Denying the Advent Doctrine by W. W. P.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 22, 1909

Denying the Advent Doctrine

By W. W. P.

A FEW facts concerning the recent developments in the religious world now stand out with much clearness. They may be briefly summarized thus:—

1. The principles of evolution have been accepted by many teachers of religion, and have been applied in Biblical exegesis. In the application of these principles the supernatural has been almost wholly eliminated from the teaching of the Scriptures.

2. The ultimate purpose of this whole system of teaching is to discredit the revelation of the Deity, the atoning sacrifice, the priestly mediation, and the literal second coming of Christ.

3. The acceptance of these principles of evolution, and their application to the interpretation of the Bible, make the second-advent message not simply unnecessary, but a materialistic error and the harbinger of a false hope.

It is within a comparatively short time that the last link in the chain of evidence necessary to establish these propositions has been forged. During the last year, however, several articles have appeared in influential publications explicitly denying the doctrine of the personal second advent, and interpreting the Scriptures which plainly teach this doctrine as being merely examples of Oriental imagery, or as having their fulfilment in the alleged pervading of society by the so-called spirit of Christ. A recent example of this kind is an article in the Methodist Review (quarterly) for April, 1909, entitled “The Second Coming,” which shows to what an extent the plainest statements of the Scripture

have been discarded, and with what facility human philosophy may be substituted for divine revelation. The opening paragraph of this article reads:—

We hear much of the “second coming” of Christ, but we have no record that Jesus ever used the phrase. The word “second” is never employed by any of the Gospel writers in connection with any promises of our Lord concerning subsequent manifestations of himself.

We are forced to the conclusion that one who deliberately takes such a position as this must either be lamentably ignorant of what the Gospel writers do state, or he must be consciously quibbling over a word. Our reason is this: The writer of the fourth Gospel records the promised return of Jesus in these words: “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” It is true that Jesus does not use the word “second,” but can there be any other meaning to the promise, “I will come again,” than that he was referring to a second coming? In perfect harmony with this interpretation is the declaration of the Scripture, “Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time.”

This introductory paragraph is a fair sample of the exegetical principles adopted throughout this article. This is clearly illustrated in another paragraph:—

At a later state in their ministry they [the apostles] began to call to mind certain expressions which he used concerning the “coming of the Son of man in power;” and influenced by their three-years’ conviction of his greatness, and, at the same time, tinctured by their national conception of a Messiah, they came to look for his reappearance in bodily form during their lifetime. Upon the second coming he should do what he failed to do before. The apostle Paul spoke so confidently of his early return in visible form that some of the churches neglected their work and spent their time in watching for his reappearance. As time passed, and the coming was delayed, it became necessary for Paul to lengthen his calculation and to write correcting the impression he had made, as he does in the second epistle to the Thessalonians.

It is not necessary to look beneath the surface of such statements as these to perceive that the writer holds the most modern view concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures, and that therefore what the apostle Paul stated concerning the second advent has no more authority with him than the words of some prominent teacher of to-day. On this basis, the apostle Paul was a visionary Adventist, who was compelled to revise his calculations by the logic of facts. So destructive to Biblical authority is this modern criticism!

The facility with which this opposer of the literal advent of Christ can explain away the clear statements of the Scripture is little less than astounding. It is not worth while to quote his argument at length; some brief paragraphs will suffice:—

The “coming of the Son of man,” to the disciples who understood the task to which they were set, meant the realization of something of their eternal sonship. . . .

And so the “Son of man came,” for Holy Love was breaking down prejudice and hate and enthroning itself in the hearts of former enemies. . . .

Terrible as was this siege, complete as was the annihilation of Jerusalem, and utter as was the destruction of the Jewish nation, it furnished the details of the fulfilment of the promised “coming of the Son of man.” . . . Out of the grave of the dead hope of a temporal Messiah came the spirit of universal man. . . .

We thus see that the “coming of the Son of man” is a continuous and progressive fact. . . . He comes when the child at the mother’s knee is led to dedicate himself to the right and good; whenever a sinner turns from selfishness to love, from self to God. He comes in all human hearts of whatever nation, race, or color, when the spirit that animated Jesus leads men to love and serve the poor, the sick, the lonely, and the sinful. . . .

Christ will have come when all men everywhere turn themselves to their divine Father, and, having come to know him, know themselves also. The return to the earth of Jesus in visible form is neither reasonable nor desirable; but the coming of the Son of man, the Christ, the Spirit of God, till the divine incarnation becomes universal, is a “consummation devoutly to be wished.”

The declaration that “the return to the earth of Jesus in visible form is neither reasonable nor desirable,” is the outgrowth of a wrong idea, now widely held, concerning the kingdom of God. According to this view, which is strictly evolutionary in its character, the setting up of the kingdom of God will not be marked by any great catastrophe, such as is plainly indicated in prophecy by the stone smiting the image upon the feet and breaking it in pieces, but the kingdom will be set up by the gradual evolution of the good and “the survival of the fittest.” This teaching is just as much out of harmony with the true doctrine for this time as was the claim of the scribes and Pharisees that the Messiah would set up a temporal kingdom in their day; and the reason for this perversion of the truth is the same in both cases—an interpretation of the Scripture in harmony with personal desires and ambitions, and the exaltation of the human element in religion at the expense of the divine.

The second coming of Christ is the grand climax in the historical development of the plan of salvation. Prophets have foretold it; holy men of all ages have looked forward to it; the only Biblical solution of the great problem of sin and the final restoration is found in it; and the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God can not be consummated apart from it. The present concerted attack upon this fundamental teaching of the Scriptures is another indication of the working of a master mind to deceive the people and to close their ears against the very truth which should be emphasized in this generation.

Varied are the means which have been employed by the enemy of truth to forestall and to discredit this advent message, but the whole evolutionary scheme, as applied in science and religion, has been the most efficient means of destroying the confidence of the people in the gospel of revelation, and in leading to the practical deification of humanity and the preaching of the gospel of self-salvation. Never was there greater need of proclaiming the genuine gospel of Christ to the world. W. W. P.