The Coming of a Literal Christ.
FOUR points were made in our last article on this subject, to prove that the interpretation of the dream of Daniel 2 is literal. Unless the rule which we laid down can be invalidated, no further proof can be asked for. The rule settles all such questions. It is this: "If a parable or symbol be taken literally, it is then no parable or symbol; but if the interpretation is not taken literally, it is then no interpretation." This rule cannot be invalidated. Therefore we did not offer additional proof because such proof was necessary to sustain the position, but because we wished to have the facts contained in the proof laid before our readers. But one more point we will present on this part of the subject. 5. The promise made to Mary concerning her son, Jesus, is proof that the kingdom is literal. It is found in Luke 1:32, 33: "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." In the Scriptures there is great stress laid upon the genealogy of Jesus, to show that he was the son of David. This was necessary, because the Lord had promised that he would perpetuate the kingdom and house of David; and the promises often made show that they could be fulfilled only in the Messiah of God. The king in this kingdom was to be the son of David and the Son of God. But the fact that he was to reign on the throne of David, and over the house of Israel, shows that it was to be a literal kingdom; and this is strongly corroborated by Peter's comment on the promise, in his sermon recorded in Acts 2: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." Verses 29, 30. Why according to the flesh, if it is not a literal throne and a literal kingdom? Nothing but a son according to the flesh, a literal son of David, and a literal kingdom, and a literal throne, will fulfill the promises to David. And this is further corroborated by the words of Jesus in Rev. 3:21. Here is a contrast in time of possession between the throne of the Father and the throne of the Son. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." The throne of Christ, his own throne, in distinction from the throne of his Father, is the throne of David. It is the throne of David's son Jesus, because he was born of David's line, and was raised up "according to the flesh," that he might inherit it according to the promise. We have quoted the scriptures concerning the present and prospective position of the Saviour on these two thrones. He is now seated on the throne of his Father, at his "right hand," until his enemies, the kingdoms of this world, are given to him. To pursue this subject further is unnecessary; for we do not see how any one can fail to see the force of the reasons given and the texts quoted in favor of the kingdom of Christ being literal, and that it is to be set up in the future. Now we come to another important branch of this same subject, and one to which the head of these articles seems more immediately to relate. It is the literal second coming of Christ. We call it the coming of a literal Christ. If it is not a literal second coming, it is no second coming at all; for the first advent was literal. And if it is not a literal coming of Christ, then it is not the coming of a literal Christ. A literal coming necessitates the existence of a literal Christ, and a literal Christ cannot come in any other manner than literally. To deny the literality of the second advent is to deny the literality or personality of Christ, and this is but one of many unscriptural difficulties which they have to meet who deny the literal second advent of Christ. The relation of the subject of the literality of the kingdom, and of its being set up in the future, to the literality of the advent, must be apparent to every one. If the interpretation of the symbols representing the kingdom of God are interpretations in fact, and are to be taken literally, it evidently follows that the "coming" as well as the "power" and "majesty" of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:16, 17) is literal. He could not metaphorically come to spiritually reign in a literal kingdom. But we will enter at once upon the proof of a literal second coming of a literal Christ. A friend in Ohio, who had read several numbers of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, wrote to us as follows: "If I gather correctly your views, I cannot embrace them. A favored people formerly looked for a personal reign on earth, but looked in vain. Christ said his kingdom was not of this world, and I apprehend that they who are looking for an outward sovereignty will be as much disappointed as those [were] who expected him to reign in Judea eighteen hundred years ago. His coming the second time without sin unto salvation is in the hearts of the children of men, when he sits as a refiner," etc. We copy these words, because we think the popular view of the coming and kingdom of Christ cannot be better expressed than this writer has expressed them. But we cannot see the shadow of a reason for agreeing with them. On this subject we notice two things which the prophets revealed concerning the incarnation and work of Christ. They are referred to in many scriptures, a few of which we will notice. 1 Peter 5:1: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory, that is to be revealed." The sufferings of Christ were at his first advent. "The glory that is to be revealed" is at his second advent. Then, and not till then, will the saints be rewarded and partake of his glory, as we shall particularly notice hereafter. Acts 17:2, 3: "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead." Luke 24:45, 46: "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." We quote these texts to show that the prophecies foretold both the sufferings and the kingdom of Christ. Now concerning the faith of the "favored people," as compared with the more popular faith of the present day. The Jews saw the prophecies of the kingdom, but they would not admit a literal fulfillment of those which foretold his sufferings. The professed people of God of the present day can see plainly the prophecies of his sufferings, and their literal fulfillment, but they cannot accept the literal fulfillment of his coming and kingdom. His sufferings are now historic facts; they are scarcely questions of faith. But Jesus foresaw that there would be little faith on the earth when he comes (Luke 18:8); and even so now, when his coming is near, we hear the inquiry, "Where is the promise of his coming?" 