XXI. TIMES AND SEASONS

“But do you not remember”, it is said, “that God holds the times and seasons in His own power? Does not this shew that He may arrange events as He willeth? that He may re-dispose their order? And is not the definite formation of expectations, as if God must bring events to pass in one way and not in another, a limiting of the Holy One of Israel?” God has all things in His power; but when once He has spoken, He will fulfil; and thus, without irreverence, we may say that such events will occur, and such will not. When once God has promised, He is concluded by His own words: He cannot deny Himself. Thus we may, with all confidence, say, that if God has revealed that a portion of His Church shall be found in unbroken continuity on the earth up to the harvest, when the wicked shall be severed from the midst of them, then so it will be. If He has said that Antichrist's appearance and power shall precede the coming of Christ, then this must be the order of events. If He tells us that it is after, and not before, the time of special tribulation that Christ shall come, then we must not discredit God by the imagination that it may be previous. If the Lord Jesus has told us that His shall not be a secret coming, then we must take heed and not accept the teaching that bids us expect a secret advent. If He tells us to watch for His appointed signs, then we must not imagine that this can be inconsistent with the hope of seeing the Lord, or that it can have any evil effect morally; nay, we must be sure that such an expectation, held in the Spirit, is that which will produce the right effect of watchfulness and waiting in every one who rests on the word of Christ, because it is His.

However much God may do in grace and mercy beyond what He has promised, of this we may be sure, that whatever He has promised shall be fulfilled; and that every revealed circumstance in connection with the time or order shall have a perfect accomplishment. In unrevealed things, it behoves us to avoid speculation; but where the Scripture speaks, it is for us, whether we understand or not, to listen and to receive.

In any inquiry what God can do, or will do, there are two principles which must be borne in mind: Firstly, God is “the faithful God”; “God that cannot lie”. This is part of His own essential character; and we know, too, that as to His revelation in Christ, “all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God by us” (2 Corinthians 1:20). Secondly, besides this (or rather consequent on this), “the Scripture must be fulfilled”. What can prove this more fully than our Lord's prayer and agony in the garden, and His betrayal? “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matthew 26:39). “O my Father, if this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be done” (42). “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (53,54). “But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (56).

If there are points which are not certainly or definitely stated in Scripture, some conclusion may, perhaps, be formed from analogy or probable inference; but when the Scripture tells the events and their order, then what is called “free enquiry” has no place whatever. Those who sit in judgment on Scripture, and question or deny what it conclusively says, are not fitting persons to be listened to as teachers in the Church of Christ, whatever be their claims as to wisdom or holiness.

The question of the apostles to the Lord in Acts 1:6 is, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” To this He replies, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power”. He then tells them what their service should be as witnesses for Him - in fact, referring them back to His own previous instruction in Matthew 24:6,14: “The end is not yet”. “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come”. They are thus reminded that the restoration of the kingdom to Israel could not be in the ordering of God until the events of that chapter were brought to pass; it was thus that He had put these times and seasons in His own power. We cannot measure these events by a century or by a thousand years, but we may know their order as revealed and recorded in Holy Scripture.

When the Apostle says, “I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Romans 11:25), the following words, “And so all Israel shall be saved”, prove that the blindness shall be altogether taken away. But when shall this be? When the fulness of the Gentiles is gathered. How could the Scripture speak of a “blindness in part until” that time, if Israel's greatest blindness, in the depth of anti-Christian evil, is not till after the removal of the Church? But the order of these events has been revealed for our instruction. It is when He cometh with clouds, when every eye shall see Him, that Israel shall look on Him whom they pierced--when the spirit of grace and of supplications shall be poured upon them. Until that day the fulness of the Gentiles will not have come in. The resurrection of the Church and the removal of the blindness are at the same time.

