In Proposition 34, George Peters states:
“The Prophets describe this restored Kingdom, its extension, glory, etc., without distinguishing between the First and Second Advents.”
This proposition is an interesting one and a statement I honestly had to think about for a bit. What exactly is Peters saying here? I will let one of his observations do the talking.
The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 34 is the following:
“Learned men, feeling the force of this uniformity, have supposed, correctly, that some good reason produced it, and to assign one, tell us how prophetic vision glances from the lower to the higher hills, passing over the intermediate valleys, etc., thus presenting a beautiful and glowing picture of ecstatic vision. While there is truth in this description, it utterly fails to assign any reason for it, only presenting the manner in which it is done. The leading motive for such a non-discrimination of First and Second Advent will be found in the offer of this same Kingdom to the Jewish nation at the First Advent, and, upon its rejection by the nation, in its postponement to the Second Advent. Te proof for this will be abundantly forthcoming; at the present it is desirable that this characteristic of the prophets be constantly kept in mind, because it evinces a predetermined offer of the Kingdom, in view of the election of the nation, at the First Advent; and the issue also being foreknown (amazing knowledge! a postponing to the Second Advent), it conditioned the necessity of only speaking of the Advent, without directly specifying a First or a Second. This intermingling and blending of Advents, or rather, this non-discrimination of Advents, is purposely done, (1) to allow full latitude to the freedom of the nation; (2) to evince the foreknowledge, truthfulness, and faithfulness of God; (3) to test the faith of His people; (4) to throw the responsibility of Christ’s rejection upon the nation; (5) to prepare the way for the engrafting of the Gentiles; (6) to avoid the despondency, etc., that must arise, if the long intervening period of time were presented.”
I am trusting that Peters will further elaborate on this point as we move along. What he seems to be observing is God again had a divine purpose for the how of how His prophets declared the coming of the Kingdom. The restored Kingdom is one of the promises the people longed to be fulfilled. The coming of the Messiah in their mind was to result in the final restoration of God’s kingdom. For some reason, God desired to have the prophets not distinguish in their declaration of this re-established Kingdom between the First and Second Advents. I am interested in knowing further as to why and I am going to guess that Peters will fill us in here shortly as to his thoughts.