089-Prop. 86. The object or design of this dispensation is to gather out these elect, to whom, as...
Prop. 86. The object or design of this dispensation is to gather out these elect, to whom, as heirs with Abraham and his seed, Christ, this Kingdom is to be given. THIS PROPOSITION IS THUS PRESENTED TO RECALL, AT THIS POINT OF OUR DISCUSSION, SOME CONCLUSIONS PREVIOUSLY ARRIVED AT. WE HAVE SHOWN (1) PROP. 57, HOW THE KINGDOM WAS REJECTED, (2) PROP. 58, WHY IT WAS POSTPONED, (3) PROP. 59, THAT DURING THIS POSTPONEMENT A SEED IS RAISED UP UNTO ABRAHAM, (4) PROP. 63, THAT THIS SEED, COMPOSING THE ELECT NATION, IS THE ONE TO WHOM THE KINGDOM IS GIVEN. THEREFORE, WHENEVER THE DESIGN OF THIS DISPENSATION IS DISTINCTIVELY REFERRED TO, IT IS TO SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE, TO PROCLAIM THE TERMS OF SALVATION BY WHICH, IF OBSERVED, MEN MAY BECOME INHERITORS OF CHRIST’S KINGDOM, TO GATHER OUT SUCH A BODY OF ELECT ONES.
Obs. 1. It is not necessary, under this heading, to notice two mistakes by which the affirmation of the Proposition is obscured by error, viz.: (1) the regarding this dispensation as the final one, and (2) the belief in the conversion of the world before the Second Advent. These will be made, hereafter, the subjects of special remark (as e.g. the first, under Props. 140, 138, 139, 137, etc., and the second, under Props. 175, 121, 122, 152, 153, etc.).
Obs. 2. If our argument has any logical force, based on the plain grammatical sense of covenant, and prophecy, and fact,-if it has any Scriptural weight in insisting upon a restored Theocratic order under David’s Son here on the earth where the previous Theocratic rule was inaugurated,-then the absence of such a Theocracy in the form covenanted, itself is sufficient to indicate that a dispensation or ordering under the personal reign of David’s Son is still future, and that the Millennial glory in the blessedness of nations will only then be realized.
Obs. 3. Our Proposition is, consequently, only formulating, or recalling, the conclusions arrived at under previous ones pertaining to the election. It has been shown (1) that there is an elect-people, Prop. 24, etc.; (2) this elect-people for a certain and fixed time, is discarded, Prop. 59, etc.; (3) another elect-people is gathered out, Prop. 61, etc.; (4) the former election, now held in abeyance, is fully restored, re-engrafted in order to fulfill the covenant, Prop. 66, etc.; (5) hence the design of this dispensation, or “times of the Gentiles,” in which this continuation of elected ones, grafted in, is going on, is not to establish the Kingdom but to prepare the way for the final restoration of that Kingdom to the covenanted people, Prop. 65, etc.; (6) and that it is by our identification with that people that we also inherit with them, Prop. 64, etc. In the very nature of the case, this dispensation, as its progressive work indicates, can do no more than prepare the heirs for the Kingdom.
We see in this dispensation only that which unmistakably proves that the covenant will be fulfilled; to say that in it the covenant is already realized, is either to ignore or misrepresent (if not to degrade) the most precious of its promises. As preparative, it is exceedingly precious; as bringing present blessings and the prospect of the highest honor and glory in the future, it is indispensable; as a link in the chain of Divine procedure, it is necessary to preserve and perfect a unity of Purpose.
Obs. 4. Our argument regards this dispensation (1) as preparative to the Kingdom; (2) as introduced, because of the fall of the Jewish nation, to raise up a seed unto Abraham; (3) as elective and not national in the sense that it gathers out of all nations a people for God; (4) as extending to all nations in its offers of mercy, but resulting in no conversion of nations but of individuals only; (5) as spiritual in its designs and operations, so that no introduction of an outward exhibition of God’s Kingdom is to be expected in it; (6) as one that will end in unbelief and Apostasy, just like previous dispensations, proving both the continued inherent depravity of man and the non-erection of the covenanted Kingdom; (7) as one that is, therefore, an extraordinary manifestation of Divine grace and forbearance in Him who knows the end from the beginning; (8) as one connected with probation, trial, suffering, chastening, bereavement, etc., and to exalt which into the position of the Coming one (freed from these evils), is to do violence to the Word; (9) as one which, in the establishment and perpetuation of the Christian Church, stands forth as a constant sign or witness that God’s purposes do not fail; (10) and hence, as a standing proof that, however long delayed, the oath-bound Davidic covenant will be most amply realized.
