Page 1
INTRODUCTION
A very few words must
suffice by way of introduction to the contents of this volume. The ground covered is new, the study is
original, the truths dealt with are the most momentous conceivable to the human
mind. On this account I ask for that
kind and degree of consideration which is due to those who seek to recover
truth once known, but long lost and in its essential nature quite uncongenial
to the natural heart of man.
In the summer of 1892 a book was
placed in my hand with a request that I read it. The title was “Israel
My Glory,” by the Rev. John
Wilkinson, president of the Mildmay Mission to the Jews. The reading of that book marked an epoch in
my life. From that time forward my
outlook on the character and destiny of the Church and the world began to be
revolutionized, and the process still continues its panoramic unfolding with
ever deepening amazement and ever increasing joy. Year by year the beauties and verities and
glories of the Word of God, both written and Living, have slowly but surely
tightened their celestial grip on my soul, until with some tangible degree of
appreciation I can enter into the spirit of the great Apostle of the Gentiles
when he exclaimed, “O the depth of the riches both of
the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding
out.” I have never known, even
before conversion, what it was to doubt the truth of God’s word. But when the new light dawned in 1892 and I
began to see how fearfully I had been deceived and misled concerning the
character of the present age as portrayed by infallibly inspired prophets and
apostles, I was led to wonder if I had not been misinformed by “Mother Church” on other equally important subjects;
and experience has taught me that this suspicion had a wondrously solid basis
in fact. As a consequence I began to see
that there was a faith which was nothing more than an easily going
Laodicean-difference, whose proper name was heathenish credulity; and that on
the other hand there was a skepticism which was one of the most essential
elements in the highest order of Christian virtue.
Thus, while never doubting the
truth of God’s word, I have been led to doubt men’s opinions concerning it. And
one mark of said doubt is that it is both subjective and objective. My own opinion as a man is no better or worse
than the opinion of any other man, except as it agrees or disagrees with the
facts of the revelation of God in Christ; for in Him we have absolute truth so
far as the revelation goes. It will yet
go much further and deeper and higher.
Page 2
In the study of God’s word,
especially during the last fifteen years, I have been learning to put more and
more emphasis on three points:
1. To make sure that I had the proper translation of the
original.
2. To make equally sure of the
proper interpretation of the right translation.
The former is of little value without the latter.
3. To make especially sure of the proper
application of a given passage after I had assured myself that I had given due
attention to the first and the second.
All three are abundantly
illustrated in this volume. Here, at the
final analysis, is the test of genuine scholarship, and in the exact
application of these three vital principles we will discover the proof as to
whether a given preacher or theologian is, or is not, living in vital union
with the Great Head of the Church.
While the nature of the
discussion necessitated somewhat frequent reference to the original languages
in which both Testaments were written, I wish to disown any pretension to
expert knowledge in either. Fortunately
this was not necessary. Besides, if the following argument proves anything it is that the men who have
claimed expert knowledge in these lines have shamefully erred, and thereby deceived the people of God, and that generation after generation for hundreds of years. The essence of the problem of the knowledge
of God lies in the fact that theology, unlike the abstract sciences, say
mathematics, is a most concrete affair, involving the normal operation of the
mind, the will and the heart. Thus the
real causes of failure to properly interpret the word of God lie back of the
mind in the region of volition and affection.
There is nothing in man stronger than his affections and in proportion
as these are fixed in an evil direction truth and righteousness and God are
excluded and the doors of the heart firmly barricaded heavenward.
We are living in tremendously
critical days when all eyes are focused on the greatest military conflict in
the history of the world. Throughout a
very large portion of the earth militarism is triumphant. The world problems of today are not new. They are old as the history of the race. Owing, however, to the commercial federation
of the nations and the advance of science in all kinds of invention, and in the
production of wealth, the problems which were once local, or at most
provincial, have taken on an imperial and cosmopolitan character. In proportion as the world-system has become
organized for commercial purposes and that on a basis of legalized lawlessness,
the nations have found it necessary to strengthen by means of armies and navies
the dams they had built to hold back, [Page 3] if possible, the threatening floods of illegalized
lawlessness. But the higher and stronger
they built they only increased the pressure; and now, as was inevitable, the
dams are giving way in all directions, and the result is universal anarchy merging
into universal chaos.
But the most significant sign on
the world’s brooded horizon at the present me is not found in international
politics, nor in the devious and treacherous methods of international
diplomacy; no, nor yet in thunder and smoke and hilarious intoxication of
militarism. Where then? in the
desperately corrupt condition of modern theology. Only a few days ago three examined candidates
for the Christian ministry, were being examined before the New York Presbytery
with a view to ordination; and, so
says the report, they, verbally and in writing, affirmed their disbelief in the
Virgin Birth of the Christ and in the Resurrection, and in this tremendously
far reaching negation of the very foundations of Christianity they were substantially
upheld by the Court. This has its
significance in that it is symptomatic of a general condition throughout the
religious world. In comparison with this
daring attitude of men to God and His Christ, the world’s greatest military
conflict, considered as an exhibition of brute forces, is nothing more than a
transient episode.
Reviewing the history of
Christendom for the last sixteen hundred years, there is one thing that men
seem determined to do at any cost; and that is that they will not listen to
what the God of Heaven and Earth has said, and is still saying, concerning the
character and course and doom of modern civilization. Politicians, economists, educationists,
scientists, and last, but not least, the theologians, vie [i.e., ‘compete or contend against’] with one another in their eulogy of the
possibilities and perfections of humanity by what they are pleased to call
education and culture. But listen to
what Jehovah hath said:
“Therefore
wait ye upon Me, saith Jehovah, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for My determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for
all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy” (Zeph. 3: 8; see also Rev. 19: 11-21).
The present world-war is but the
prelude to a deeper and bloodier tragedy; and the root cause of it all is
ecclesiastical anti-christianism, materialized commercialism, political
opportunism, and general, practical atheism.
There never yet was, and there never can be, a war that did not have its
basis, at the last analysis, in a false relation of men, and churches, and
governments to God and His Christ. Never
was there a nation that suffered more, through war or any other cause, than it
deserved to suffer, as a nation, in order to square its accounts with God for
national sins. When the equation is
squared the account will be [Page 4] cancelled. There is no future hell for nations as such;
hence the necessity for squaring the accounts here and now.
SOME EXPLANATIONS
As this book is written
specially for laymen I feel disposed to make a few explanatory remarks:
1. The thought moves almost
constantly within the lines of that branch of theology which is technically
called eschatology. This term is derived from two Greek words;
namely, the adjective eschatos, meaning, last; and the
noun logos,
meaning, speech, or discourse. That is, discourse
on the last things: That department of Bible knowledge which treats of the
culmination of the present age, of death and judgment, heaven and hell; the
intermediate state and the eternal state.
2. In reference to the Second Coming
of Christ Christians are divided into two schools: The Premillennial and The
Postmillennial.* The first syllable in each word is a preposition: Pre meaning
“before”; and Post meaning “after”. The
other two roots are mille a thousand,
and annus a year. Both schools agree that before the end of the
world there is to be a thousand years of universal peace, according to Rev. 20: 1-6. The former say that the Second Coming will
take place before the millennium,
and will be the cause of its introduction.
The latter say that the Second Coming will not take place till after the millennium, and that it is [the] path of
the mission of the Church in the world to introduce it by the preaching of the
Gospel, by education and moral reform.
The two theories, if I may so call them, are really two systems of
interpreting the Bible and are as different and antagonistic as light and
darkness.
[* There is another ‘school’ of
Christians, known as A-millennialists, - the “A” = “Anti” or “Against”
any millennial
reign of Christ upon this earth!]
3. The Greek word aion is usually rendered into English as “aeon”,
or “eon”.
I prefer, however, to retain all the letters and simply substitute the
English as above. The “o” is long and is equivalent to aioon. But
except where the plural forms occur we will spell it with one o.
I have no thought of claiming
that the work is free from mistakes.
Pressure of other work will account for some of them, and human
infirmity for others. But of one thing I
am certain: The main line of argument which runs through the
book is established and will never be overthrown, for it rests securely on the immutable word of God. The
beloved evangelist concludes his Gospel with the words:
Page 5
“THESE THINGS ARE
WRITTEN THAT YE MIGHT BELIEVE”.
