Cyrus Curtis
|
The Second Advent:
Not a Past Event
Written By
Cyrus Curtis
The Freewill Baptist Quarterly (1855)
ARTICLE VI.— CHRIST'S SECOND COMING.
THE doctrine of the coming of
Christ occupies a large and prominent place in the New Testament, and in
the minds of most believers of the Bible. No subject discussed by the
sacred writers is more distinctly brought before the mind of the reader
of that holy book, and scarcely any other doctrine is so important to
the human race. The expected coming of a renowned king into a province
to reward his loyal subjects and punish the rebellious, could not fail to
produce much interest among all who were expecting his advent. If the
day were designated by some who were looking for him, the excitement
would be intense among those who were expecting te see him at that time.
If the time of his visit were supposed to be future and unknown, still
it would be a matter of great interest to all who believed in his
coming. Again, if some were asserting that the visit had already been
made, and its objects, accomplished, it would be very desirable for all
to know whether the assertion were true or false.
The first of these suppositions is
designed to represent the views of that portion of the Adventists, who
believe the time of our Lord's coming is revealed in his word. The
second represents the opinion of all who think the time is future and
unknown to mortals. This class comprises far the largest portion of all
whe believe the Bible. The third supposition represents those who assert
that the coming of Christ to judge the world is an event that occurred
centuries ago. The first of these views is the most visionary and
exciting; the second I regard as scriptural and correct ; and the
third seems the most strange, extravagant and fanciful. This doctrine is
believed only by a very small portion of Christendom, viz : a small part
of the Universalist denomination, and such as sympathize with their
peculiar views. Most of the European Universalists are Restoratiouists,
and believe in the future coming of Christ to raise the dead and judge
mankind. Chauncy, Huntington, Winchester, and most of the early American
Universalists held the same doctrine.
A few years since, Prof. Alpheus Crosby, then of Dartmouth College,
wrote a book of 173 pages, the design of which is to show that Christ
came, the dead were raised, and the day of judgment occurred very near
the time of the apostles, if not in their day. He is very confident that
every text in the Bible relating to these three grand events, had its
exact fulfilment centuries ago, but he seems ignorant of the way and
time in which they had their accomplishment. According to his theory,
Hymeneus and Phyletus were only a few years too fast in asserting that
the resurrection was past already, as their assertion long since ceased
to be an error. Our modern Hymeneus may, like his prototypes, overthrow
the faith of some, but it is presumed the number will not be very large.
Prof. Crosby's arguments are more consistent and conclusive than the
reasonings of those who. hold that there is now no day of judgment to be
expected, while they assert that the resurrection of all men to a holy
and happy state is taught in the Bible. He applies the positions used to
prove that there is no future punishment to all the texts that relate to
the resurrection, and thus, for any thing I can see to the contrary, he
has left the Bible without any proof of man's future existence ! This
conclusion seems legitimately to grow out of the arguments used to prove
that Christ is not now to be expected to come for the puiu'shmeut of the
wicked.
Having already stated in substance my belief that the coming of Christ
to judge the world is literal and yet future, I now proceed to give my
reasons for believing this doctrine.
1. It is well known and generally admitted, that the coming of Christ
was a prominent article in the creed of the primitive Christians, — that
the event was much dwelt upon by our Lord and the apostles. With this
admission in view, let it be remembered that neither history nor
tradition has recorded Christ's coming in such a mauner as to fulfil the
expectations that his teachings and the writings of the apostles raised
in relation to the subject. Had he ever come in the manner that the
teachings of the sacred writers create the impression that he would
appear, it seems utterly impossible that the event could transpire
without its being known and acknowledged by all who were expecting its
occurrence. Nor is this all, for after its transpiration, it would as a
matter of course have been referred to as the fulfilment of their
expectations. This view of the subject secms so reasonable as to admit
of no doubt only on tl|e supposition that his coining when it occurred
was so much below their expectations as to be a cause of mortifying
silence rather than of triumphant exultation, and frequent, earnest, and
animated conversations. Its occurrence would have been so obvious and
impressive as to preclude all possibility of forgetfulness on the part
of those who witnessed it ; and its nature would have induced them to
speak of it to the rising generation who did not behold it, as a
glorious manifestation of the power and majesty of Christ.
