Matthew XXIV

SEVERAL times we have been requested to make some remarks on certain parts of Matt. 24. Hitherto we have refrained, because we cannot consent to write so fully as others have on this portion of the sacred word, and we felt inclined to let the writings of others suffice. Several works have been published on this chapter. One is in our list of publications; a pamphlet of 80 pages, by Elder James White. We recommend this to all readers as full of instruction, and doubtless the best on this subject. It sheds great light on this and kindred scriptures.

But some questions are still presented by those who have read on this subject, as to the literalness of the coming of Christ, that is, whether he will come in person, or only by his Spirit; and as to the chronology of Matthew 24, that is, whether it refers to events in the past or in the future. Now we have no idea that all will be satisfied on these questions by any evidence that may be presented; for, at this age, a strong effort is being made by many styling themselves evangelical, to do away with the faith of Christ's personality in the second advent. The second question really depends upon this.

In complying with these several requests we do not propose to traverse the ground at length which has been thoroughly examined by others, but shall confine ourselves as nearly as possible to the points stated.

Perhaps there is no chapter in the entire Bible which has been the subject of greater controversy than Matt. 24. But the nature of the controversy has almost entirely changed within the last forty years. Forty years ago the controversy was between the Universalists and orthodox Christians. The Universalists denied that there is to be any future judgment and punishment. Of course they referred the 24th chapter of Matthew altogether to the destruction of Jerusalem—to the past. Evangelical Christians then denied that it referred solely to the destruction of Jerusalem; they affirmed that it taught a personal coming of Christ, to reward his saints and to take vengeance on his foes. Those commentators who referred it in general to the destruction of Jerusalem in their expositions, yet admitted that it had a further reference to the second advent and the end of the world. They uniformly applied part of the Saviour's discourse in chapters 24 and 25 to the latter event.

The Universalists now take a different position; they have mostly become Restorationists, admitting that there will be some punishment, even in the future. But they contend that it will be disciplinary or reformatory. They still maintain their former position that Matt. 24 has no relation to that future punishment, but refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The opponents of Universalism, in the churches, have also changed their base, in part. While they yet contend that there will be a future judgment and eternal punishment they now deny that Matt. 24 proves anything in regard to that day, or event, and affirm that it was all fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. They are also extensively changing their position in regard to the nature of the second advent, many of them agreeing with the Universalists, saying that the advent is figurative or spiritual and has already taken place. From present indications we think that this will very soon be the prevailing opinion in all the popular churches. Many of their ablest and most influential men now advocate this view. A little more change in the same direction will unite them fully with the Universalists in a denial of the future coming of Christ, of a personal, literal advent, and of any real, tangible punishment of the wicked. They find it no more difficult to spiritualize the judgment and punishment, than the coming of the Lord. Very many of them now assert that the Bible expressions concerning the perdition of the wicked, such as those in 2 Thess. 1, and 2 Peter 3, and Rev. 20, are to be taken figuratively—not at all literally.

We think we do not over estimate the extent and importance of the changes which are taking place in the churches. They are fast wheeling into line under the banner of old-fashioned Universalism on the points here indicated, which, indeed, cover nearly all the former ground of difference between them.

We are very confident that Matt. 24 reaches to matters beyond the destruction of Jerusalem, and into the yet future; and that it refers to a literal, personal, visible coming again of our glorified Saviour. But the instruction which it contains was not given to prove this truth—that his coming will be personal or literal. This, now, has become the chief point of controversy on the chapter, whereas it is not made a point at all in the chapter. To this we shall call further attention hereafter.

Two questions were asked by the disciples:—

1. "When shall these things be?" On this no controversy has ever been raised. It is universally conceded that it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the overthrow of the temple, of which he had but recently spoken.

2. "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world?" This is but one question. The coming of Christ and the end of the world are so closely related that they may properly be embraced in one statement. See a parallel case in the first letter to the Thessalonians. The writer speaks of the coming of the Lord (the Lord himself), and adds; "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." The "times and seasons" of the advent and the resurrection, of which he had just spoken, are identical with those of the day of the Lord. This phrase—the day of the Lord—covers a period immediately subsequent to "the day of salvation," this latter being applied to this present dispensation.

Several points of query must be noticed:—

(1.) "The end of the world." It is asserted that this is a wrong translation; that it should be "the end of the age," and that it refers to "the Jewish age." If we grant the first part of this statement, we cannot also grant the second. But we do not admit the first. We believe that the Authorized Version gives correctly the idea of such passages as Luke 1:70; John 9:32; and Heb. 1:2. The rendering of this latter text by the Emphatic Diaglott (on account of whom he constituted the ages), is not sustained by the lexicons, by authorities, nor by such passages as Col. 1:16. The point is not of sufficient importance in the discussion of this question to warrant an extended criticism. We will only say that Greenfield gives as one meaning of the original, "the world universe;" and this is sustained by other authorities.

But, allowing that it should be rendered, "end of the age," it does not follow, by any means, that it refers to the Jewish age, or past dispensation. It certainly does not in Matt. 28:20. The promise that He will be with his ministers "until the end of the age," certainly refers to that age in which they are to preach the gospel, for these words are in the gospel commission. It is to the end of this same age to which Matt. 24:14 refers. The question was in regard to the end of the world (or age, if preferred). He said, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come." This is decisive on the point, for (a.) they were to tarry at Jerusalem, after receiving their commission, until the day of pentecost, and then they were to be his witnesses to the nations. (b.) The Jewish age ended before the preaching to the nations commenced; therefore it is impossible that Matt. 24 and 28 should refer to that age.

An effort has been made to put forward the ending of the Jewish age to the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is exceedingly lame. To prove that, it will be necessary to show that the Christian dispensation was not fully opened until the destruction of Jerusalem! This is disproved by the whole body of the teachings of the New Testament. Paul settles the question in affirming that the peculiarities of that age were taken out of the way—nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14. If the gospel dispensation was not opened by the preaching of the apostles on the day of pentecost, and afterward by turning to the Gentiles to preach the gospel to them, then it has not yet been opened.

It is a settled question. The end of the age, or end of the world, in Matt. 24, is the utmost limit of the gospel dispensation. And we shall offer proof most positive that the second coming of Christ is at the end of this dispensation.