To believe is to know. Bible truth was given to be known, and after
one has spent many years in the School of Christ (Luke
14: 25-35)
it is possible and permissible, and honouring to God, to say “I KNOW”;
and to go even beyond that and declare, “I KNOW, and I KNOW that I KNOW.” And to do so is neither presumption nor
egotism. And he, who knows that he
knows, also knows that the man at the other end of the line does not know what
he thinks he knows (1 John 4: 6). The
positive and negative phases of truth are so related that the thinker cannot be
more definite at one end than at the other.
This relation, even though by way of antithesis, is involved in the very
nature of subject and object.
Affirmation and negation must go hand in hand so long as we live in a
world like this.
It was my wish to dwell at some
length on the considerable volume of literature on the subject of biblical
eschatology which has come from the orthodox press during the last few years
and to point out its essentially rationalistic character; but space will not
permit at present. By the way, that word
“orthodox” may be used in two different senses:
(1) that which is right (orthos) according to Bible Standards; and (2) that which is right according to
Church creeds; or, better still, that which expresses the general consensus of
Church opinion at the present time. The
word is used exclusively in the latter sense in this volume.
It is a matter of fundamental
importance to recognize the wide gulf which separates apostolic from
post-apostolic Christianity; and especially from present day Christianity. In confirmation of this fact I will cite a
quotation from a Churchman of high standing, in the hope that it may set some
person thinking:
“The
first period is that which contains the great question, almost the greatest
which ecclesiastical history has to answer, - how was the transition effected
from the age of the Apostles to the age of the Fathers, from Christianity as we
see it in the N. T., to Christianity as we see it in the next century, and as,
to a certain extent we have seen it ever since?
No other change equally momentous has ever affected its fortunes, yet
none has ever been so silent and secret.
This chasm once cleared we find ourselves approaching the point where
the story of the Church once more becomes history - becomes once more the
history, not of an isolated community, or of isolated individuals, but of an organized
society incorporated with the political systems of the world.”
-
Just
think of her who should have been the Virgin Bride of Christ thus playing the
harlot so shamelessly. But here type and
antitype perfectly agree [Page 6] (Ezekiel 16 and Revelation
2 and 3). It is to the faithful in these conditions of
apostasy that the Holy Spirit appeals so significantly in 2 Cor. 6: 14-18. These
are awfully solemn words. “Let us go forth therefore
unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13: 13). But
let us see to that we do not take the spirit of the camp with us. Dean Stanley never wrote truer words than
those contained in the above quotation.
Between apostolic and historical Christianity there is a great gulf
fixed, and John and Peter and Paul are saying “they
which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither
can they pass to us, that would come from thence (except by the way of
the Cross).” Education and culture are
no substitutes for atonement and the new birth.
If anyone should affirm that the
tone of the book is pessimistic, I both admit and deny the charge. So far as the possibilities of any moral
uplift of humanity are dependent on legislation, education and culture, while
the whole world lies in the wicked one (1 John 5:
19), I am incurably pessimistic; as
hopelessly so as the weeping prophet of Judah’s Babylonian captivity was of
political and religious conditions in his day.
But from the standpoint of the prospects of humanity under the kingly rule of the Christ of God, now about to be inaugurated, I
am as optimistic as the sweet Singer of Israel; as hopeful as was he who interpreted the night vision of Babylon’s
greatest king and foretold the rise and fall of successive Gentile nations and
empires until He come whose right it is to rule the nations of the earth;
yea, as hopeful as was the lonely Seer in Patmos when in the two last chapters
of his sublime Apocalypse he proclaimed in letters of fire and garniture of
gold and sweetest cadences of celestial choristers the unutterable bliss of
consummating and consummated redemption.
In this hope I commit the book
to the winds and the waves of the world’s adverse criticism, and to the scorn
of its silent contempt; but at the same time to the care of Him Who hath His
way in the sea, and His path in the great waters, and Whose footsteps are not
known; and Who, in a little while, will say to the warring nations of earth, “Peace!, Be Still,” and
to the world’s Babylonian chaos, “Let there Be Light!”,
and that word of command which called Lazarus from the dead will do what all
the armies and navies of the world have never done and never can do. Till then, let us wait, and watch, and work.
-
* * *
CHAPTER 1
EXCAVATING FOR BURIED TRUTH
“It is owned,
the whole scheme of Scripture is not yet understood; if it ever comes to be
understood before the restitution of all things, without miraculous
interposition, it must be in the same way as knowledge is come at by the
continuance and progress and liberty; and by particular persons attending to, comparing,
pursuing intimations scattered up and down it, which are overlooked and
disregarded by the generality of the world.
For this is the way in which all improvements are made; by thoughtful
men’s tracing on obscure hints - as it were, dropped [on] us by nature
accidentally, or which seem to come into our minds by chance. Nor is that all incredible what a book, which
has been so long in possession of mankind, should contain many truths as yet
undiscovered.”
On a certain morning in
the later part of December 1913, we were at worship in the home. The Scripture portion for that morning was
the 18th chapter of Luke. The
narrative of the Rich Young ruler seemed to grip attention; and when the last
two verses of the account were reached something happened which cannot be
easily described in words. We were not
conscious of being in an especially spiritual mood at the time. Nevertheless
something happened which has changed a good many things and the process of
transformation is still going on.
It was as if instantaneously and
supernaturally a ray of light was flashed into my mind and heart. After a pause of a few seconds I said to my
wife, I see something new; and then finished the chapter. When worship was over I at once took my Bible
again and began to seek confirmation, or refutation, of the vision. With note book and pen in hand the New
Testament was examined from beginning to end with the greatest care and much
prayer for guidance, the search extending over many months and the results
filling several notebooks. Since then
much truth by way of confirmation has been found in both Testaments. There is now absolutely no doubt in the writer’s
mind that a truth of apostolic authority has been recovered; and that he is
wholly indebted to the goodness and mercy of God for such a gracious
revelation. It is not often that he gets
truth in this way. The experience was
just a little touch of Eph. 1: 17, 18. Such
moments of union and communion between the Vine and the branches ought to be
far more common.
May both the writer and the
reader be graciously favoured by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the
knowledge of Him as in the following pages we proceed to dig through the
successive strata of traditional deposit, ecclesiastical presupposition and
prejudice in order to the recovery and due recognition of a truth which in the
primitive Church played no small part in keeping the disciples of the ascended
Christ in a state of grace, of watchfulness, and of submission to the Word and
Spirit of God; and for the want of which today Christians are for the most part
living in a state of self-sufficiency and practical indifference to the claims
of God. The Holy Spirit has foretold us
it would be so.
Page 8
The method of procedure in
exposition is the opposite of the one pursued in the first study. In that we began with a principle which was
allowed to unfold itself organically from centre to circumference. In the present study we begin at the
circumference and work inward to the principle.
And once a biblical principle is found, it matters not where, it will be
met again and again, modifying, expanding, intensifying, and adding or
subtracting as the text and context may require. Let the reader therefore be prepared for new
meanings in words, in phrases, and also new conclusions made necessary by new
premises.
Before coming directly to the
study of this interesting narrative we will notice three significant facts:
1. The narrative (Luke 18: 18-30) is recorded by all three of the Synoptic
Evangelists. This should warn us that we
are to look for something of more than ordinary importance.
2. At the turning point in the
record Jesus introduces His exposition by a solemn and instructive, “Verily I say unto you.”
3. All three, Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, introduce the narrative of the conversation between Christ and the Young
Ruler immediately after the account of the little children being brought to
Christ for His blessing. The disciples
resented this act as an intrusion; but He said, “Suffer
the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the
We will now repeat the account
as given by Luke:
“And a certain
ruler asked Him saying, ‘Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said unto
him, ‘Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one,
that is, God. Thou knowest the
commandments, Do [Page 9] not
commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear
false witness, Honour thy father and mother.’ And he said, ‘All these have I kept from my youth up.’ Now when Jesus heard
these things He said unto him, ‘Lackest thou one thing, sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come follow
Let the reader compare and
contrast the accounts in Matthew19: 16-30 and Mark 10: 17-31.
