Will the Lord Himself Return?
By Editor
MANY people really suppose that our interest in the doctrine of the second advent is unnecessarily great, and that by making it so prominent in our faith and work we are needlessly building up a barrier between ourselves and other denominations. The following query has lain some time in our drawer; and for different reasons we have neglected to answer it. But it is deserving of an answer, and we now proceed to give it:— "Why does it require a separate denomination to advocate Christ's second coming? I supposed all denominations believed that, and preached it. Is it not so? Yours truly, L. L. K." In answering this question we propose to show that "all denominations" do not believe it and preach it, as it is taught in the plain letter of the Scriptures; that they have invented a substitute for it, which they even acknowledge is a substitute; that the doctrine of the coming of Christ is a great practical doctrine, second in importance to scarcely any in the Bible; and, that we are taught to expect it, because we may and ought to know when it is near. I. That it is not generally accepted as an article of Christian belief is sufficiently shown in the fact that the doctrine is treated so scornfully by the great majority of professors of religion. A mere reference to the second coming of Christ in a "union meeting" has been known to promptly call out a rebuke from the leaders of the meeting. On almost every other point the veriest "crank" could air his vagaries without any fear of reproof. The Adventists (or the "advents," as they are improperly and contemptuously called) are scarcely recognized as Christian believers by many professors, and this without any regard to other points of faith which they may hold. There is prevailing and increasing a strong feeling of opposition to the subject of the return of our absent Lord; not so much on the part of the worldlings who do not regard him as their Lord, as on the part of church members, who claim him as their Lord, and profess to love him. Truly they say in their hearts, "My Lord delayeth his coming." Matt. 24:45-51. We have now before us the report of a "Tri-Annual Meeting" of an "Association of Congregational Churches," as published in a paper of that denomination. The opening sermon was on the "Second Coming of Christ." The report says: "The argument was a bold, original elucidation of the spiritual sense of Scripture touching the whole subject of the second advent and the general judgment." It is no secret that "the spiritual sense of Scripture" is the popular sense, if there is indeed any such sense in it. The expression is made to signify something different from the literal or obvious sense. The literal must be the true sense; just such a sense as would be determined by the definitions of the words used. When we depart from this we cast ourselves upon a trackless sea without a compass; it is to give loose reign to fancy, and to make the revelation of the divine will subservient to the caprices of its self-constituted censors. On the subject of the advent the sermon says:— "I hold that the second coming of Christ, always spoken of by himself and the apostles as a near event, refers to his return to them in the Spirit; that it was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, immediately after his ascension." As Christ represented the Father to the world, so the Spirit represents Christ to the church during his absence. But Christ was not the Father, and the Spirit was not Christ. He said if he went away he would pray the Father and he would send them another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth. But the coming of the Spirit was not the coming of Christ; it was not the fulfillment of his promise to come again and take them to himself, to the mansions which he has gone to prepare. Of this we shall offer abundant proof. Here we will mention but this one fact, which is, however, decisive on the point, namely: most of the scriptures which speak of the second coming, as a matter of hope, were written after the day of Pentecost; after the descent of the Spirit. In connection with the "spiritual sense" of the Scriptures in regard to the advent, it is necessary to notice the position of the sermon on the Judgment and the resurrection. It says:— "The end of the world and the day of judgment, for each individual soul, is the day of the death of the body; that the judgment is a perpetual fact, and that many thousands, small and great, appear before God every day. "The resurrection is typical of the life of the soul; that the figure of a spiritual body teaches, not the resurrection of the material body, but the immortality of the soul." These declarations are necessarily attendant upon the spiritual theory of the advent; for it would be utterly inconsistent to have a figurative advent, and a literal resurrection and judgment day, seeing that the latter depend entirely upon the former. The above view is doubtless now held by the great majority of the churches. It is openly avowed by such influential journals as the Christian Union, as we have noticed in its answers to questions on these subjects. Bishop Merrill, of the M. E. Church, published a book on the "Second Coming of Christ," in which he earnestly contends for the literal construction of those scriptures which speak of the advent, the resurrection, the judgment, the punishment of the wicked, and the conflagration of the earth. In regard to the last two items, if to no others, he certainly comes in conflict with the prevailing belief in his own church. At the last General Conference of the M. E. Church, an inquirer found very few who would avow faith in the literal interpretation of the Bible concerning the punishment of the wicked; though the literal was almost the only view held in that church half a century ago. The difference between the preaching, in that and other churches, on this subject, at the present time and a half century ago, is not, as has been asserted, a mere accommodation to the feelings of "ears polite," but it is the result of a tendency to drift away from the old-time landmarks. The Disciplines and Confessions or Creeds have greatly changed, but they have not changed as fast as the faith and the feelings of both the pulpits and the