The Coming of Christ by S. S. Griswold

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 9, 1872

The Coming of Christ

By S. S. Griswold

The Coming of Christ. No. 2.

BY S. S. GRISWOLD.

ESCHATOLOGY, or the science of last things occupies a very prominent place in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. It was the burden of prophecy, both by the apostles and prophets. It occupied a conspicuous position in the teaching of Christ himself. It was a marked feature of his discourses, especially during the latter part of his ministry. The most careless reader of the gospel cannot fail of having his attention frequently and solemnly arrested by a recurrence to the “coming of the Son of man,” and when we enter the Epistles, by the “coming of the Lord.”

These were the two great facts, which stood out in bold relief in the teachings of Christ and the apostles. These two truths impressed the mind most seriously. The world halted in its wild career, and stood awestricken in their presence. Men lived as if conscious that the invisible lay around them, and its realities would burst upon them; expecting some grand epiphany of Deity might open to their vision at any time. The coming of the Son of man was an event near at hand; and the coming of the Lord was daily expected. The former was expressly taught by Christ; and the latter as expressly by the apostles. So definite and positive were these two facts set forth by Christ and the apostles, that it became the universal belief of the church, during the first century that the parousia, or coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, might occur any day, hour, or moment.

And yet, after the lapse of nearly two thousand

years, we are still looking for the promise of his coming. Were the apostles themselves deceived? Did Christ himself intend to deceive? For there is scarcely any of Christ’s teaching more explicit and definite, than that the coming of the Son of man was then near, that the event would transpire during the lifetime of that generation, that some that were then listening to his discourse would not see death, until they had seen the coming of the Son of man in the glory of his Father and the holy angels with him; that the disciples would not have gone over the cities of Israel until the Son of man be come.

The apostle explicitly and definitely taught that the day of the Lord was at hand, that the Judge stood before the door, that it would come as a thief in the night, that the day of the Lord was drawing near, Christians were exhorted to preserve themselves blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus.

Says Rev. Isaac Watts, D. D., “The Christians of the first age did generally expect the second coming of Christ to judgment, and the resurrection of the dead, in that very age wherein it was foretold.”

Conybeare says, “The apostles themselves, expected their Lord to come again in that very generation.” Dr. T. Arnold, says, “Paul expected the world would come to an end in the generation then existing.”

Rev. Albert Barnes, says, “I do not know that the proper doctrine of inspiration suffers, if we admit that the apostles were ignorant of the exact time when the world would close; or even that in regard to the precise period when it would take place, they might be in error.”

Prof. B. F. Hudson, says, “When the event would occur, no one knew; but it was expected soon.”

Olshausen says, “It is unmistakably clear that Paul deemed it possible that he and his contemporaries might live to see the coming of Christ.”

From the above (and many others might be adduced), it is evident that commentators almost universally agree that the apostles taught the coming of the Lord as an event which was near at hand. Such evidently was the fact. The apostles believed the advent of the Lord Jesus Christ was nigh and they taught accordingly. This idea of belief must have been predicated upon the teachings of Christ, or upon some special revelations from God on the subject. Viewed in either way, to admit they were in error, would be either to call in question their honesty, or to invalidate their inspiration. But their honesty will not be questioned, nor will their inspiration be doubted, by a large portion of the Christian world.

Doubtless many of those who heard Christ and the apostles and those by whom the Epistles were read, understand them to refer to a personal coming; for such were the gross worldly views that were then held concerning the nature of Christ’s kingdom and his coming, that few would get higher views. But that would not go to prove that either Christ or the apostles so believed and taught, any more than when the disciples asked Christ after his resurrection whether he would then restore the kingdom to Israel, proves that he ever taught that he ever would. It was the earthly idea of the Messiah, that led the Jews to reject him. They supposed that the Messianic kingdom, was but a re-organizing or restoration of their national polity. Hence when they were told “The kingdom of heaven was at hand” they understood it to refer to their national deliverance from the Roman power, and their restoration to national greatness. So they presumed the coming of Christ, to be a personal coming, as a national deliverer. But that does not prove that either Christ or the apostles taught so. On the contrary, as both Christ and the apostles explicitly taught the event as about to transpire, we are forced to the conclusion that the event, involving the coming of the Son of man and the coming of the Lord did not include his personal return to this world, in order to preserve intact and inviolate the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

There must then be such an exegesis of the New Testament on the subject of Christ’s coming, as will be in accordance with its teachings; viz., that the coming of Christ was an event near at hand, that it was even in that age about to transpire, and, in fact, was in its incipiency of transpiring, or about to begin to be, in aoristic time.

An examination of particular passages on the subject in the next.

REMARKS.

We are equally solicitous with Bro. Griswold, “to preserve intact and inviolate the teachings of Christ and the apostles.” And if we thought his system of exegesis necessary to do this, we might perhaps adopt it, “though the task would our hearts appall.” While we think the worthy end he has in view cannot possibly be reached by the path he proposes, we are equally confident that we can show a more excellent way.