Note specially that what Matthew
calls the kingdom of heaven, Luke and Mark call the
THE YOUNG RULER ALREADY SAVED
The fact we wish to establish in
our study of the narrative is that this Young Ruler is already saved, in the only
sense in which a Jew, or indeed any man, could be saved prior to the vicarious
death of Christ on
Page 10
Before coming to a constructive
study of the passage let us note a fact on the negative side as affording
strong presumptive evidence against the traditional interpretation.
While all the preachers,
commentators and exegetes have been able to examine, are of one mind in the
opinion that the Young Ruler was unsaved when he approached Christ, and that
the way in which he presented his case proves him to have been a legalist, we
have yet to find the first man who has given any valid reason for thinking
so. They assume the fact and then
proceed to draw their conclusions and make their observations. This popular
method of studying God’s Word justifies the following general statement;
namely, dogmatic deduction based on gratuitous assumption is the curse of
theology, philosophy and science. No
real lover of Christian freedom and manhood can afford to be continually
deceived and misled and cheated by any such cunning wiles of the great enemy of
God and man. Let us take nothing for
granted.
A PRELIMINARY SUGGESTION
In turning back the pages of
history a thousand, or two thousand years, to study a particular event, or
series of events, there are two problems ever standing in the foreground which
must be dealt with and if possible solved in some degree, before the matter in
hand comes under consideration. One at
that end and the other at this end, namely:
1. Objectively - What was the
historical setting of the said event considered socially, politically,
religiously? Who were the actors in [the] said event and what was their relation to one
another and to their environment? What elements of fact and fiction were
involved in the situation? What did the
speaker, or speakers, really mean in what he or they said? This is no easy problem and yet it has very
much to do with a true estimate of the event in question, the study of our
narrative concerning the Rich Young Ruler.
2. Subjectively - What elements of
fact and fiction hold the mastery in the inner being of the student, or investigator,
and thereby affect the very warp and woof of his own mental, moral and
spiritual make up; and thus, in the one case, opening his eyes to see things as
they are in the light of actual truth; or, in the other, effectually perverting
and nullifying his power of vision and compelling him to arrive at false
conclusions? And these are not really two problems, but two phases, or sides,
of one and the same problem, the correlation of subject and object. For example, how utterly impossible for the
typical Jew of today, or any day, to form a true estimate of the Christ of the
Four Gospels. An inner force impels him
to falsehood.
Page 11
If only truth is fact, and the
antithesis of truth is fiction, then what a vast amount of unreality there is
in the ponderous world-system of today, view it from what standpoint we may,
socially, politically or religiously. For religion divorced from the living
Christ becomes part and parcel of the world-system. The Christian sees the error of the Jew and
is convinced of the folly and fatality of his course. But, inconceivable as it may seem, I wish to
affirm modestly that since the days of
The primal condition of my
ability to emancipate the truth involved in the object of my contemplation from
its fictitious historical entanglements is that I first eliminate the
fictitious from my own mental and spiritual constitution; and thus free my personality from what is fictitious
in my environment whether near or far as to space or time. By
full and continuously intensifying surrender to Christ this can be done.
This is what He came to do in the “joint-heirs” with
Him in the coming [messianic] kingdom. Reader, where do you stand in reference to
the above problem? This will have much
to do with what you may see in the following exposition.
CONSTRUCTIVE STUDY OF THE NARRATIVE
The Young Ruler’s question, “What must I do to
inherit eternal life?” Let us see, for the basis of this earnest
interrogation in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and in Jewish hopes at
the time of our Saviour’s [First] Advent.
1. It is very manifest from even a
superficial of the Old Testament that the theocracy established in
2. God promised David a Son who should sit upon his throne forever
(2 Sam. 7:
1-14). Solomon
was a type of the true Son of David - the Christ, the Messiah. The One who has the keys of Hades and Death, has also the key of David
(Rev. 1: 18 and
17).
Peter at Pentecost declared that
David was not yet ascended into the heavens (Acts 2: 34). David not withstanding his own comparative failure,
and the actual failure of his successors on the same throne, knew and believed
that God would give him a Son to sit on his
throne and establish it forever:
Page 12
“Men and
brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto
this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the
flesh, He
would raise up the Christ (the Anointed One)
to sit on his [i.e., on David’s] Throne” (Acts 2: 29, 30).
This was the hope of all the prophets and teachers in
3. When the apostasy of
4. This hope of the Old Testament is carried over by the Holy
Spirit into the New Testament; and, with a vastly enlarged conception of the
Kingdom, becomes the hope of the
apostles, the prophets and all the
saints of the primitive Church.
a. The angel Gabriel assured Mary
that her Son was the Royal Heir to the
Throne of David, and that He would
in due time be placed there.
“And the
angel said unto her, ‘Fear not Mary for thou
hast found favour with God. And behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and
shall call His Name, Jesus. He shall be Great and
shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the Throne of His father David”
(Luke 1: 30).
What a fearful evidence of the
corruption of the human heart and the ruin of the intellect,
when men, saved men, can lend themselves to a spiritualizing
process the effect of which is to destroy the testimony of the Holy Spirit
concerning the kingly mission of the Son of God and the overthrow of Satan’s
power in the world. But they do it to their own undoing. The
failure of the Young Ruler and its dispensational consequences will be found in
the judgment day to the little in comparison with theirs. We have spoken above of the vicious process
of basing dogmatic deduction on gratuitous assumption; and we may add that the Page 13 whole history of the corruption
of Christianity affords no more damaging example of the inherent evil of the
process than is found in the traditional theory of [today’s deception of Anti-millennialism and] post-millennialism.
b. The wise men asked, “Where is He
that is born King of the Jews?”
c. Jesus Christ as the Son of David claimed the Throne of David and His
claim was rejected by the Jews. Instead of crowning they crucified Him (Matt. 22: 42-45; 23: 37-39; 21: 1-9).
d. It is an unmistakable fact, to those who have the ability to
see facts, that the early part of Christ’s ministry was occupied
almost wholly concerning the Kingdom and that in the sense of Himself as the
Son of David reigning on David’s Throne (see Matthew, chapters 1-12). Matthew is specially ‘the Gospel of the Kingdom’. The
rejection of the Christ by the Jews resulted in their rejection by God, the postponement of the Kingdom, and the introduction of the present
parenthetical dispensation during which God is taking out of the world a people
for Himself, but is not seeking to
save the world. The latter is impossible while
e. The apostles taught that that which constituted the hope of
Here then we have the sufficient
basis of the Young Ruler’s question and ground of his hope. As a God-fearing Jew and an honest son of
Abraham he cherished the common aspirations of his fathers. He was - [contrary to multitudes of deceived regenerate believers today] -
building on the [Divine] promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 12: 1-3; 13: 14-18; 15: 1-18).
Very true, indeed, his notions
of the [promised] kingdom
were crude; but not nearly so much as
that of the average Christian today.
Besides, if after the apostles had spent three years in the school of
the Great Master, and their notions were still very crude, surely we can afford
to be somewhat charitable toward this heroic young man. His motive was pure, his manner respectful,
and his enthusiasm such as may well be copied in the twentieth century of our
Lord.
THE QUESTION
What shall I do to inherit eternal life?
The first word here that demands
attention is the little but mightily potent “I”,
the mysterious Ego. What fathomless
depths lie unexplored in the heart of this [Page 14] formally insignificant little dissyllable? Here is a subject, yonder is an object. How shall I effect their correlation; or,
failing to correlate them, how long must I go on at war with both; or, is there
something in both subject and object not reconcilable? And how shall that something be determined so
that I may know what is real and what is fictitious in myself and the not
myself? Since the object is infinite and the subject is in all points the
counterpart, must not my salvation and the
salvation of the universal cosmos be in some way bound up in some
mysterious unity of origin, process and destiny? And if there is to be a Saviour must He not
be greater than both subject and object?
And must He not be above and beyond the relative? Must He not live and move and have His being
in the absolute? And, if so, how can
even He save me and the world to
which I belong except He come into the relative and in some way identify
Himself with it and partake of its limitations and sorrows? Can the “I”,
the ego, - myself, with its threefold consciousness of the world and self and God,
ever get so free from itself, myself, and so into unity with God that in the
knowledge Him and in the love of Him, I shall come to a real knowledge of what
I really am and may possibly become.
