opinion, is an absolute absurdity. According to this theory, the rapture of the living, and the resurrection of the departed saints, which are referred to in I. Thessalonians iv.. took place in A.D. 70. If this was so. in what condition, we ask, must it have left the Church ? Clearly, without one living saint among its members. The author seems, in some degree, aware of the difficulties with which this supposition is encum- bered, but insists, we believe, on the fact that ecclesiastical his- tory is almost a blank from A.D. 70 to the middle of the second century, which he considers a confirmation of his views. The alleged fact we doubt ; but even if it was a real one, it would follow that the history of the Church not only ought to have been almost, but altogether, a blank from that time forth, and
for ever more, or at any rate, until it was reconstituted by some fresh exertion of divine power.
Our remaining observations must be brief. Many of our author's criticisms on the Eschatology of the Epistles we consider sound, others are vitiated by the theories in question. We would gladly accept his identification of the Man of Sin with Nero. The description agrees with him well, except in one particular ; but this we think fatal to the identification, notwithstanding the high authorities by which it has been accepted. St. Paul affirms that " his [namely, the Man of Sin's] manifestation would be after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all the deceivableness of unrighteous- ness in them that perish." This description incontestably proves that the Man of Sin would endeavour to establish his position by the display of a pretended miraculous power, for the terms used by the Apostle are the identical ones by which miracles are habitually designated in the New Testament. Now we fully admit that Nero's character was one suffi- ciently Satanic, in other respects, to answer the description ; but we ask,—Is it consistent with the facts of history to affirm that he came " with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all the deceivableness of unrighteous- mess " ? All that the author can allege is that Nero, in common with the other Emperors, claimed divine honours ; but not one of them, with the single exception of Vespasian, professed to be a worker of miracles, and he only in a very hesitating manner. It is a certain fact that their claim to deity was not founded on their possession of miraculous powers, but on their supreme lordship over the Roman world. Nero, therefore, in this particular fails to realise the Apostle's descrip- tion of the Man of Sin. It was realised far more effectually by the pretended Messiahs, and pre-eminently by Barchecebas, the false Christ of the final struggle of the Jews against the Roman power in the reign of Adrian. Our verdict, therefore, respecting this portion of the author's work must be "Not proven."
We must now pass over a mass of interesting matter, in order that we may offer a few remarks on our author's exposition of the Apocalypse. We agree with him that, according to the analogy of the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the express as- sertions of the book itself, a considerable portion of its contents, at least in their primary signification, must be viewed as pointing to events either contemporary or impending ; and in viewing the popular historical expositions as bearing much the same relation to sound theology as novels do to history. But we also think it highly probable that its symbols admit of an ulterior realisation in history, in the same manner as is unquestionably the case with the Messianic prophecies. The author's theory respecting this book is that its visions are an expansion of the discourse on the Mount of Olives, and that this is the reason for its omission by the author of the Fourth Gospel, who was the only one of the Evangelists who actually heard it. This idea at least deserves the praise of ingenuity. The author's general view of the Apocalypse may be briefly stated. With the exception of a small section, he maintains that it has received its complete ful- filment in the destruction of Jerusalem, and in its accompanying events. We need hardly observe that in his attempts to prove this, he is compelled frequently to invoke his theory of fulfil- ments which take place in the unseen world.
The date which the author's theories compel him to assign to the composition of the Apocalypse seems to us to con- tradict all the evidence which we possess on that sub- ject. He considers that nearly every one of the Apostolic Epistles contain distinct allusions to it, and that it was well known to the members of the Churches addressed in those epistles at the time of their composition. He even goes the length of assuming that it was so prior to the writing of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, A.D. 53-54. " We infer," says he, " that the Apocalypse was known to the Thessalonians, and that St. Paul alluded to this very description,"—i.e., to the descent of the Archangel with the trump of God. If so, it must have been composed several—say, at least eight or ten—years earlier, for if it had not been so, it would have been impossible that it could have got into such general circulation. We our- selves incline to an earlier date than the reign of Domitian, which is assigned to it by Irenaeus. Otherwise, the wide differ- ence of its Greek from that of the Fourth Gospel, places an almost insurmountable difficulty in the way of accepting both works as the composition of the same author. But if a residence of several years at Ephesus intervened between the composition of the two works, the rough and frequently ungrammatical
Greek of the Apocalypse might easily have been toned down into the smooth Greek of the Gospel. We think, therefore, that it is highly probable that it might have been composed near the close of the reign of Nero ; but such a date as the author's positions require, it is impossible for us to accept. We know from the Epistle to the Galatians that St. John was one of the pillar Apostles of the Church of Jerusalem, and was residing in that city on the occasion of St. Paul's second visit, which must have taken place between St. Paul's first and second missionary journeys. That this book should have beeu composed, and ob- tained so wide a circulation that the members of the Church at Thessalonica, whose Christianity was then only of about two years' standing, should have been familiarly acquainted with it, is, in our opinion, simply incredible. The forms of expression which are common to it and the Pauline Epistles, are doubtless due to the fact that they constituted the underlying elements of that period of Christian thought.
