CHRIST’S COMING LITERAL, - PART 1

All who have read the New Testament Scriptures with even the slightest degree of attention must have observed the frequent allusions that are made to the second coming of our Lord. Both in the four Gospels and in the inspired Epistles such allusions are of constant occurrence. The common explanation, however, of this admitted fact supposes that these passages do not always, nor usually, imply His personal advent. Thus besides His visible return to the earth at the end of the present age, it is taken for granted by many that the promise of His coming has often been fulfilled in the past in remarkable events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the downfall of kingdoms; and that it is often fulfilled still in extraordinary providences that directly affect the welfare of nations or individuals, in the special manifestations of the Spirit’s presence and power, and in the death of believers. If, for example, the text should be quoted in a sermon, or on a funeral occasion, “Watch therefore; for ye know neither the day nor the hour when the Son of man cometh,” (Matt, xxv: 13), it is probable that nearly all who might hear it, owing to the loose teaching to which they are accustomed, would infer that nothing more was meant than the uncertainty of life, and the importance of being always ready for the hour of death.

It is a question, however, worthy of the most serious consideration, whether we have a right to put such an interpretation upon these numerous references to Christ’s coming; for it involves another question of momentous importance, whether we can know the precise meaning of the Scriptures upon any subject. Is the Bible to be interpreted according to each reader’s whims, or is it to be interpreted like every other book, by giving to its words their plain and obvious import? No one will deny that it contains figures of speech, symbols and types; but is there no way of distinguishing its figurative language from that which is to be received as literal? If there is not, it must be confessed that it is no longer a revelation, but a concealment of God’s will, and for all practical purposes it becomes as useless as the ambiguous responses, of the ancient heathen oracles.

Greswell, one of the highest of human authorities, says, “It is in my opinion, a dangerous and truly objectionable principle on which to proceed, either in ascertaining the speculative doctrines or in defining the practical duties of revealed religion, to assume that the words of Scripture in a given instance, and with reference to the particular article of faith or moral obligation dependent upon them, were ever intended to mean either more or less than to the common sense of the great bulk of mankind, (for whose benefit and instruction they were intended,) when properly exercised upon them, they appear to mean, or can really be shown to mean. Nor do I know of any way wherein the common sense of the great bulk of mankind can ordinarily be exercised upon the words of scripture, to determine their meaning, except by applying to its language the same criterion by which it judges of the sense of words in general; which is their natural, obvious, and primary construction, according to the rules and idiom of the language or dialect, in which they happen to be expressed.

“To adopt any other method of arriving at the true sense of scripture but this, is to substitute an indefinite and capricious standard of interpretation, taken from I know not what imaginary notions and preconceived opinions of the interpreter himself; and consequently of as many kinds as there can be peculiar principles and notions of different expositors — all equally arbitrary and precarious, and all equally unsatisfactory to any but those who first set them up and apply them. If there is any one principle of interpretation, which from the nature of the case is not liable to vary; which is founded in the reason of things, and can not accommodate itself to the peculiar tastes or prejudices of individuals, in the use and admission of which persons of every persuasion might be capable of concurring, and which would lead all, if they applied it rightly, to similar conclusions; which is consequently the least likely to fail of the desired effect, and therefore, we may presume, was of all others intended to be our guide and director in arriving at the knowledge both of what we are required to believe, and of what we are bound to practice; it appears to me to be this, that we take the words of scripture as we find them; that we endeavor to ascertain their true, grammatical sense, whether in the Old or the New Testament, in the first instance, and then receive the truths which are thereby conveyed, whether articles of faith or rules of practice, according to the plain and simple and obvious meaning of the language itself.” (Vol. III, pp. 1 71-173).

To the same effect the celebrated Chilling- worth, speaking of the inspired writers, says, “Neither did they write only for the learned, but for all men. This being one special means for the preaching of the gospel, which was commanded to be preached, not only to learned men, but to all men. And therefore, unless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose, we must conceive that they are intended to speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest; at least, touching all things necessary to be published by them and believed by us.” (Vol. I, pp. 231, 232).

Hooker also says, “I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous and delusive than that art which changes the meaning of words, as alchemy doth or would the substance of metals; making of anything what it listeth, and bringing in the end all truth to nothing.”

