There are three things to be approved by the faithful in the truth, which are good, better, and best. Opposition to the gospel of the kingdom is good, belief of it is better, and obedience to it, best. If men will not believe and obey it, the next best thing they can do for the truth, is to oppose it with all their might and main. This is good; not for themselves, indeed, but for the dissemination of the truth. Lucifer match paste is incendiary and destructive; but left alone it is neither. Is it not so also with the truth? Leave the truth alone; bring it not forth from its magazine; let there be no agitation about it, and the truth will be as innocuous, as peaceable, and harmless, as a lamb – no one would be converted by it; and no man’s crotchets would be endangered nor disturbed.
We rejoice, then, when the adversaries of David’s throne and kingdom make war upon them. We hope they will give them no rest. Let them bring all their “men of learning,” all their “good shaped heads” and “good voices,” let them array all their “powers,” tacts, and talents, against them – “The virgin, the daughter of Zion, despises them, and laughs them to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem shakes her head at them;” and the merest stripling of David’s house will hook their nostrils and bridle their lips, and turn them back whither they came. – (Isai. 37:22, 29.) Collision causes the truth to shine with a brightness destructive of the enemy. Let them oppose, it is good; their opposition is the rage of an infant against a rock; the demonstration is attractive, proving they are troubled by what they cannot subdue.
Abstractly παλιγγενεσια, rendered “regeneration,” signifies a producing again – a meaning which implies that the thing or things so produced existed in some state previously to reproduction. In Matt. 19:28, the word is used in reference to thrones, tribes, glory, ruling, and rulers; which are the elements of a kingdom. It is therefore used there in a political sense, and implied when so used by “the king of the Jews,” that those things did not then organically exist, but that they should be thereafter reproduced. The kingdom of the twelve tribes had existed in the Holy Land, the only country where it can exist; but when Jesus spoke the words, the Holy Land was a province of the Little Horn of the Goat – the power that afterwards destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. From the days of John the Baptizer’s proclamation to the present time, Jehovah and his king’s land has continued to be a province of the Little House. “We have no king but Cæsar,” was the public avowal of a fact attested by all history to this day. Cæsar has been de facto though not de jure, king of the Jews ever since. The Sultan is for the present the representative of the Goat’s Little Horn. Could a kingdom be set up in the Palestinian province of his empire, under a proclamation that M. Rothschild was king of the Jews, and not Abdul Medjid, against the Sultan’s will enforced by the Pasha of Jerusalem? Neither could a kingdom be established there under the old Sultan Tiberius Cæsar, in the presence of his Pasha Pontius Pilate, under a proclamation that Jesus, and not Tiberius, was king of the Jews. Not only was Cæsar’s pasha ready to suppress all such treasonable attempts, but the Jews themselves and their rulers, were determined to uphold the Gentile government against any movement in the name of the hated Nazarene.
No, the kingdom of the Twelve Tribes did not exist when their de jure but not de facto, king Jesus spoke the words; nor has it in any sense existed there since. To affirm the contrary is preposterous. Some say it was set up because the apostles assembled together in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. They might as well affirm that the United States was set up in Great Britain, because the American ambassador and his fellow-citizens met at the London Tavern to celebrate the Fourth of July. It would require something more to set up the Union there, than to celebrate American independence, and to hold meetings to preach its principles, and to make proselytes to universal liberty and equality. So long as Queen Victoria ruled the land, with the army and people on her side, there could be no setting up of Presidentialism without treason against her person and authority. A kingdom or republic is something more than an abstraction, or unorganized elements. Two hostile kingdoms cannot co-exist in the same capital; much less possible is it for Cæsar and Messiah to reign together over Jerusalem; and to speak of the apostles reigning in or over that city, where, at the will of Cæsar’s vassals they were cast into prison, and finally expelled, is too absurd for serious confutation.
The throne of David, and the thrones of David’s house, the glory of Jehovah, the twelve tribes, and their twelve ruling princes, all existed in Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the days of David and Solomon. Seeing then, that they did not exist when the greater than Solomon was there, nor since, it follows that reproduction in relation to what Jesus and his apostles were interested in, imports the restoration of those things to their appropriate place. This is what the apostles themselves understood was to be accomplished “in the regeneration;” for, after Jesus had been discoursing to them about the kingdom some forty days subsequent to his resurrection, they inquired of him, “Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?” This question shows that they did not consider that Israel possessed a, or the kingdom; therefore, they wished to know if he would not then re-produce it. How do the opponents of the truth evade the force of this? Oh, nothing more easy! “The apostles were ignorant, and did not know what they were talking about!” They had not studied at some orthodox school of Gentilism; and were, consequently, too carnal, too Jewish, in their notions of the kingdom. Then we must study Gentile theology to understand the words of Jesus and his apostles! Reader, is this your conviction? If it be, then burn your Bible, and cast the Herald into the bottomless abyss; you have no use for either.