Our space will only allow us to adduce two or three further exam- ples of the author's singular, and as we think, unsound positions. Let us take his exposition of the Two Witnesses, as a crucial test. These he expounds to have been two noted witnesses for Christ, who were murdered at Jerusalem shortly before its de- struction. He finds them in the two Apostles, James and Peter. The former we know, on ample historical testimony, to have been martyred there at this period of time ; but that the latter was so, is a pure assumption, without a single atom of evidence, direct or indirect, in its favour. Further, the Apocalypse affirms that at the end of their testimony the Beast (whom the author identifies with Nero) should make war on them and kill them. But historical fact informs us that James was not put to death by the Roman, but by the Jewish authorities,—a murder which Josephus char- acterises as a great crime. Again, the dead bodies of the witnesses of the Apocalypse are affirmed to have been exposed for three days in the public street, after which a voice from Heaven summoned them to ascend thither ; and this they are described as actually doing, in the sight of their enemies. Now as it is impossible for the author here to summon to his aid his theory of fulfilment in the invisible world, he tells us that these events may have occurred in the visible sphere.—that is to say, that the dead bodies of James and Peter may have been revivi- fied, and ascended into Heaven in the sight of their enemies, without this event's leaving a single trace of its occurrence in the history either of the Church or the world.
We shall not discuss the vexed question of the Apocalyptic Beast. The author identifies him with Nero, and we own that he has given several strong reasons for so doing, but some of his arguments throw considerable doubt on the entire question. But when he asks us to accept his identification of the Second Beast, who had two horns like a lamb, but who spake like a dragon, with Custius Floras, Nero's Deputy in Judaea, who by his unutterable tyranny drove the Jews into rebellion, he must pardon us for expressing our absolute incredulity. Florus's utterances and actions were, no doubt, sufficiently Draconian but that he had anything la.mblike about him we utterly deny. Nor less in con- tradiction to well-known facts is the author's interpretation of the loosing of the four Angels bound at the river Euphrates, as re- ferring to the mobilisation of the four Roman legions quartered near that river for the invasion of Judam. The Apocalypse describes the force, whatever it was, as consisting of cavalry, and expressly states that their numbers were two hundred millions ; but the historic fact is that the strength of a Roman army, by whatever amount of cavalry it was supported, in- variably consisted of infantry. Further, the author's identification of a great Apocalyptic hail-storm, with the volleys of huge stones which were hurled by the newly-invented Roman engines against the walls of Jerusalem, we consider to be fully as extravagant as that contained in certain very popular works of the historic school of interpretation, which sees in the fire, smoke, and brimstone which issued from the mouths of the Apocalyptic horsemen, an allusion to the recently-invented artillery with which the Turks battered down the walls of Constantinople.
Our space, however, is gone, and in conclusion, we can only lament the introduction of a number of extravagances of this description into a work which contains so much excellent reason- ing. Against the practice of compelling facts to bend to theories, instead of accommodating theories to facts, and of inventing facts whenever the exigencies of an abstract theory require it, we consider this portion of the author's work to be an emphatic
warning,—while its most valuable portion is, in fact, a most use- ful protest against the indifference to that warning displayed by a great company of Christian theologians and commentators of this and former days.
ERRATUM.—In the first column of page 761, of our last impression, in the article on " The Parousia," the line which now stands eighteenth, ought to stand fifteenth.
Previous page