Similar quotations could be easily furnished from the leading writers of various denominations, but it is needless to argue a proposition which must at once commend itself to the acceptance of every thoughtful Christian. If the Bible is designed to reveal God’s will, it can not be intended at the same time to enshroud that will in impenetrable obscurity, nor are we at liberty to put upon it any construction we please. It is written in human language by the agency of human beings, and unless we can arrive at its meaning precisely as we arrive at the meaning of any other book, obviously it is of no real value. Of course there is no reference here to the spiritual understanding or practical reception of its precious truths for which we are indebted to the Holy Ghost, but only to the rules of interpretation that are just the same as those employed in knowing the mind of an uninspired author.

While this principle will be admitted by every one with regard to the testimony of the Scriptures concerning events that are past, strange to say, it will be denied by man}'- with regard to their testimony concerning events that are future. But surely it is difficult to conceive why the rules of interpretation which apply to one class of events do not equally apply to the other. It is difficult to conceive why we should feel that we are on solid ground while reading of that which has already transpired, and that we are on a dark and tempestuous sea without chart or helm or compass, while reading of that which is to come. In either case we rest upon the authority of God speaking in His blessed word, and upon such authority it is no harder to believe and understand that which shall be, than it is to believe and understand that which has been. As previously stated our great need in the study of the doctrinal, historical, or prophetical statements of the Bible is an humble and submissive spirit ever uttering the reverent cry, “Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.”

How do we know that Jesus was literally born in Bethlehem of Judea, that He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, that He uttered the sublime discourses and performed the mighty miracles ascribed to Him, that He died upon the cross and rose again the third day.? We know it simply upon the testimony of God’s word; and upon the same testimony we may know that He is literally to come again. It is not denied that there are tropes and types, shadows and symbols in the Bible, but the question is, are they found in the numerous and explicit statements that set forth the second coming of Christ? What evidence is there that in a single passage asserting this coming, however gorgeous the imagery in which it is placed, like a jewel-in a setting of precious stones, the coming itself is to be understood in a figurative sense? If there is anything in the language announcing the doctrine of His future advent which has a figurative meaning, of course it must be so taken; but this is a different thing from saying that the advent too must be figurative. Certainly it is not very consistent to acknowledge, as all do, that the predictions of the Old Testament concerning His first coming were literally fulfilled, that the record of His personal ministry on earth is a literal narrative, and then immediately to claim that the equally plain testimony of the same Scriptures with regard to His second coming may mean any of a thousand events bearing not even the most distant resemblance to His personal appearing.

We read the predictions uttered by the ancient prophets concerning His first coming, and find that they were literally and perfectly fulfilled even in the minutest particulars; for the place of His birth, His conception by a virgin. His lowly appearance. His rejection by Israel, the characteristics of His preaching and works. His entrance into Jerusalem upon an ass. His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver, the smiting and spitting which He suffered, the piercing of His hands and feet, the parting of His garments and casting lots upon His vesture, the offer of vinegar to Him to drink, the manner of His death and burial, and other details that would seem to us of very little importance were not only plainly foretold but precisely accomplished. It is not going too far, perhaps, to say, that if those who now think that the predictions of His second coming are not to be taken literally but figuratively had lived when the predictions just mentioned were delivered, they would have insisted on spiritualizing them away, declaring that the language demanded a two-fold or ten-fold sense.

Nothing like this is found in the predictions of His second coming. Leaving out the symbols of Daniel and the Book of Revelation that are connected with other events beside His personal appearing, there are hundreds of verses in the Old and New Testaments which assert in plain and simple language that He will come again. It may be confidently affirmed that all of these verses mean precisely what they say, and nothing else; that they always set forth His personal, literal return to the earth, and never in a single instance do they refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the power of the Holy Ghost, or to the death of the Christian as implying and involving His advent; and hence wherever in the Scriptures we read of His coming again, we are to think only of Him, and of His real, actual descent from the skies, as the Blessed One who having “by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,” and “whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts iii: 21).

This statement which may appear very rash to some will be confirmed by a patient perusal of the passages where the promise of Christ’s coming is given. It will be impossible to examine every such passage here, but a portion of the Scriptures teaching the doctrine of the second advent may be presented, as a fair illustration of the rest. Let us turn, then, first of all, to the affecting narrative of the interview between Jesus and His disciples just before His separation from them. Observing the grief occasioned by His announcement that He was about to take His departure. He tenderly said, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John xiv: 1-3).

