Avenging of the Elect

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 9, 1862

Avenging of the Elect.

THE STATE OF FAITH IN THE WORLD AT THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.—THE IMPORTUNATE WIDOW AND THE UNJUST JUDGE AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE GENERAL SUBJECT.

IN this book it is proposed to treat, in the first place, of "The Avenging of the Elect;" in the second place, of "The State of Faith in the world at the Second Coming of Christ." It will be found, on examination, that these two subjects are intimately associated in the Scriptures. Our Lord himself was accustomed to speak of them as kindred topics; and there are innumerable other portions of the Bible in which these two subjects are plainly connected. In order to introduce the two-fold theme understandingly, we will invite the reader's attention to the parable of the importunate widow, as it is recorded in Luke xviii:

"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God neither regarded man. And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Vs. 1–8.

It may be expedient now to give a brief exposition of the parable, and then consider more particularly the import of the inquiry, "When the Son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth?" The parable appears to have one principal design—to show the ultimate result of importunate prayer. The particular instance given is the avenging of God's elect. The manner of avenging them seems to be contradictory: it is represented as being long delayed, and yet being done speedily. The time of doing it is evidently associated, not only here, but elsewhere, with the coming of the Son of man. The state of the world at that time, in respect to faith, is introduced and left as an open question, as if on purpose to incite us to the investigation.

In the parable we have, first, the character of the judge, "who feared not God nor regarded man." He seems to have been an utterly unprincipled man. Next we have the suppliant: she was a widow. Her legal protector was dead. She seems to have had no friend to undertake her cause; hence, unaided and alone, she appealed in person to the judge—with how many misgivings, and how little of hope, we are left to infer. She had been persecuted and wronged by an unprincipled adversary. As the original word, antidikos, usually means an antagonist at law, we may reasonably suppose that this forlorn widow had been persecuted with a vexatious litigation by one who had taken advantage of her lone friendlessness, and had treated her with cruel injustice. Having no other resort, she applied directly to the judge, and besought him to take her case in hand, according to the summary customs of oriental judicature, and avenge her of her antagonist. Perhaps it was a case of appeal from the lower tribunals, where she had been persecuted and wronged.

The appellant's importunity was remarkable: once she came, and the judge denied her; and again she came, and was again denied. But she continued to come, however, and continued to urge her request, until the judge became convinced that she would give him no rest unless he yielded to her supplication, and took her case in hand; so he reluctantly yielded, and avenged the persevering suppliant. But he did not do it from any conviction of the equity of the case: he was himself perfectly conscious of being utterly selfish in yielding to the suppliant's prayer. It was merely to rid himself of the troublesome importunity of the persevering appellant.

Then we have our Lord's own application of the teaching of the parable: "Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth?" He applies the parable to the avenging of the elect; and he evidently refers to his own coming again, as the time when it shall take place. And now, in respect to this application, we should observe that there is a comparison by contrast: First, That judge was unjust. He was not prompted by a conviction of the righteousness of the poor widow's cause. Second, He neither feared God nor regarded man. He did not consent to do right from any pleasure in doing so, or from any fear of the consequences of not doing so. Third, He had no regard for the suppliant herself, and did not avenge her wrongs from the impulse of kindly affection. If he had been the poor widow's friend, he would not have so long refused to befriend her. And again, so far as appears from the statement of the case, he had never agreed to avenge her. It is likely that he felt under no obligation to do so. His reasons were wholly of the selfish kind.

Then our Lord asks the question, "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him?" If such a man as that unprincipled judge, having no affection for the suppliant, having no regard for either God or man, if such a man could be prevailed upon to undertake the poor widow's cause, and avenge her, will not God be prevailed upon to vindicate his own elect?

We may consider how much more likely God will be to avenge his chosen, by reason of his being so unlike the unjust judge in character and relation. First, God is just. His church has been cruelly persecuted and wronged by her wicked adversary, and all the power of infinite love of justice will prompt him to vindicate his church. Second, God has an infinite affection for his church. She appears to him most beautiful and lovely; and all the promptings of his heavenly affection will move him to undertake her vindication. Third, The adversary that she complains of is his adversary. Her enemy hates and injures her, because he is full of hatred toward him; and God regards the wrongs inflicted upon her as having been intended for himself. The Lord, then, undertakes his own cause, when he interposes in behalf of his church. Fourth, He has promised to avenge her. His own veracity, as a covenant-keeping God, cannot be maintained if he refuses to interpose in behalf of his chosen. He has, in addition to his affection for her, his own self-regard—the honor of his own name—to incite him to take her case in hand and avenge her. Fifth, His church painfully feels her forlorn condition in this world, and comes to him as her only friend and hope. She throws herself upon his pledge of love and protection, and appeals to his affection and faithfulness. Finally, She cries day and night unto him. She gives him no rest. She pleads her helplessness, and utter dependence upon him. She reminds him of all his promises, and how she has forsaken every other trust but him. Now, if the unjust, unaffectionate, unprincipled judge, was prevailed upon to avenge the poor widow, in the circumstances supposed, will not the God of love, truth, and justice vindicate his own elect, who cry unto him day and night? Here is the force of comparison by contrast.