pews have changed. Bishop Merrill characterizes the view taken in the sermon to which we have referred, and which we say is now, or is fast becoming, the popular view, as Universalism. He says:— "This is the form of Universalism that is now proposing to lead the Christian world into light! It has no place for a Second Advent, as it denies the resurrection of the body and a future judgment. It finds only the 'figurative' coming, and places it at the destruction of Jerusalem." It is just as easy to harmonize the declarations of the New Testament with the theory that the advent took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, as on the day of Pentecost, as we shall show when we examine the texts. The Bishop's argument on these several points, against this "bold, original elucidation of the spiritual sense of Scripture teaching the whole subject of the second advent and the general judgment" is masterly, and, it seems to us, ought to settle these questions. Of this we are so confident that we do not believe that any one of the spiritualizers would care to undertake to review him. In an Editorial Note in the Old Testament Student, on the "Jewish Theories of Messianic Interpretation," are found the following words:— "A recent writer enumerates four distinct theories advanced by theologians of different schools, in accordance with which these portions are interpreted. . . . (4) A fourth theory is denominated the No-Person theory, in accordance with which the Messiah is supposed to be an age of prosperity, and, in no sense, personal." We are not informed as to the time when this "No-Person theory" arose amongst the Jews. But we cannot believe it was an early period, for of the many references to Messiah in the New Testament we can find no trace of such a theory. "What think you of the Christ? [the Messiah.] Whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David." Matt. 22:42. "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11. "Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did. Is not this the Christ?" John 4:29. "Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?" John 7:26. Christ in Greek is the equivalent of the Messiah, from the Hebrew. The reader can at once see that according to this "No-Person theory," Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah at all—he could not be. And the exact counterpart of this theory is found in the "No-Person theory" of the second advent! And we claim, and who can gainsay it? that there is no greater violence done to the prophecies in applying the "No-Person theory" to the first advent, than is done in applying it to the second advent. We can reduce all the false theories respecting Christ to these three: 1. That Christ was to come to set up the throne of David, and to reign as his Son, but not to suffer and to die. This was the belief of most of the Jews when Jesus was born. 2. That Christ was to suffer and die, but not to sit upon the throne of his father David. This is the popular or "orthodox" view at the present time; for orthodoxy is but another name for popularity, in common speech. 3. That Christ was not and is not to appear on earth at all in person; that the "Messiah" did not refer to any individual who was to suffer and die, or to reign on David's throne; but, it signified a dispensation of prosperity, of grace, or great spiritual blessings. This is the united faith of those Jews who hold to the "No-Person theory," and of professed Christians who hold to the "spiritual sense" of the second advent. And between these theories the Bible is robbed of its glory; the Son of God is a myth; and man has in fact no Redeemer. In closing this paper, and this part of the argument, we must give some evidence on the second point. II. To prove that the churches have accepted a substitute for the second advent, is really to give further proof that they have no true faith in the advent. In the New York Independent of March 6, 1884, is a Sunday-school Lesson Notes on 1 Thess. 4:13-5:8. This scripture lesson brings out remarks on the advent. After saying that "the great use of the doctrine of our Lord's coming is for comfort," the writer remarks:— "For all practical purposes of comfort the doctrine of the blessed immortality of the righteous, the immortality of the soul, takes the place for us of any doubtful doctrine of our Lord's second coming. At our death the Lord comes for us. That is what we are to wait and watch for. The dead are already passed into glory. They do not wait for the trump for their judgment and blessedness." There is no paper in the country conducted with more ability than the Independent; perhaps no one of wider influence. And this testimony of a185substitute for the advent "for all practical purposes of comfort" and blessing, is as explicit as could be desired. Also in the Christian Union of the same date, under the head of "Home Talks about the Word—the Coming of the Lord," the writer fancies "a dear mother who went away to the South, or to Colorado, or California," for her health, and, when letters came saying she was better, the writer says:— "Every day you could say to yourself, 'Some day she will come back, and not be sick any more, and we shall be so happy together again.' You would try to do just what would please her, to work and study, and think of her wishes in everything. And if, some day, a message came to take you to the pleasant summer land where your mother was, why, that would be even better than having her come back. That is the way we are to think of our friends who have fallen asleep, and of the Lord Jesus himself, our best friend." Some better hope is held out than that of Jesus coming again. But we say in regard to both these extracts, that the substitute proposed is entirely unauthorized by the Scriptures. The word of the Lord never offers comfort in consideration of the immortality of the soul. If it did the wicked could take that comfort to themselves, for if the righteous are immortal by nature, so are the wicked. Next week we will speak further upon this substitute, and show by the plain reading of the Scriptures that there cannot be any substitute for the coming of the Lord. That nothing whatever can be of equal importance; that the promised glorification of the saints cannot be fulfilled without it