What am I? Who am I? Whence came I? And whither am I going? Pertinent questions surely. And what has the world’s best philosophy to
say in reply? Nothing, absolutely
nothing that is worth saying, except it be by way of mental recreation.
Now, please, let us note two
things: All these questions and more are involved in the searching
interrogation of this Young Ruler. There
is nothing there that is not here. There
is vastly more here than there. Second,
the only one to whom any man can go, if he is to have an answer which will
satisfy, is the One to whom this young man went. The French philosopher said, “I think, therefore I am.” And where did that lead him? But a far greater than he said and he said it
with profound humility, “what I am, I am by the grace of God.” And where did this lead the Apostle of the
Gentiles? It was he who said again, “For me to live is Christ.” Yes the “I am”
of the Christ of God, or continue in bondage to the elements of the world. Thus only can the real truth of personality
be found and preserved.
What must I do?
But this question holds in its
bosom another; namely, “What must I not do?” And bound up with these two inseparable
interrogations there are profound implications and suggestions as
to moral possibility, opportunity, responsibility and inevitable final accountability. The positive implies the negative, and vice
versa. And in threading my way between
the two, so as not to err to the right or the left, I cry out in conscious
helplessness, “Who is sufficient for these things in a
world like this?” In view of
these facts how true are the words of the Master: ‘Straight
is the gate and narrow is the way that
leadeth unto the life, and few there [Page 15] be that find it’.
Considering human nature as it
is we need not be surprised that the Young Ruler turned back after he had made
such a splendid effort to enter in. The
commentators who denounce this young man, and have themselves vastly less to
lose in order to enter, do not realize that where he was after “the great refusal” is exactly where they, for the most
part, are now - outside the Messianic
Kingdom. We sympathize with the
young man because for many years we have been seeking to get this question
experimentally answered; and so far we can only say with Paul, “Brethren, I count not myself
to have apprehended, but this one thing I do, forgetting those
things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which
are before I press towards the Mark
for the Prize.” Yes, the young man was not after [initial and eternal] salvation, but after the “prize.” We will see by and by exactly what this is.
Salvation is won by BELIEVING, but he ‘prize’ by DOING. Salvation is dual in
the Scriptures. [Salvation is] first
from the guilt of sin; and, second from the power of sin. Every [regenerate] believer has the former, but this by no means implies that he [or she] will
ever possess the latter. Only
those who ‘endure
unto the end’ will have
salvation in the second degree (Matt. 24: 13). And if
those who do not endure unto the end miss the second stage of salvation, what will be the consequence, the penalty? They will lose the Messianic
Kingdom for the bliss and glory of which the Young Ruler was longing, being impelled in some degree by the spirit
that moved the heart of the “father of the faithful”; but he found himself unable to “walk in the steps of that faith of his father
Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised” (Rom. 4: 12). Who of us has not failed in
this same walk?
Jesus said to His disciples: “If ye know these things, happy
are ye if ye do them” (John 13: 17). The word here translated “do” is one of the greatest in the New Testament,
occurring nearly 600 times; and is translated by many different English
words. Until a man is born from above he
cannot do any works acceptable to God.
Salvation in the first degree is wholly by
faith, faith in the works of another, even [those of our Lord Jesus] Christ the Redeemer. But
after faith has come and the foundation of Christianity is laid deep in the
spirit of man, not merely in his soul, all [spiritual] progress is conditioned by works of faith and love. The new life must find expression in acts
of obedience, long suffering, and also in daring deeds of valour in the
great conflict with the powers of
darkness. Relatively speaking,
the Reformers placed altogether too much emphasis on justification [by faith alone], and
too little on sanctification. This
defect continues until the present day in all the Reformed Churches. They seem only to have seen salvation in the
first degree. When Christ comes and
believers stand before the Bema (2 Cor. 5: 10) the judgment will proceed, not on [Page 16] the basis of faith, but of works
as the only adequate proof of faith (Rev. 22: 12). Referring to the second degree of salvation as the condition of entering the Messianic [and Millennial] Kingdom, James says, “Can faith save him?” implying that it cannot (see
Matt. 7: 13, 14 and Luke 21: 36). But [regenerate] Christians who fail in good works generally excel in evil works. The result is judgment [now, and,
if repentance is not forthcoming, after death] (Luke 13: 23-30; John 5: 29 [Heb. 9: 27; 10: 30ff.]). The
traditional eschatology applies this latter passage exclusively to unsaved
sinners, but we will prove later that this is another gratuitous assumption
based on the misinterpretation of the narrative with which we are now dealing.
What shall I do to INHERIT eternal life?
A very superficial examination
of the three scriptural words, “inherit”, “inheritance”, and “inheritor’,
indicates that they are all family
words. They are never
applied to a person who is yet outside the pale of [eternal]
salvation. Did Christ rebuke the Young Ruler for his use
of this family word? By no means! Then did He not thereby virtually admit that
the questioner was acting within the limit of his rights as a son of Abraham?
The very first time the word
inherit occurs in the Bible, it has specific reference to the
coming Messianic Kingdom.
“And he,
Abraham, believed in the
Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness. And He said unto him,
I am the Lord that brought thee out of
When a man is born again he
becomes an heir; but heirs do not
inherit till they come of age (Gal. 4: 1, 2). But
even before that time he may disinherit
himself by misconduct. Only those who by spiritual growth pass out of the imperfection of
childhood and grow up into Christ in all things will be able to establish their
claim to the inheritance.
Once the children of
“And now, brethren, I commend you to
God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build
you up, and
to give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20: 32).
Page 17
The words, “are sanctified,” ought to read, “have been sanctified.” The Corinthians were sanctified
in Christ judicially, but in themselves, actually, they were carnal, mere babes
in Christ, and as such they had no title to the inheritance; and Paul was
honest enough to tell them so in the most explicit terms (2 Cor.
12: 19-21; compare Gal.
5:19-21). Morally
and spiritually, relative to their dispensational standing, the Young Ruler was
on a much higher level than either the Corinthians or the Galatians, and there
is no room for doubt that they were saved in the first degree.
What shall I do to inherit ETERNAL LIFE?
Owing to the fact that “Eternal Life” is the subject of the second chapter of
the book we will only touch on the matter very briefly here. We have shown, and it is generally admitted,
that the word salvation has a dual, or two-fold meaning in the Bible. Namely, as exhibited in justification and
sanctification; that is, in deliverance from the guilt of sin, and deliverance
from the power of sin. But while this fact has been generally admitted, there has been, and is,
an implied assumption that wherever the
former has been made good the latter must follow as a matter of consequence.
This is a most fatal error, as millions of the redeemed who have
passed over the lines know today to their sorrow and irreparable loss.
The Westminster Standards are
very misleading in their teaching in this respect. Question
37 in the Shorter Catechism asks;
Q. What benefits do believers
receive from Christ at death?
A. ‘The
souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness and do
immediately pass into glory’.
As we will prove in the next
chapter there is absolutely no warrant in the Bible for any such
teaching. The same [anti-scriptural] theory, however, is held by most evangelical teachers of the present day.
Martin Luther injected deadly poison into the veins of the German, or
“It is therefore
as absurd and unsuitable that they, the righteous, should do good works, as if
they were to say God should do good, the sun should shine, the pear-tree should
bring forth pears, three and seven should make ten, as all this ensues of
necessity of the case from the nature of the thing.”
Page 18
Thus Martin Luther negates the very essence of the teaching of Jesus Christ
as when He said “If ye now these things, happy are ye if ye do them” (John 3: 17). In the
light of the above extract it is easy to see why Luther disliked the Epistle of
James, calling it an “Epistle of straw.”
The expression “kingdom of heaven,” or “
But until that memorable morning
in December 1913, I never dreamed that the phrase “Eternal
Life” was dual. That blessed ray of illumination made me to know it, and
diligent examination of the Word confirmed it.
This is what I mean by “The Dualism of Eternal Life.” We will therefore for the present postpone
the examination of these words till the next chapter. And though this is the strongest argument we
have to present in opposition to the traditional interpretation of our
narrative, we trust we shall be able in this chapter, without it, to
demonstrate the truth of our position; and in doing so will undermine the
foundations of that system of eschatology which has held sway in the churches
for hundreds of years. It is because of
the momentous issues involved that we are going so slowly and cautiously in our
exposition of the narrative in hand.
