SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
MISUNDERSTOOD
TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
Chapter
Five
We know from his writings with what holy pride Paul
regarded his high Office as the Apostle of the Lord, and his portion in the
Body of Christ, with the heavenly calling and glory pertaining to it. And yet
so burdened was he by great heaviness and continual sorrow in his heart, on
account of the condition of his nation, that for their sake he could wish to be
cut off from Christ in respect of all this dispensational position of
transcendental privilege and glory, and to take the lower place of blessing in
the earthly kingdom, with his kinsmen according to the flesh. If by such a
sacrifice he could win their restoration to favour, forthwith, as the Covenant
people of God. And this reading of the third verse brings it into harmony with
the chapter as a whole, the burden of which is not the spiritual salvation of
individual sinners, but racial and dispensational privilege and blessing.
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Romans ix. i3).
As noticed by certain Expositors, the burden of this chapter, as a whole,
is racial and dispensational privilege and blessing. And this applies very
specially to this thirteenth verse. For it plainly appears by referring to the
opening words of Matthew, from which it is quoted, that the Esau here intended
is not the individual, but the Edom family or race. And if we are to infer from
the eighth verse that all Esaus descendants are 'children of wrath,' we
must infer also, in direct opposition to the Apostles arguement, that all
Isaacs posterity are children of God. For "the purpose of God according
to election" was not that Jacob should be eternally saved, and Esau lost, but
that the elder should serve the younger. And Genesis xxv. plainly indicates the
sin which led to this stern decree. Esau despised his birthright, and as this
position of influence and blessing was Divinely bestowed, his sin in bartering
it for a mess of pottage is branded as "profanity," and a place of repentance
was denied him. It was not a question of his eternal destiny, but of his
forfeited birthright. And what concerns us is to profit by the warning of
Hebrews xii. 1517, and also to shuns the profane inquiry whether his sin
was not due to "the purpose of God according to election. A reference to our
Lords teaching in Luke xiv. 26 will save us from reading this verse in a
false light because of the meaning of our English word "hate." The Greek word
is here used as " equivalent to loving less, a qualified sense, of which there
are many examples both in the Septuagint and the New Testament " (Bloomfield,
vol. i. p. 36), and as the Speakers Commentary well says, "The
exaggerated sense of positive hate is quite forbidden by the record of thie
ample blessing bestowed on Esau." The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, "Even for
this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee"
(Romans ix. 17). Does this mean that God called Pharaoh into existence for the
purpose of making known His Divine power in destroying sins? Such a profane
reading of tue verse has no Scriptural warrant. The word here used does not
mean to "call into being," but to "rouse" or "wake up". The marginal reading of
Exodus ix. 16 is the right one, "For this cause have I made thee stand, to show
in thee My power." And in the Greek version this is rendered, "For this purpose
hast thou been preserved until now." The Divine command he treated with
contempt. "Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?" was his impious
rejoinder. And when the spoken word was accredited by miraculous power, he
called upon his demon-possessed magicians to parody the miracles. It would have
been in the spirit of that dispensation if God had struck him down in his sin.
But he was preserved, he was made to stand as a foil for the display of the
power of God, and that the name of God might be declared throughout all the
earth.
And the twenty-first verse must not be read apart from the
twenty-second, but as exemplifying the main teaching of the chapter. The
contrast it expresses is not between life and death, but between honour and
dishonour. With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use on the
table of a king, while he designs another for some base, though equally useful,
purpose. But a potter who would make a vessel with the deliberate purpose of
destroying it must be a maniac of a dangerous type. And the twenty-second verse
puts to shame the profane thought that God is here compared to a maniac potter.
Mark the words, "What if God, purposing to shew forth His wrath and to make His
power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction?" In view of these words no one may dare to assert that Pharaoh
might not have found mercy had he cast himself upon God in repentance and
confession. His case was akin to that of the Christrejecting Jews in the
days of the Ministry. It was because they refused the light that God blinded
their eves. And if God hardened Pharaohs heart, it was because he himself
had closed it against a abundant proofs of the Divine power. Both cases
exemplify a principle that governs "the ways of God to men." Toward them that
fear Him, His mercy is boundless, but we do well to remember the solemn warning
of the 18th Psalm, "With the perverse Thou wilt shew Thyself froward." No one
may despise God with impunity.
