From the Gospel Banner.
Mr. Editor—A reader of the British Millennial Harbinger has directed my attention to two articles which have appeared in its February number under the caption placed at the head of this communication. They purport to be from two of my acquaintances on the other side of the Atlantic; the one Mr. Henry T. Anderson, of Kentucky, the other Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia; both of them “Reformers,” and in fellowship with each other as “much esteemed brethren”; at least so it appears from Mr. Campbell’s remarks, though Mr. Anderson addresses him simply as “Dear Sir,” and subscribes himself “yours with much esteem and love”: —yet by comparing the articles it will be found that their faiths are as wide asunder as the poles. I mention this that your readers may understand, that “Christian fellowship” in the States, is not so much predicated upon what a man believes, as who he is that believes it. I am happy in being able to say, that with one or two unimportant exceptions, I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Henry T. Anderson, although this avowal places me with him in that class of believers styled by Mr. Campbell, ‘neophytes’ and ‘theological adventurers.’ The former, however, does not exactly apply to either of us; though possibly, we may be very accurately defined by the latter. We are not ‘new converts’ to the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ sitting upon the throne of his father David. I taught it by word of mouth, and published it in the Apostolic Advocate about the year 1836, as Mr. Wallis can testify, seeing that he republished an article upon the subject from my pen with approbation in the Christian Messenger. Since that time Mr. Anderson has assented to it—for he was a subscriber to the Advocate—and I rejoice to find that he still holds on to it; for it is God’s truth, and no man can refute it. As to our being ‘theological adventurers,’ I have the honor to plead ‘guilty’ in my own behalf. Unless a man adventure to cut loose from the theology of schools and colleges; and to lay hold of that doctrine of God—Theou logos—revealed in ‘the Law and the Testimony,’ he will neither reign with Christ at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven, nor on earth when He, his Apostles, and the Saints shall occupy the thrones of the House of David, and then wield a divine sceptre over Israel and the Nations in the Age to Come. The Pharisees considered the Apostles as ‘theological adventurers.’ They have ever been a self-denying, and independent class of men; “proving all things and holding fast” what appeared to them to be “good.” I will, therefore, being true to my class, adventure to examine Mr. Campbell’s theology on the subject before us, premising this one word, that there is no argument in opprobrious epithets.
Mr. Campbell says that ‘the recent attempts to revive the oft-alleged, and as often refuted notions of the personal and literal return to Jerusalem of the Messiah to sit upon the literal throne of David,’ demands a passing notice at his hand. From this, then, it is evident, that he does not believe in the personal and literal return of Jesus for any such purpose; consequently, if it can be proved that such a return is taught in ‘the word of the kingdom,’ as I have done in Elpis Israel, it is clear that he does not believe the gospel, what ever his faith may be as to the identity of Jesus with the person described in Moses and the prophets. He styles this heaven-revealed truth ‘a notion,’ and affirms that it has been ‘often refuted.’ Now this assertion I deny in toto. When, where, and by whom has it been often refuted? In the absence of all other testimony in the case, we must take him as answering the question, and saying in effect, ‘I have refuted it in my reply to Mr. Anderson.’ Well then, let us see!
Mr. C. says ‘we are first introduced to the throne of David’ in 2 Samuel 3: 9-10. This is not exactly correct. The first allusion to the throne in connexion with David is in 1 Samuel 13: 14.
“Thy kingdom,” said Samuel to Saul, “shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be Captain over his people.”
And again in chapter 15: 28,
“The Lord hath rent the Kingdom of Israel from thee, Saul, this day, and hath given IT to a neighbour of thine who is better than thou.”
In the next chapter the Lord said to Samuel,
“I have rejected Saul from reigning over Israel; and have provided me a king among the sons of Jesse.”
He then sent Samuel to anoint one of them as king elect to succeed Saul. When David came into his presence, the Lord said—
“Arise, anoint him: this is he.”
After this David slew Goliath, and received the acclamations of the people. Saul’s envy was excited, for they had placed David before him in feats of arms. He was very angry, and said—
“What can he have more but the kingdom?” (1 Samuel 17: 1).