The reply of Christ to the man’s
question:
“Why
callest thou Me good? None is good save One, that is, God. Thou knowest the
commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother” (Luke 18:
19, 20).
1. There is in these words no
rebuke as to the Young Ruler’s conception of what he was wanting, but only as
to the substance and mode of his salutation.
The Master wanted the seeker to think more deeply and thereby recognize His
Divinity in order to deepen his faith and intensify his assurance. This was the stumbling block to the orthodox
Jew.
2. Christ in reply to the question
proposes something to be done. He knew
exactly where His questioner was morally and also spiritually. If the man was unsaved and Jesus knew it,
would He not have dealt with him accordingly?
But if, on the other hand, the
man was saved [eternally, and by God’s
grace alone (Eph. 2: 8, 9)], and
was sincerely desirous to qualify or
a place in the Messianic Kingdom; and that [Page 19] qualification
could only be secured by holiness of life, by deeds of righteousness, by
deep self denial, what better answer
could Jesus have given than the one before us? According to the traditional theory a man can
have [initial]
salvation, and break every one of the commandments enumerated by the Saviour, and yet enter the millennial kingdom,
because, they say, it is all of grace. But Galatians 5: 19-21
and 2 Corinthians 12: 19-21, not
to cite other passages, prove the
falsity of the assumption.
Listen to the testimony of the Holy Spirit:
“Because
that Abraham obeyed my voice,
and kept my
charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws” (Gen. 26: 5). “Showing mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20: 6). “If ye love me keep my
commandments” (John 14: 15). “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them he it is that loveth Me” (John 14: 21). “And whatsoever we ask we receive of Him, because we keep His
commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight” (1 John 3: 22). “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have
right to the tree of life and may
enter in through the gates into the City” (Rev.
22: 14).
There is no getting away from the
fact that in the traditional interpretation of Christianity there is a vast
amount of downright Antinomianism. We
would not belittle the Reformation. It
was a magnificent work of God’s Spirit.
But it stopped short of the goal. The order of the kingdom as to growth is, “First the blade, then the ear,
then the full corn in the ear.” This is the order both for the individual and
the Church. The Reformation stopped in
the ear, hence the estimate of Christ in His judgment of
To illustrate our point we will
take one brief quotation from Martin Luther in his commentary on the Galatians.
He says:
“Good
works ought to be done; the example of Christ ought to be followed - Well, all
these things will I gladly do. What then
followeth? Thou shalt then be saved and
obtain everlasting life? Nay, not so. I grant indeed that I ought to do good works,
patiently suffer troubles and afflictions, and to shed my blood also, if need
be, for the cause of Christ; and yet am I not justified, neither do I obtain
salvation thereby.”
As to salvation in the second degree this teaching is totally
unscriptural. But there are some
exceptions to this scene of ruin and spiritual desolation, and so the Holy
Spirit adds:
Page 20
“Thou
has a few names in
Believers become worthy only by good works wrought through faith and love (Rom. 4: 12; Luke 20: 35; Rev. 19: 7; Phil. 2: 12, 13).
3. Christ says to the Young Ruler,
“If thou desirest to enter into The Life, keep the commandments”
(Matt. 19:
17). Notice
the definite article before life. Both
the Authorized Version and Revised Version have overlooked the distinctive
significance of this little word in their translations. As will be shown later this is a very common
error on their part. If the Saviour had
said, “If thou wilt enter into life”, the
reference might have been to life in regeneration; that is, to [eternal]
salvation in the first degree; but when He inserted the article it
is quite evident that He had in mind full deliverance from the power of sin and
entrance into the Life more abundant which in John He declared He came to
impart to all those who will fulfill the conditions; and thus follow Him all the way (John
10: 9-11; 15: 9 and Luke 9: 23; 21: 36).
4. He is commanded to love his neighbour as himself (Matt. 19: 19). This
sums up all the commands in the second table of the Decalogue. It is
the Golden Rule. Note as follows:
(1) This command is a New
Testament precept.
(2) No unsaved man can possibly keep so holy a command. The fact that Christ required of him such a
high standard implies grace in the man’s heart, but not enough to carry him
through. There are two words in the
Greek for love in both the verbal and the noun forms: agapao and phileo. The former is much the stronger word and it
is this the Saviour makes use of in His command to the Seeker after the deeper
Life. When Jesus said to Peter, “lovest thou Me”, He used agapao,
but when Peter replied, “thou knowest that I love Thee”,
he was careful to use phileo.
(3) How many [regenerate] Christians today love their neighbour as themselves? Why apply a test of character to this young
man, whom they regard as unsaved, which
they will not apply to themselves as saved.
If living out the Golden Rule is to be the standard, not one out of a
thousand can be saved even in the first degree.
How absurd then to apply that rule to a man who is an utter stranger to
grace as this man in the narrative is supposed to be. The Golden Rule means DOING, and only a really well saved [obedient and Holy Spirit strengthened] man can do after this fashion.
Page 21
The Young Ruler assures the
Master that so he has kept the commandments.
“All these have I kept from my youth up.”
1. This man must have been honest and truthful; for if had lied
the Master would have known it and have charged him so. The absence of any rebuke is proof that what
he said was true. Let it also be borne
in mind that under the Law the human heart was not searched as under the
Gospel. Jesus was seeking to carry the
young man over from the Old order to the New, and so dealt with him
gently. No man ever was saved in the
primary sense by keeping the law. Jesus,
therefore, only required relatively perfect obedience to its demands even in
His own [redeemed] people.
2. The Young Ruler shows his modesty in that when Christ said, “If thou wilt enter into the life, keep the commandments.” He used for KEEP the strong word tereo, but when the
Ruler made reply he used the milder word phulasso. That is, he means to say that he has been
guarded on all these points; but would not deny that at times he had failed in
his fidelity. Surely this is the mark of
a sincere, truth-loving soul; a man of real humility; in short, a saved man, a
man who was pressing towards the goal amid many temptations to draw back; for
his high position both in Church and State must have brought him into trying
situations. Nevertheless, on the whole, he had preserved his integrity.
The enquirer’s second question: What Lack I Yet?
He was
positive after years of watchfulness and study of the coming kingdom and its
glory, that he had some of the qualifications requisite to enter. On the other hand he was not fully satisfied. His heart was not completely at rest. He did not have the full assurance of
Faith. The 15th. Psalm sets forth the qualification of those who
would share the glory of the
The second reply of the Master.
“And
Jesus said unto him, ‘If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in heaven; and come follow
me’” (Matt.
19: 21).
“And
Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him,
‘One thing thou lackest;
go thy way sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up thy cross, and [Page 22] follow Me” (Mark 10: 21).
Let us examine these touching words very carefully. Note:
1. Jesus beholding him loved
him. Was this the love of pity for a
lost sinner yet in his sins? Not by any
means. Not by any means. It was the love of appreciation, of
admiration. The Saviour saw wonderful
possibilities in this Young Ruler.
Possibilities not merely for the young man, but for Himself as
well. His great heart longs for the
companionship of those with whom He can enter into full friendship and
fellowship (read John 17, and the Song of Solomon).
“He loved him.” It is the very word used in John 11: 5. “Now Jesus loved Martha, and
her sister, and Lazarus”.
It is only said five times in
the Four Gospels that Jesus, using the verb agapao,
loved certain individuals. They are John
the Evangelist, Martha, her sister and Lazarus, and the subject of our
narrative. It is also said of the apostolic
body when Jesus washed their feet (John 13: 1). The
expression “His own” would exclude Judas.
Now it is certain that John and
the other ten apostles were saved, Martha and her sister and Lazarus were saved.
Why exclude the Young Ruler from the class in which the Holy Spirit places him
without specific evidence to the contrary?
But if we examine Mark 10: 21 and
John 11: 5
we find that while the verb is the same the mood is different; and in this
there is profound significance. In the
latter the tense is imperfect and might be translated, Jesus was loving Martha,
and her sister and Lazarus. But in the
case of the Young Ruler the verb is in the aorist
tense, and indicates an act, in this case, begun and ended. Thus he lost the
opportunity of his life (see John 14: 21-23). So far as the blessedness of ‘the age to come’ is concerned, he lost his soul (Matt. 10: 32-39). Deliverance from this condition of
self-centeredness is the ‘Great Salvation’ provided for every believer who is willing to become wholly centered
in Christ (Heb. 2: 1-3).
