Matthew XXIV

IN connection with the claim put forth in regard to "the end of the world," another is presented, as follows:—

2. The disciples associated together all that the question contained, and placed "these things," that is, the overthrow of the city, with the coming of Christ and the end of the world, or age. But that is only conjecture. No one has a reason for affirming that such was the idea of the apostles. Here we might safely leave the affirmation, for no one is bound to disprove a conjecture. But we will further notice it.

If it were something more than conjecture—if it were possible even to prove that such was their idea of the order of events then future, that fact would not be evidence that they were or are to be fulfilled at the same time. For we know that, at that time, the disciples were laboring under mistakes in regard to the time and order of the fulfillment of future events. Take as proof of this, the parable which the Lord spake when he was going into Jerusalem; Luke 19. They thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. To correct this impression the parable of the nobleman was spoken. If they understood the parable at the time when it was spoken, it did not fully do away with the impression in their minds, as is proved by what they did when they entered Jerusalem. We cannot believe that they would have hailed him as the son of David, and rejoiced before him as a king in his triumph, if they had realized that he was going into the city to be condemned and crucified as a malefactor. Palm branches and shouts of triumph did not attend the steps of the lowly and the condemned.

Again, after his resurrection he reproved two of his disciples who, though they had trusted that he would redeem Israel, were then sad and disheartened. They did not then yet understand that Christ ought "to have sufferred these things, and to enter into his glory." The suffering part was still a mystery unto them. And some of the apostles were so slow to realize that which he had spoken to them that they could hardly be persuaded that he was indeed risen from the dead. And after he had been with them full forty days, speaking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom, they did not yet understand "the times and the seasons," and therefore asked him, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

Would it, then, be surprising if they had been mistaken in the order of the events of which the Saviour spoke, at the time of his speaking as recorded in Matt. 24? It would be quite natural for them to suppose that the holy city and the temple of the Most High would stand until the judgment and the final consummation. As we now see, had such been their opinion, it would not be proof that such was the chronological relation of these events. But, we repeat, that cannot be proved; it is only conjecture.

3. It is necessary to notice that prophecy is not always fulfilled in the order in which it is given. This is often seen in the Old Testament, where the two advents are sometimes spoken of so closely together that the reader might suppose they would occur nearly together. It is seen in the book of Revelation, which contains several lines of prophecy, each reaching down to the close of the present dispensation. So in Matt. 24, and parallel chapters; we can only learn the correct application of some of the statements contained therein by comparing them with other scriptures. There is no dispute that they refer to the destruction of the temple and the overthrow of the city, as well as to the second coming of the Lord.

We will now offer several points of proof that this chapter was not all fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; and that the coming of Christ, spoken of in Matt. 24, did not then take place, and has not yet taken place.

1. KINGDOM AGAINST KINGDOM.

Said the Saviour, "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." No point has been argued in favor of what we have been used to call the Universalist view, of the past complete fulfillment of Matt. 24, with greater show of plausibility than this. Yet it remains decidedly against that view. Dr. Clarke, for whose honesty and ability we entertain the highest respect, says: "This portended the dissensions, insurrections, and mutual slaughter of the Jews, and those of other nations, who dwelt in the same cities together;" etc. We say we respect Dr. Clarke, and it is no disparagement of him to believe there is more light now shining out from this chapter, with the greater investigation, and the later fulfillment of prophecy, than he saw in his day. We insist that all that he produced in regard to the dissensions among the Jews, their insurrections, etc., do not meet the demands of this text. On the latter part of the verse he says: "This portended the open wars of the different tetrarchies and provinces against each other."

In this chapter the Saviour refers us to Daniel the prophet, by whom we learn, which indeed we can learn from any History, that the kingdom of Rome was universal in power at the time of which we are speaking. The dissensions and insurrections of tribes and provinces were not sufficient to meet the prophecy.

But the Saviour further says: "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." The overthrow of Jerusalem was caused by an "insurrection" of one of the "provinces" of the Roman kingdom. But these are not even connectives of the final event which was mentioned by our Saviour. These things—wars, and rumors of wars—shall come, "but the end is not yet." And kingdom rising against kingdom—which, we insist, was not fulfilled by provincial insurrections—"are but the beginning of sorrows,"— "the end is not yet." This point will be yet more clearly settled when others are considered.