Obs. 5. The covenanted relationship is recalled by the phrase, “heirs with Abraham.” Having fully shown the necessity of this (Prop. 61, etc.), the reader may again be reminded how eminent writers, viewing this dispensation as final, take the position, demanded by their theory, that the prophecies pertaining to this Kingdom have no relation to Israel as a nation. This is productive of discordant interpretation, unduly exalting the present divine arrangement to the prejudice of the truth. We are gravely told (e.g. Alexander on Isaiah vol. 2, p. 31) that it is not only an “error” but an “irrational extreme of making Israel as a race the object of the promises.” Leaving former Propositions (such as Props. 24, 31, 33, 49, 51, 52, 63, 68, etc.), to speak for themselves, it may well be asked: how comes it that the Theocratic ordering is inseparably connected with the Jewish nation as such? How comes it then that all the promises and threatenings revolve around that Jewish race as a central pivot, which is still recognized in the New Testament as indispensable, since into that race we must be grafted, and to inherit we must be adopted as Abraham’s children? Why must we become Jews (i.e. of the seed of Abraham) in order to enter this Kingdom, if the promises are not given to that nation, and still pertain to them? Why even in the time of rejection are they so wonderfully preserved, and why is their restoration so plainly predicted, unless the promises remain linked with them? Why should the threatenings be carefully given to them and the blessings pertaining to the verysame people, be taken from them? Surely it is illogical, if not worse, to appropriate the covenant promises to ourselves, and leave the curses to the Jews. God has united them and bound them together in an inseparable manner with that people, and seeing the latter so fearfully verified, enjoins upon us the belief that the former will also yet be realized. The “hope of Israel” is our hope; and such hope is greatly increased by an intelligent and consistent Scriptural interpretation of the design of this dispensation.
Obs. 6. Noticing the design of this dispensation and not overloading it with things that belong to a coming one, Christianity itself, as it exists, is susceptible of a more easy defence against the attacks of infidelity. Thus e.g. we can more readily account for its want of success in some ages, its retrogressions where once predominant, its declines and revivals, its union with much that must be discarded, etc., for these and other events do not affect its object, or prevent the carrying out of the design originally intended. Humanly speaking, these may cause a delay, but the delay itself is an experience of continued mercy and forbearance so that the design may be completed. On the other hand, bind upon this dispensation ideas and notions which really belong to the future coming age, and at once-in view of the Church’s mixed character, the comparative meager extension of real piety after eighteen centuries of preaching, the losses Christianity has sustained in countries where once it existed in all its vigor, the corruption of doctrine and practice, the virulent controversies and spirit often exhibited, etc.-a resort must be had to apologetic shifts, mystical subterfuges, and philosophical glosses utterly unworthy of a candid and noble defence. Is there a student who has not been saddened by the apologies of eminent believers in behalf of the gospel, who, hampered by a Church-Kingdom theory, feel themselves compelled to excuse and justify a want of success, etc., when no such special pleading is demanded by the design God has in view, or by the real facts in the case? God’s plan, and the time employed by Him, in gathering the elect, requires on our part no abject vindication.
Additional evidence in behalf of the Prop. will be found under Props. 87, 88, 89, etc. The reasons (additional) for the design are given under Props. 124, 142, 118, 120, etc. Others again are found under Props. 131-139, 140, 169, 154, 158, etc. We have already laid sufficient stress on Acts 15:14-16, so that we need not repeat, only saying that Dr. Brown, in his recent Com. on Acts, entirely omits to recognize the eclecticism indicated by the phrase “taking out of them.” As illustrative of doctrinal position, we append the views of two men. Pressense (The Early Years of Christianity, p. 25) makes the “vocation” of the Church to be that of “illuminating and vivifying the world”-“to purify itself within, and to extend itself without, such is the twofold task of the Church, and the ages are given for its fulfillment.” Here the preconceived idea of the conversion of the world through the Church suggests the vocation (comp Prop. 175). Now in contrast, we give Dr. Fausset’s (Com.Daniel 7:11) brief comment: “The New Testament views the present aeon or age of the world as essentially heathenish, which we cannot love without forsaking Christ (Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 7:31; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:10; cf. 1 John 2:15; 1 John 2:17). The object of Christianity is not so much to Christianize the present world as to save souls out of it, so as not to be condemned with the world (1 Corinthians 11:32), but to rule with Him in His Millennium (Matthew 5:5; Luke 12:32; Luke 22:28-30; Romans 5:17; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 2:26-28; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 20:4). This is our hope; not to reign in the present world course (1 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:18; Php 3:20; Hebrews 13:14).” Pressense’s view is inferential; Fausset’s is directly Scriptural.