In the re-production of the kingdom of the Twelve Tribes, the territory, the nation, and the capital, will all be the same – the Holy Land, the Twelve Tribes, and Jerusalem. The government will be monarchical “as in the days of old.” This will not be changed. The persons by whom the government will be administered will be different. Instead of David, succeeded by Solomon, succeeded by Rehoboam, it will be “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” succeeded by no one; and instead of the princes of David succeeded by the princes of Solomon, etc., it will be the apostles and brethren of Jesus, the immortal princes of the house of Bethlehem, succeeded by none: for “The kingdom shall not be left to other people,” as in former years – (Dan. 2:44.) None, who have not previously been the subject of “a change of heart” – “renewed by knowledge after the image of God” – can have any part in that kingdom. This will exclude all unbelievers, for “they are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them.” They despise “the word of the kingdom;” and it is written, that “Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed” – (Prov. 13:13.) Without knowledge, there is no righteousness – “Sanctify them through Thy truth; thy word is truth.” Ignorance of this truth is a barrier against sanctification by it. The truth must be known to be believed; and without faith, or belief of the gospel of the kingdom, it is impossible to please God; and he that pleaseth not God is not righteous; and “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
There is a difference between the subjects of a kingdom and the heirs of a kingdom. The latter are they who are to rule over the kingdom, and to possess the glory and honour of it for ever; the former, the nation which is to obey their statutes and ordinances. Believers are not the subjects of the kingdom. They rank higher than this. They are to rule. They are joint heirs of all things promised to their Elder Brother – the Joseph of the family. If the opponents of the truth understood this, they would not prate about a kingdom being set up in Jerusalem or Pentecost. The apostles and their brethren were all joint heirs, and rulers of the kingdom elect. This is irrefutable; where then, were their subjects? Let them answer this if they can.
The subjects of the kingdom are the generations of the ages – those generations of the Twelve Tribes contemporary with the reign of Jesus on his father David’s throne in Jerusalem: the descendants of the old clothes men of Chatham Street, New York, and of Rag Fair, in London; and of the down-trodden and despised outcasts of Israel in all the Ghettos of Rome, Constantinople, and other sinks of Gentile abomination and iniquity. These outcasts, however degraded, are not lower in the social scale than the Egyptian bondsmen from whom sprang the generation that conquered Canaan, and were the terror and admiration of the Orient under David and Solomon. The first generation that shall be resettled in the Holy Land by Jesus will be brought into the righteousness prepared of God for its justification. “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more,” says Jehovah, and “they shall be all righteous:” a righteous nation, whose shepherds shall be after Jehovah’s heart, and shall feed them with knowledge and understanding. – (Jer. 3:15.)
There was no “change of government” effected in Jerusalem on Pentecost. All the Jews that resided or sojourned in that city, whether Nazarenes or not, continued to obey the laws. The Roman Government was not changed; and the municipal and the ecclesiastical customs were observed as usual, and for nearly forty years after. All that the Christian Hebrews did was to cease from asking righteousness by works of law. A Christian in Britain abstains from seeking salvation through state-church, or dissenting institutions; nevertheless, he pays tithes, and taxes, and is careful not to violate the law. It was so with the Pentecostian Christians – they continued to render unto Cæsar what belonged to him, and to God the things that were his.
The great event of the Day of Pentecost was, the proclamation for the first time of repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus as the Messiah, to all those who believed the gospel of the kingdom, and recognised his claims to its throne. All such were baptized, and became a society in Jerusalem; not a kingdom, but suffering tribulation in hope of receiving one.
The opponents of the truth amuse themselves with ill-timed levity about “David’s wooden throne,” as if a wooden throne, once sat on by David, was the precise article to be restored for Jesus to sit upon. “Throne is used for that magnificent seat whereon sovereign princes usually sit to receive the homage of their subjects, or to give audience to ambassadors; where they appear with pomp and ceremony, and from whence they dispense justice.” The Scripture describes the throne of Solomon as the finest and richest throne in the world. Thus it is written in 1 Kings 10:18: “Solomon made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold. The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind, and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays. And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps – there was not the like made in any kingdom.
