The
Second Advent
Of all the doctrines of the Gospel, the one about which Christians have
become most unlike the first Christians, in their sense of its true
value, is the doctrine of Christ’s second advent. I am obliged to say
this of all denominations of Protestants. I know’ not of any exception.
In our view of man’s corruption, of justification by faith, of our need
of the sanctifying work of the Spirit, the sufficiency of
Scripture--upon all these points I believe we should find the English
believers were much of one mind with believers at Corinth, Ephesus,
Philippi, or Rome, in former times. But in our view of the second
advent of Christ, I fear we should find there was a mighty difference
between us and them if our experience could be compared. I am afraid we
should find that we fall woefully short of them in our estimate of its
importance: that in our system of doctrine it is a star of the
fifteenth magnitude, while in theirs it was one of the first. In one
word, we should discover, that compared with them in this matter, ac
slumber and sleep.
I must speak my mind on this subject, now that I am upon it. I do so
most unwillingly. I do so at the risk of giving offence, and of rubbing
against the prejudices of many whom I love. But it is a cross I feel it
a duty to take up And speak I must.
I submit, then, that in the matter of Christ’s second coming and
kingdom, the Church of Christ has not dealt fairly with the prophecies
of the Old Testament. We have gone on far too long refusing to see that
there are two personal advents of Christ spoken of in those prophecies:
an advent in humiliation, and an advent in glory--an advent to suffer,
and an advent to reign; a personal advent to carry the cross, and a
personal advent to wear the crown. We have been "slow of heart to
believe ALL that prophets have written" (Luke 24:25). The disciples
went into one extreme: they stumbled at Christ’s sufferings. We have
gone into the other extreme: we have stumbled at Christ’s glory. We
have got into a confused habit of speaking of the kingdom of Christ as
already set up amongst us, and have shut our eves to the fact that the
devil is still the god of this world, and served by the vast majority:
and that our Lord, like David in Adullam, though anointed, is not vet
set upon His throne. We have got into a vicious habit of taking all the
promises spiritually, and all the denunciations and threats literally.
The denunciations against Babylon and Nineveh and Edom, we have been
content to take literally, and hand over to our neighbors. The
blessings and promises of glory to Zion, Jerusalem, Jacob and Israel,
we have taken spiritually, and comfortably applied them to ourselves
and the Church of Christ. To bring forward proofs of this would be
waste of time. No man can hear many sermons, and read many
commentaries, without being aware that it is a fact.
Unfair Interpretation
Now I believe this to have been an unfair system of interpreting
Scripture. I hold that the first and primary sense of every Old
Testament promise as well as threat is the literal one--and that Jacob
means Jacob, Jerusalem means Jerusalem, Zion means Zion and Israel
means Israel, as much as Egypt means Egypt and Babylon means Babylon.
The primary sense, I believe, we have sadly lost sight of. We have
adapted and accommodated to the Church of Christ the promises that were
spoken by God to Israel and Zion. I do not mean to say that this
accommodation is in no sense allowable. But I do mean to say that the
primary sense of every prophecy and promise in Old Testament prophecy
was intended to have a literal fulfillment, and that this literal
fulfillment has been far too much put aside and thrust into a corner.
And by so doing I think we have exactly fulfilled our Lord’s words in
the parable of the ten virgins--we have proved that we are slumbering
and sleeping about the second advent of Christ.
But I submit further, that in the interpretation of the New Testament,
the Church of Christ has dealt almost as unfairly with our Lord’s
second advent, as she has done in the interpretation of the Old. Men
have got into a habit of putting a strange sense upon many of those
passages which speak of "the coming of the Son of Man", or of "the
Lord’s appearing". And this habit has been far too readily submitted
to. Some tell us that the coming of the Son of Man often means death.
No one can read the thousands of epitaphs in Churchyards, in which some
text about the coming of Christ is thrust in, and not perceive how
widespread is this view. Some tell us that our Lord’s coming means the
destruction of Jerusalem. This is a very common way of interpreting the
expression. Many find the literal Jerusalem everywhere in New Testament
prophecies, though, oddly enough, they refuse to see it in the Old
Testament prophecies. Some tell us that our Lord’s coming means the
general judgment, and the end of all things. This is their one answer
to all inquiries about things to come.