XX. THE DAY OF THE LORD - CANTICLES AND APOCALYPSE

When a point has been established by full proof from Holy Scripture, it is often impossible, and in general needless, to meet each objection or difficulty which may be raised. It is often impossible, because all the modes in which different objectors will find difficulties may be unknown to those who rest on the simple warrants of the Word of God. It is commonly needless, because when we have to do with those who are subject to the authority of God in His Word, full Scripture proof of a point is enough; and also it is felt that the varying grounds taken by objectors, and their contradictions of Scripture, show that they are striving (even though at times unconsciously) against truths which cannot be overthrown.

Thus, if we have to establish the Deity of Christ, we bring forward the direct proofs, the distinct statements that He is God over all, blessed for ever, and that He is the Creator, Sustainer, and essentially the Lord of all. We do not think it needful to inquire into every cavil of every objector, and to discuss these one by one, before we regard the point as proved. We do not pretend to meet what may be called the difficulties of the case; indeed, we do wisely not to imagine that we can overcome the prejudice which is proof against the distinct words of inspired prophets and apostles. We have, as well as we are enabled, to state the revealed truth; and then its application can be made with efficacious power by the secret working of the Holy Ghost.

Although reference has been made to particular objections, to discuss them in detail has not been attempted. The reasons just stated will suffice for this: answers have been given to some of the ways in which the Scriptures cited have been set aside; but beyond this it is impossible to go without an extensive inquiry into the various modes in which advocates of the secret coming and secret rapture seek to make the theory plausible. It would be as much to the purpose to discuss all that has been written against the truth that “we are justified freely by the grace of God, for the sake of Christ's merits, through faith”, before firmly and definitely setting forth the Gospel. All the grounds of objection to the hope of Christ's people being His glorious appearing, to which I refer, are such as really have been relied on. I do not discuss mere surmises; I notice a few points for the help (as I trust) of some; but I do not charge any one with holding anything which he rejects: different maintainers of the secret rapture have taken different grounds.

A supposed distinction has been made between the coming of Christ and the day of the Lord, as if the one could be a secret hope before the other which is manifest; but in 1 Corinthians 1:8, “the day of our Lord” is the hope of the Church: so, too, in 2 Corinthians 1:14, is “the day of the Lord Jesus”; in Philippians 1:6,10 believers are directed on to “the day of Jesus Christ”; in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, Christians are spoken of as knowing that the day of the Lord cometh like a thief in the night, but (verses 4 and 5) it will not come like a thief on those who are children of light; but still it is the day that they expect. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2; “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”, and “the day of the Lord” (true reading) are used as co-ordinate terms. And well may this be done; for at the coming of the Lord Jesus the day begins: the only contrast that could be drawn is, that the coming is one point of time, while the day is a continuous period: to those who are in the darkness of night, however, it is the same thing to expect the dawn of the sun-light and the beginning of the day: and he who tried to distinguish these things as to time, would fail in finding intelligible language in which to express himself. In 2 Peter 3:12, believers are spoken of as “looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God”; this is the same “day of the Lord” which verse 10 speaks of as the fulfilment of “the promise of His (Christ's) coming” (verse 4), about which the scoffer asks, as if it were a hope that had failed. The passages which speak of the day as our hope contradict all theory of secrecy. Could the Sun of Righteousness arise without the day beginning? Had a distinction been made the dawn would precede the sun-rising.

Some, indeed, ask, “Have you not overlooked how plainly the secret rapture of the Church is set forth in the Canticles?” But is it intended that we should interpret the New Testament by the Canticles? Should we not rather let the full light of the Christian Revelation shine on the ancient Scriptures? Of one thing we may be certain, that nothing in the Canticles can contradict our Lord's words, and His promise that His elect shall be gathered unto Him by His angels at His manifest coming with power and great glory. Whatever may be the import of passages in the Canticles which speak of secrecy (“the secret [10] places of the stairs”, etc.), or of the withdrawal of the bride from any particular scene (“Come with me from Lebanon”, etc.), we ought to be so established in New Testament truth as not to imagine that these can set forth a secret rapture, unless such a rapture had been definitely taught in the Word--instead of its being contradicted.