2. THE GREATEST TRIBULATION.

It is contended that the greatest tribulation that ever befell the Jews was in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Against this we interpose two objections:—

(1.) It is by no means clear that the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans was the greatest tribulation the Jews ever suffered. All the scenes of horror described by historians, as occurring at that time, are by the inspired records ascribed also to the conquest of the Babylonians. See the Lamentations of Jeremiah, especially chap. 4:10,—"The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children; they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people." Also, Daniel 9:11-13, "The curse is poured upon us and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us."

(2.) It is quite certain that the tribulation here spoken of was not upon the Jews, but upon the disciples of Christ. It was for "the elect's sake" that those days should be shortened; and this does not refer to the enemies of Christ. In Daniel 12:1, it is said "there shall be a time of trouble, such as was not since there was a nation." Now there cannot be two times of trouble, each the greatest, and each greater than ever shall be. But there can be the greatest tribulation which shall ever come upon the followers of Christ, and it be distinct from the greatest time of trouble which ever comes upon the nations or the rejectors of Christ. In that time of trouble spoken of by Daniel, the saints, instead of coming under it, are "delivered, every one whose name is found written in the book."

3. THE SAINTS GATHERED TOGETHER.

At the coming of Christ, as in Matt. 24, the elect of God, the saints of Christ, will be gathered "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Verse 31. This cannot be referred to the destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing occurred at that time to which it will possibly apply. Paul, speaking of the coming of Christ, mentions the same fact, as follows,— "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him." 2 Thess. 2:1. How did the Lord come to Jerusalem at the time of its overthrow? We are answered, "It was a figurative coming." If it was not literal and actual, what was the nature of the figure used? It is said that he visited the Jews in judgment; that Titus, or the Roman army really executed the judgment upon the doomed city. Then the coming of Titus, or of the Roman army, is represented as the coming of Christ. Was it a fact, then, that the saints of God, the followers of Christ, from the four winds, were gathered together unto Titus, in that day? This must have been so if the coming of Titus represented the coming of Christ, or if Christ came figuratively in the person of Titus. It is as sure as the scriptures are true, that the saints will be gathered unto Christ in the day of his coming; which did not occur even in a figure, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, for the saints, instead of being gathered unto Christ, or to any person or thing which came to Jerusalem as his representative, were scattered from the city, fleeing from the presence of that which represented Christ! So absurd is that theory.

4. MAN OF SIN REVEALED.

The fact of Christ's coning, and the gathering of the saints at that time, being stated alike in Matt. 24, and 2 Thess. 2, proves that these chapters refer to the same time and event. We therefore in this connection notice a circumstance mentioned by Paul, as one to take place before the Lord comes. And we call the special attention, to this point, of all who deny the literal advent of our Lord. Paul cautions his brethren not to look for the coming of Christ until the man of sin is revealed. Who, or what, is that man of sin? Paul wrote this about eighteen years before Jerusalem was overthrown. What arose within those eighteen years which filled the outline of this prophecy? Nothing at all. The old and well-accepted view of the Reformers—the Protestants,—that this man of sin is the "Sovereign Pontiff" of Rome, is every way reasonable, and, to produce a harmony of tho prophetic scriptures, is unavoidable. Notice these points:—

1. Paul wrote only eighteen years before the overthrow of Jerusalem, but he looked forward to the future for the revealing of the man of sin. The elements were then already operating, but hindering causes had to be removed. Consequently, as he said, the coming of the Lord was not "impending" in his day.

2. It was not merely a sinful man to be revealed; there were many such then; "that man of sin;" who legalizes and enforces sin. Not merely one who breaks law, but one who overrides and breaks down law. Such has been the character of the Roman Pontiff. Many readers will remember his indictment on this point by Alexander Campbell, in his debate with Bishop Purcell.

3. Exalting himself above God. This he has done, not merely by assuming the prerogatives of God, but, by legislating on the law of God, Which can be done only by a superior, in fact or assumed.

4. Claiming to be God. See the titles which have been given to, and assumed by, the Pope; and most recently, the assumption of infallibility.

These, and other specifications of prophecy, have been fulfilled by the Popes of Rome, and by no other. And we shall find that the proofs grow even stronger and clearer as we proceed.