Now I believe that all these interpretations are entirely beside the
mark. I have not the least desire to underrate the importance of such
subjects as death and judgment. I willingly concede that the
destruction of Jerusalem is typical of many things connected with our
Lord’s second advent, and is spoken of in chapters where that mighty
event is foretold. But I must express my own firm belief that the
coming of Christ is one distinct thing, and that death, judgment and
the destruction of Jerusalem are three other distinct things. And the
wide acceptance which these strange interpretations have met with, I
hold to be one more proof that in the matter of Christ’s second advent,
the Church has long slumbered and slept.
The Truth of Scripture
The plain truth of Scripture I believe to be as follows: Christ will
come again to this world with power and great glory. He will raise His
saints, and gather them to Himself. He will punish with fearful
judgments all who are found His enemies, and reward with glorious
rewards all His believing people. He will take to Himself His great
power, and reign, and establish a universal kingdom. He will gather the
scattered tribes of Israel, and place them once more in their own land.
As He came the first time in person, so He will come the second time in
person. As He went away from earth visibly, so He will return visibly.
As He literally rode upon an ass--was literally sold for thirty pieces
of silver--had His hands and feet literally pierced--was numbered
literally with the transgressors--and had lots literally cast upon His
raiment--and all, that Scripture might be fulfilled--so also He will
literally come, literally set up a kingdom, and literally reign over
the earth, because the very same Scripture has said that it shall be so.
The words of the angels, in the first of Acts, are plain and
unmistakable: "This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven" (Acts
1:11). So also the words of the Apostle Peter: "The times of refreshing
shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus
Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must
receive until the times of restitution of all things which God bath
spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began"
(Acts 3:19-21). So also the words of the Psalmist: "When the Lord shall
build up Zion He shall appear in His glory" (Ps. 102:16). So also the
words of Zechariah: "the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints
with thee" (Zech. 14:5). So also the words of Isaiah: "The Lord of
hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His
ancients gloriously" (Isa. 24:23). So also the words of Jeremiah: "I
will bring again the captivity of My people Israel and Judah, saith the
Lord, and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their
fathers, and they shall possess it". "I will bring again the captivity
of Jacob’s tents, and have mercy on his dwelling place; and the city
shall be built on her own heap" (Jer. 30:3 and 18). So also the words
of Daniel: "Behold, one like unto the Son of man came with the clouds
of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near
before him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,
that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion
is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom
that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan. 7:13, 14). All these texts are
to my mind plain prophecies of Christ’s second coming and kingdom. All
are yet without their accomplishment, and all shall yet be literally
and exactly fulfilled.
Literal Exactitude
I say "literally and exactly fulfilled" and I say so advisedly. From
the first day that I began to read the Bible with my heart, I have
never been able to see these texts, and hundreds like them, in any
other light. It always seemed to me that as we take literally the texts
foretelling that the walls of Babylon shall be cast down, so we ought
to take literally the texts foretelling that the walls of Zion shall be
built up--that as according to prophecy the Jews were literally
scattered, so according to prophecy the Jews will be literally
gathered--and that as the least and minutest predictions were made good
on the subject of our Lord’s coming to suffer, so the minutest
predictions shall be made good which describe our Lord’s coming to
reign. And I have long felt it is one of the greatest shortcomings of
the Church of Christ that we ministers do not preach enough about this
advent of Christ, and that private believers do not think enough about
it. A few of us here and there receive the doctrine, and profess to
love it, but the number of such persons is comparatively very small.
And, after all, we none of us live on it, feed on it, work from it,
take comfort in it, as much as God intended us to do. In short, the
Bridegroom tarries, and we all slumber and sleep.
It proves nothing against the doctrine of Christ’s second coming and
kingdom, that it has sometimes been fearfully abused. I should like to
know what doctrine of the Gospel has not been abused. Salvation by
grace has been made a pretext for licentiousness--election an excuse
for
all manner of unclean living--and justification by faith a warrant for
Antinomianism. But if men will draw wrong conclusions, we are not
therefore obliged to throw aside good principles. We do not give up the
Gospel because of the outrageous conduct of the Anabaptists of Munster,
or the extravagant assertions of Saltmarsh and William Huntington, or
the strange proceedings of Jumpers and Shakers. And where is the
fairness of telling us that we ought to reject the second advent of
Christ because there were Fifth Monarchy Men in the days of the
Commonwealth, and Irvingites and Millerites in our own time. Alas, men
must be hard pressed for an argument when they have no better reasons
than this!
