REMARKS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 3, 1872

tion, called the end of the world.

REMARKS

That our Lord in his great prophecy recorded in the 24th of Matthew, refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish nation, we know of none who are disposed to deny; but that he refers to no more than that, there are very many who cannot easily be persuaded to believe.

The question of the disciples, in verse 3, seems to embrace two points: 1. “When shall these things be?” including all he had said respecting the overthrow of the temple, so that not one stone should be left upon another, and 2. “What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?” another and a subsequent event, respecting which our Lord and his disciples had evidently had some unrecorded conversation.

In his answer, following a frequent prophetic style, Christ goes over the field of his discourse several times, following one line of thought down through to its termination, then going back and taking up another. From verse 3 to verse 15 he takes us once down through this dispensation. This cannot all refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. See verse 7: “Nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.” How was it at the destruction of Jerusalem? There was virtually but one nation. All the world (all that portion of it which included nations of sufficient strength and importance to war against each other) lay prostrate beneath the iron heel of Rome. After the breaking up of that empire into different kingdoms this verse could be fulfilled, but not before.

Again, verse 14: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations and then shall the end come.” The end of what? Not the end of that dispensation which introduced this gospel to the nations, but the end of that dispensation which this gospel itself introduced. The gospel invitation was itself to go to all the world, its benefits to be proffered to all nations, for a witness, and then its offers were to cease and the end to come.

Going back in verse 15 to the siege of Jerusalem, he again takes up the line of thought from that point to verse 28, embracing the overthrow of the Jewish nation, verses 15-20, the long ages of persecution against the church from that time on through the period during which the papal power should wear out the saints of the Most High, verse 21; Dan. 7: 25; Rev. 12: 14; 13: 5, 7, the shortening of the persecution by the great Reformation, verse 22; Rev. 12: 16, the arising of false christs who would show great signs and wonders (a work which was not done before the destruction of Jerusalem, but which is being fulfilled to the letter in modern spiritualism), verses 23, 24, the literal and personal coming of Christ as startling and visible as a gleam of lightning shining from the east to the west, verse 27, and finally, the destruction of the living wicked at that time, upon whom the judgments of God will light, as eagles upon their prey.

Again he goes back in verse 29 to a point just subsequent to the persecution before mentioned, and takes up the signs in the physical heavens which should herald his coming, and after assuring us that all the tribes of the earth should behold him coming in power and great glory, and mourn because of him, and the great sound of a trumpet should be heard, and the angels should gather the elect, not from Judea only, but from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other, he takes us forward beyond that point even at which the heavens and earth shall pass away. Verse 35.

Such is a synopsis, in brief, of this part of the chapter. When persons endeavor to quibble around the fourth commandment by asserting that it only means one day in seven and no day in particular, we sometimes ask them how God should have worded it, if he had meant the definite seventh day. So we ask on the chapter before us, if Christ had meant to assert that the things he mentions would literally take place, how should he have worded it?

Let us now see how Bro. G. “telescopes” this chapter to save his theology. With him the darkening of the sun and moon, and falling of the stars, denote the casting down of persons in places of authority and power among the Jews; in other words, the overthrow of the Jewish nation. The coming of the Son of man, and the threatening tribulation, denote the same thing. But how does our Lord locate these events? First we have the tribulation (which according to Bro. G. is the overthrow of the Jewish nation); and “after the tribulation,” expressly says the record, the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars fall (which is again the overthrow of the Jewish nation); and after these commotions in the heavens, the Son of man comes (which is still again the overthrow of the Jewish nation). Thus the Jewish nation is overthrown not once only but again and again, and thus Bro. G. runs three lengths of the telescope into one, and throws the record into inextricable confusion.

That the signs in the sun moon and stars are entirely distinct from any movements among men, Luke, in his record of this very discourse of our Lord’s very clearly shows. In chapter 21: 25, he says: And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring.” Here the signs in the sun moon and stars, which are beyond question the same as mentioned in Matt. 24: 29, are one thing and the calamities of nations on the earth, quite another thing. Verily if this language means anything, it means what it says.

For a thorough refutation of the Universalist view that Matt. 24 was all fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, we refer the reader to an eminent Baptist work of nearly 500 pages, entitled, “Harmony and Exposition of our Lord’s Great Prophecy,” by Rev. D. D. Buck, with an Introduction by J. R. Graves, editor of the Tennessee Baptist. We have room for only one paragraph instead of the pages we would be glad to quote. On p. 257, he says:—

“This loose and fanciful method of expounding this [Matt. 24: 30], and other similar portions of the Scriptures, is most evidently the source of theoretic Universalism, and other forms of semi-infidelity. And it occasions a lack of intensity in the impressions which these portions of the Bible were evidently designed to produce. The injury is incalculable and ordinarily incurable. This painful truth meets us at every point, and probably eternity will disclose an extent of injury from this source that will be absolutely appalling. Great must be the necessity then, that should justify any departure from literality in expounding such passages as this. It ought to be ascertained, first, that a literal interpretation is absolutely impracticable, that it either clashes with other portions of the Bible, or with indubitable facts. Nothing less than this should be deemed sufficient to warrant us in concluding that the Lord did not mean just what he said, in a discourse intended for the common mind.

“But are there any such reasons for wresting this passage from its literal and natural import? No; there is not one. If men should reason so loosely and unphilosophically on almost any other subject, they would be in danger of losing their reputation for common intelligence. And why the world has so long tolerated this superficial method of explaining away the most solemn and literal teachings of Inspiration, is really wonderful.”