To learn the distinct hope of the Lord's coming is a far simpler thing than it is to interpret the Canticles. Many may know definitely the promises of our Lord, who can but ponder as to that book, valuing it not according to their intelligence of its contents, but because they see Christ there.[11]

Others ask whether it is not evident that the Church is seen in the Book of Revelation in heavenly glory, long before the visible coming of our Lord.[12] Now, our hopes may be known very clearly, even though we have but little ability to interpret the Apocalypse; nay, it is rather by apprehending our hopes that we shall begin to use that closing book of Scripture aright.

The teachers of the “secret” doctrine act in very contradictory ways with regard to the Apocalypse. Some of them say that it is not for our instruction, for it is given from Christ to show “His servants things which must shortly come to pass”;[13] others say that the epistles to the seven churches are our portion (“the things which are”); but that when a door is opened in heaven (Chapter 4) the Church is caught up. Others maintain that the whole book is future; that the seven churches even are bodies which shall be formed (and which shall be thus taught), after the secret removal of the present Church. Now, without discussing these contradictory theories, let it be again noted that the coming of the Lord is set forth in the opening of the book: “Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him”; and to this coming, the Apostle responds, “Even so, Amen”. No supposition that the Church is found in resurrection glory prior to such a coming can be admitted as capable of reconciliation with this opening expectation. Nor can any symbol be rightly interpreted as setting forth the Church as actually in resurrection glory at a point of time previous to the first resurrection of Chapter 20, and that is after the last anti-Christian persecution, in which the faithful are beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus.[14]

It the manifest coming of our Lord in glory be not our hope, it would be indeed strange that the apostles should have so habitually taught such a coming, and have said so much about it in their epistles.

If the secret advent and secret removal of the Church be true, how can the advocates of their theory show that the secret event did not take place long ago? How do they know but that they themselves are living in the supposed interval between the secret coming of Christ and His coming in glory? And thus, How can they be sure that they are part of the Church at all? In fact, if the secret rapture theory were true, they might be devoid of all knowledge of what way of salvation (amongst the confused theories) is now available; for the preaching of the Gospel may have ended with the rapture and resurrection of the Church; and, if this is a private occurrence, it may be long past, without any one being aware of it.

---------------

[10] I could hardly give the supposed detail how “the clefts of the rock” became “the secret places of the stairs”, without going beyond that gravity and reverence for Holy Scripture that should be maintained.

[11] That this book has a holy character is what few, I trust, who read these pages, will doubt: that it must set forth Christ is what reverential readers of Holy Scripture will of course admit. The theories of Ewald and others must be abhorrent to every Christian mind; and although Ginsburg seeks to give a new turn to such theories, yet it is vain to make the subject of the book of Canticles a shepherdess, who contemns and finally rejects the addresses of King Solomon. The grounds on which Ginsburg excludes Christ, and adopts, with less irreverence of expression, notions borrowed from Ewald, etc., are of the weakest kind. Even unconverted Jews, such as Aben Ezra, could teach him better. It would be marvellous that he should find followers, except that any notion which unsettles definite thoughts as to Holy Scripture, or which would exclude Christ, is sure to be admired by some. Dean Alford has well said that he who does not find Christ everywhere in Holy Scripture, will not be able to find Him anywhere. “This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church”.

[12] See Appendix G.

[13] See p. 25.