This description shows that “throne” is a word representative of something occupying less space than “from Dan to Beersheba.” It is true that “throne” is also put for sovereign power and dignity, it being the symbol of royalty and regal authority – “Only on the throne,” said Pharoah to Joseph, “will I be greater than thou.” It is not pretended that Jesus is to sit upon the identical piece of palace furniture made by David’s cabinet maker, or Solomon’s goldsmith. No; θρονοι, thrones, from θραω, thrao, to sit, signifies an elevated seat with a footstool; and the city that contains such a seat occupied by a king, is also styled in Scripture a throne – the container being put for the contained. Hence, as Zion and Jerusalem were the dwelling place and seat of David and his dominion when he ruled the Twelve Tribes as king for Jehovah, they are styled “the throne of Jehovah,” and “the throne of David. – (Jer. 3:16.) To restore the throne of David, therefore, is to set up a royalty in the Holy Land, with the regal authority located in Jerusalem. But this is not all. To constitute the throne of the monarchy David’s throne, the Twelve Tribes of Israel must be planted in the land, and the person occupying the throne must be a son of David. A royalty in the Holy Land with British or French for the subjects, and a Gentile reigning over them on Mount Zion would not be David’s throne, though the regal authority were seated in Jerusalem. It is the regal authority in David’s house, executing judgment and justice in the Holy Land from Jerusalem, as its palatial residence, that is David’s throne – the regal authority enthroned, or seated there, and exercised by himself or a descendant. We look for the re-establishment of such a throne as this in Jerusalem, when we speak of the restoration of David’s throne; without regard to the cabinet or upholstery work of the material seat, be it of wood, ivory, or gold. The Messiah, as his father Solomon, will exercise his own wisdom and taste in the matter; it is enough for us to believe the testimony.
The Ten Tribes of Israel were not lost to the apostles. The apostles knew where they were when they addressed the 3,000 on Pentecost. Everyone else knows who believes the Bible, as well as they. “Jehovah was angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight; there was none left but the tribes of Judah only” – (2 Kings 18:18.) “So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day” – (ver. 23): and “they were placed in Halah, and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” – (ver. 17:6.) “But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, that they might keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river. For the Most High then showed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. For through that country there was a great way to go, namely of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arzareth. Then dwelt they there until the latter time. And now when they shall begin to come, the Highest shall stay the springs of the stream again – (see Isaiah 11:15, 16), that they may go through” – (2 Esdras 13:40, 47.)
Josephus also, who was contemporary with the apostles, in his speech to the factions, persuading them to surrender to Titus, told them that it was useless to hold out, expecting succour from the Ten Tribes, as the Parthians lay between them and the Holy Land; who would not permit them to march through their country, if they desired so to do. The apostles knew that the Ten Tribes were in a far distant land beyond Parthia. But this is nothing to some. They can have ten apostles sitting upon thrones in Jerusalem, ruling ten tribes of their nation in Arzareth (supposed to be Affghanistan) without having the least power to make their will known, or to enforce a simple decree. Nothing is too hard for Gentile credulity – it can give evidence to any absurdity; but for the testimony of God it has no faith.
We deny that the apostles have yet ruled the Ten Tribes in any sense; but, with full assurance of faith and hope, we believe, that Messiah will bring them back to the Holy Land, and “settle them there after their old estates;” and that then, and not till then, will the apostles rule them according to the promise.
An opponent says, that “Those who talk about the restoration of the tribes of Israel had better talk about the restoration of their own lost senses!” Of course, he that utters this does not believe in their restoration. It is, therefore, very certain that he does not believe the gospel of the kingdom; for no restoration no kingdom; and no kingdom no salvation for Jews nor Gentiles. Then we have lost our senses, and are new cases for that lunatic asylum where the Jews placed Jesus – (Jno. 10:20) and Festus the apostle Paul – (Acts 26:24.) As we have said, we assuredly believe that all the tribes will be restored to the land covenanted to Abraham and his seed; and that not a single straggler will be left behind. Now hear, oh ye pious infidels, so wise in your own conceit, what a madman of ancient times testifies concerning Israel’s return:
“Thus saith Jehovah Elohim: behold I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock on the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they be in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel … And I will bring that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment” – (Ezek. 24:11.)
“And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I, Jehovah, will be to them for Elohim, and my servant David, a prince among them … And they shall no more be a prey to the nations, neither bear the shame of the nations any more … for I will take them from among the nations, and gather them out of all countries, and will bring them into their own land … And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all … And David, my servant, shall be king over them … and shall be their prince for ever” – (Vers. 23, 24, 28, 29; 36:24; 37:22, 24, 25.)