The promised deliverance of his people from their troubles, and the
execution of the vengeance threatened against their inhuman persecutors,
would have been handed down from generation to generation as affording
undeniable evidence of the truth of Christianity- The knowledge of his
appearing would have been as general as the expectation of his coming,
and for a long time must have been the general topic of conversation.
All expectation of his coming would at once have ceased, and it would
from that time have been spoken of as a past act, as earnestly as it had
before been named as something future. History and tradition have
brought down to us minor occurrences and doctrines in the church from
the apostolic age, but neither records a time when Christians ceased to
look for the coming of Christ because he had already made his
appearance. If he had appeared according to the predictions of the New
Testament, it is one of the strangest events of the world, that he came
in such a clandestine or mystical manner as to escape the detection of
history both written and traditional. History, sacred, ecclesiastical,
profane, and tradative, is a perfect "know nothing" on this subject. The
accomplishment of such a momentous event, no one knows how, when, or
where, is a case without a parallel in the annals of the world. Yet
Prof. Crosby and a very few others interpret the Bible in a way to make
it sustain this astonishing and monstrous sentiment.
The Romish priest asserts on the direct and positive sayings of Jesus,
that the consecrated bread of the eucharist becomes the real body of the
Lord which the communicant masticates and swallows. The priest however
cannot tell why or how the divine morsel looks and tastes like common
bread, when it is in reality a part of the body of Christ; but the
positive assertion, "this is my body," removes all doubt from his mind,
as he has divine authority for his belief. To me this looks but little
more preposterous than the opinion of those who assert that Christ has
made his second advent, in an unknown way and manner, because some of
his words seem to imply that he must have come soon after his ascension
to heaven. In the last of John's days, though he is supposed to have
written after the destruction of Jerusalem, he regarded the coming of
Christ as still future. Speaking of Christ, he writes, Behold he cometh
with clouds ; and every eye shall see him, they also which pierced him ;
and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. — Rev. 1, 7.
This shows that the number who lived to see the Son of man come, or in
other words who did not taste of death till his coming, must have been
exceedingly small, if indeed he came centuries ago.
At the close of the revolution it was announced that Washington would
visit the northern States, and at a later period, that La Fayette would
come to this country. Now suppose the bodies of these great men to be as
immortal as their names; also that a thousand years hence, the people of
the northern States, with very few exceptions, were looking for
the future coming of the Father of his country, and the inhabitants of
the United States were generally expecting the arrival of La Fayette at
some future day, how could these facts be accounted for when it is now
well known that the coming of those great men has already passed? The
supposition that Christ has come, but his people almost immediately lost
all knowledge of the event, represents it a matter of less importance
than the coming of Washington or La Fayette. It is like asserting that
some renowned king raised the expectations of his subjects in a province
by stirring promises to come and reward them for their loyalty amidst
persecution, and to punish his traitorous enemies, yet fulfilled his
promises in such a way that no record of the event was preserved, and
all knowledge of it was lost in less than four hundred years, though his
promises were on record centuries afterwards. Those who could believe
such inconsistencies, can believe that Christ has come and judged the
world, though history and tradition record no such grand and imposing
transactions.
2. If Christ has already come, the event was not only so unimportant as
to be soon lost to his people, but it did not take place till after the
death of most of those who must have been most concerned in the matter;
I mean of course both the friends and enemies of Christ and his cause.
