ARTICLE IV.

ON THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST IN REGARD TO HIS THEN FUTURE COMINGS, AND THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLES ON THIS SUBJECT.

BY REV. PROF. HENRY COWLES, OBERLIN, OHIO.

THIS subject has a broad range of practical bearings, particularly on these two points: the true method of contemplating the now future coming of Christ in order to derive from it the best moral results; and the subject of inspiration as involved in the question, whether the apostles were or were not mistaken in their views of the time of Christ's second coming. That the latter point needs discussion no man intelligent in regard to the views extensively held, both by learned and unlearned expositors, can doubt. Some men of great erudition maintain that Paul's view of the time of Christ's second coming underwent an important change between the date of his first Epistle to the Thessalonians and of his second. If so, was he inspired in a lower degree when he wrote the first, and in a higher when he wrote the second? Or will it be said that in one or both of these letters his inspiration did not reach this particular subject? Among men moving in the common walks of life the view is somewhat current that the apostles actually expected the final coming of Christ within their own lifetime, in such a sense near that it might occur any night before morning. Some believe that they taught this as a fact; others that they thought it expedient for the best moral impression to assume it, and to speak as if it were so; the points actually believed by them being only these, that the precise time was not revealed, and that nothing forbade its being so near that it might break upon the world at any moment. Now, let it be well considered, if the apostles taught the near coming

of Christ for the final judgment as a fact, they were simply mistaken, and we have grave difficulties to dispose of under the question of their real inspiration; or, if they held that nothing forbade its being so near that it might break upon the world during their own lifetime, and therefore, for the sake of the best moral impression, men should be exhorted to expect it daily as a possible, and perhaps probable, event, then we have to meet this difficulty: Is it supposable that their views of the gospel age, and of its predicted work under its then opening dispensation, were so very limited and so exceedingly imperfect? These remarks will probably suffice to show that the subject calls for thorough and careful examination.

As already indicated, we propose two main subjects of inquiry:

First, The teachings of Christ in regard to his then future comings.

Second, The phraseology of the apostles in speaking upon this subject.

It will be found convenient, not to say important, to examine these points separately.

THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST IN REGARD TO HIS COMINGS

THEN FUTURE.

At the outset we are met with the fact that Jesus speaks of more than one then future coming. In some passages he speaks of coming within the lifetime of that generation; in other passages, he comes at the close of the present world, in connection with the resurrection and the final judgment. Of the former class is Matt. x. 23, in which, having commissioned the twelve to preach to the lost sheep of Israel, he says: "When they persecute you in one city, flee ye into another; for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel until the Son of Man be come." Also Matt. xvi. 28: "Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." As

recorded by Mark (ix. 1) the words are shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power"; while Luke gives it, "till they see the kingdom of God." These various phrases show that Christ sometimes spake of himself as coming in those signal events and manifestations of power which pre-eminently established his gospel kingdom during that primitive age, i.e. within the first century. But let us notice the context of the last cited passage from Matt. xvi. 27, 28. Having said," If any man will come after me, let him deny himself "; " What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Jesus adds, "For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works"; after which follow the words: "There be some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Here manifestly, vs. 27 refers to his coming for the final judgment, for he comes "in the glory of his Father"; "with his angels"; for the final reward of every man according to his works; points which most distinctly identify the final judgment (compare Matt. xxv. 31-46). Yet his next words refer to entirely another coming, long anterior to the final one. Why is this? Certainly not because the two comings are one in time; but apparently because the earlier one may represent the later, would be in some points analogous, would involve to some extent the same principles of God's government, and therefore the nearer one, falling within the lifetime of some then before him, would serve to illustrate, and perhaps still more to verify, the one far more remote. Mark also in his parallel passage has each of these comings in mind; the final one in the words: "When he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels"(viii. 38); the earlier one in the words: "Till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power"; this coming with power being such a manifestation of divine judgment on a guilty nation as will both certify and illustrate the awful fact of his final coming in judgment upon the whole race. Precisely this analogy gives us (we suggest) the key to the

remarkable blending of Christ's nearer coming with the more remote one which runs through Matt. xxiv. xxv. (The parallel passages are Mark xiii. and Luke xxi.). This discourse of the Lord was occasioned by the question of his disciples: "Tell us, when shall these things be? (i.e. the vast temple buildings laid in ruins) and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world ?

On this prophetic discourse of our Lord the following points may be suggested: (a) Since it was occasioned by the special questions above cited, it may be assumed that Jesus answered those questions to some extent; perhaps not perfectly and to all the points made, but as far as he deemed it wise, and in the way he judged most useful. (b) Their questions make two points very clearly, viz. the date of the destruction of the temple, and its premonitory signs. To these points it will be seen Jesus made very definite answers. (c) Whether they also inquired when the present world, in our sense of the phrase, should end, i.e. in the general resurrection and judgment, has been doubted; this doubt turning on their sense of the phrase," the end of the world." If (as seems probable) they took up this phrase from Christ's use of it (Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49): "The harvest is the end of the world; ""So shall it be in the end of the world," etc., then they clearly had reference to Christ's final coming; and Jesus answered to this point, (1) by declaring that the time of this final coming is known to none but the Father; (2) by giving (as in Matt. xxv. 31-46) a very minute and sublime account of this final coming in the glory of the Father for final judg ment and eternal retribution. (d) The leading, and I think we may say, the main points in this discourse are those two which stand forth so certainly, clearly, and prominently in the questions asked, pertaining to his nearer coming to destroy Jerusalem. Remarkably, Matthew only has recorded that part of his discourse which appears in Matt. xxv. 31-46, while Luke has nothing in his entire report of this discourse which does not apply readily to the nearer coming; facts which seem to show that this discourse, as a whole, impressed

the disciples much more in its relations to the fall of their city and temple than in its relations to the final coming to judgment. (e) The points of chief difficulty in this discourse (Matt. xxiv.) are of this sort; whether the latter part of it, and especially vs. 29-31 and Mark xiii. 24-27, refer at all to Christ's final coming, and if so, on what principle we shall discriminate between what refers to the nearer coming and what to the remote one; or, if we discard the idea of discrimination, and apply the same words to both events, then why are they so blended together; and have we any means of ascertaining what Christ did really teach concerning the first coming and what concerning the second? Here it is in place to say that this manner of speaking of these two comings in very close connection is not peculiar to this discourse. It appears, as already shown, in Matt. xvi. 27, 28. Comparing that discourse with this, it seems obvious that Jesus designed to make the nearer coming both prove to men the certainty of the more remote one and develop its ground principles. These two objects were of the utmost consequence, especially at that time. Plainly Jesus did not deem it then so desirable as we now do to discriminate broadly between what belonged to the nearer coming and what to the more remote one. As he saw them, they had more points in common than we are wont to notice. The nearer one had bearings of great moment to his hearers, far greater than they can have to us. And we are slow to realize the importance of that verification of the fact of a final judgment which Jesus saw in the nearer judgment upon Jerusalem. Yet further, it is plain throughout this discourse that Jesus thought much of the immediate practical results, and hence dwelt very largely on the dangers to which his disciples would be exposed; warned them against being deceived, etc.

These considerations serve to account for the manner in which the various parts of this discourse are presented. At first view they may not seem to afford much aid in its interpretation. A deeper view, however, will suggest that