Any honest, unsophisticated mind, reading this can understand it. Such a one can see that it relates to Israel’s future, and to that only; for the testimony declares, that Israelites shall no more be a prey to the nations, and bear these nations’ reproaches and ill-treatment no more: but they do now endure them all, and are now a prey; therefore, the word being true, it follows that the testimony concerns the future.
Yes, and not a single straggler shall be left in a foreign land, however indisposed he may now be to return to Palestine. Hear this, ye Gentiles, who make the word of God of none effect by your nonsensical traditions, what that glorious old “madman,” as ye call those who believe his doctrine, says in regard to this:
“And it shall come to pass,” says Moses, “when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse which I have set before thee, and thou shall call them to mind among all the nations whither I Shall Be thine Elohim hath driven thee, and shall return unto I Shall Be thy Elohim, and shall obey His voice according to all that I command you this day, thou and thy children with all thy heart: that then I Shall Be thine Elohim will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the people, whither I Shall Be thine Elohim hath scattered thee.
“If any of thine be driven out unto the outermost parts of heaven, from thence will I Shall Be thy Elohim gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee; and I Shall Be thine Elohim will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.” – (Deut. 30:1, 5.)
The doctrine of the restoration of the Twelve Tribes was also inculcated by the “Prophet like unto Moses,” who said to his contemporaries what is equally applicable to ours, “If ye believe not Moses’ writings how can ye believe my words?” In his prophecy on Mount Olivet, he said, “The Son of Man (the I Shall Be thine Elohim of Moses) shall send His messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen (people) from the four winds, from the outmost heavens even to their extremities.” – (Matt. 24:21.)
Such is the concurrent testimony of Ezekiel, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, etc., all speaking by one and the same Spirit. Had they lost their senses? Only think of it, reader, the blind leaders of the blind in general charging the Holy Spirit in effect with having lost His senses!! We know not how much nearer men can come in these times to the “sin against the Holy Spirit” than this. Happy, happy, is he who believes the simple truth; yea, thrice happy is he who is stigmatized as a lunatic by such blind guides. “Christians!” – call them Christians and ministers of Christ who deny the work the Father hath appointed him to do! “To bring back Jacob to Him; to raise up His tribes, and to restore the desolation of Israel; to establish the land, and cause to possess the desolate estates” – (Isai. 40.; 9:5, 6, 8): deny this, and how can any one pretend to understand, believe, and teach the truth as it is taught in Christ Jesus?
But, say the rejectors of Israel’s restoration, John the Baptist says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” taught, that “the kingdom was at hand, and indeed come to hand.” They tell us the kingdom was set upon the day of Pentecost, and that it had come to hand seven years before, that is, when John began to preach. Now, we would like to know how the kingdom was come, and not come at one and the same time? If the kingdom had come to hand when John began to preach, and was not set up till the day of Pentecost, seven years after, where was the kingdom during that seven years? By “kingdom” they understand “reign,” according to the teaching of George Campbell, of Aberdeen; but, will they just think for themselves, and tell us where the reign was that had “come to hand,” but was not administered till after seven years?
Leaving them to their dilemma, we proceed to remark, that the translation of John the Baptizer’s words into Greek by him who prepared the first version of Matthew in that tongue, is, ηγγικε ή βασιλεια των ουρανων engike he basileia ton ouranon. It is well known, that the English version does not render this correctly. The French has it, “Le royaume des cieux est proche” – the kingdom of the heavens is near. The Spanish renders it, “Se ha acercado el reino de los cielos” – “the kingdom of the heavens has acceded.” In the Italian, “Il regno de’ cieli ̈ vicino” – “the kingdom of the heavens is near.” And the German, “Das himmelreich ist nahe herbey gekommen” – “the heaven-kingdom is near by here to come.”
None of these versions accurately express the meaning of the Greek. The difficulty in their case has been with the words βασιλεια and ηγγικε. The former they have rendered kingdom in their several languages, as the nominative to the verb ηγγικε; which they could not render according to its proper tense, which is the perfect, not being able to see in what sense John the Baptizer could say “it has approached.” If they had rightly comprehended βασιλεια the difficulty would have been removed; we shall therefore show what we conceive to be its import, that we may escape from the entanglement.