2 Peter 3:3, 4. The "blessed hope" is turned into nothingness by a system of mystifying the Scriptures. Before we examine the two beliefs in the light of the word, let us look at them in the light of reason, as to this the people often appeal against the literality of his second coming and his kingdom. Two classes of prophecies are found in the Bible; one recounting his humiliation and sufferings, and the other foretelling his reigning in glory. The Jews read these prophecies concerning their Messiah, the Son of God, and reasoned thus: We know that when Christ comes he is to reign a king; he is to come in David's line, to sit on his throne; the word of the Father says that all his enemies are to be put under his feet; that all people, nations, and languages shall serve him; he shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel; the government shall be upon his shoulders, and his kingdom shall stand forever. It is as reasonable to consider, as it is just in fact, that the Father shall put his Son, the Messiah, in authority, and cause his enemies to bow before him. It is reasonable that David's great Son shall reign on his throne, and overthrow the oppressors of his people. But it is not reasonable to consider, as it is not just as a fact, that the Messiah should be reviled and maltreated, and even put to death, without resisting his enemies. That would be inconsistent with his nature and his character, and with the prophecies which record his triumphant reign over all. Oh, no! all that the Scriptures say concerning his humiliation, his sufferings, his ignominious death, is figurative; it cannot possibly be literally fulfilled. But it was fulfilled, and what then? Its unreasonableness still stares them in the face, and to this day the preaching of Christ crucified is a stumbling-block to the Jew. 1 Cor. 1:23. But in this day the faith is expressed in this wise: It is perfectly reasonable that Christ should appear as David's son; for thus the prophets speak. It is reasonable to believe that he would come in humility, bearing in quietness the reproach and scorn of his enemies. It is reasonable to consider that the Son of the living God should pour out his soul unto death, and have the sins of the world laid upon him; that he should suffer hunger and thirst, scorn and abuse, be condemned by the highest court among God's chosen people, and in great agony die an ignominious death. All this was written in the law and the prophets, and he is but an infidel who would deny its literal fulfillment. But it is highly unreasonable to think he will come again to vindicate his rights; to take vengeance on his enemies and dash in pieces the nations; to reign in glory upon a throne to which he was by birth entitled. It is an abuse of Scripture language to say that all this will be literally fulfilled. No; these scriptures are to be spiritually understood. His second coming is in the hearts of the people. True, there is much more said about his glorious reign than about his sufferings and death. His coming in triumph to redeem his saints and to destroy his enemies is also written in the prophets. But it is all to be taken figuratively. Now we insist that of the two beliefs, that of the Jew is the most reasonable. And in fact we believe that the Jews of the days of the Messiah stood upon better and safer ground in regard to the fulfillment of prophecy than do the majority of Christians of the present day. If the literality of the prophecies may be explained away, the Jews had the least explaining away to do. They stood as fully entrenched in their faith as do the Christians of to-day. They said, "We know that God spake unto Moses." Theirs was a historic faith. The Jew was a firm believer of that which the Scriptures affirmed had already occurred; but of what the prophets said of the future, he must be judge whether or not to accept it. He must at least be allowed to put his39own construction upon it. And that is exactly the position of the Christian of to-day. But the latter is less excusable than the former, in occupying such a position,—a position which does such violence to the "sure word of prophecy,"—because he has the error and example of the former before him as a warning. We will briefly query concerning some of the facts of his first advent. There is no dispute about the fact that he "will come again;" that "he shall appear the second time." These are the exact words of the Scriptures. Did he come literally the first time? Did he literally fulfill the many scriptures which spoke of his coming? Was he literally bruised for our iniquities? Did he literally pour out his soul unto death? Was he literally hanged on a tree? Did he literally offer himself, his body, his personality, a sacrifice for sin? Was he literally buried, and did he literally rise from the dead? Did they handle his literal body, with the prints of the nails and of the spear in it, and thus identify it as the very person that expired on the cross? And did they actually walk with this literally resurrected Christ to "the mount called Olivet," and did he there literally and personally ascend until a cloud received him out of their sight? The answer to each and all of these questions is, Yes. Literal in every feature. And yet the prophecies of these things are not so clear, so free from obscurities, as are those which speak of his second coming, and of his reigning in the kingdom of his father David. All analogy is in favor of a literal second coming, and of his reigning in a literal kingdom. Were not the figurative view so strongly fixed in the popular mind, we should feel like apologizing for saying so much on this point. But with an error so popular we cannot deal too thoroughly. In our next we shall show that the scriptures which speak of his second coming do not admit of any but a literal interpretation, or rather, construction. The second advent of Christ is a more momentous event than has ever transpired since the creation of the world. It is of first importance that we have right views of it, and that we stand rightly related to it.