[14] Much has been made, in connection with the supposed secret rapture of the Church, of the description of the throne, etc., in Chapters 4 and 5, and of the living creatures and elders. Chapter 5:9,10, is a passage which has been thought to have an especial bearing on this subject. The true reading of the verses is, “And they sing a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and redeemedst us to God by thy blood out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) and thou madest them to our God a kingdom and priests, and they reign on the earth”. That verse 10 should be read in the third person αυτους, and βασιλευουσιν (or, -σουσιν), instead of ήμας and βασιλευσομεν, is not at all a matter of doubt; whether the verb should be in the future or the present is less certain. But in verse 9, ήμας, “us”, should certainly be read. There was an opinion, many years ago, that it rested on but slight authority. This arose through an error in a reprint of Griesbach's text; so that he was supposed to have excluded it. On this misprint interpretations were based. Now of all collated MSS. The Codex Alexandrinus alone omits ήμας (and this is thought to have some support from the Ethiopic version); and one MS. has ήμων instead. The consent of the ancient versions has much weight in a case of this kind. It is surprising that some later editors have omitted it only on the authority mentioned. Its absence appears to have some supposed bearing on the present question. A maintainer of the secret rapture, in publishing a text of the Revelation, gave a few readings professedly from the Codex Sinaiticus, in which he prints, by some strange hallucination, τω θ.ήνων as the reading of that MS. This was at first copied by Dean Alford in his Greek Testament, and in Mr C.E. Stuart's very useful little work, Textual Criticism; so that the error has become widely spread. But Codex Sinaiticus reads τω θεω ήμας, exactly like the common text. I have seen the passage in the MS. itself, and any one can verify it in the two editions of Tischendorf. How the omission of ήμας could be made to support the secret rapture doctrine I do not at all know.

XIX. SECRET RAPTURE--SCRIPTURES CONTRADICTORY

Those who deny the Pentateuch to be a revelation given through Moses, have often pointed out the periods in the history of Israel in which the most plain commands of the law were set aside, either by neglect, or by direct and positive contravention. Thus when, in the days of the Judges, the people so often practiced idolatry, how is it possible (it has been said) that they could have a law which so positively forbids all worship save that of the true God, and any religious honour to be paid to any image or picture? Is it not evident that the Mosaic law must have been a subsequent invention? If in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, the people had possessed the law, how could that king have ventured to set it aside in all essentials? May we not (they say) conclude that the law which forbids all image worship, which limits the priesthood to a particular family, which prohibits sacrifice except in the place that God chose, and which defines so precisely at what period in the year the stated feasts should be observed, was then unknown? And, if unknown, could it then exist?

Sceptical questionings of this kind have a certain weight; but they at once fall to the ground when confronted with even the smallest quantity of fact; and if they had really any conclusive force, we must know that in the same way it might be said that the Christian Church cannot in general have possessed the New Testament. And if it be said that in many lands even now the Scripture is withheld from the people, so that no counter-argument can be drawn from its being practically set aside, yet in this country there is no such restriction; and thus any manner in which it is ignored amongst us, illustrates the way in which the law was neglected often by Israel of old; or, as in the days of our Lord, made of no effect through the tradition which had virtually supplanted it.

Now, it is very remarkable that those who have the Scripture, and who read it with some measure of attention, can have adopted or received a system which contradicts some of the simplest statements of our Lord and His inspired apostles, thus we can feel no surprise that there was a similar setting aside of the early portion of revelation: and as we find that this system is defended, so we may well imagine that there were some who could defend the proceedings and practices of the days of Jeroboam, “who made Israel to sin”.

Our Lord has promised that He will return in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, and that then He will send forth His angels to gather His elect.

The secret advent doctrine teaches that He will come privately, and that then He will raise His sleeping saints and change the living, taking them up to Himself a good while before His manifestation.

The Scripture warns the saints of perilous times, and of evils in the latter day before the coming of Christ.

The secret advent theory maintains that no such events can be known as would interpose an interval between the present moment and the coming of the Lord.

The Scripture speaks only of Christ's second coming, until which He remains at the right hand of God the Father.

The secret advent is a notion entirely opposed to this; for it represents our Lord first coming in a private manner to take the Church to meet Him, and then at a future period (according to some, a long interval) coming in glory; and this some call His third coming.

The Scripture teaches the Church to wait for the manifestation of Christ.

The secret theory bids us to expect a coming before any such manifestation. Our Lord says that the wheat and tares shall be together in the field until the harvest.

