« PreviousContinue »
judgment, and the establishing of his kingdom. This is distinctly set forth in several passages of John, 5: 28. 6: 40, 54. and it is remarkable that in John the ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ contains no trace of the proximity of this act, but presupposes the death of the believers who were living."
"Unconsciously the form of the expectation passed over to the form of a promise; the ideal zagovoía and establishment of the kingdom became identified with the real, so that the first disappeared in conception and tradition, and the last only remained as the object of expectation, not merely surrounded with all the splendid colors of the prophetic delineation, but also perplexed with that reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the promised ideal nagovoía had originally stood in the picture-language of prophecy."
3) De Wette (rationalist, sharp-sighted, fully informed, and consistent), Kurze Erklärung des Evang. Matth., 3d edition, 1845, p. 259. "It is undeniable, and is at the present day acknowledged by all unprejudiced interpreters (Paul., Schu., Fr., Zech., Ols., Mey.), that in vs. 29-31 (of Matt. xxiv.), the discourse is of the coming of the Messiah to his kingdom; and that this, according to Matthew, follows directly after the destruction of Jerusalem. This idea of the near coming of Christ, is also distinctly expressed in other places (16: 28), and the apostle Paul likewise cherished it. Only Luke, who probably wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, appears to defer it some; for he limits to the Romans a certain time for the possession of Jerusalem (21: 24), and introduces the last great decision with an indefinite xaì.” "The distorted interpretations by which all thus far (that is, to v.31) is understood of the destruction of Jerusalem, are scarcely worth noticing."- "Some find in chapters xxiv. and xxv. a double coming of Christ, one invisible at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the other visible at the judgment of the world, but they can separate only arbitrarily. Light., Wetst., Futt., Jahn, explain of the last 25: 31 ff only. Eichh., 25:14 ff. Kuin. finds the transition 24: 43 ff. Also Chrys. separates arbitrarily, and applies 24: 1-23 to the destruction of Jerusalem, and 24: 24. 25: 46 to the coming of Christ, when plainly this comes in at 24: 29."
4) Von Gerlach (pious and strictly orthodox) Das Neue Test. mit Anmerk., 3d edition, 1843. Vol. I. p. 147, 148, 150. "In this prophecy of Jesus, everything arranges itself about the 28th verse. The necessary destruction of the external kingdom of God on account of its corruption, is particularly the chief subject of this prophetic speech, in which primarily only Jerusalem and the Jewish State are spoken of.
View of Von Gerlach and Allioli.
Yet this stands in the most intimate typical connection with the last judgment, and Christ himself designates both as his coming." (Matt. 10: 23. 16: 28. Lk. 17: 22 ff.)
"In this picture everything tends to the nearest future (the destruction of Jerusalem), except that certain features, by their strength, point particularly to the end of the world; likewise it all tends to the most distant future (the last judgment), of which the former is but the image, so that that which was accomplished but imperfectly and weakly in the destruction of Jerusalem, will be thoroughly and powerfully fulfilled at the entrance of the final judgment. On the whole, three divisions may be recognized (in Matt. 24: 1—31); 1) a general view of the whole subject (vs. 4-14); 2) a more particular detail of the destruction of Jerusalem (vs. 15-28; 3) the stronger reference to the end of the world (vs. 29-31). When we thus view the whole, it is easily comprehended how v. 34 can follow upon what precedes, and how the exhortations to watchfulness can be so closely connected with the parables and figures which relate to the last judgment in ch. xxv.”
Again, in the introductory remark to vs. 29 ff. "Now follows the more definite reference to the last times, though even here the destruction of Jerusalem is still primarily referred to, yet it is chiefly as a type" (a prefiguring of the other).
5) Allioli (a pious, learned, and candid Roman Catholic) Die Heilige Schrift übersetzt und erläutert, 5th edition, 1842, p. 972, Note on Matt. 24: 4. "Christ in the reply now following, gives explanations respecting both events, as the holy fathers unanimously declare, though as to the separation of the different passages which refer to the one and the other event, they are of various opinions.” - Augustine, Jerome, Bede, and most of the fathers and interpreters are of opinion, that Christ in his divine intuition, in which a thousand years are as one day (Ps. 89: 4), represented both events together and in each other. This view seems to have the best foundation, whether we consider the nature of the events referred to, or the letter of the prophecy. Both events, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, are but parts of the one great God's-deed, the judgment of God over men. Now since, in the prophetic intuition, such events as, gradually taking place in time, together form but one divine act, are represented under one point of view with and in each other (compare Isa. xxiv. xxvi. etc.), so it is altogether according to the nature of the case, that Christ should so announce these events, that the one is communicated in the other and by the other. This intimate connection of the two is also confirmed by the latter. In vs. 29, 30, and 31, the prophetic intuition of the end of the world distinctly and expressly comes forth," etc.
"The view of some moderns, that Christ here predicts only the destruction of Jerusalem, has against it not only the united voice of antiquity, but also the letter of the prophecy itself."
