The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy

by Robertson L. Whiteside

THE COMING OF THE LORD

In the Christian Standard of March 19, 1932, Brother H. H. Peters, secretary of the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, says: “As already intimated, the plan of the Millenial Harbinger was different from that of its predecessor. It was unique in the journalism of America, religious or otherwise. Its very name indicates that its editor partook somewhat of the spirit that was abroad in the land, which expected the immediate return of the Lord and the establishment of his millenial reign. Mr. Campbell never became a dogmatist on this point, nor did the brotherhood ever take up any of the fantastic views of Miller and others, but it was impossible in that day to do any kind of religious work without partaking somewhat of the spirit that expected the immediate return of the Lord.” It would be hard to crowd into fewer words more historic errors than the foregoing extract contains. Mr. Campbell did not believe that Jesus would return to earth and then reign a thousand years. He did believe that, before the coming of the Lord, there would be a thousand years of universal peace and righteousness. Mr. Campbell was not a premillennialist; neither did he believe the Lord would return immediately. On these matters he wrote extensively. He cited a number of prophecies which he believed had not been fulfilled, but must be fulfilled before the coming of the Lord. One wonders where Mr. Peters got authority for his statements. However, when a person gets intoxicated with the future-kingdom idea, he can see authority for statements that no sober-minded person can discover. They even tell us that the apostles taught the early Christians to expect the immediate return of the Lord.

Because some do not hold to the theories propagated by the premillennialists, they are charged with not believing in the second coming of the Lord at all. From one writer we have the following: “The thought of his coming has faded out of the minds of men.” Again: “In the eighteenth century, however, there came a man named ‘Daniel Whitby.’... He taught that the gospel would spread and spread until the whole world would be converted; then would follow a thousand years of blessedness and peace, and after all this Jesus would come and wind things up. Then the hope of his coming died again everywhere as this doctrine became the general teaching.” That is such a manifest misrepresentation of the great body of Christians that I shall make no attempt to disprove it. As Mr. Campbell was accused of holding the same views as Whitby, it will be seen that Mr. Peters misrepresents him in the quotation at the beginning of this article.

We are told that “they were hoping for him, and they were looking for his return in the days of the apostles.” We are asked to believe that the Christians began to expect his return any moment after he went away, and that they were taught by the apostles to do so. They think they find such teaching in what the apostles said about looking for his coming and hoping for his coming; but the theory discredits the inspiration of the apostles. Jesus did not come again during that period. If the apostles were mistaken on that point, how can we be sure they taught the truth on anything? If the infidel were to point to this as evidence that the apostles were not infallible in their teaching, how would these men meet the argument? On this point the learned commentator, James McKnight, says: “Grotius, Locke, and others, have affirmed that the apostles of Christ believed the end of the world was to happen in their time, and that they have declared this to be their belief, in various passages of their epistles. But these learned men and all who join them in that opinion have fallen into a most pernicious error. For thereby they destroy the authority of the gospel revelation, at least so far as it is contained in the discourses and writings of the apostles; because, if they have erred in a matter of such importance, and which they affirm was revealed to them by Christ, they may have been mistaken in other matters also, where their inspiration is not more strongly asserted by them than in this instance. In imputing this mistake to the apostles, the deists have heartily joined the learned men above mentioned, because a mistake of this sort effectually overthrows the apostle’s pretensions to inspiration. It is therefore necessary to clear them from so injurious an imputation.”

Such use has been made of the parable recorded in Luke 12:42-48 as to make it appear that the servant was unfaithful, in that he said: “My Lord delayeth his coming.” But they miss the point. As a matter of fact, the Lord has delayed his coming far beyond the time they tell us the inspired apostles said he might come. There was certainly nothing sinful in what the servant said, when it was true that his lord had delayed his coming. There could be no unfaithfulness in his saying what was actually true. But his unfaithfulness consisted in his taking advantage of that delay to do wrong. His wrong doing was his unfaithfulness. Not what he said about that delay, but what he did during that delay, constituted his unfaithfulness. But their use of this parable illustrates the strained interpretations men will put upon the Scripture to propagate a theory.

But another statement in that parable has some bearing on the matter under discussion: “The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.” This statement applies to all unfaithful servants, and not simply those who will be alive when the Lord comes again. To make this apply only to those who are alive at the Lord’s second coming would leave many unfaithful servants that would not suffer the fate that this one did, for more shall have died before the Lord comes again than will be alive when he does come. It can apply to all unfaithful servants only in the sense that the Lord comes to all at death.