It proves nothing against the second advent of Christ, that those who
hold the doctrine differ among themselves on many particular points in
prophecy. Such differences need never stumble anyone, who recollects
that unity on great points is perfectly consistent with disagreement on
small ones. Luther and Zwinglius differed widely in their views of the
Lord’s Supper: yet who would think of saving that therefore
Protestantism is all false? Fletcher and Toplady were both clergymen in
the Church of England, but differed widely about Calvinism: yet where
would be the sense of saving that all Evangelical religion was
therefore untrue? In common fairness this ought to be remembered when
people talk of the differences among those who study prophecy. It is
possible for men to differ much as to meaning they place on the symbols
in the book of Revelation, and yet on the matter of Christs coming and
kingdom they may be substantially agreed.
It proves nothing against the doctrine that it is encompassed with many
difficulties. This I fully concede. The order of events connected with
our Lord’s coming, and the manner of His kingdom when it is set up, are
both deep subjects, and hard to be understood. But I firmly believe
that the difficulties connected with any other system of interpreting
unfulfilled prophecy are just twice as many as those which are said to
stand in our way. I believe too that the difficulties connected with
our Lord’s second coming are not half so many as those connected with
His first, and that it was a far more improbable thing, "a priori",
that the Son of God should come to suffer, than it is that He should
come to reign. And, after all, what have we to do with the "how" and
"in what manner" prophecies are to be fulfilled? Is our miserable
understanding of what is possible, to be the measure and limit of God’s
dealings? The only question we have to do with is, "Has God said a
thing?" If He has, we ought not to doubt it shall be done.
The Writer’s Testimony
For myself, I can only give my own individual testimony; but the little
I know experimentally of the doctrine of Christ’s second coming makes
me regard it as most practical and precious, and makes me long to see
it more generally received.
I find it a powerful spring and stimulus to holy living--a motive for
patience, for moderation, for spiritual-mindedness--a test for the
employment of time--and a gauge for all my actions: "Should I like my
Lord to find me in this place--should I like Him to find me so doing"?
I find it the strongest argument for missionary work. The time is
short. The Lord is at hand. The gathering out from all nations will
soon be accomplished. The heralds and forerunners of the King will soon
have proclaimed the Gospel in every nation. The night is far spent. The
King will soon be here.
I find it the best answer to the infidel. He sneers at our churches and
chapels, at our sermons and services, at our tracts and our Schools. He
points to the millions who care nothing for Christianity after 1,900
years of preaching. He asks me how I can account for it, if
Christianity be true. I answer, It was never said that all the world
would believe and serve Christ under the present dispensation. I tell
him the state of things he ridicules was actually foreseen, and the
number of true Christians, it was predicted, would be few. But I tell
him Christ’s kingdom is yet to come; and although we see not yet all
things put under Him, they will be so one day.
I find it the best argument with the Jew. If I do not take all the
prophecy of Isaiah literally, I know not how I can persuade him that
the 53rd chapter is literally fulfilled. But if I do, I have a
resting-place for my lever, which I know he cannot shake. How men can
expect the Jews to see a Messiah coming to suffer in the Old Testament
prophecies, if they do not themselves see in them a Messiah coming to
reign, is past my understanding.
And now, is there one among the readers of this address who cannot
receive the doctrine of Christ’s second advent and kingdom? I invite
that man to consider the subject calmly and dispassionately. Dismiss
from your mind traditional interpretations. Separate the doctrine from
the mistakes and blunders of many who hold it. Do not reject the
foundation because of the wood, hay, and stubble which some have built
upon it. Do not condemn it and cast it aside because of injudicious
friends. Only examine the texts which speak of it, as calmly and fairly
as you weigh texts in the Romish, Arian, or Socinian controversies, and
I am hopeful as to the result on your mind. Alas, if texts of
Scriptures were always treated as unceremoniously as I have known texts
to be treated by those who dislike the doctrine of Christ’s second
advent, I should indeed tremble for the cause of truth.
Is there any one among the readers of this address who agrees with the
principles I have tried to advocate? I beseech that man to endeavour to
realize the second coming of Christ more and more. Truly we feel it but
little compared with what we ought to do, at the very best. Be gentle
in argument with those that differ from you. Remember that a man may be
mistaken on this subject, and yet be a holy child of God. It is not the
slumbering on this subject that ruins souls, but the want of grace!
Above all, avoid dogmatism and positiveness, and specially about
symbolical prophecy. It is a sad truth, but a truth never to be
forgotten, that none have injured the doctrine of the second coming so
much as its over-zealous friends.
* J. C. Ryle's position was
post-trib premillennial.