This is the secret of fruit-bearing (John 15: 1-10).
2. If thou desirest
to be PERFECT.
Here we have another key
word. We cannot think without words. But
even with them we are continually exposed to danger unless we attend closely to
our definitions. This is necessary, not only because different words have
different meanings, but the same word has different meanings in different
connections. These difficulties are of themselves sufficient to tax the [Page 23] resources of a really honest
soul if that were all. But the
perplexity of the problem of Bible interpretation is intensified a hundredfold
by defective and even false translations. These facts show how in the very nature of
things there must be few real
teachers. Few have the time needed;
fewer have the natural gifts and intellectual acquirements; and fewer still
have that love of God and His Word, written and living, which must ever lie at
the oasis of the whole process.
The word here translated perfect
misleading, since to most minds it conveys the idea of sinlessness, which in
its application to any but Christ it never means.
The word is telos,
an end, or the end. It answers excellently
in the connection to our English word goal.
If thou desirest to reach the goal, do so and so. The special point to be noted is that, in the
estimation of the Young Ruler and of the Master also, the questioner has long
ago entered the race; the starting point has been left far in the rear; but the goal has not been reached, and there are many difficulties in the way. It is not implied that the act
of parting with his great wealth would of itself decide the contest in his
favour. But
it would remove a very great hindrance,
an almost insuperable barrier, to
the successful prosecution of the race.
It is a fact that telos is never once applied in the New Testament to an
unbeliever, or to a sinner seeking [eternal] salvation.
Let us take a few examples:
“Be ye
therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in Heaven is perfect” (Matt.
5: 48).
“But
when that which is perfect is come, then that which
is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13: 10).
“Let us
therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded, and if in
anything ye he otherwise minded. God shall reveal even this unto you” (Phil. 3: 15).
“That we
may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1: 28).
“Let
patience have her perfect work” (James 1:
4).
“Perfect love casteth out fear” (1
John 4: 18).
Neither is it anywhere implied
that when a state of such perfection is reached no further progress is
possible, or desirable. When a young man
[Page 24] has reached twenty one years of
age he may be said to have attained to the telos,
to maturity, the goal, so far as the
state of perfection is concerned; but he may make great progress in that
state. The application to our present
study is surely apparent to all unprejudiced minds. If the Young Ruler had had the courage, the faith, the grace, to lay all his wealth at the feet of the
Master just then; he would by that
act have entered the “state” of
perfection. In the light of the Sermon on the Mount how few
[spiritually enlightened] Christians ever enter this holy,
heavenly state of absolute surrender?
The believer who refuses to give
up his unjust profits in business,
his worldly companions, is much
further, from the
One Thing Thou Lackest
1. “Go thy way”.
The Go and the Come are inseparable.
There are 44 words in the Bible translated go. The one used here is hupago. We will note three examples of its use.
“Jesus
saith unto her, ‘Go call thy husband and come hither’” (John 4: 16).
“Again
the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof
goeth
and selleth all that he hath, and buyout that
field” (Matt. 13: 44-46).
“And He
said unto him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’; he
went his way therefore and washed and came seeing” (John 9: 7).
The Young Ruler had not found in
Christ and His gift the hidden treasure, the pearl of great price; and therefore
he had not found himself at a sufficient depth in order to realize how
profoundly self-centered he was, He who would find himself must first find the
Christ. And he who has really found the
Christ has already found himself (read Acts 9). There is no way out of self into Christ, but
that of self-denial and self-sacrifice.
In proportion as one goes out of himself and into Christ he objectifies
the self, the fallen nature, and is thus enabled to distinguish between it and
the true ego. It is only thus that a man
can come to really hate his own life, his own self, and yield to God in
absolute surrender (Luke 14: 25-35). This truth would revolutionize current
psychology if only it could be seen and believed; and the reflex effect on
theology and anthropology would be most beneficent.
The attitude of the Young Ruler
to the world and to his fellow men was not just right. To “Go” and make it right, was the condition of getting right with God
at that deeper depth of his being which would constitute his essential
qualification [Page 25] for entering the [messianic and millennial] kingdom.
2. Go Thy Way, Sell Whatsoever
Thou Hast, And Give To The Poor.
“Whatsoever
thou hast”. That left him
nothing. Much grace is needed even today
to meet such an ordeal. How absurd to
expect an unsaved sinner to meet such a drastic requirement. Why sinners should be expected to do what is
experimentally impossible to 999 saints out of every 1000 even in this
dispensation of grace?
“Sell
whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor”. WHY?
(a) To test and prove his faith.
Very good.
(b) To indicate the infinite superiority of the things of God over
the things of this world. Very good
also. But you have not yet touched the
heart of the problem.
(c) There were many
poor in those days and their needs were many.
That is also to the point.
(d) The poor were poor because he was rich. Their misfortune was his opportunity. That’s it.
The civil law sanctioned his method
of acquiring and retaining what was not really his by the Law of Moses, that
is, of God. When the children of
Mark says he had great
possessions (ktemata polla).
This word ktemata specifically
indicates that the Young Ruler’s wealth was in landed estates. What according to Moses should have been
divided amongst thousands of people had passed by wicked legislation into the
hand of one aristocratic family to which this young man had become the legal
heir. He had sinned grievously, though
unconsciously, against his fellow men.
This is why all the commands enumerated by the Master belonged to the
Second Table of the Decalogue. Christ
had said, “Thou shalt not steal” and he thought
he had really kept that command. The
fundamental reason of the difficulty rich men have in entering the kingdom, in
its secondary sense, lies in the fact that they as a rule get their wealth
dishonestly. Then as it accumulates they
more and more set their hearts on it, trust in it, and make it their God.
Page 26
3. THOU SHALT HAVE
TREASURE IN HEAVEN
It is impossible for any man
except by the grace of God given in very rich measure to lay up treasure in
heaven and on earth at the same time.
But it is possible with God. If God
could get a man of wealth honestly acquired, wholly surrendered to Him, so as
to trust Him absolutely, and throw all “the tricks of
the trade” to the wind, there is no telling what might he
accomplished. If rich men who are
Christians could only see that God hates robbery for burnt offering; and that
all such only increase their guilt; and if they could see that after being
delivered from the guilt of sin they are by their unholy methods exposing
themselves to fearful suffering during the coming age, they might in many cases
be turned from the broad to the narrow way (Matt.
7: 13, 14).
How blessed that we can during
this brief probation on earth lay up treasure in heaven. Every kind act and loving deed done in the
Name of Jesus will be remembered and rewarded.
But where the great sacrifice is withheld such deeds coming forth a true
heart of love even on a small scale, are not easy (Rom.
12: 1, 2).
4. TAKE UP THY CROSS AND FOLLOW ME
This is a very, very, difficult
requirement. Very few Christians do it. Such a demand is never made of unbelievers;
that is, of unsaved sinners. It means
scorn and contempt and persecution.
Those who do so are strangers and pilgrims in the earth (1 Peter 2: 11). But they look for a city which hath
foundations whose builder and maker is God (Heb.
11: 9, 10).
It is very probable that
Christ’s call to this young man would have resulted, if accepted, in his
becoming a herald of salvation; and he might have left behind him a record
similar to that of Philip, or Barnabas, or even Paul. Contrast our Narrative with Phil. 3: 7-14.
“THE GREAT REFUSAL”
This is what Dante called it
(see Farrer’s Life of Christ).
“And when he heard this he went away very sorrowful;
for he was very rich”. This supreme moment comes to every
believer when it is forever decided whether or not he is to share the
inconceivable glory of the coming Messianic Kingdom (1 Cor. 2: 9, 10). Indeed, there are two crisis moments: the
first when salvation in the first degree is accepted or rejected; and the other
when salvation in the second degree is at stake. Millions have come under the blood in
“And when
Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, He said,
How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the
“But
with most of them God was not well pleased for they were overthrown in the
wilderness. Now these things were our
examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things”.
Surely the moral of this is not
difficult to apprehend.