Keeping in mind that He was on the eve of leaving His disciples, not figuratively, but literally and personally, to prepare a place for them, can it be doubted that when He said “I will come again,” He meant that He would come, not figuratively, but literally and personally? Is it not certain that His disciples so understood Him, and is it not certain that He would have corrected their mistake, if He thought of one thing, and they of another thing entirely different? Truly we may repeat here His own blessed words: “if it were not so, I would have told you.” It will be noticed that He does not make the slightest allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem, nor to the Holy Spirit although subsequently in the same discourse He said He would send another Comforter, nor to the death of the disciples as fulfilling the promise, but He plainly declares, “if I go — I will come;” and manifestly if the “I” in the first clause refers to Jesus Christ personally, the “I” in the second clause also refers to Him personally, and if the word “go” in the first clause refers to His literal departure from the world, according to every sound principle of interpretation, the word “come” in the second clause refers to His literal return to the world. What would you think of a dear friend who, being about to leave you and perceiving your sadness in the anticipation of his departure, should seek to scatter your gloom with the sweet promise to come again, when he was only speaking figuratively, and really meant something totally different from what he said and from what you supposed? It is needless to say that our Lord could not be guilty of such trifling and prevarication as this, and hence it is a perversion of Scripture to say, as many do, that the promise “I will come again” is fulfilled in the death of the believer.

But that the Saviour wished His followers to understand Him as implying His literal return to the earth is evident from another scene subsequent to His resurrection. He appeared to them on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and after restoring Peter, not to his relationship as a saved sinner, which had not been and could not be lost, but to the conscious enjoyment of communion with the Lord whom he had denied, Jesus said to him as He said when He first called him from his boat to make him a fisher of men, “Follow me.” Peter promptly obeyed, but observing John also following, he inquired, “Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him. If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him. He shall not die; but if I will that he tarry TILL I COME, what is that to thee?” (John xxi: 21-23).

It is apparent from a glance at this interesting passage that the disciples understood the coming of Christ in a literal sense, and that they could not have regarded it as fulfilled in the death of a Christian. Indeed it is apparent that they regarded His coming as directly opposed to death in every respect, for owing to His remark concerning John, there went abroad a rumor among the brethren that that disciple should not die, or in other words that the coming of the Lord would prevent his death. Peter knew that he must die, because a moment before the Master had signified by what death he should glorify God; but with regard to John there was an impression that he would be delivered from death, because of the saying, “if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” So far is it from true, therefore, that the death of a believer is the same as the coming of Christ, they are not only plainly distinguished, but positively contrasted in the word of God. Paul speaks of “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better,” (Phil, i: 23); but to depart to be with Christ is one thing, and the coming of Christ is quite another; and no man can show a single passage where the two are confounded or used interchangeably by the inspired writers. But if not so used by them, neither can they be so used by us without a presumptuous and perilous dealing with the word of God.

Let us pass on, however, to the chapter which presents to us the risen Lord leading out His disciples as far as Bethany, and renewing their great commission to be His witnesses in the power of the Holy Ghost unto the uttermost part of the earth. “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” This was no figurative taking up, but it was literal and personal. “And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said. Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven.^ this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts i: 9-11).

“This same Jesus,” observe, “shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven,” and even the audacity of the most reckless criticism can not possibly torture this declaration into a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the descent of tire Holy Ghost, or the death of the Christian, or any other event but the personal return of Christ to the earth. Luke tell us in his gospel that when He was parted from His disciples, and carried up into heaven, “they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,” (Luke xxiv: 52); and surely their joy in their ascended God was kindled to a brighter glow by the promise of the two men in white apparel, who may have been, as has been suggested, Moses and Elias, and who assured them that He, not the destruction of Jerusalem, nor death, but He Himself would come again. Dr. J. Addison Alexander remarks on the wistful gazing of the disciples, “Their astonishment seems to show that they despaired of ever seeing Christ himself again; whereas he had repeatedly declaimed that he would come again, and in the very way that he had now departed and the phrase in like manner he says, “never indicates mere certainty or a vague resemblance; but wherever it occurs in the New Testament denotes identity of mode or manner.”