"My gospel" (Romans xvi. 25, 26).
Strange it seems that Expositors should have failed to notice the clearly
marked difference between the gospel of the opening verses of Romans and that
of the Apostles postscript at its close. We read the epistle amiss if we
fail to notice what an important place its teaching accords to the Hebrew
Christians, who doubtless were the majority in the local church. For in early
days it was to Jews only that the gospel was preached; and the word which had
won them was the gospel of God, which He promised afore by His prophets in the
Holy Scriptures concerning His Son who was born of the seed of David" (ch. i.
2, 3, R.V.). This was the hope of every true Israelite. In keeping with it were
the Apostles words to the chief of the Jews in Rome: "For the hope of
Israel I am bound with this chain." And his answer to the charge on which he
was imprisoned was that his preaching to the Jews was based entirely on their
own Scriptures (Acts xxvi. 22). But the gospel which he preached to Gentiles he
had received by special revelation to himself ; and to communicate that gospel
to his brother Apostles was the purpose of his third visit to Jerusalem
(Galatians ii. 2). In writing to Timothy he spoke of it as "committed to my
trust." And this is the "my gospel" of Romans ii. 16 and of our present verse.
Here are his words: "Now to him that is able to stablish you according to my
gospel, even time preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of a
mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,
and by prophetic writings, according to the commandment of the everlasting God,
made known to all the nations unto obedience of faith."
I have rendered the
first kai in this sentence by "even"; for it is certain that the Apostle did
not mean to distinguish between the gospel of Christ and a gospel of his own!
And "the Scriptures of the prophets" is a mistranslation which reduces his
words to an absurdity; for he is thus made to say that this "mystery" gospel
was kept secret in all the past, and yet that it was taught in Old Testament
Scriptures. His actual words are prophetic writings, i.e. the inspired Epistles
of the New Testament. For a prophet is "one who, moved by the Spirit of God,
declares what he has received by inspiration" (Grimms Lexicon); and
therefore "prophetic writings" is equivalent to inspired writings, the element
of foretelling the future being purely incidental. And there can be no doubt
that the "mystery" of our verse is what the Apostle calls elsewhere "the
mystery of the gospel" the reign of grace, which is the great basal truth of
the distinctly Christian revelation - a truth which was not, and obviously
could not be, declared umitil the covenant people were set aside. For grace is
as incompatible with covenant, or special favour of any kind, as it is with
works.
The twenty-fifth verse is sometimes read with an emphasis on the
definite article before the word mystery, the intention being to suggest a
reference to the truth of the Church the Body of Christ. But this is an obvious
error, not only because there is no article in the Greek, but because the
"mystery" of the Body is a truth for the Christian, whereas here the
Apostles subject is the gospel which was to be "made known to all the
Gentiles" (R.V. marg.). "Who (Christ) of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (i Corinthians i. 30). The
wonderful truth of this passage is obscured by faulty translation, largely due,
no, doubt, to neglect of the typology of Scripture. The blood of the Passover,
sprinkled upon the dwellings of the Israelites, brought them deliverance from
the death judgment passed upon Egypt. But it gave them neither right nor
fitness to come near to God; and when His glory was displayed on Sinai they
were sternly warned not to approach the mountain (Exodus xix. 21). None but
Moses, "the mediator of the covenant," could be allowed to enter the Divine
presence. Not until the blood of the covenant had been shed and sprinkled upon
them, could even the elders of Israel come near to God (Exodus xxiv.). And they
then went up as the representatives of the people. And forthwith there followed
the command, "Let them make me a tabernacle that I may dwell among them"(Exodus
xxv. 8). The demands of Divine righteousness had been satisfied before their
deliverance from Egypt. But God is holy as well as righteous ; and it was not
until they had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant, as they had
already been justified by the blood of the Passover, that their redemption was
complete.
