Sidor som bilder

bave tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.' These ten days I think should be understood to mean ten years;- according to Ezekiel, chapter 4th. They were to bave tribulation ten years, then was Christ to come and receive thema unto himself, and their tribulation was to be ended."Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. There can be no doubt but that the book of Revelation was written before John's gospel was written. But that John wrote his gospel asier the destruction of Jerusalem, as some think was the case, I cannot believe. I was some surprised of late, at seeing an article from the pen of a very able writer, who was requested to give an explanation upon Matthew xv, 41, where it reads as fol lows: "Then shall they say unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.' From the writer's reply, giving an explanation of this passage, I make the following extract.

"Whatever, therefore, the particular text our friend has called our attention to, may or may not mean, one thing is certain, and that is, that the event mentioned in it was to take place when the Son of man should come and that he was to come within the lifetime of some who then heard him speak, viz :-'immediately after the signs preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in a few years afterwards, even before John wrote his Gospel, and which circumstance will account for the fact that he has said nothing about any of those predictions, for the reason that they had already been fulfilled, and waspast events.”

[ocr errors]

In this parapraph, the writer asserts that the coming of "the Son of man, took place before John wrote his gospel. If this can be proved, I admit that my views on the second coming are erroneous altogether. But before we take all this for granted, ought we not to have some evidence, more than this writer has given. Is it true that John said nothing about the second coming of the Son of man? It cannot be necessary to go over the whole of John's gospel to show that he spoke of the coming of his Lord. This one passage is sufficient. John xiv, 3. 'And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive


unto myself; that where I am, there may ye be also.' This certainly must mean his second coming, for as Mr. Whittemore very justly observes, 'In all bis ministry, he [Christ] never rpoke of any other coming but that which took place at the destruction of Jerusalem.' Could it be that the Son of man received the other disciples unto himself, and left John to write his gospel afterward. I contend that John did not die al all. But at the moment when the other disciples were raised up at the last day, John was changed to immortality, and so all were received by Christ unto himself together.When Christ signified to Peter, by what death he should glorify God, Peter, turning about and seeing John, said, “Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus said unto him, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die.' Now if the Lord at his second coming, was to receive his disciples unto himself, it was natural for the brethren to suppose that if John should tarry until that time, he would not die. For they could not be ignorant of tre fact which Paul spoke of afterwards that the living should be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.' Jesus had before, said unto his disciples, Matthew xvi, 28, "Verily

I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.' Some of them too, had heard him say, speaking of the resurrection at the last day, 'Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." I think there can be little doubt but that Peter mistrusted that John was the one that was to live until the coming of the Lord in his kingdom, and wishing to be satisfied, he ventured to put this question to his Lord.

When the Saviour was speaking to his disciples concerning the tribulations which should come upon the Jews, he said unto them, 'Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. I suppose it may be taken for granted that the disciples were all dead before the second coming of their Lord, excepting John. Certain it is that Peter was dead, for Christ signified to him by what death he should glorify God, and intimated that John should tarry until he should come. Christ also said unto his disciples, Matthew xix, 28, 'Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' Now the time that he was to sit in the throne of his glory, was before the generation then living should pass away; as the writer of the article which I am now considering will admit. See Matthew xxv. 31. 'When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and sall the holy angels with him, Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. According to this writer's own showing, this 'must have taken place a few years afterwards. Here a very important question is to be considered. Did they sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, before they were raised from the

dead? No one, it seems to me, can pretend that they did. And will it do to say, that all but John were raised from the dead, and that all sat on thrones, while John remained in this mortal state? It is true that John does not dwell so much upon the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem-the signs-the coming of Christ in the clouds, &c., as does Matthew, Mark and Luke. But I think this does not prove that these were then past events. He had undoubtedly seen the other three Gospels, and it was unnecessary that he should repeat all which the other three had written. 'In the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established." But he relates many things, and some of them very important ones, which the other three had omitted. Suppose, for a moment, that John's gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem; how shall we account for what is written in chapter v, 2? 'Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market, a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, having five porches.'Had the city of Jerusalem, and the temple been destroyed, before this was written, would he not, instead of saying there is, have said, there was at Jerusalem ?.. If we were to speak now of Jerusalem, we should not say 'there is a temple' there. If I have dwelt longer upon this particular subject than is necessary, it is because I deem it of the utmost importance that it should be clearly understood.


In regard to what is written in the Revelations, which was to be fulfilled after the end of the Jewish world, 1 I shall offer a few thoughts, claiming no more deference than what is due to any other man, fallible like myself. The prophecies contained in this book, do not seem to be written in the order in which they were to be fulfilled, but in the order in which the writer saw them in his vision. Prophecies which were soon to be fulfilled, and others, the fulfillment of which was very far off,», seem »

to be interspersed, from the beginning of the 8th, to the end of the 11th chapter. What is written in chapter ix, 17-19, it is generally supposed has allusion to the use of fire-arms, which was not invented till many centuries after this prophesy was written. 'And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions : out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths. For their power is in their mouth, [muzzle) and in their tails : (breach where the charge is lodged) for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, [balls or shot] and with them they do hurt.' Again in chapter xvi, verse 21. ‘And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent. Dr. Clark, in his remarks on this passage, hints that this great hail, about the weight of a talent may have reference to "cannon balls and bombs." For my part, I think this was a happy thought in the Dr. and I have but little doubt that he hit the true sense. There is a passage in Ezekiel xxxviii, 22, which is very much like this, and like this, seems to allude to the use of fire

It reads thus. 'And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and hailstones, fire and brimstone. The prophecies in the 38th, and part of the 39th chapters of Ezekiel, seem to refer to the Gentiles, and forfaught that can be seen,are as likely to relate to things yet future, as to any former age of the world. The names Gog, Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah, &c., show that this prophesy relates to the Gentiles; for by turning to the 10ih chapter of Genesis, we see that all these names are found among the descendants of Japheth,


« FöregåendeFortsätt »