If the destruction 'of Jerusalem was the coming of Christ to judgment,
which was threatened against the Jews who procured his crucifixion, and
persecuted and caused the death of the first Christian martyrs, most of
those murderous persecutors escaped the accomplishment of such
threatenings, for they died before the destruction of that city. How
then did the coming of Christ affect them ? How were they then punished
or separated from the righteous? On the other hand, how were most of the
followers of Christ, to whom the promises of his coming was first made,
benefittcd at that time ? Did Christ then reward their bodies in the
grave, or their souls in heaven? Let it be remembered that almost the
whole generation to whom the warnings and promises connected with
Christ's coming were addressed, passed away before Jerusalem was
destroyed. Hence, to most of the early Jewish believers the promise of
Christ's coming as a deliverer or Savior in this sense, was an absolute
failure, an actual falsehood, and the same remark applies to the
threatenings against the early persecutors of our Lord and his
followers. To both of those large classes there never was a coming of
Christ, and never can be, if he came when Jerusalem was destroyed, and
is to come no more. It will not do for the objector to reply that Christ
no doubt came to them in some way before they died so as to make his
promise good to them, for this would imply that two of his second
comings have occurred, a doctrine which Prof. Crosby and some others
utterly repudiate. The same strain of remark as the above applies to the
Gentile believers and those who troubled them. Paul comforted the
Thessalonians with the assurance that God would, at the coming of
Christ, recompense tribulation to their enemies. Yet more than forty
years afterwards John spoke of that event as still future. See Rev. 1 :
7. During that period most of the persecuted Christians in Thessalonica
had died. To them of course the promise was void and a deception, if
their enemies are not to be punished art some future coming of Christ.
Prof. Crosby earnestly insists that all the passages relating to this
subject must have been fullille'l soon after they were written, for this
he argues is evidently the scope of such passages. On the other hand I
take the position that in relation to most of those to whom such texts
were addressed, they have never been fulfilled, and never can be, if his
views of the subject are correct. The incorrigible rejectors of Christ
and his teachings were, above all others, concerned in his coming to
punish his "enemies;" and yet it is evident that only a very small
number of them lived till the time when it is so confidently asserted
that he came to destroy them. Who does not clearly see, as has just been
said, that all the threateniugs against such persons were utterly
useless — mere idle and false words as far as most of our Lord's dirrct
persecutors were concerned, if he came soon after they died? Can we
believe for a moment, that Christ threatened multitudes of the Jews with
what he well knew would never come upon them ? This, to say the least,
would implicate his veracity quite as much as the supposition that he
intended to have all understand that he was immediately to come- to
judge the world, though the period of his coming was then very remote.
It is not however to be supposed that he intended to create either of
these impressions, for in the present light of the subject neither is
true.
When the subject is properly
considered, there seems to be nothing in the Bible against a figurative
or spiritual coming of Christ, an event which may be considered as
already past, and his literal future coming. Such a view of the case is
burdened with less difficulties than the supposition that there is but
one event referred to in the Scriptures as the coming of Christ. It is
enough to say here that till it can be shown from history that Christ
has already come so as to convince his people then living that the
momentous event transpired at that time, it will be quite as easy to
show why so many texts seem to indicate that our Lord was about to come
when they were written, as to prove that the grandest event named in
God's word occurred so obscurely as to leave no record of its
occurrence. On "the predictions in the Scriptures of the second coming
of Christ, the end of the world, the resurrection of the dead, and the
general judgment with its awards, " or rather on "the precise nature" of
these sublime events, Prof. Crosby is almost silent. He is fully
convinced and assuredly believes "that the predictions of our Savior
respecting" them "h^ve been all fulfilled in the prcci.if, sense which
be himself contemplated when he uttered the sublime attestation, 'Heaven
and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away;' and that
this is no lower or more earl/ily sense, but the very luglust, noblist,
hcucmlicM, of which those words are susceptible." How plain, how grand,
how thrilling are the predictions of Christ's coming, but how obscure,
blind, and uninteresting was their fulfilment, if we must believe that
the precise nature and character, and consequently time of the event
cannot yet be determined, though the scene transpired more than sixteen
hundred years ago! Those who can believe all this, should not think very
strange that most of the Christian world continue to think Christ's
coming is yet future, notwithstanding many texts seem to indicate that
he was to come centuries since. Christ's second appearing or coming is
directly named but once in the Bible, viz: in Heb. 9. 28, where it is
said that " unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time
without sin unto salvation." To assert that this appearing of Christ is
the same as that named by John, in Rev. 1. 7, which is no doubt true, is
virtually saying that Christ appeared without sin unto salvation to
scarcely any who were looking for him when the epistle to the Hebrews
was written. For those who were looking for Christ's appearance when
Paul wrote that epistle were mostly dead when John wrote the book of
Revelation, and consequently they are never to see him appear without
sin unto salvation, as they died before his appearing, if he is not to
come at a time when all the dead will see him.