In the light of these types we can grasp the meaning of the
Apostles words. All that these sacrifices typified. Christ is made to us
in fulness of fact and truth. He is "made unto us wisdom, and both
righteousness and sanctification, even redemption" redemption in its fulness as
including all we need, not only to secure relief from wrath, but to bring us
into covenant relationship with God, and to give us access to His presence. For
redemption is not a blessing added to justification and sanctification, as our
English versions would suggest. It is an inclusive term, as appears plainly
from the Apostles words. But both A.V. and R.V. ignore the kai in
the verse, which ought, of course, to be rendered "both," as in verse 24.1 And
no less, of course, the second kai should be translated "even."
When
rightly rendered, therefore, the passage reads "Who of God is made unto us
wisdom, and both righteousness and sanctification, even redemption."
Sanctification, like justification, has a twofold aspect, the one complete in
Christ, and the other to be realised in the Christian life.
"I
determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified" (i Corinthians ii. 2).
"We have here a statement of what was
the subjectmatter of apostolic teaching." This sentence, quoted from a
standard Commentary, would he most apt if it referred to the Apostles
words, "We preach Christ Jesus the Lord" (2 Corinthians iv. 5). But it is
strange that any one could have penned it here, after studying the Epistle as a
whole, or chapter xv. in particular. Indeed, the opening verses of chapter iii.
refute such a misreading of the Apostles language. Ignoring the emphasis
which rests upon the words "among you," the verse is thus used, not only to
condone, but to commend, any system of Bible teaching which is limited to "the
simple gospel." But the Apostle is not here describing the subjectmatter
of his general teaching, but the scope and character of his preaching when he
besought the gospel to Corinth. The Greek was a wisdom worshipper; and such a
man as Paul might have so preached that he would have had all Corinth at his
feet. "The many" did thus "huckster the Word of God"(2 Corinthians ii. 17); but
as for the Apostle, neither his speech (logos) nor his preaching (i.e.
neither the matter nor the manner of it) was in persuasive words of (human)
wisdom (1 Corinthians ii. 4). "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but My Father who is in heaven," was the Lords response to Peters
confession of His Deity ; and if this was true of the Apostle, even after he
had witnessed all the amazing miracles of the Ministry, how intensely true it
must be of other men. And so here, the aim of the Apostle Paul was that the
faith of the converts should stand in Divine power, and not in human wisdom. In
their case, moreover, such special care was needed that, even after their
conversion, he felt restrained in umnfolding to them "the deep things of God"
(ii. 10; see iii. 1, 2). "We do speak wisdom among the perfect." he says in
this very chapter (v. 6). The word here rendered "the perfect" is translated
"men" in chapter Xiv. 20, and "of full age" in Hebrews v. 14. But spiritually
the Corinthians were not then, of full age, but babes; and so he had to treat
them as babes and to feed them milk. As he had already said. "Christ is the
wisdom of God" (ch. i. 24). Still fullfilling his words iii Colossians ii. 2, 3
(R.V.) "that they may know the mystery of God, even Christ, in whom are all the
measures of wisdom and knowledge hidden." Therefore the phrase "to know nothing
but Christ" might in a real sense describe the Apostles drift. But this
use in emphasis of our present text rests on the closing words, "even Him
crucified." The words of chapter i. 2224 explain the Apostles
meaning, Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom, WE (in
antithesis to all this) preach Christ crucified, unto Jews an offence, and unto
Greeks foolishness; but unto them who are the called (i.e. to Christians) we
preach Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
"Know ye not
that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (i Corinthians
vi. 9).
Exclusion from "the millennial kingdom," we are told by some, will
be the penalty imposed on Christians who lapse into immoral practices. And in
proof of this we are referred to such passages as 1 Corinthians vi. 9, 10;
Galatians v. 21 ; Ephesians v. 5; etc. This assumes that "the kingdom of God"
is a synonym for the millennial kingdom, an error which is exposed by the very
first passage in which the phrase occurs in the Epistles. In Romans xiv. 17, we
read: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace
and joy in the Holy Ghost." This reminds us of the Lords words to
Nicodemus. The world and its religion is the natural sphere, but the kingdom of
God is spiritual; and none can enter it, none can see it, without a new birth
by the Spirit. This is a truth of present and universal application. 1
Corinthians xv. 50, which refers to the future, is a still more decisive
refutation of the error. There we read that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kimigdom of God"; that is, can have no place or part in it. But, as we all
know, "flesh and blood" men in their natural bodies will be in the millennial
kingdom, or, to use the Scriptural phrase, the kingdom of heaven (sec pp.
