And that such destruction is a spiritual event, and not a natural one, will appear still further from the following observation. When two prophecies are found, couched in the same language, and nearly in the same words, one of which prophecies has been fulfilled, while the other yet remains to be accomplished; the manner in which the latter will be fulfilled must be determined by the previous fulfillment of the former.
Now it is a fact, although very seldom noticed, that the prophecies relating to the first coming of the Lord, are expressed in the very same language with those which relate to his second appearance. We need only turn to the writings of the prophets to be convinced of this. "Behold," says Malachi, "the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of Hosts. And, behold, I send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." iv. 1, 5. Again, Isaiah: "All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll, and all their host shall fall down as a falling fig from the fig-tree.[4] Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. For unto us a child is born." ix. 5. "Upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days I will pour out my spirit; and I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and terrible day of the Lord come." Joel ii. 29-31.
This latter prophecy is expressly applied by Peter to the commencement of Christianity. In defending his brethren from the charge of imposture brought against them by the Jews on the day of Pentecost, he declares, "This (the extraordinary inspiration of the spirit) is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; I will show wonders in the heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood." Acts ii. 16-20.
Once more, the prophet Haggai, speaking of the same period declares, "Thus saith Jehovah of hosts. Yet once it is a little while and I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all nations and the desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house (the latter temple) with glory, saith Jehovah of hosts." Again, the prophet Joel before quoted, says, "Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision; for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the Lord will be the hope of his people. So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God, dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain. Then shall Jerusalem be holy." iii. 14-17. "But who (says Malachi,) may abide the day of His coming, or who shall stand when He appeareth? for He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap." And to conclude this magnificent imagery, Isaiah declares, "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered nor come to mind;—they shall not hunger, nor thirst, neither shall the heat of the sun smite them; but He that hath mercy upon them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall He guide them."
With such descriptions of the first Advent of the Messiah do the prophets abound. Let any one peruse with attention the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Joel, Haggai, and Malachi, and he will be convinced of the truth of this remark. We will now notice the agreement which exists between these prophecies relating to his first appearance, and those which refer to his second coming. Both periods are called "the day of the Lord;" and both are ushered in by "darkness and gloominess." In both it is said that "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood;" and in both "the heavens and the earth" are said to "pass away." In both of them the Lord is declared to come "in fire," and the conclusion of both is "a new heaven and a new earth."
Now one of these periods is past. The first Advent of the Saviour to which the above prophecies refer, is accomplished. And how were these predictions fulfilled? Did the events literally take place? Let history answer. Though the heavens and the earth were to be shaken and pass away, yet no commotion took place in the visible parts of nature. The seasons ran their wonted course; the sun gave forth his usual light; and the earth pursued without intermission her annual journey. Though the moon was to be "turned into blood," yet no such disaster befell the visible planet; her light shone as bright as ever. One solitary meteor alone over the plains of Judea, announced to the Eastern sages the coming of the Saviour. Though his approach was to be in fire, yet no material flames accompanied his Advent. The fire of Divine Love alone distinguished Him. Not one of all these predictions had anything resembling a literal accomplishment. And now let us look to the conclusion. If, when two prophecies are given, couched in the same language, one of which is fulfilled while the other remains to be accomplished, the interpretation of the second is to be judged of by the fulfillment of the first, the following argument at once arises: Since the prophecies relating to the first Advent of the Saviour are expressed by the very same terms, and represented by the very same images as those which refer to his second coming, the meaning of these latter must be similar to that of the others. And since not one of those prophecies ever received a literal fulfillment, so neither are we to expect a literal fulfillment of those before us. In a word, since the events predicted at the Lord's first coming were not natural, but representative images of spiritual things—of states of the world and of the church; so those foreshadowing his second coming are representative of similar things, belonging to the minds of men, and will never receive a literal accomplishment.
If, however, it be still maintained in opposition to this remark, that they must be understood literally, I will ask one question. Since the words of the Old Testament which describe the first appearance of the Redeemer, are exactly similar to those of the New which predict his second coming; how is it that the former never received a literal fulfillment? If it be replied, that this was figurative language, while the latter is literal description; I again inquire, By what authority or according to what rule is this distinction made? Why is the first to be resolved into figure, while the latter is considered as literally true? Such distinction between the two cannot arise from the language; this is almost word for word the same. It cannot be made because the literal sense is in one case reasonable, while in the other it is not; for in both cases it involves numerous absurdities. It cannot be because the one is prophecy and the other narrative; for both are the language of prophetic declaration. On what authority, then, is the literal meaning of the first rejected, while in the other it is retained and believed? Why are not both to be understood alike, since in both the descriptions are similar? There is no rule by which a distinction can be drawn.
I have now gone over the first proposition, and have proved that a literal interpretation of the passages adduced involves absurdities as great as that of transubstantiation; and that the absence of all literal fulfillment in the case of other prophecies exactly similar, affords the strongest reason to expect that in this instance no literal accomplishment will take place. That the language itself is that of correspondence,—the representation of spiritual things by natural; and as such it will receive a spiritual and not a natural fulfillment.
2. We now pass to the second point, namely that the texts supposed to refer to the destruction of the material world are inconsistent with each other; and are opposed to other clear and express declarations of Scripture. In this case as in the former, we shall note the words in the debated texts. In the passages brought forward to support the doctrine, there are four ways mentioned in which the destruction of the heavens (or visible starry firmament) is hereafter to take place. First, in one passage of the Revelation, they are described as being "rolled away as a scroll;" in another the stars are said to "fall from heaven to the earth." In Peter's Epistle it is declared that they shall "pass away with a great noise;" and in another place the same apostle says that "the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved." Now these four descriptions considered literally, contradict and destroy each other. To dissolve is to separate into particles, and to return to their first elements. But if the starry heavens are thus to be destroyed, then they can neither fall to the earth nor be rolled together as a scroll; for that which is dissolved and reduced to its first elements, can be destroyed no further except by annihilation. And if the heavenly bodies are to be thus dissolved, then no other kind of dissolution can affect them. Again, if we take the other passage, "they were rolled away as a scroll," we are placed in precisely the same dilemma. By their being rolled away as a scroll, we must then understand that they will be driven from their stations, thrown into confusion, and hurried afar into the depths of space. But if they are thus rolled away they cannot possibly "fall to the earth," for the two events stand in direct opposition; in the first instance they must be hurled into space, far beyond the earth's orbit; in the latter they must absolutely fall upon her surface. And now we ask, Are the stars to be rolled away, or are they to fall upon the earth? The literal sense of the Scripture mentions both events; but if one occurs, the other (consistently with the text) can never take place.
Suppose, however, we admit for the sake of argument, that the rolling away of the heavens is an event separate from the destruction of the stars. We again inquire whether this event will take place before such destruction, or after it. If before it, we come to the former conclusion; for then the stars must fly off with the heaven in which they are fixed. If after it, then, as there will be nothing but empty space remaining, we ask how such empty space can be called the heavens; and how empty space without a single visible object, can be rolled away as a scroll!" In this instance, therefore, if we abide by the literal sense of one passage, we must of necessity reject that of the others.