A review of some recent teaching in regard to the Kingdom
Already in the pages of different magazines devoted to the edification of believers, several reviews have appeared of portions of the teaching of a recent writer and brother beloved, who has largely repudiated what he formerly held, and which tens of thousands of scripturally taught brethren still value as the truth of God. Philip Mauro, author of many helpful books on Scriptural subjects, who now denies that our Lord presented the offer of the Kingdom to Israel at His first coming. There is one point connected with his teaching which it seems to me Scripture so definitely answers, that I have been surprised that it has not been more particularly dwelt upon.
This writer has asserted over and over again that the Kingdom of God proclaimed by John the Baptist and by the Lord Himself was immediately set up with the ushering in of the new dispensation. In this he has taken very decided issue with men of God who have taught with great distinctness that our Lord came as the promised King, but was rejected by the nation of Israel in that character, and that, therefore, the kingdom which He proclaimed is in abeyance until He comes again. This is now repudiated by him as fantastic and unscriptural, and a great deal is made of what he is pleased to call the "postponement theory."
It seems to me that our Lord most definitely deals with this very subject in the parable of the pounds in Luke 19, verses 11 to 27. Observe that the reason for the parable is given in verse 11:'"And as they heard these things, He added and spake a parable, because He was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." Now there can be no mistake as to this, that their thought and the thought of the writer to whose works I have reference are in perfect agreement; they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He thinks that the kingdom of God did immediately appear; but their thought was wrong, and our Lord related this parable to correct it. Therefore, Mr. M.'s thought must of necessity also be wrong, and if this parable be but carefully weighed it will correct it.
It is generally considered that our Lord based the parable on an historical incident, and some who deny the truth of His second coming tell us that incident is only used as a basis for a warning word in regard to the misuse of one's opportunities.
The incident itself is substantially this:Archelaus, son of Herod, was scheduled to succeed his father as king of Judea, but there was great opposition on the part of many to his occupancy of the throne. He, therefore, went to Rome to confer with Caesar as to his kingdom. An influential body of the citizens of Jerusalem, who hated him, sent a message to Caesar with an adverse recommendation, insisting that he was not a fit man to be king. During his absence his friends were most active in seeking to create a sentiment in his favor. To assist them in this he had distributed large means which they were to use for the purpose of furthering his interests. Caesar eventually decided for Archelaus, and he returned to Palestine triumphant and was recognized as king. His enemies were hunted down and destroyed when he came into power, and his servants to whom he had entrusted his treasure were called to account for the way in which they had used that which was committed to them. Now what teaching does our Lord base upon it?
Clearly He would have them think of Himself as "a certain nobleman who went into a far country to receive for Himself a kingdom, and return." According to this, the kingdom was not confirmed to Him openly during His absence. Just as, while Archelaus was in Rome, there were those in the land who recognized his authority, so during the absence of the Lord Jesus there are millions who see in Him earth's rightful King. These, having been born again, even now in the present condition of things discern and enter into the kingdom of God, but that kingdom is not yet displayed. The King is absent, and during this present interval believers are in "the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ." It is a time of patient waiting and of occupying till He come. Because His kingdom has not yet been set up, we are to work in His interests, using that which He has committed to us.
The world at large is indifferent to His claims; His citizens hate Him still. The "citizens" primarily would be those in Israel who cried, "Away with Him, crucify Him; we have no king but Caesar." These virtually said, "We will not have this Man to reign over us," and this is still the sentiment of their hearts. Now when the Lord returns, having received the kingdom, He will call His own servants first of all to account. What absurdity to speak of Him as receiving His kingdom at the time of His return if His kingdom is already set up in this world! There seems to be a strange perversity about the line of teaching I have mentioned which blinds one's eyes to the simplest truths of Scripture.
The servants having been dealt with and rewarded according to the measure of their faithfulness, the King then undertakes to deal with His enemies, and these, in accordance with the universal testimony of the prophets, are punished with everlasting destruction.
It would seem to me that this one parable carefully weighed settles the kingdom question. But there is a phase of things that gives difficulty to some. It has been taught that as the kingdom itself is in abeyance, therefore the principles of the kingdom are also in abeyance until the King returns. This, I think, is a great mistake. Christ having been rejected in His kingly character has gone to the far country, and the Father has said to Him, "Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." He has fulfilled the prophetic declaration of Hosea 5:15, "I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face. In their affliction they will seek Me early." He, Himself, told the Jewish people, "Ye shall not see Me again until ye say, 'Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!'" Now manifestly if the King is rejected, the kingdom as such cannot be in existence. But as I have already pointed out, ever since the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus there have been those in the world who recognize His rightful claims; these have been brought out from under the authority of darkness, and have been "translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love;" they gladly yield obedience to the principles of the coming kingdom.
Therefore, it is folly to say that persons who hold what our brother calls the "postponement theory" necessarily refuse that subjection to the King which is inculated, for instance, in the Sermon on the Mount and other kingdom scriptures. Just as "the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit," so every principle of the coming kingdom will be gladly maintained now by those who wait for the establishment of that kingdom at His second coming.
In reading the various books and pamphlets that have poured forth from the press in recent years on this subject, I have been painfully impressed by our brother's inability to grasp the point of view of those whom he attempts to refute. I humbly hope that I, myself, have not missed his point of view, and I submit the above with, I trust, nothing but the kindest feelings for one whom I love in the truth, and honor for his faithfulness to Christ, though convinced in this instance he has failed to see a most important line of New Testament instruction. "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." H. A. IRONSIDE.