47, ante). Then again we recall the exhortation of I Thessalonians ii.
12, "that ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto His kingdom and
glory." This is explained by 2 Thessalonians i. 5, "that ye may be counted
worthy of the kingdom of God" a reference not to the future state, but to the
place and calling of the Christian here and now. It is akin to the exhortations
of Ephesians iv. 1 (R.V.), "I beseech you to walk worthily of the calling
wherewith ye were called." For it is a present truth, and a fact of practical
import, that the Christian has been "translated into the kingdom of the Son of
His love" (Colossians i. 13). As a matter of fact, it is more than doubtful
whether the millennial kingdom is ever referred to in the Epistles of the
Apostle Paul.
This scheme of exegesis, moreover, would teach us to
acknowledge an "evil liver" as a Christian. But as 2 Timothy ii. 19 tells us,
the Divine seal has two faces : "The Lord knoweth them that are His" is the
Godward side of it ; the other, which is to govern our action, is "Let every
one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." But, we are told, the
incestuous person in Corinth was a Christian. The inspired Apostle so decided;
but to us it is not given to read the Godward face of time Divine seal, and we
are bound to judge others by their profession and conduct. To acknowledge as a
Christian any one who is living in open sin is to be false to the Lord. But if
every penitent has a claim upon Christian sympathy, surely one whom we have
regarded as a fellow-believer ought to he treated with unbounded patience and
pity and Christian love. And let us not forget that there are sins more heinous
than immoral acts. Some of the "unfortunates" of the streets may he nearer the
kingdom than are men of high repute in the Professing Church, who deny the
Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, or flout His authuority as a teacher (Matthew
xxi. 31). To acknowledge such men in any way is to become "partaker of their
evil deeds"(2 John 10, 11). The doom of Sodom will be more tolerable than that
of devout Capernaum (Matthew xi. 23, 24).
"Lest ... when I have
preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (i Corinthians ix. 27).
Were it not for a morbid tendency to seize upon any Scripture which can be
perverted to undermine the truth of grace, no one could find a difficulty here.
For the subject, not only of the immediate context, but of the whole chapter,
is the Apostles ministry, and has no sort of reference to salvation. As
he says in the twenty-fourth verse, in a race all run, but one receives the
prize. But if it was found that the winner, albeit he had proclaimed the rules
of the contest to the others, had himself violated these rules, he was refused
the prize; he was rejected (adokimos). The suggestion that the Apostle
Paul was in doubt whether he might not himself he finally lost is quite
unworthy of consideration. His Epistles one and all refute it. The word
adokinos was originally applied to base coin, and this affords a clew to
its meaning here. A genuine coin never becomes base, and an adokinos
coin is base cub initio. Hence Bloomfields reading of 2
Corinthians xiii. 3, "Unless indeed ye be not genuine Christians."
And in
our present verse the word is explained by Bengel to mean unworthy of a prize
or crown, as in the public games. A morbid readiness to undermine the truth of
grace leads to a like perversion of the Apostles words, "I have kept the
faith," in 2 Timothy iv. 7, as though they meant, "I have kept on believing in
Christ." But here again he is speaking of his ministry. For the gar of
verse 6 directly connects his words about himself with his charge to Timothy in
verse 5. And what he says is not "I have maintained my faith," but "I have
safeguarded the faith," a term that is defined to mean generally "the sum of
Christian doctrines." In Pauls case it meant specially, no doubt, the
great outline of the gospel of grace which was his peculiar trust. "That which
(God) hath committed unto me," he calls it "that good deposit" which was in
turn entrusted to Timothy.
"What shall they do who are baptized for
the dead" (i Corinthians xv. 29). Bengel remarks that the variety of
interpretations of this passage is so great that even a catalogue of them
"would require a dissertation." And he goes on to say that the practice to
which the Apostle is supposed to refer came into use from a wrong
interpretation of this passage." Even were it otherwise, and heretical sects
had already adopted pagan practices of this kind, the idea is utterly absurd
that the Apostle Paul would have appealed to them as a climax to his sublime
argument for the Resurrection and to attribute such a triviality to the
inspiring Spirit of God would be profane.