If Heb. 9. 28, refers to what took place soon after it was penned, it
relates to only a little handful of Christians who outlived their
brethren in the early days of the Christian era, and the import of the
passage seems to be narrowed down to almost a glorious nothing ! The
same remark may also be made in relation to all other passages of the
same import with the one just alluded to, if Christ has already made his
only second appearance. On this supposition, had Christians understood
the subject aright, many centuries ago they would have ceased to look
"for that- blessed hope" and the gloriaus appearing of the great God,
and our Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people,
zealous of good works ; " — Titus 2 : 13, 14. This admonition must have
been useless and deceptive to all who died between the years of our Lord
about sixty-five and ninety, as the exhortation to look for that
"glorious appearing" was given near the first of these two dates, and
the event was still future at the last of them, and no one can tell how
much longer. Far the larger number of those to whom the admonition to
look for the glo-rious event referred to above, must have died between
the periods named, and all the hopes they had of witnessing it were
utterly in vain — abortive — if the event they were directed to look for
occurred after their death, and Christ is to appear no more. Is it
reasonable to suppose the sacred writers would thus decieve the larger
portion of those to whom they immediately wrote? Perhaps it may be well
to notice here, that in the last of the two verses quoted above, from
Titus, the term "us" is used twice by the apostle Paul, when he
evidently does not mean merely the believers of that generation, but
refers to all in every period who are or may be redeemed from iniquity
by Christ. The same thing may be said in truth of other texts, which, if
applied as Prof. Crosby and others who hold his views apply them, prove
that Christ died only for the apostles and those who lived in their
time, or very near it. The following passages are of this class. Christ
died for us — Christ is sacrificed for us — Christ also hath loved us,
and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God — Who
gave himself for us — Having obtained eternal redemption for us — Christ
hath suffered for us. On the text, " We which are alive and remain unto
the coming of the Lord," with other similar passages,
Prof. Crosby argues that the term "we" is used by Paul to designate some
who would live till the Lord should come, and that it can have no
reference to persons living at the time of a yet future coming of
Christ. As far as this reasoning goes to disprove this doctrine, it may
be used to show that Christ died only for those who lived in apostolic
times, a doctrine which has not yet been given to the world. If the
coming of Christ to judge mankind is an event of the past, Paul was very
careless, to say the least, in asserting that " we shall all stand
before the judgment seat of Christ" — " we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in
his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
Rom. 14: 10., 2 Cor. 5 : 10. As these statements were penned some thirty
years, or a whole generation of our time, before the destruction of
Jerusalem, or any other asserted coming of Christ, it is evident that
most of those to whom the apostle wrote did before the occurrence of
that event, in which case it cannot be true that they have appeared
before the judgment seat of Christ for trial. The words "all" and "
every one " used by Paul in these passages, are too definite and
explicit to indicate only the remnant of his readers who remained nearly
or quite thirty years after his epistles were written. As there is no
proof whatever that the dead were tried at the judgment seat of Christ
in some unknown period that has gone by, and as it is evident that only
by far the smaller part of Paul's readers lived till what is called our
Lord's second coining, the conclusion seems inevitable that the time
when every one shall receive the things done in his body, is yet in the
future." (The Freewill Baptist Quarterly)
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam
Filtered and Posted Shortly..
|
