| THE IMMINENCY OF THE SECOND ADVENT AS TAUGHT BY JESUS AND HELD BY EMINENT MEN IN THE CHURCH [Being a reply to the unscriptural attitude assumed by Rev. N. West, D. D., in his attack upon prominent pre-millenarians.] By Rev. George N. H. Peters |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
INTRODUCTION.
WHILE the writer was engaged in preparing his Notes on Luke there appeared the violent and misleading attack of Rev. Dr. N. West against the
imminency of the Second Advent as taught by leading pre-millenarians. Believing the series of articles to be dangerous in their tendency and unjust,
it was deemed best to incorporate into the Notes a reply to Dr. West, to be published when the volumes on Matthew, Mark and Luke should
appear. This fact, of a reply being inserted in the Notes under Luke, ch. xvii., becoming known to prominent brethren in the faith, they, in view of
the attack and its peculiar method of procedure, insisted upon an immediate publication of the reply in its present form for general distribution.
Acceding to this request, an exact copy is here presented of that portion only of the Notes. Deprecating, a reply; and trusting that what is here said
may influence brethren to remain faithful and firm in their scriptural belief and attitude of constant watchfulness, the writer sends it forth with the hope
and prayer that it may honor the precise and plain command given by the Saviour.
A TRANSCRIPT OF A PORTION OF THE UNPUBLISHED NOTES ON LUKE, WHICH CONTAIN THE EXEGETICAL MATTER
PERTAINING TO THE SAME SUBJECT, HERE OMITTED.
27. Since this imminency and a resultant holding of ourselves in constant readiness, lest it (the Advent) come upon us at any time, has recently been
violently attacked and denounced as unscriptural and indicative of mental weakness, the writer feels it to be a simple duty to vindicate a belief, that
has characterized the faith of a great number in the church of the past and the present; a belief, too, which is eminently scriptural, being based upon
plain statements that cannot, without undue violence, be set aside.
I. A few preliminary thoughts, painfully suggested by the spirit and mode of attack, may be in place, to warn the unwary.
a. It is assuming a heavy responsibility to teach, that it is impossible for Jesus to come now, because certain events must first intervene,-over against
the most positive statements of a required constant expectancy of that Advent. The teaching of such is flatly contradictory to that of the Scriptures,
as will be shown.
b. Such teaching is eminently calculated to blunt the keen edge of the doctrine of the Second Coming; for it administers the “sleeping medicine,”
virtually saying, that the Christ cannot and will not come whilst we live, saying (as alleged), that great events, requiring time for fulfilment, must first
come to pass, thus diverting attention from the Advent to the events.
c. The language employed in Scripture forbids the intervention of future events between us and the Advent, such as the more extended preaching of
the Gospel (for much of this will be done in the interval, after the separation of the symbolic 144,000, Rev. xiv. 6, 7), or, the rise, progress and
doom of the Antichrist, as presented in 2 Thess. ii. 2, (for, aside from distinguishing between the apostasy and the final outcome of development, the
latter must be explained to accord with the order laid down in Revelation); or, the gathering and conversion of the Jewish nation, (but the great
gathering, restoration and conversion of the nation, the prophets ally with the personal Coming of the Messiah in power and glory, making these
characteristics to follow the open Revelation).
d. If a view has a solid scriptural basis, it certainly does not need for its support, the decrying of the ability, learning, etc., of those who may happen
to oppose it. While the very assumption of superiority, loudly and persistently claimed, indicates a thinking highly of one’s self, and while the
derogatory remarks virtually proclaim a weakness in argument, making an appeal to prejudice necessary, the language, defamatory of good and
great noble students of the Word, impresses the mind with the idea, that not merely the subservance of truth suggested and urged the attack, but a
feeling of personal dislike and animosity pervades it. Otherwise this highly objectionable feature would not appear; the liberty of judging and
interpreting being cheerfully accorded, and one’s own belief presented without strongly disparaging all who dissent from it. We, who take the liberty
of forming a different judgment respecting Scripture teaching, may indeed be likened by a fancied superior knowledge to Lord Bacon’s “short-
sighted and blinking owls,” but there is a willful blindness much worse than that of the owl. Alas! the best of us, are still very imperfect and fallible in
knowledge.
e. This attack is specially notable for its constant appeal to, and a shielding behind the names of great men,- almost exclusively of foreign lands.
Some men are so constituted that they have the amiable weakness, “to believe that common pebbles must be rare because they come from the
Indies.” Now this persistent parade of acknowledged able Bible students, deserves a little attention.
(1.) Are we to infer, that a man must be great and learned, before he can ascertain the meaning of the scriptural doctrine? Are “babes” no longer
instructed and guided to the truth, this being exclusively reserved for a higher class? Let us frankly and sincerely say, we desire not to become so
learned and so erudite in profound exegesis, when it leads us to a positive disobedience to the Saviour’s command to constantly watch for His
coming. We want no such erudition, however highly eulogized, preferring to take a lower position, only so that we are in line with the divine
injunction. When it comes to learned human opinion, why not then adopt that of Professor Hopkins (N. Y. Evangelist, Feb. 6, 1879,), the reasoning
of which agrees with this attack on several points, viz.: denouncing the Prophetic Conference held in Dr. Tyng’s church as containing “heated
enthusiasts,” evidenced by their expecting the Advent as “imminent,” which event was an impossibility, because the restoration of the Jewish nation,
etc., must first occur. Professor H. is more outspoken, and has a longer interval between us and the Advent, - that is all; and that should not forbid a
cordial fraternization in a common attack upon brethren who hold to, and dearly love, this imminency.