The following solution of this
very difficult passage has been offered by the late Dr. E. W.Bullinger. As its
the ancient texts, there is no punctuation, save the greater pauses, he
discards the received punctuatioms of the verse. He notices that in Scripture
the word nekros with the article usually denotes dead bodies, corpses;
whereas without the article it denotes dead people, persons who are dead. And
he proceeds to use the passage as a typical illustration of the figure of
speech known as ellipsis. And construing the passage thus, he renders it, "What
shall they do that are being baptized? It is for the dead (for corpses) if the
dead (dead people) rise not." To make this fully intelligible we must take note
of the meaning of the Apostles words, "What shall they do?" They are
equivalent to "What will become of them?" (Dean Alford). For the Greek word
poieô has a range of meaning nearly as wide as the Hebrew
âsâh, which it represents in the Greek version of such
passages as Jeremiah v. 31 and xii. 5; which might be rendered, "What will
become of you at last!" and "What will become of you in the swelling of
Jordan!"
These are not inquiries, but warning exclamations. And so here.
The Apostle is not propounding a thesis for discussion. His purpose is to put
an end to discussion in the whole matter; so he exclaims, "If the dead rise
not, what is to become of people who are being baptized?" The Apostles
argument, therefore, may be stated as follows : Baptism symbolises death with
Christ what meaning has it then, if there be no resurrection? For if Christ was
not raised, our oneness with Him in death points only to the tomb. In a word,
his appeal is not to a despicable pagan heresy, but to the teaching of a great
Christian ordinance. Thus the expression baptized for the dead' vanishes
from the Scriptures ; and it is banished from theology, for the assumed
practice is gathered this is the force of the present participle, only from
this passage, and is unknown to history apart from it.
"Behold, I
show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed"
(Corinthians xv. 5 ).
As this passage is generally supposed to refer to
"the Second Advent," it claims prominent notice in any list of misunderstood
texts. For, both in standard theology and in the popular use of the phrase,
"the Second Advent" is the last great Coming of Christ in an indefinitely
remote future, whereas the Coming here revealed is the present hope of the
Christian. The one, moreover, is His Coming to execute judgment upon the world;
the other is His Coming to call His chosen people to their heavenly home. But
this is not all. Mark the Apostles words, "I show you a mystery"; and in
the Epistles the word "mystery" indicates some truth which had remained secret
up to the time of the Apostles. Seeing then that the Lords Coming in
judgment was prophesied by "Enoch, the seventh from Adam" (Jude 14, 15), it
cannot be the "mystery" of 1 Corinthians xv. Neither can His Coming as the Son
of Man; for that also is an Old Testament truth; and it had prominence in the
Lords own ministry. Indeed, these several "Comings" have practically
nothing in common, save that they all relate to Christ. To understand this
subject aright, we must keep in view the distinctive character of the special
Christian revelation which followed the setting aside of the covenant people.
And the "mystery" truths of that revelation are inseparably allied. Its basal
truth is grace enthroned. And grace vastly transcends mercy, and it is
inconsistent with covenant. It was in pure grace that God gave the covenant to
Abraham; but when a covenant or promise has been granted, it is to His
faithfulness we trust for the fulfilment of it. And the covenant with Abraham
has not been abrogated, although it is in abeyance during this present
dispensation. This is another of the mysteries of the Christian revelation
(Romans xi. 25). It is not that the covenant people are in subjection to
Gentile supremacy: that dates back to the days of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither is it
that they are under Divine displeasure because of their impenitence: that is no
new thing in Israels history. The "mystery" is that they are temporarily
relegated in all respects to time position of the Gentiles among whom they are
scattered. In other words, their condition during this Christian age is
precisely what it would be if the Abraimamic covenant had never been granted.