This transfer of the kingdom of Israel from Saul’s heirs to David was well known in Saul’s family; and was the ground of all their animosity to the son of Jesse. When Saul and Jonathan were slain, Saul’s son Ishbosheth was made king over the Israelites, except Judah, by Abner, Saul’s uncle. Being offended with Ishbosheth, Abner vowed he would transfer his allegiance to David, and swear to him “as the Lord had sworn to David.” What had the Lord sworn?
“To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan even to Beersheba.”
Ishbosheth was assassinated after reigning two years, and David henceforth acknowledged as king in fact, and Jehovah’s Anointed over the whole nation. From this, then, it is evident,
1. That David was king elect for several years before he became king in fact.
2. That he was divinely elected and anointed to be king over Saul’s kingdom, whose throne was to become his throne;
3. That Saul and David’s throne and kingdom were identical with the throne of the House of Israel, and the kingdom of Israel;
4. That when David became king in fact over all Israel, the Lord had fulfilled his promise to him as far as his being Saul’s successor was concerned, but no more;
5. That ‘we are’ not ‘first introduced to the throne of David’ in 2 Samuel 3: 9-10.
The question now presenting itself is, Seeing that the throne and kingdom of Saul were transferred to David, was the dominion over all Israel, that is, over the twelve tribes in one united nation, to be established in his family forever; or was it to be taken away as it was from Saul, and given to some one else of another tribe, family, or nation? This question is answered in 2 Samuel 7: 12-15. In this passage is recorded the covenant of Jehovah with David concerning the everlasting possession of the throne and kingdom of Israel. The things of this covenant are styled in Isaiah 55: 3 and Acts 13: 34, “the sure mercies of”—or gracious promises made to—“David”; to an inheritance, or possession of which, all who thirst for the honor and glory of the kingdom, are invited as joint-partakers in “the joy of their Lord.” David, in his last words, styles these promises “all his salvation and all his desire, though he made it not to grow;” that is, although the Lord had made no move towards its present accomplishment. The covenant has relation to David individually; to David’s House; to David’s throne and kingdom; and to David’s son, who should sit upon his throne for ever. As to David, he was to “sleep with his fathers,” and secondly, “his house and his kingdom are to be established for ever BEFORE HIM.”—Now, seeing that “David is both dead and buried,” and “is not ascended into the heavens,” it is certain, that his house and kingdom are not now established before him, that is, in his presence. Again, they are to be established where he is, and as he is not in the heavens, his house, kingdom and throne are therefore not there; but, as they are to be “established for ever before him,” David must be raised from the dead immortal, that he may be co-existent with his son’s everlasting throne and kingdom, which is to “break in pieces, and consume all kingdoms, and stand itself for ever.” In this way the covenant contained a promise of everlasting life to David; he might therefore well say, “it is all my salvation and all my desire.”
But who is the son of David spoken of in the covenant? ‘Solomon,’ says Mr. Campbell!! And so say all the professors and disciples of College Divinity! “I will set up thy seed after thee,” saith the Lord: ‘even Solomon,’ add those who make void the word of God by their traditions. But the apostles do not say so. They tell us plainly that the seed spoken of in the covenant before us is Christ even Jesus, the greater than Solomon. Referring to this, Peter says,
“David knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh he would RAISE UP the Christ to sit on his throne.”
This was the purpose among other things for which he was raised from the dead—that sitting on that throne he might “judge the world in righteousness” as the ordained of God—Acts 2: 30; 17: 31. Did Jehovah “raise up” Solomon to succeed David? The seed referred to was to be “raised up.” This was David and Peter’s understanding of the words “set up”—to be raised from the dead to sit on the throne of Israel, when “the kingdom shall be restored again to them.” Our question is answered by the facts in the case. Solomon has not been raised from the dead; therefore he is not the son referred to in the place.
But the matter is triumphantly settled by Paul; for he quotes from the very passage applied by divines’ to Solomon, and applies it to Jesus. Reasoning about the superiority of the resurrected Jesus over the angels, he says,
“To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father and he shall be my Son.”