The doctrine of the secret rapture affirms that at some time considerably before the harvest, all the wheat shall have been removed, leaving only tares.

Our Lord bids us look for certain signs, and use them in our watching.

The advocates of the secret advent contradict this, saying that signs are not for us.

The Scripture tells us that the first resurrection of the saints will be when the Lord has come forth as the conqueror, and that those will share in this resurrection who have suffered under the final Antichrist.

The teachers of the secret doctrine say that the resurrection of the present Church will take place long before the first resurrection,[9] and before the manifestation of the Antichrist.

Is it not surprising that men with their Bibles in their hands, can be led to adopt a theory of doctrine which not only adds to Scripture, but contradicts it at all points? This is just the simple and natural consequence of the acceptance of the one leading addition to Scripture, that there shall be a secret coming of the Lord, and a secret rapture of His Church.

When Christ distinctly states a truth, it might have been expected that at least those who profess to be His believing people would receive His words as conclusive; and thus it might have been thought that those only who avowedly reject His authority would deny the force of what He said. Now our Lord has expressly taught us that His coming shall not be secret: He has told us this, not only by saying that it will be manifest, but also by warning against any supposition of such a secret coming as suits some of the “Jewish” notions. After speaking of the unequalled tribulation, He says, “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore, if they shall say unto you, Behold, He is in the desert, go not forth; behold, He is in the secret chambers, believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matthew 24:23-27). No man with these words in his Bible, ought to accept the doctrine of any secret coming without feeling that he is casting off, in so doing, the authority of the Lord; for this is done, virtually, when the warning of Christ is treated as if He had taught the very reverse, and as if He had charged us to believe and expect what, in reality, He says shall never be, and against the supposition of which He warns us.

------------------

[9] In 1839, I heard it maintained with such approbation that objectors were hardly allowed a hearing, that if strictly correct language were used, the first resurrection of Revelation 20 would be called “the SECOND-first resurrection”; for it was said that “the FIRST-first resurrection” would have taken place privately a good while before. Is it not a sitting in judgment on Holy Scripture when endeavours are thus made to correct and to improve the words used by the Spirit of God? No one would do this unless he felt in his conscience the force of the words of inspiration, and struggled to set them aside.

XVIII. ARE SIGNS JEWISH?

“But are not signs Jewish? Are they not intended only for Israel? And, if so, would not attention to them distract us from our true hope?” A pointed question may convey a true or false thought in argumentation; it may remind of some true and fully admitted principle, or it may suggest the adoption of some fallacy as though it were a revealed truth.

Now, if signs were “Jewish”, indicating the glorious appearing of the Messiah, since there is but one Christ, and His coming in glory is the promise to His Church, they would be of equal significance to us, for they would instruct us as much as they would Jews. But on what ground are “signs” said to be “Jewish”? Our Lord's words are: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonas” (Matthew 16:4). “Why doth this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation” (Mark 8:12). To the generation of Israel, rejecting the resurrection of Jesus (“the sign of the prophet Jonas”), no sign shall be given. This unbelieving generation, from which Peter exhorted his hearers to save themselves (Acts 2:40), marked by the same moral characteristics, will not pass away until the things spoken of in Matthew 24 shall be accomplished in the manifestation of the glory of the Lord: and thus signs cannot be for them. “This generation” cannot mean the men then alive merely, for if so Israel would long ago have owned Jesus of Nazareth. “As the lightning that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven shineth unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in His day; but first must He suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation” (Luke 17:24,25). Unconverted Jews have said from this passage that, if Jesus had been a true prophet, the next generation of Israel would have believed on Him, for it was by that generation He was to be rejected. The argument is legitimate; the only fallacy is that of imagining that “generation” means the men then living. The future generation of Israel shall believe. 

No sign shall be given to unconverted Israel “this generation” rejecting the Son of Man: and any portion of Israel converted is essentially a portion of the Church, even as the Pentecostal saints were all Jews.

