_It is a wrong use of the Bible to disregard the chronological order of
its parts in constructing our theology._
We are not to read the Biblical writers as though they were all
cotemporaries. They are separated by vast tracts of time. The later
writers stand upon the shoulders of their predecessors and see further and
clearer. We are not to view the institutions or doctrines of the Bible as
though, no matter in what period of the development of the Hebrew Nation
or of the Christian Church they are found, they were equally authoritative
upon us. That would be to say that green apples are as good food for us as
ripe ones. The time-perspective is essential to set any Biblical
institution or dogma in the true light.
Romanists and our own Ritualists entrench their sacerdotalism behind the
priestly system of the Jews. As though, because that was once needful and
serviceable to an ignorant, half heathen people, it was still
indispensible to us. As though what providence once ordained, providence
perpetually imposed on humanity. Such a rule would keep us with our
primers always in our hands. Progress is marked by the debris of discarded
institutions, wholesome and necessary once, but incumbrances after a time.
The whole _rationale_ of sacerdotalism is exploded by this simple common
sense principle; and we see in its light the significance of Paul's
impatient sweeping away of the Law; of the entire ignoring of the
sacrifice and the priesthood in the life and teaching of Jesus himself.
"The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain,
Nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. God is spirit;
And they that worship must worship him in spirit and in truth."
Dogmas also must be seen in historical perspective. Thus, for example, the
doctrine of the Second Advent, which still exercises the Christian mind,
is wholly cleared up as looked at through the time-vista.
We see the progress of the Messianic expectation through the centuries
immediately prior to the age of Christ, in our old Testament books and in
the Apocryphal writings. In these latter works we see it gradually
gathering round itself visions of the winding up of the present aeon, the
renovation of the earth, the judgment of the nations, the resurrection of
the pious dead, and the opening of a millenial era in which the Messiah
should rule the world from Jerusalem. It would appear to have even
developed the notion that the Messiah, after his appearance on earth,
would depart into the spirit-world, to consummate his preparation; and
would return thence to assume full power. This had became the popular
expectation by the Christian era.
When then the early Christians became satisfied that Jesus was the
Messiah, it followed of necessity that they should after his death, say to
themselves--"He has gone into the heavens to receive his institution into
the office he has won by his sinless life and suffering death. He will
come again in the clouds with power; the conquering Messiah."
This belief seems to have taken shape first in Paul's fervid mind. His
earlier epistles were full of it. His converts became unsettled by it, and
in their excited expectation of the return of the Messiah they neglected
their earthly duties; and Paul had to caution them against this impatience
and cool their heated minds.
This and other experiences sobered Paul's own mind. He found that as year
after year came round the Messiah did not return. In the rapid ripening of
thought which went on in the tropical climate of his soul, he grew into a
more spiritual apprehension of Christ. If you read his undoubted letters
in the order of their writing; First Thessalonians, First and Second
Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, etc., you will note a steady decrease of
reference to this topic, until it fades away into a vague vision of the
dawning day of God; the absolute assurance that Christ would conquer and
rule the earth, though it might be in the spirit and not in the flesh; the
certain conviction of a good time coming though beyond his ken. The later
light of the apostle corrected his earlier misapprehensions; and would
correct our crude and carnal notions of the second coming of Christ, if we
would only study Paul, as we study Turner or Shakespeare, in his ripening
'periods.'
Were this one principle followed, our popular theology would soon
reconstruct itself.