Both these quotations are applied to the same person, who at the close of the argument is declared to be Jesus—Hebrews 1: 5, 9. God swore that the Christ should possess David’s throne for ever; and David swore that Solomon should succeed him; but more than this he could not say.
As I have explained the things of this covenant in detail in my recent work, I need not enlarge here. I shall therefore pass on. Mr. C. quotes about seventeen relevant and irrelevant passages from Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Psalms, and a solitary one from Isaiah, occupying with a few comments not quite two columns of the B.M.H., and then winds up by saying, ‘Such is a full induction of all the allusions in the Old Testament to the throne of David bearing on the covenant concerning David and his seed as sitting on that throne!’ This statement will be immediately recognised as utterly erroneous by those who have possessed themselves of Elpis Israel; and clearly evinces how little Mr. C. understands the subject, which he says has been so ‘often refuted.’
He adds one more text from Luke, and then inquires, ‘Did or did not, the Lord Jesus Christ obtain a throne in heaven, on his ascension, and if so what throne is it?’ After putting this, he goes on to say, ‘I presume that every Bible student will admit that he did on entering the heavens, ascend to a throne, a crown, and a kingdom.’ He says that Jesus was ‘born to be a king, but not on earth:’ and adds that David foretold that his son would be a king, and sit upon his throne—not on earth, but in the heavens; which he regards as ‘the heavenly Zion the proper antitype of the city and throne of David.’ He then finishes a paragraph by asking, ‘Now, according to the angelic annunciation—Luke 1: 32, —did not Jehovah, the God of Israel, at this time—his ascension—give to him the throne of his father David?’
He has not adduced one iota of proof that Christ is to reign where he now is for ever, and not upon earth. He has attempted it, but signally failed, having mistaken a prophecy for a history. He quotes the second Psalm which has been only partially fulfilled. His comment upon “yet have I set my king upon Zion the hill of my holiness” is, that ‘despite of Caesar Jehovah placed his king upon the holy hill of Zion.’ This construction of the text turns upon a piece of theological alchemy; such as, Zion does not mean Zion; but somewhere called ‘the right hand of the majesty in the heavens!’ Then the three thousand did not come to Mount Zion on the day of Pentecost, when they believed the gospel of the kingdom which sets forth to the eye of faith, Zion on which they stood, under a heavenly constitution, when God shall have made the horn of David to bud—Psalm 132: 13, 11; —but they were come to the right hand of God! After this fashion it is that the scriptures are tortured and twisted, and made to signify anything deemed expedient in the art of special pleading. The right hand of God where Jesus is, is nowhere called Zion in the sacred writings. This proper name belongs only to the Mount on which David dwelt within the walls of Jerusalem; and to that community of the faithful in their resurrected state, which stands related to the things to be revealed there, when David is raised up to witness them. When Jesus dwells and reigns on Zion,
“He will abundantly bless her provision; satisfy her poor with bread; clothe her priests with salvation; make her saints shout aloud for joy, and be the lamp of David’s house. His enemies will be clothed with shame; but upon himself shall his crown flourish.”
Mr. C. next quotes Psalm 110 to sustain his interpretation; but this is singularly against his transtherial Zion. Jehovah says to Christ,
“Sit thou at my right hand TILL I make thy foes thy footstool.”
Then, as a proof that this is accomplished at the time contemplated, it is added,
“Jehovah shall send the sceptre of thy power out of Zion; rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.”