But the Lord has promised signs (“there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars” (Luke 21:25), and these signs can only be for His believing people. They are closely connected with our watchfulness. We wait for the budding of the fig-tree. “When these things begin to come to pass, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh” (verse 28).

XVII. WATCH!

But are not believers called on to watch? Is not the exhortation, “Watch, therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come?” Does not this injunction apply to us? and how can we thus watch if there are any previous events predicted? Does not this passage show that the momentary expectation that our Lord may come is that which we should rightly cherish? This exhortation is given us in Matthew 24:42, the very chapter which some say is “Jewish”, and its reference is to that coming spoken of in the context, which is one of public manifestation, and one which is introduced by signs. But it has already been stated that the rejection of the force and bearing of Scriptures, because they are said to be “Jewish”, is a groundless assumption; and thus, if any choose to quote a few words from such portions in defence of a supposed secret advent no objection is to be made on that ground; but the connection has to be shown between the words quoted and the true doctrine of the Lord's coming, with which He has himself associated them.

The coming spoken of is one as manifest as the lightning, as definite as the judgment of the flood. Its date is not revealed, so that it cannot be measured by years or centuries; but there are indications which will speak definitely to those who are truly watching. To this purpose the parable of the fig-tree was spoken, of which the application is, “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is nigh, even at the doors” (33).[7] It is to persons thus instructed that the charge is given to watch: they are not told to watch irrespective of signals, but to be ready to note them as they appear. “What, then (it is said), are we to wait for signs, and not for the Lord himself?” But what does such a question mean? If the Lord has told us so to wait, it is thus that we should watch. To despise the sign is to despise the Word of the Lord who has promised it; it is to refuse submission to His authority. If an absent master has told his servants to wait for his return, which shall be intimated by a letter that he will send, are they obeyers of his word if they say that they expect him before the arrival of his promised letter, or if, when the letter arrives, they neglect it, and say that it is not for them? Those who expect it not, although told, might well do this.

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him immediately. Blessed are those servants whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth, and serve them....Be ye therefore ready also; for the Son of Man cometh at an hour when ye think not” (Luke 12:35-37,40). Thus the hope of His coming does not exclude that His knock shall be first heard; nay, this signal is pre-supposed. Let it also be noted that the same passages which speak of our being called to watch, as not knowing the day or the hour, are those in which special prominence is given to the manifest advent of the Lord, so that these definitely exclude any thought of a supposed secret coming being that for which we are called to wait.

But, it is said, is not the supposition that events must precede the coming of the Lord that which is meant by the servant saying, “My lord delayeth his coming?” Is not the admission of such a thought sinful? In Matthew 24 and Luke 12 the servant is spoken of who says this; but his sin is not the knowledge that he has of intervening events, but the mode in which he acts, though having such supposed intelligence. “But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of; and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites”. His sin is the use which he makes of his partial knowledge, instead of his employing it to lead him the more definitely to watch for the promised indication of his master's coming. He who looks for promised events as indications of the Lord's advent, will not rest for a moment in the events themselves: their value is, that they lead on the thoughts and affections to Him for whom the Church is called to watch and wait, and who has Himself promised these signs to His expecting people. [8]

To watch unscripturally is really not to watch at all; but to substitute something of emotion and sentiment for “the patient waiting for Christ”.

---------------

[7] “The budding of the fig-tree” is especially considered in my “remarks on the Prophetic Visions of the Book of Daniel” (pp.1-6, Fifth edition, 1864). To avoid mere repetition, I refer to what has there been said.

[8] See Appendix F.