These extracts are brought together for the purpose of showing how the most eminent Biblical scholars of the present day, of the most diverse habits of thought, and in relations the most widely separated, and amid all the light of the most recent investigations and discoveries in Biblical science, have at last come to view the much disputed passage in Matt. 24: 29-31. It seems to be agreed on all hands, that these verses must be referred to the great day of final judgment, that they cannot, without the utmost violence to the text and to the idiom of Holy Writ, be limited to the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather than admit an idea apparently so incredible, Meyer and De Wette at once and boldly deny the inspiration and accuracy of the sacred record; the pious, learned, and amiable Neander meets them more than half way on the same ground; while the orthodox Protestant Von Gerlach, and the orthodox Catholic Allioli, still retain the old idea, the patristic idea, of a twofold reference in prophecy. And this idea of a twofold reference they all, Neander, Meyer, De Wette, as well as Von Gerlach and Allioli, admit to be a New Testament idea; and so also does Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Rosenmueller, and the whole host of continental critics, orthodox and rationalist, pious and not pious, whether they themselves believe in it or not. How can any one, who reads the N. Testament, help admitting it?
The interpretation of Matt. 24: 29-31, which I have advanced in the preceding pages, does not depend on the idea of a twofold reference in prophecy; it stands firmly on other grounds. Yet I believe fully that this principle of typical interpretation is clearly recognized and acted upon as entirely correct by the writers of the New Testament, and that no one can reject it without at the same time repudiating the authority of the New Testament writers as divinely inspired interpreters of the Old.
With this simple indication of his opinions on these topics, we proceed to a condensed statement of his views respecting
§ 9. Man.
What was his original state? "God made man upright." This, according to Dr. Emmons, means more than that God formed his body and gave him power to walk erect. It has special reference to the mind and heart. Nor does it comprehend the whole idea to say that God gave Adam all the powers of a free moral agent and thus qualified him to become holy. He entirely disagreed with Dr. Taylor of England, who affirmed, 'That it is utterly inconsistent with the nature of virtue, that it should be concreated with any person; because, if so, it must be an act of God's absolute power, without our knowledge or concurrence. To say that God not only endowed Adam with a capacity of being righteous, but moreover that righteousness and true holiness were created with him, or wrought into his nature, at the same time he was made, is to affirm a contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the nature of righteousness.'1 By no means, replies Dr. Emmons; for all that is meant by God's making man upright is, that he willed him to exercise his powers of moral agency aright. God chose that Adam should come into existence a perfect man in respect of bodily organization and mental endowment, and that he should commence his being by loving his Creator with his whole heart and soul. This is what is meant by predicating uprightness of him at his creation. "Uprightness belongs to the heart, and gives a man his moral character. Man is the living image of the living God, in whom is displayed more of the divine nature and glory, than in all the works and creatures of God upon earth.” 3
Dr. Emmons had no doubt that God might have made Adam upright, in this exalted sense. He believed that he must have created him so;
1 Taylor, as quoted by Emmons, Vol. IV. p. 448.
2 Works, Vol. IV. p. 448.
3 lb. Vol. II. p. 24.
"To suppose that God implanted in his mind the principles of moral agency, without making him a moral agent, is extremely absurd. For, if God gave him the powers of perception, reason, and conscience, he must have been immediately under moral obligation, which he must have immediately either fulfilled or violated, and so have immediately become either holy or sinful.” 1
From the account which Moses gives of the creation of Adam, and from the history of him who was created in the image of God, up to the time of his eating the forbidden fruit, it was perfectly clear to our author that God made man upright in the sense of holy.2
Of the original nobility and happiness of man, Dr. Emmons had the most exalted conceptions. His chastened imagination endowed our first parent with all those qualities that can beautify the body, adorn the mind, and exalt the heart. Lord of the whole creation, the fit representative to higher orders of a new race of intelligent beings, he was of noble mein and majestic bearing, with countenance radiating 'Truth, wisdom, sanctitude severe and pure."
When discoursing on the original purity and bliss of our common progenitor, Dr. Emmons appears to forget the lapse of ages and the ruins of the fall. Unmindful of centuries and distance, he enters the garden of the Lord and gazes with rapt vision on one of the most beautiful of God's creations. The spirit of the scene transfused through his own spirit, he thus embodies his conceptions:
"He was a noble and excellent Creature, as he came from the forming hand of his Maker.. His affections towards his Creator, and every inferior object, were perfectly right. He possessed more holiness than any of his descendants ever possessed in this imperfect state. Yea, he was in this respect but a little lower than the angels of light. - No man since the fall has ever displayed so much greatness of mind and goodness of heart as Adam displayed, while he resided in Paradise, and enjoyed the favor of his Maker.
How happy was Adam in his original state of moral rectitude and perfect innocence! His body was full of vigor and free from pain. His mind was full of light, and free from error. His heart was full of holiness, and free from moral impurity. His eyes and ears were feasted with a vast profusion of new, beautiful, grand, and delightful objects. His inheritance was rich and large, comprehending the world and the fulness thereof. He sensibly enjoyed the love and approbation of his Creator. He was permitted a free and unrestrained access to the fountain of holiness and happiness. Heaven and earth appeared unitedly engaged to raise him as high in knowledge, holiness and felicity, as his nature would permit him to rise."3
1 Works, Vol. IV. p. 451.
Ib. pp. 448-454.
3 Ib. p. 455.