Respecting the question whether the apostles taught that the second coming of Christ was to transpire before the generation then living passed off the stage of action, let us transcribe a little testimony from Paul:

2 Thess. 2: 1–4: “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

Let no man deceive you, says Paul to the Thessalonians, and cause you to think the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is to take place in your day; for the apostasy must first take place, and the man of sin be revealed, and run his appointed career. This man of sin is generally understood by Protestants to mean the papacy; and this is beyond question, correct. Paul’s caution, then, covers the whole period of time from his day onward through the long ages of papal rule, bringing us down as late in the gospel age, at least, as 1798, when papal supremacy received its death blow at the hands of the French. Not till this point was passed, could any one, according to this instruction of Paul’s, look for the coming of the Lord as an event immediately to occur.

How, then, shall those other declarations be understood, which seem to represent the event as one which was at that time at the very door? Do they mean that it was to be looked for in that age, as Bro. G. understands them? If so, then is our beloved Bible involved in a hopeless contradiction. But we think we can show that all the trouble with these passages arises from overlooking one simple fact, and ignoring one rule of interpretation, which is as beautiful in itself as it is of frequent application in the inspired writings. It is that in prophetic language the present and past tenses are frequently used for the future; and writers sometimes apparently speak of themselves, when they mean persons who are to live far in the future. God, to whom a past and future eternity are one eternal now, “calleth those things that be not as though they were.” Rom. 4: 17. And Paul uses this language to explain the promise God made to Abraham, saying, “I have made thee a father of many nations,” when as yet he was not even the father of a single child.

Good Brown’s “Grammar of English Grammars,” than which there is probably no better authority in the English language, on page 343, thus speaks on this point:—

“In the language of prophecy we find the past tense very often substituted for the future, especially when the prediction is remarkably clear and specific. Man is a creature of present knowledge only; but it is certain that He who sees the end from the beginning, has sometimes revealed to him, and by him, things deep in futurity. Thus the sacred seer who is esteemed the most eloquent of the ancient prophets, more than seven hundred years before the events occurred, spoke of the vicarious sufferings of Christ, as of things already past, and even then described them in the phraseology of historical facts: ‘Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed.’ Isa. 53: 4, 5. Multiplied instances of a similar application of the past tenses to future events, occur in the Bible, especially in the writings of the prophets.”

The same prophet, Isaiah, uses the present tense for the future. Chapter 9: 6: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” Yet this language refers to Christ, who was not born till more than seven hundred years afterward. David also says, Ps. 16: 10: “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” Here he seems to speak of himself; yet he does not refer to himself at all, but to Christ, in whom the language was fulfilled more than a thousand years afterward, as explained by Peter in Acts 2: 31.

Exactly so with Christ and his apostles when they speak of the future second coming of Christ as though immediately to take place. They carry the mind right forward to the last generation, and then speak of the event from that standpoint, as at the very doors. Our Lord in Matt. 24, announces the signs that should herald his coming. He addresses the generation that should witness them: “When ye shall see all these things.” Then he says, “This generation [the one certainly that witnesses the signs] shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. The present generation has witnessed the signs, and hence shall also witness the consummation.”

Matt. 10: 23, and 16: 28, met their accomplishment in the transfiguration, Matt. 17: 1–8, as shown by Peter, 2 Pet. 1: 16–18. This was a miniature of the future kingdom; but the promise of it does not rest wholly upon this representation, but upon the more sure word of prophecy. The disciples were right in expecting a kingdom. Our Lord did not tell them that they were in error on this point; but he did correct their misunderstanding respecting the time when it should be set up.

Paul, more frequently perhaps than other New Testament writers, uses, if we may so call it, this figure of anticipation. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,” he says to the Corinthians, “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” In the first part of this same chapter he speaks of above five hundred disciples who saw the Lord after his resurrection, and says that the greater part remained at that time, but some were fallen asleep. By falling asleep, then, he means falling in death. “We shall not all sleep,” shall not all die. Was this true of Paul or any of his companions? Did the last trump sound in his day? Were the dead raised incorruptible? Were the Christians then living exempted from death, and changed in a moment? Did this corruptible and mortal then put on incorruption and immortality? Was death then swallowed up in victory? Was this all accomplished in Paul’s day? Certainly no man can claim it. What then? Paul simply goes forward to the last generation of Christians, and speaks as if personally among them. How beautifully does this manner of speech link together the whole Christian family! He does not look over into the future and say, they, but, we, as though he stood in the midst of them. The first and last meet together; and we are recognized as belonging to the same family, and standing in the same company, with Paul.

So in 1 Thess. 4: 15, he says, “We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord,” &c. Other like expressions might be named, which on the hypothesis we have named are clearly explainable, but on no other. This simple rule frees all these passages of every vestige of difficulty, and preserves “intact and inviolate the teachings of Christ and the apostles.”

As Bro. G. has so well expressed, the “science of last things occupies a very prominent place in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” The coming of the Lord, and the coming of the Son of man stands out prominently upon the prophetic page. We have reached the time to which these predictions pertain; and we would that men might now live as if conscious that the grand epiphany of Deity is soon to open to their vision.