XVI. PAROUSIA & EPIPHANEIA

The Apostle Paul, himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, when writing to Gentile Churches or to individuals, holds forth the hope of the Lord's coming as that which is public, open, and manifest. Thus he describes believers as “looking for that blessed hope, and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). In writing to Timothy, he thus addresses the man of God: “I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:13,14). In 2 Timothy 4:1, “the appearing and the kingdom” of our Lord are spoken of as truths of primary importance; and what they are to believer is shown by verse 8; for there the apostle says of our hope, “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing”. This passage is enough to show that those who are looking to the coming of Christ in His manifest glory, have the true hope of his advent. Not a word or a hint is there on St. Paul's part that this coming shall be a secret thing: it is a manifestation in glory. One of the events of that point of time is the destruction of “the man of sin, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth, and destroy with the brightness (or manifestation) of His coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). This is the same word as in the passages previously cited; in all these it belongs to our Lord's second coming; in its only other occurrence it relates to His first coming, when the apostle speaks of God's “purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Timothy 1:9,10). It is from the word rendered “appearing” (επιφανεια) that we derive our English term epiphany, applied to our Lord manifestly set forth as the incarnate Son of God.

The same Apostle speaks of the coming of Christ, for which the Church waits, as a revelation; thus the Corinthians are described as “waiting for the coming (margin, revelation) of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:7). The hope of the Thessalonians was “rest...when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power; when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-11). If then the coming which the Church expects can be secret, then equally may all these particulars be secret also: but if secrecy is here intended as to the hopes of the Church, what words could be used which should unequivocally express open publicity?

Even if it were true that the writings of other apostles were “Jewish”, surely those of the Apostle of the Gentiles could not be so restricted: and thus the point that our hope is the manifest appearing of our Lord (and no supposed secret coming) when proved by the teaching of St. Paul, ought to carry conviction even to those who introduce and teach such groundless distinctions.

It has indeed been said [5] that our hope is the coming of the Lord signified by another term (παρουσια), which is, they say, more strictly presence; and in contrast to this, they say, is His shining forth (επιφανεια), the word found in passages already cited, and rendered appearing; this, they say, is the Jewish hope. But, First, παρουσια, the word said to be connected with our hope, is habitually used for “coming” in ordinary expressions: thus, “the coming of Stephanas” (1 Corinthians 16:17); “the coming of Titus” (2 Corinthians 7:6, see, too, verse 7); “my coming to you again”(Philippians 1:26).

Second. This word, which is said to imply a hope for the Church of a secret coming, is that which is used in Matthew 24 (the very chapter which some would represent to be Jewish), in speaking of our Lord's public and glorious appearing. In verse 3, the disciples ask, “What shall be the sign of thy coming?” Our Lord, in His reply, says, “As the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be” (27). “Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (30). This, then, is that coming which shall be as the lightning in open visibility. “As the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (37-39). Is this a secret coming known only to the Church, and not affecting others?

Third. The word επιφανεια, which, on the supposition now under consideration, has to do with the visible appearing of our Lord at some period subsequent to the rapture of the Church, is that which, in Titus 2:13; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:8; is given as the hope of that very Church, whose existence on earth at the time is denied by such theories. This word is not used, except in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, in connection with others besides the Church.

When one event is spoken of in various aspects, different words may be rightly used; and thus παρουτια is the most general term for that one coming of our Lord, which is the object of the Church's hope. Those who have mystified the minds of the uninstructed by incorrect teaching as to the use of the words of Scripture, incur a solemn responsibility; they obtain an advantage as teachers, based wholly on rash assertions; the best that can be supposed of such is that they “understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm”. But they are responsible for misleading others by their assertions, for the sin of ignorance is still sin. [6]

-------------------

[5] So little had I heard of this argument on the words επιφανεια and παρουσια for many years (ever since 1839, when it seemed to be abandoned for other theories), that I should have scarcely thought it needful to notice it, had I not found that it was again revived. I well remember how some used to press it, and how unspiritual they thought the endeavour to show how these words are really used in the New Testament. It is one of the cases in which the attempt has been made to misrepresent the facts of Scripture, and in which the uninstructed and unwary have been misled.

[6] See Appendix E.