(2.) Are we to understand, that these scholarly men so comprehend all prophetic truth, that they are free from all error? Do those who make this
attack, and rely upon the human interpretation given by them respecting this view, endorse all the professed scripturally based opinions of all these
men, paraded to bolster up their own, - when the fact is, that the fallibility of the scholars quoted appears in the diversity and antagonisms existing
between them on not a few points of Scripture? And it is refreshing for any one, scholar though he be, to claim, that his scheme of the Apocalypse
contains the only correct prophetic interpretation; and our admiration is increased proportionately to the repeated assertions that this is so plain and
self-evident, that only those who seek darkness cannot see it. It impresses us that “the gift of prophecy” has not yet ceased; which modesty tries so
hard to conceal.
(3.) Is it not true, that the greatest and most dangerous errors have proceeded from the learned and talented; so that, while acknowledging and
honoring their ability and services rendered, and their sincerity and desire to uphold what they regard as truth, it becomes every one to search the
Scriptures for himself, - to test these human utterances by the divine standard, and to accept of only that which is in harmony with it?
(4.) It is an old polemic trick to try and make a view odious by parading a list of eminent men who may not have held it. This is a favorite resort with
some and frequently presented, just as if the men referred to constituted an infallible authority, and that the right of private judgment must subordinate
itself to it. When reading such an attack, enforced by such an appeal to prejudice, we ask ourselves, whether we are accountable to men or to God
for the manner in which we understand the Scriptures? Are these men the selected few, who are to do the searching and interpretation of the
Scriptures for us?
(5.) Jesus did not choose the learned Pharisees and doctors of divinity to give them this information concerning the Imminency, but the ignorant,
unlearned disciples, and we have yet to learn, that He now, by a special favoritism, selects the learned Christian rabbins and professors for an
exclusive monopoly of biblical interpretation. He favors both learned and unlearned in the same way and by the same means.
f. It is marvelously strange that such an attack (with some honorable exceptions, where the depreciation of brethren is carefully avoided), will not
allow brethren the liberty of studying, comprehending and interpreting the Scriptures, in God’s providence and by His grace, given to them. To say
the very least, it evidences by the fruitage presented, that such an one has not deeply pondered the meaning of passages like Rom. xii. 3-16; 1 Cor.
xiii. 2; Matt. xi. 25, 26; 1 Cor. i. 26-29, etc. There is, in the realm of unfulfilled prophecy, owing to our imperfect knowledge, latitude for diversity
of opinion. We enjoy our privilege of private judgment and although the imperious west winds may blow with cyclonic force, they cannot move us
from our position.
g. The self-praise of the possession of a high exegetical ability and knowledge, and a corresponding depreciating (by bestowing sarcastic and
lowering epithets), of all others, who favor the constant impending imminency of the Second Advent, may, aside from its impressive amiability, be
dismissed with a single remark: - The wonderful exegetical skill that can deduce from the Scriptures the alleged fact, that in the future the Alps will be
hurled across the Atlantic ocean and smash against the Rocky mountains (why this is not reversed, and the Rockies dash across and hit the Alps, we
are not told), fills one with astonishment. this is, what Rev. Dr. Seiss (The Last Times, p. 68), an eminent pre-millenarian, calls, “sublime nonsense.”
Such it is; and the exegetical ability that can find it in the Scriptures and that can hurl mountain ranges about at this rate, can with equal facility find in
them almost anything to suit a pet theory.
h. We are surprised at another feature, viz.: to account for the bitterness of the attack, when the subject matter does not involve anything that is
positively essential to salvation, and the teaching on our side is not soporific, and hence dangerous in its influence. Why assume a tragic air and style,
and lament over the weakness of others, when the whole matter lies in the field of unfulfilled prophecy, where it is reasonable to expect differences of
interpretation? Charity forces us to attribute the attack and the language used, more to a momentary (i.e., taking place “at any moment”) indiscretion
than to a deliberately formed purpose to injure; at least we hope that charity’s deduction is true.
i. Mistaken zeal for the truth can scarcely be accepted as a motive; for if the object was truth and only truth, then certainly the objectionable
features, and the derogatory personal allusion, would have been left out. For a child even knows, that you repel by anger and abuse. We are
always ready to ponder over the reasons assigned for a prophetical interpretation, provided the appeal and reasoning are founded on Scripture, and
do not call in as a requisite aid, the detraction of all who may differ. For, we cheerfully accord to others, the same liberty that we claim for
ourselves, holding that for the same we both are responsible only to the Master.
j. If our side of a prophetical view contains only a set of miserable and puny exegetes, and the giants are all on the attacking side, we may well ask,
why then seek the fellowship and fraternization of these bunglers, and strive by their aid to be placed in a prominent position at their conventions?
To say the least, it is in very bad taste to decry and belittle the men from whom we have received special favor and consideration.
k. In the attack special scorn and contempt are heaped on Irvingites, Plymouth Brethren, Darbyites, Second Adventists, etc., from whom it is
alleged (and how correctly, the reader can judge for himself), we received our views of the imminency. Now, whilst the writer differs from these
bodies on quite a number of points, he modestly hopes that in the ultimate divine estimate of Christian character and in the final assignment of
rewards, he may be as highly favored as not a few of these will be, because they are pious and devoted servants of the same Master and Lord. For
it is impossible that any one who habitually and daily looks for the coming and truly loves the appearing, can either have a bad heart or hate his
brother. So while we may differ, and honestly advocate our side of a question, we greatly rejoice that they assume the Scriptural attitude of constant
watching. Such wholesale condemnation is entirely out of place and is a monopolizing of the Master’s prerogative. Scorn and intense bigotry are
twin sisters, and cherished by the same breast.
| The Imminency of the Second Advent pt. 1 |