If he be now in Zion, then he is ruling in the midst of his enemies; and consequently, no longer at the right hand of God; for he is only to sit there, until he shall be established in the midst of his enemies, which is coeval with their being made his footstool. All Mr. C. claims is granted in regard to Jesus being already constituted Lord, King, and High Priest, after the order of Melchizedec. These things are part of his Name. But it is one thing to be constituted Lord of all, and another thing to be in actual possession of lordship, to be king in fact, &c. David, when he was anointed, was constituted by an oath King of Israel, many years before he became king in fact, by the removal of Saul and Ishbosheth. Jesus and all his brethren are “kings and priests,” but they are only kings and priests elected for the kingdom, to be established in the Age to Come. Melchizedec reigned in Jerusalem; and Jesus being a High Priest upon his throne after his order, must reign there also; for as Aaron and his race were High Priests of the nation, under the law of Moses, so Jesus is to be Israel’s High Priest under a law yet to go forth from Zion, combining in himself, like Melchizedec, the kingly and priestly offices, contemporarily with the continuance of sin upon the earth. But I cannot dilate further upon this subject here. See Elpis Israel under the head of the ‘Priesthood of Shiloh.’ Suffice it to say, that when Jesus is “King of kings, and Lord of lords,” in fact as well as by constitution or election, there will be no other kingdom or empire, imperial, regal, or sacerdotal, upon the earth, but his. The nations will be “blessed in him,” and Abraham; and the tyrants that now harass and destroy them, will be themselves destroyed from among mankind.
Mr. Campbell affirms that David’s throne continued till the birth of ‘David’s Son and Lord,’ as implied in the fact that it was ‘established forever.’ But to this I object, that David’s throne and kingdom did neither of them continue till the birth of Jesus. He confounds Judah’s sceptre, or sovereignty, with David’s. David’s throne has had no existence since the Babylonish captivity. And this reminds me of one of Mr. C’s texts, namely, ‘David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.’ This is one of his strong arguments for the translation of David’s throne to heaven; because if it were not so, then David has been without a son upon his throne for eighteen hundred years! Aye, but what becomes of this strong argument—this ‘flat negation of the neophyte assumption’—in the face of the fact, that between the Babylonish captivity and the birth of Jesus, about 583 years, no son of David wore a crown as King of Judah or Israel? Judah had no king until after Judas Maccabaeus, and then only for one hundred and twenty-nine years; and these were not sons of David, but Asmoneans of the tribe of Levi. They were suppressed by the Romans, and a Gentile became their king, even Herod the Idumean. Previous to the Maccabees, Judah was governed by the kings of Persia, and Macedon. What will Mr. C. do with this? While he is ruminating upon the matter, I will explain the text, the misconception of which has led him so far astray.
Has the promise of God failed, or is the time not yet arrived to fulfil it? To answer this question, let us hear what God said by Ezekiel to Zedekiah, the last son of David that ever sat on his throne.
“Thou profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come when iniquity shall have an end. Thus saith the Lord God: Remove the diadem and take off the crown—of David which he wore—: this—man—shall not be the same—spoken of in the new covenant with David—: exalt him that shall be low; —the coming Shiloh—: abase him—Zedekiah—that is high:”
But, then, when he is dethroned, what shall become of David’s kingdom and throne?
“I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more UNTIL HE COME whose right it is; and I will give it him.”
But when, Lord? When the time comes that the saints should possess the kingdom,
“There shall be given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.”
“It shall stand for ever;” and from that time “shall David never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel, before him.”(Ezekiel 21: 25, 27; Daniel 2: 44; 7: 14, 22.)
Here, then, with this paraphrase, I may dismiss Mr. Campbell’s tradition of the translation of David’s throne to heaven beyond the atmosphere! A person skilled in “ the Law and the Testimony” will know how to appreciate his refutation of our ‘neophyte assumption,’ so ‘baseless’ in its ‘character,’ as he affirms. His light is proved to be darkness; for he speaks not according to the word, which declares emphatically, that having received the kingdom, Jesus will return in like manner as he ascended; and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and will build again the ruins thereof, and will set it up AS IN THE DAYS OF OLD. And if it be asked, ‘for what purpose will he return to do this?’ It answers,
“That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom his name is called.” (Luke 19: 15; Acts 1: 11; Amos 9: 11.)
Having written upwards of four hundred pages about this kingdom and its relations, I could, of course, in these few lines give only a few thoughts upon the subject. Those who wish to go into the matter more deeply, are referred to Elpis Israel. Let this be digested, and the reader will be effectually cured of all credence in a throne and kingdom of David beyond the skies!
I remain, Mr. Editor, in hope of seeing Jesus sitting on the throne of his father David on Mount Zion in Palestine,
Yours faithfully, JOHN THOMAS.
-------------