At this point we meet with two difficulties: 1. God

is represented as avenging her speedily, and yet deferring it for a long time. 2. Then, using a word that keeps up the connection, our Lord makes the inquiry or affirmation concerning the state of faith in the earth when the Son of man cometh—thereby connecting the subject with his own second advent.

In consequence of this association of these two events, and in consequence also of the common impression that the bearing long with them is, perhaps, a little less definite and emphatic than the, "I tell you that he will avenge them speedily," those who have failed to obtain the true idea of this illustration have been sometimes led to doubtful methods of interpretation, so as to avoid the apparent contradiction which appears in the manner of representing the case. The bearing long with them, is somehow made to apply to the elect, and not to the adversary. Efforts are made to show that the translation is imperfect, or that the original word should be slightly modified. As a specimen we quote Dr. A. Clarke's comment: "Though he bear long with them. Rather, And he is compassionate toward them, and consequently not at all like to the unrighteous judge. Instead of 'makrothumon,' and be long suffering, as in our translation, I read 'makrothumei,' he is compassionate, which reading is supported by ABEIQ, and several others. The reason which our Lord gives for the success of his chosen is, "1. They cry unto him day and night. "2. He is compassionate toward them."

Then, having got rid of the apparent contradiction, and prepared the way for showing how the avenging will be done speedily, the next thing undertaken is to show that the coming of the Son of man refers somehow to the destruction of Jerusalem, and would occur very soon. And this view must then essentially modify the finding faith in the earth. Thus: "When the Son of man cometh to require the produce of the seed of the kingdom, sown among this people, shall he find faith in the earth? Or rather, shall he find fidelity in this land? Shall he find that the soil has brought forth a harvest proportional to the culture bestowed on it? No! and therefore he destroyed that land."

The intention of this treatise does not make it necessary to express formally, and at great length, the palpable error and manifest absurdity of such expositions of such passages as this. The reader must be left to make his own deductions, after he has contemplated the whole subject, as it is proposed to be done in this volume.

CONNECTION OF THE AVENGING OF THE ELECT WITH THE COMING OF CHRIST.

We will now consider more particularly these two events, as our Lord has associated them in the passage under notice. That the avenging spoken of will take place at the coming of the Son of man, that is referred to, is so evident that all classes of commentators are constrained to admit it. But the coming of Christ here mentioned is usually referred to the judicial visitation of Providence, by which Jerusalem and the Jewish nation were overthrown. By those who believe that Christ will come again at the end of the world, and yet maintain that the advent here spoken of was somehow connected with Jewish affairs, it is generally supposed that our Lord here referred primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem, and remotely, perhaps, to his personal advent at the end of the world.

A careful examination of all the passages relating to the coming of the Son of man, has fully convinced the author of this treatise that there is not an instance in the whole Bible in which the coming of Christ is ever, as an event, in any degree associated with the destruction of Jerusalem. It is manifest that these two topics are associated intimately and frequently, just as many other separate and distinct themes, referring to various periods and things, are associated for various purposes. The deluge and the coming of Christ are associated as topics of discourse, but never as similar or kindred events, in the Scriptures. If this distinction between topics and events had been more particularly attended to, our world would not now be quite so much mystified and at variance in reference to questions so vital to true theology as the one under consideration.

The terrible desolation of the nation and capital of the Jews, must be admitted to have been a judicial visitation of divine Providence, just as other desolations of other people, for other reasons, at other times, and by other means, must be admitted to have been judicial visitations of God. But why should that visitation of judgment upon the Jews be called the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, any more than other wars, sieges, captivities, and desolations, that were previously or subsequently inflicted upon that nation, or upon other nations?

It has been affirmed by some that there was, in some manner, a revelation of Christ in connection with these Jewish calamities. In what way the manifestation was made, writers who favor the idea are not agreed. But as some manifestation or coming of Christ in connection with Jewish calamities, is absolutely indispensable to their theory of interpretation, suppositions and confident affirmations to that effect abound in commentaries of this class. For example, Newton, on the Prophecies, thus confidently affirms: "The destruction of Jerusalem would be as ample a manifestation of Christ's power and glory as if he was himself to come visibly in the clouds of heaven!"—an affirmation which, in whole or in part, has been extensively copied and endorsed by late commentators, and which is, nevertheless, without a shadow of proof, either from history or reason. Indeed the bold affirmation, by whomsoever originated, and by whomsoever copied and endorsed, is diametrically opposite, both to the known facts in the case, and to the rational convictions of unprejudiced men.