The keeper of the prison at
How HARD IT IS FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES TO
ENTER THE
We will not now discuss the
Kingdom of Heaven, or of God, any more than to say that the new birth (John 3: 3-5) does not introduce a man to the Kingdom in the
sense in which the term is used in our narrative. Why is it so difficult for a rich man to
enter the Kingdom?
1. Because he usually acquires his
riches by means of unjust laws and by oppression of the poor.
2. Because such sins cannot be
righted by mere confession. There must
be [Page 29] restitution in order to get right
with God or man.
3. Because the rich cannot learn the lesson of perfect trust.
CHRIST’S TEACHING CREATES ASTONISHMENT
“When
His disciples heard it they said, ‘Who then can
be saved?’”
Why were they astonished? Because they had been under the false
impression that as soon as Messiah came and set up the Kingdom all sincere Jews
would enter simply because they were sons of Abraham. This is the very mistake, in substance, made
by Christians today. The dualistic
content salvation is as apparent in the Jewish dispensation as in the
Christian, if only we come to the word of God with an open mind. The heroes mentioned in Hebrews 11 are not average believers of Old
Testament times. They are samples of the
overcomers of those pre-Christian ages.
The writer says:
“And
these all having obtained a good report
through faith, received not the promise (of the Kingdom); God having provided some better thing concerning us that apart from us they should not be made
perfect”* (Heb. 11: 39, 40).
[* NOTE: This
promised perfection can only occur after “the first
Resurrection.” Only then
will ‘spirit’, ‘soul’
and ‘body’ be reunited; only then can
all overcomers enjoy, and literally fulfil their Lord’s promises (Luke 22: 28-30; Rev. 2: 25; 3: 21, R.V.):
when they will enter into their promised “land”
and “inheritance” in the with Abraham (Acts 7: 5,
R.V.) in immortal bodies of “flesh and bones”
(Lk. 24: 39, R.V.]
The “us”
of the last clause are the overcomers of
the present dispensation, those who have gone unto perfection, the goal, the telos. See Phil. 3: 7-14; Matt. 24: 13; and Heb. 6: 1-3. Heb. 6: 4-8 and 10: 26-31 present the judgment of God on believers who apostatize and go into a
state of permanent disobedience to God and conformity to the world. They will be excluded from the Messianic
Kingdom, but some time during, or at the end of the Millennium, they will be
restored, having paid the very last mite (Matt.
5: 25, 26). Here again type and antitype are in perfect
accord. This is the theme of the Epistle
to the Hebrews as a whole. Read
especially Chapters 3 and 4, and Num. 14. Is it
any wonder that the Young Ruler was anxious?
And is it not astonishing that believers are now so indifferent to the ‘Great Salvation’ (Heb.
2: 1-3)? The
first stage of salvation is easy because it is by faith regardless of past
conduct (John 4: 1-29); but
the second is very difficult because it is altogether a matter of character
(Rev. 14: 1-5; 1 Cor. 13: 1-13; Rev. 3: 4).
But why did the disciples
generalize what the Master had apparently specialized? They saw the young man go away very sorrowful
because he was very rich, and could not make the sacrifice. Why should they express surprise when they
were so poor, and the majority of the followers of the Christ were so poor, and
bound to be so? There was a reason. The record says, as already out, the young
man had “great possessions”- ktemata
polla. But when [Page 30] the Master said, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom
of God”, He used a different word, namely, chremata
in dative plural with the article (tois chremasin).
This is very instructive and explains the astonishment of the disciples;
for while the term ktemata has special reference
to property in land and real estate generally, chremata
is wealth, riches, in any shape or form. Presumably it may include those
physical, intellectual, and vocal qualities in which men trust and by means of
which they press to the front in the rivalry of the world. The
article differentiates between the riches of this age and the ages to come. How hardly shall they that trust in the
riches (of the world) enter into the
Peter’s interest and curiosity
are aroused. Thank God for Peter. His pertinent interrogation points have given
us some things that are very precious and which might not otherwise have been
known. He, in this case, interjects two
declarations with a timely interrogation:
“Behold we have left all”. “And have followed
Thee”
“What shall we have, therefore?”
How many Christians can
sincerely go before God today and say to their Saviour individually. Behold I
have forsaken all and have followed Thee?
And if they cannot say it what claim have they to the glory of the age to
come any more than this aristocratic but honest young Jew? They say that our Saviour does not treat all
who come to Him as He did the young man of our narrative. Why not?
If God is no respecter of persons when it is a question of entering in
at the first gate why should He become such when it is a question of entering
in at the second gate? All Israelites
could freely enter into the Court of the Tabernacle by a door thirty feet wide;
but only the Priests could enter the narrow door into the Holy Place, and not
even then unless they had first washed their hands and feet in the Laver at the
entrance. Compare Ex. 30: 20, 21; Rom. 8: 13; John 13: 8; Heb. 12: 14.
Bengel draws a contrast between Christ’s treatment of the Rich Young
Ruler and Zacchaeus, also a rich man, in the next chapter (Luke 19: 1). The tax gatherer offered half his goods to
the poor and the Master seemed quite satisfied with the offering and especially
because of its voluntary character. From
this Bengel assumes that Christ’s demand on the Ruler was something special and
in no way a general law of the Kingdom.
But he overlooks the significant fact that Zacchaeus raised no question
concerning his prospects for a place in the coming [Page 31] Messianic Kingdom.
Thus the two cases are not at all parallel.
The Ruler was running in the race
for the prize, while Zacchaeus was
after the free gift. This is plain from Luke
19: 9,
10. The
inflexible demand of Christ for all who would enter [His]
Kingdom when He comes is stated in such Scriptures as Luke
9: 23; 14:
25-35; 13:
24; John 14: 21,
23.
Every
believer is in Christ, eternally so, but we have overlooked the fact in Christ,
the True Tabernacle, there is an Outer-Court, a
“Behold we
have left all and have followed Thee”.
Both verbs are in the aorist tense and denote definite action taken at a
given and known time in the past, and the effect continuing up to the moment of
speaking. But while this was true of the
twelve (eleven) it was not true of all His professed disciples (John 6: 66, 69). It is by actual tests in hard places that the Master proves who are and
who are not true disciples, and who shall enter the
Kingdom at His coming.
WHAT SHALL WE HAVE THEREFORE?
Peter not
only put that question for the twelve, but for you and me. What shall I have in that Day of Days? Jesus
said to the Ruler, “Thou shalt have treasure in heaven”. But there were conditions - a
go sell - and come follow Me. “The children of this world are wiser than the children of
light”, because they [Page 33] know
how to lay up treasure in this [evil] age
far better than the latter do for the age to come. But we shall assuredly reap as we sown. No
law is surer than this.
Comparison of the Young Ruler and Peter:
(a) They are both saved.
(b) Their questions were equally acceptable to the Master.
In both cases the basis of their hope and interest lay in
the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming Messianic [and millennial] Kingdom.
Neither of them had a clear
conception of the nature of the Kingdom, or of the time and manner of its
introduction.
(e) Both earnestly desired to enter and participate in its joy.
(f) Both realized that
the Master was able to give the desired instruction, and lead in the way
thereto.
(g) They both hungered and thirsted after righteousness.
Points of Contrast:
(a) Peter was a poor man, relatively, while the young Ruler was
rich.
(b) Peter found it comparatively easy to
forsake his little all and follow the Master.
With the Ruler it was not only difficult but impossible.
(c) With Peter the higher motive ruled, and in the Ruler the
lower. It was not so in everything; just
in this one thing; but failure here was disastrous.
(d) With the Ruler
it was Jesus plus material goods, but with Peter Jesus was all and in all (John 6: 68).
(e) Under the supreme test the Ruler
broke down irrecoverably; while under what was to Peter the supreme test he broke
down but recovered himself (Matt. 26: 69-75).
(f) Peter had in his heart something the Ruler did not have. He could say, “Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”.
The other could only say, “Good Master”.
Page 33
(g) Peter will have a place in the
Messianic Kingdom while the Ruler will be excluded. But may
he not have returned and complied with the Master’s request?
A double query: If the
circumstances of birth, early education, and general environment, had been reversed,
and Peter had been rich and the other poor, could Peter have acted as he
did? Will God take note of these things
in the Day of judgment? Surely!