Etymologically then, basileia is a substantive derived from the neuter plural of the adjective βασιλειος, which signifies royal, regal, or anything pertaining to a βασιλειος, basileus, or king. In its radical sense, therefore, basileia signifies what pertains to a king. Hence, a kingly territory, regal authority, majesty, royalty, the title and honour of king, royal power or dignity, etc., may all be expressed by basileia. But, which of these senses are we to adopt in interpreting the words of John? That must be determined by the context. Now the context shows that John the Baptizer was alluding, not to the reign, nor to the territory, nor to the power; but to the person to whom the title and honour of king belonged – “The Lord.” The quotation from Isaiah which immediately follows proves this. Turn, reader, to Matt. 3:1, 3, and Isai. 40:3. Matthew tells us that John came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent, ye, for the basileia of the heavens engike.” He then quotes Isaiah, showing that John and what he preached, were the fulfilment of one of his prophecies, “For this (John) is he,” says Matthew, “who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying (or preaching) in the wilderness.” What did he preach? Matthew has told us; but what saith Isaiah? Hear him – “Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim,” … and then adds, “the בכוֹר יתוֹת, kevod yehowah, the majesty of Jehovah, shall be revealed.
This “Majesty of Jehovah” was the basileia ton ouranon John proclaimed as having approached. John was “Jehovah’s messenger sent before the face of Jehovah’s Majesty, to prepare the way of His Majesty before him.” – (Mark 1:2.) “Thou, child,” said Zacharias to John, “shall be called the prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways.” The messengers sent from Jerusalem to John asked him, “Why baptizeth thou if thou be neither the Christ, Elijah, nor the Prophet?” John replied, “I baptize with water; but there standeth one among you whom you know not: He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me … for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he (the Majesty of Jehovah) should be made manifest (or revealed) to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water.” – (John 1:25, 31.) “I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize in water, the same said to me, upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw, and bare record that Jesus is the Son of God.” – (5:32, 34.)
From this testimony we learn
- That the kevod yehowah and the basileia ton ouranon are the same; and that they refer to a person;
- That this royal person had come, and was living in the midst of his nation; but that neither John nor any of his contemporaries, were able to identify him;
- That John knew Jesus, because he was his cousin: but did not know that his cousin, according to the flesh, was the Majesty of Jehovah and Israel’s Elohim;
- That his Divine Majesty, the King of Israel, was to be revealed to Israel by a notable and unmistakable sign from heaven;
- That this sign was the descent of the Spirit upon him in the form of a dove, and remaining;
- That said sign rested upon Jesus, and with the voice accompanying it, proved him to be the Majesty of Jehovah; and,
- That John’s proclamation “the Basileia hath approached,” was made during his incognito; that is, before his manifestation at his baptism.
In Mark the phrase basileia ton ouranon is converted into basileia ton theon,” “kingdom of God.” In his dissertation upon this phrase, Dr. George Campbell considers “the heavens” as a metonymy for “God,” who is in Scripture, sometimes by periphrasis, denominated he that dwelleth in heaven.” In support of this, he quotes from Daniel, where it is written, “Thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule.” The prophet had said in the preceding verse, “seven times shall pass over thee, till thou knowest that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men.” Thus he who is denominated “the Most High” in one verse, is termed “the heavens” in the following.
I have no objection to this view of the matter, βασιλεια standing for “Majesty;” and των ουρανων of the heavens, for “of Jehovah.” The verb ηγγικε should be rendered with its appropriate sign of the perfect, and then the sentence will be complete – “The Majesty of the Heavens,” or “The Majesty of Jehovah has approached.”
In his preaching, John made this the reason why those who heard him should “repent.” – “Repent ye;” said he, “because His Divine Majesty is in the midst of you; and about to be revealed through my baptism. This was a very cogent and intelligent reason why they should prepare themselves by righteousness. The King of Israel, who was then about speedily to appear from the water of the Jordan, was a king who would “fulfil all righteousness;” it was therefore fitting that at his manifestation he should find a people having the knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins, whom he could recognise as his associates. This people he found in John’s disciples, from whom he selected his apostles; because, unlike the Pharisees and lawyers, they honoured God in yielding obedience to the proclamation of John. – (Luke 7:29, 30.)
Let us not be misunderstood. We give the foregoing exegesis, as applicable to the words of John the Baptizer, of Jesus, and of his apostles, in their proclamation of repentance; and not as an interpretation of ἡ βασιλεια των ουρανων wherever they occur. Basileia has more significations than one; but which of its several is to be used in a particular place, must be determined by the context.
But here we must dismiss the subject for the present, in hope that our Campbellite and other sectarian friends will be able to discern the truth of the matter; and in so doing be delivered from their embarrassing speculations about a kingdom being at hand at a time when no such intimation was ever given; but on the contrary the very opposite was diligently enforced. Jesus spoke a parable to discourage so untimely an expectation. – (Luke 19:11.) No kingdom till his return.
John Thomas, – Herald, 1856, reproduced in The Christadelphian 1878