Besides, in Matt. xxiv, and its parallels, where the destruction of Jerusalem, as a topic, is associated with the coming of Christ, the coming is distinctly represented as being "after the tribulation of those days," and not antecedently nor in connection with it. And yet, if the invasion and ravages by the Romans, as God's instruments of vengeance, were what our Lord intended when he spoke of his own coming, he certainly would have represented it as previous to the fall of Jerusalem, because the city was besieged, taken, and demolished after the Romans invaded and ravaged all other portions of the land. The cause must always be anterior to the effect. The coming of the Romans was, under divine Providence, the cause of those calamities. If, as is usually represented by commentators, the coming of the Roman armies was the coming of the Son of man, that is spoken of in connection with that judicial visitation—if, in other words, it was virtually the same event, then of course it must have transpired at the same time. Is there any possibility of avoiding this conclusion? What rational excuse, then, can intelligent men render for affirming that the coming of Christ, which was to be "after the tribulation of those days," was in fact before that tribulation, as both reason and history perfectly demonstrate, if it be assumed that the coming was by means of the Roman armies?

Is it not absolutely undeniable that our Lord described the tribulation of those days, as including the siege, the taking, the overthrow of the city, and the slaughter and dispersion of the surviving inhabitants? And did he not, likewise, as represented by Luke xxi, 24, describe those days of tribulation as lasting while Jerusalem continues to be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled? And are not all impressed that this fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles is an event that has not yet been accomplished? What then shall we say of this now fashionable method of associating the coming of the Son of man with the coming of the Romans, as being similar, or synchronous, or even, virtually, the same event? What shall we say of this method of interpreting this plainest of all the prophecies which speak of the second advent of Christ—this method which has not a known fact to authorize it—which has no primitive example or opinion to justify it—which is flatly opposed to the words of the Lord Jesus,—which has never been adopted as the first impression produced by the language of inspiration upon any mind—which, of necessity, essentially modifies, and even in some instances, reverses the most literal and unmistakable of the many other passages which relate to the coming of Christ? What shall we think of such a system of interpretation, which the primitive church knew not, and which has been discovered or invented in these last days of darkness and confusion on the subject of the second advent of the Lord Jesus?

Again, in reference to this point, we ought not to imagine that the overthrow of the Jewish nation was in answer to the importunate supplication of the saints, as we must do, if we suppose that it was in this way that the elect were avenged. Where is there upon record a single wish or prayer that was ever uttered by the primitive saints, that God would take vengeance upon the Jewish nation? We have records of many of the sayings and doings of the first Christians; but have we a single specimen of such a kind? We have, instead, such prayers as these: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." "Lay not this sin to their charge." "Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thy heritage to reproach."

Besides this impossibility, from the very nature of pure Christianity, we observe further, that we not only have no record of any such prayers as the case implies, but no evidence whatever that the saints were in any proper sense delivered from their adversary, or avenged in consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem. Almost immediately after that event, the worldwide and tremendous power of Roman persecution fell upon the church, and many thousands of the saints watered the earth with their blood. He who can find upon record any general deliverance to the saints, resulting from the overthrow of the Jewish nation, can find what we have earnestly sought, but have never yet beheld. Let the record be produced. Is it not, after all, a pure question of fact? And can it be possible that so important a fact as the one indicated in the parable, as the chief event for which the elect are longing, looking, and importuning—can such an event as that have escaped the minute history and multiform traditions that swell the volumes of primitive Christian history?