And this abnormal condition of things gives rise to questions that are
nowhere dealt with in Old Testament Scriptures. What, for instance, is to be
the status, so to speak, of the saved of this dispensation ? To that question
the mystery of the Church, the Body of Christ, supplies the answer. But, as
already noticed, Romans xi. teaches explicitly that the present dispensation is
parenthetical and transient : how then is it to be brought to an end? Now in
the same sense in which we aver that God cannot lie, we may aver that He cannot
act upon incompatible principles at the same time. Therefore, so long as the
proclamation is in force that "there is no difference between the Jew and the
Gentile," God cannot make a difference by giving the Jew a position of peculiar
privilege and favour. It follows, therefore, that the present dispensation
cannot merge gradually in the dispensation which is to follow it. The change
must be marked by a crisis. And here the teaching of Scripture is clear and
definite. The nature of the crisis is revealed in 1 Corinthians xv., and in
other passages in the Epistles. It will be that Coming of Christ which Bengel
designates "the hope of the Church." But, as he truly says, "The churches have
forgotten the hope of the Church." Plain speaking is necessary here. In common
with the other "mystery" truths of the distinctive Christian revelation, this
truth of the Lords Coming was lost in the Early Church, prior to the era
of the Patristic theologians. So entirely was it lost, indeed, that in this
Corinthian passage several of the most ancient MSS. read, "We shall all sleep,
but we shall not all be changed" a corruption apparently designed to reconcile
the Apostles words with the "Second Advent" doctrine which had been
already formulated. Would that those gifted and holy men had left far fuller
personal records and fewer theological writings. Their life-story would have
stimulated faith during all the centuries, and the Reformers would have studied
the Bible with minds unbiassed by their doctrinal teaching. And we in our day
would not be so often embarrassed by having to make choice between the teaching
of theology and of the New Testament.
As the misunderstanding of this
Scripture is due in great measure to the fact that the truth it teaches has
been forgotten, it may be well to notice here a few kindred passages in other
Epistles. Corinthians was written at a comparatively early period in the
Apostles ministry; and it is suggested by unbelievers that in later years
he discovered his mistake in supposing that the Coming of the Lord should be
deemed a present hope. By very many Christians, moreover, this view is in a
vague way accepted, although they hesitate to give expression to it. What,
then, are the facts? The Epistle to the Philippians was written from his Roman
prison at a time when his active ministry seemed to be at an end. And in these
circumstances it was that he wrote the words, "Our citizenship is in heaven;
from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall
fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body
of His glory"(Philippians iii. 20, 21). Now the word here rendered "wait" is
the strongest that any language could supply to express the earnest expectation
of something believed to be imminent. According to Bloomfield, "it signifies
properly to thrust forward the head and neck as in anxious expectation of
hearing or seeing something." An illustration of its meaning might be found in
the pathetic story of the mother of Siseras vigil for her sons
return, "Through the window she looked forth, and cried through the lattice,
Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the wheels of his chariots?"
(Judges v. 28).
Such, then, is the Divinely-chosen word, to indicate what
ought to be our attitude toward the return of Christ. And it is a kindred word
that the Apostle uses in his Epistle to Titus, dated probably in the very year
of his martyrdom, where he tells us that the training of the school of grace
leads us to live "looking for that blessed hope" (Titus ii. 12, 18). As Dean
Alford says:"The Apostolic age maintained that which ought to be the attitude
of all ages, comistant expectation of the Lords return." Very special
weight attaches to these dicta of Bloomfield and Alford, just because neither
of them was an exponent of the truth of "the blessed hope." But upon any
question respecting the meaning and use of a Greek word there is no higher
authority than Bloomfield. And as a commentator, Alford is specially noted for
fairness and British common sense. Every honest-minded student of the Epistles,
moreover, will endorse the conclusion that, to the very end of his ministry,
the Apostle inculcated not belief in the doctrine of the Second Advent, but
"constant expectation of," and eager waiting and watching for, the Lords
return. Certain it is, therefore, that if the Coming of Christ, of which these
Epistles speak, be the same as the Coming of the Son of Man of Matthew xxiv.,
the Apostles words are in flat and flagrant opposition to the Lords
explicit teaching. For His warning was clear and emphatic that "the Coming of
the Son of Man" must not be looked for until after the coming of Antichrist,
the horrors of the great tribulation, and the awful signs and portents foretold
in Messianic prophecy. If then these several Scriptures relate to the same
event, we must jettison either Matthew xxiv. or the Pauline Epistles. For the
attempt to reconcile them betokens hopeless mental obtuseness. And these
results will be confirmed by a stuudy of the Thessalonian Epistles (see pp. 116
and 119, post).
Chapter Six
Literature | Photos | Links | Home