But we have a still more serious objection to urge against the application of this parable to the destruction of the Jewish people: we intend to prove that it involves a fatal error in evangelical theology. We design to show that this method of interpreting this and similar portions of Scripture, not only does violence to all the original convictions of Bible readers—not only ignores all the ascertained facts in the case—not only makes affirmations flatly at variance with such facts, but undeniably contradicts the plain words of the Lord Jesus himself, in reference to the relative order and times of the associated events—not only of necessity implies a disposition to personal vengeance in the ancient saints, and thereby misrepresents the whole genius and spirit of Christianity, but—and this is our principal objection—it necessarily introduces into Christian theology such views of the relations and appropriate offices of the Lord Jesus, as are fatal to true Bible theology just in proportion to the influence and extent of the new views. The objection, in brief, is this: during this dispensation the Lord Jesus is the mediator for the human race, and appears in heaven as our interceding High Priest, pleading for all sinners, as the world's only Hope and Redeemer. Now, it was no part of the official work of the high priest to inflict or to pray for calamities upon those for whom he prayed as their representative and intercessor. His whole work was intercessory and merciful. And God, with wonderful care and particularity, appointed the Jewish high priest, in all things essentially pertaining to his office, as a living type of the great High Priest of the human race, during the present mediatorial dispensation. As a brief statement of this great truth, will this representation ever be denied? We have never heard it called in question. If it ever should be, we shall be impressed that those who do so are fearful of the consequences to some fondly-cherished doctrine or theory. To apply the subject to the case in hand—Christ came into the world to save sinners—"God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." This, then, was the object of our Lord's first advent. He came to save sinners; he labored to save them; he prayed and consecrated himself to save them; he suffered and died to save them; he rose from the dead to save them; he ascended up to heaven to save them;

and he ever liveth to make intercession, in order that they may be saved. This is his unceasing, appropriate, only official work, while his present relation continues.

Sinners may reject him, as did the Hebrews, and die, notwithstanding all his desires and efforts to save them; just as a sick man may reject his only physician and die, in spite of all that the skillful and kind-hearted physician may endeavor and offer to do for him. But would it be rational and truthful to say that the physician was displayed in the unnecessary and undesired death of that obstinate and even insane patient? Or can it be wise and just to represent that the Lord Jesus, the sinner's only Physician and Hope, was displayed in the fearful calamities that obstinate sinners brought upon themselves, in consequence of rejecting their heavenly Intercessor? As sinners among the Jews did, so sinners among the Gentiles do now: they reject the Lord Jesus and perish, some in one way, and some in another. Shall we say that the divine Redeemer is now revealed from heaven, in the case of those who perish now, as it is usual to represent it in the case of those who rejected and perished when Jerusalem was overthrown? How much better it is to remember and repeat such blessed truths as this: "He is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and the remission of sins!" Our glorious High Priest ever lives before the throne of mercy, to finish the work he came into our world to begin.

These observations, while they have a general relevancy to the general subject, are intended more particularly for that specific and vital point which affirms that the Son of man then came; that he was revealed from heaven; that he was seen coming in the clouds of heaven; that, in connection somehow with the Roman armies, he came through the length and breadth of the land, as the lightning that cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; that then all the tribes of the earth saw him coming, and mourned at the sight of him. It is very easy to affirm anything, and very natural to make the wish the parent of the thought. But to prove a matter, which, in the nature of the case, must be susceptible of proof if it ever occurred—to bring the record and point out the demonstration—is not so very easy, if the thing that is affirmed as a fact was never known to have occurred.

Now, notwithstanding the confident affirmation of Bishop Newton, and all who copy and endorse him, "that the destruction of Jerusalem was as ample a manifestation of Christ's power and glory, as if he himself was to come visibly in the clouds of heaven!"—notwithstanding the learned annotations of Dr. A. Clarke and those from whom he copied, and those who endorse and copy from him, when he gives this exposition of the verse relating to all the tribes of the earth seeing him coming in the clouds, and mourning at the sight of him: "That the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will, in consequence of this manifestation of God, be led to acknowledge Christ and his religion"—notwithstanding all this, and a multitude of other speculations and assertions of a similar kind, it will be entirely safe to challenge the host of commentators, and their followers who take this view, to produce the first word of proof, either from the Bible, or from any other authentic record, that "then all tribes of the earth," or even of the land of Judea, beheld the Lord coming in the clouds of heaven, either literally, mentally, or spiritually, and mourned at the sight of him.

Some have suggested, as an explanation of the matter in question, that the Lord Jesus was seen, in a certain sense, then coming in the clouds of heaven, because his predictions of those events were all remarkably fulfilled. He appeared figuratively in the fulfillment of his predictions! To say nothing of the suspicious novelty of such an exposition, its inexcusable folly may be exposed by extending the same principle only a little farther. For example, the same things were foretold by Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. Why not affirm then, that these were all seen at that time coming in the clouds of heaven with power and glory proportional to the obscurity or plainness of their respective predictions? Yes, and why not say also that they are still perceived all the time coming, since their predictions are all the time yet being fulfilled? Why shrink from the application of the same principle to other persons or other things? Is the fulfillment of prophecy the appearing or coming of the prophet? Well then let us say that the coming of the false Christ was the same as the coming of the true Christ, because the true Christ most plainly foretold that the false Christs would come!

Reader, can you be satisfied with such unwarrantable speculations in the divine revelations to men?

(To be Continued.)