The reply of Jesus to Peter’s question:
“And
Jesus said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the Regeneration
when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
“And
Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that
hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the Gospel’s; but he shall receive an hundred fold now in
this time, houses and brethren and sisters, and mothers and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life. But many that are first shall be last;
and the last
first” (Mark 10: 29-31).
We will examine this mine of
natural riches (chremata) which is to be exchanged
for the riches of the
1. The first fact to be carefully noted is that these riches of
the Kingdom are only for those who forsake all and follow Jesus, and keep on following Him to the end of the
race. He that ‘endureth to the end shall be saved’
with the ‘great salvation’ (Heb. 2: 1-3; Matt. 24: 13).
2. What has to be given up is all that which is most dear to the natural heart. Naught else will constitute a sufficient
demonstration of perfect love to God and man (Mark
12: 28-31).
3. The return is an hundred fold in this present time, this
dispensation. Young translates Mark 10: 29, 30 thus: “And Jesus
answered and said - who may not receive a
hundred fold now, in this present time.” That is, all disciples will not receive a
full reward, but they may, if they wish
to follow Jesus fully (2 John 8). True disciples are the seed sown on good
ground and bring forth [Page 34] fruit
thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and hundredfold. Who hath ears to hear let him hear.
4. “Shall
sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of
5. “With
persecutions.” This is what above
all things fallen human nature dislikes.
To escape this what will not the average Christian do? To drift with the bewitching current, to
receive the plaudits of men, to bask under the sunny smile of the rich and affluent
how delightful - to the flesh. But it is
the Master Himself who says, “Woe unto you when all men
speak well of you.” Yes, “of YOU”.
6. In the Regeneration. In the palingenesia,
palin, anew, or again, and genesis, a begetting, a
second birth. What the new or second birth is to man now; that will the palingenesia be to the world, the kosmos, in the age to
come. “The whole
creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain
together until now. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for
(the coming of Christ and the consequent) manifestation of the Sons of God” (Rom. 8: 19-22).
7. “And in
the age to come Eternal Life.”
Matthew puts it, “and shall inherit eternal
(everlasting) life.”
Christ concludes the narrative
with the very solemn words: “But many that are first
shall be last and the last first”.
The Young Ruler was very highly favoured in many ways. He had plenty of
time to study the prophecies; he was in close touch with the priests and could
enquire of them as to the meaning of the promises to
It is for the candid reader to
say whether or not we have established our thesis; namely, that the Young Ruler
is not a sinner seeking salvation in the first degree; but a true, yet
imperfect, son of Abraham seeking entrance to the coming Messianic [and Millennial]
Kingdom. If we have
succeeded in doing this we have not only found the key to the true
interpretation of the narrative; but we have
established a principle which affects the whole realm of the traditional
eschatology; and proves it to be
thoroughly unscriptural. And yet
we have left untouched two of the most important facts in the narrative.
Namely, “Eternal Life”, and the “
Page 35
A CONFIRMATORY COMPARISON
According to Luke the question
asked of Christ by the Young Ruler had been asked once before by a Lawyer (an interpreter
of the Mosaic Law); and in this we find ample confirmation of our
interpretation:
“And
behold a certain Lawyer stood up and made trial of Him, saying, ‘Teacher what shall I
do to inherit eternal life?’ And he said unto
him, ‘What is written in the law? What readest thou?’
And he answering said, ‘Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,
and with all thy mind, and
thy neighbour as thyself.’ And he said unto him, ‘Thou
hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live’” (Luke 10: 25-28).
It is notable that the account
of the Rich Ruler is found in all the Synoptical Gospels, but not in John;
while the incident of the Lawyer is peculiar to Luke. There is a reason for this. The Synoptics present the human, historical
side of the Christ, as the Son of Man; the prominent feature of which is His
claim to be the Messiah of Israel as foretold by the Prophets of the O.T.; and
the validity of that claim as demonstrated by His genealogy, His works, and His
Life; and then the model for holy conduct as the Law demanded. But John presents the Deity of the Christ as
the back ground and support of His holy life and marvellous works and Messianic
claims. According to the Jewish
conception of the Scriptures every Jew who
was circumcised and sought to order his life by the Law of Moses was eligible
for a place in the Messianic Kingdom.
This was quite correct and approved by Christ. Where they erred was in the false
interpretation of the Law and of the Prophecies. They gave much attention to
the ceremonial part of the Law, tithing mint, anise, and cumin. But they neglected the weightier matters of
the (moral) Law. Hence, the righteous
anathema of the Saviour (Matt. 23: 13-33).
The reply of Abraham to the rich
man in ‘Hades’
proves that in the writings Moses and the Prophets they had all the light they
needed to enable them to distinguish between right and wrong in human conduct (Luke 16: 31). In this connection let me point out a significant
fact in reference to the relation of the three Synoptic Gospels to the Gospel
according to John and the remainder of the N.T.
It will be admitted that there is no greater word in the N.T., than “believe” and its cognates. Then here is a point of deep significance: in
the three Synoptical Gospels the word occurs about 30 times; in John’s Gospel
90 times; and in the remainder of the N.T., over 100 times. Not only so but this also: In the Synoptical Gospels this important word is not used, prior to the resurrection,
in reference to salvation from the guilt of sin, but in reference to a special promise (Luke
1: 45); in reference to mighty works (Mark 11: 22-24); to
healings (Matt. 9: 29); and, very especially, in reference to Christ being the Son [Page 36] of
David, the
Heir to David’s Throne; in short, the King of the Jews (Matt. 22; 21: 5; 27: 11, 29, 37, 42).
Here we have the Gospel of the Kingdom, but not the Gospel of the Grace of God for this Gentile Age. But in
John’s Gospel and in the rest of the N.T. while Kingdom truth is never absent,
it is viewed rather from its celestial side.
Briefly presented the state of
the case is this: In the Synoptical Gospels it is taken for granted that the
true children of Abraham are already saved and heirs of the Messianic Kingdom,
that is of “Eternal Life”, the popular synonym
of the Kingdom of God in the Age to come; and that all they had to do to inherit “eternal
(age-lasting)
life” in Messiah’s [Millennial] Kingdom was to order their lives according to God’s revealed
will in the Old Testament (see Ezek. 18: 1-18; Psa.
15).
Viewing the matter in this
light, as presented in the Synoptical Gospels, we see how natural and proper it
was for the Young Ruler to ask Christ what he must do to enter the Messianic
Kingdom - the Golden Age of Israel’s [Divine chosen and taught] Prophets.
That Christ did not expect any
honest Jew at that time and under the aspect of truth presented by Mathew, Mark
and Luke, to approach Him on any other basis is quite apparent from the cordial
reception the young man received and the directions given him.
All this shows how unjust and
lacking in discrimination is the traditional interpretation which represents
the inquirer as seeking salvation from the guilt of sin, and on this baseless
assumption charges him with legalism and self-righteousness. But for the sake of comparison, or contrast,
let us assume that the young man was seeking salvation (as a [unregenerate] sinner) by works, and that Christ
disapproved of his conduct because of this fact. Granting this we turn to the case of the
Lawyer (Luke 10: 25-37) for light.
The fact is apparent on the
surface that the question asked of the Master by the two men is identically the
same: Namely - “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” What was the
Masters reply to the lawyer? Did he
reply as did Paul to the keeper of the prison at
When the Lawyer had given the
substance of the Moral Law as consisting in love to God and man, the rely of
the Master was, “This do and thou shalt live.” What did He mean by that? The traditional view supposes that by so doing
he would be saved from the guilt of sin and receive the new birth. But if so that would be salvation by works,
would it not? Nevertheless that was not
Christ’s thought. But rather thus: This
do and it shall be said of thee as of Zacharias and Elizabeth, “They were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Law blameless.” Luke 1: 6; and
when you die you will die in the faith (of Messiah’s Kingdom, Heb. 11: 13); and during
your sojourn in the intermediate state, you shall have your place among the
[believing] living (Matt. 22: 31, 32), and not among the [unbelieving] dead (John 6: 49; Rom. 8: 13); and then [when
Messiah returns to earth] you
will be rewarded with a part in ‘the first
resurrection’ (Rev. 20: 16; Luke 20: 35; 21: 36) and
shall live in all the restored and perfected powers of your redeemed manhood, and share with the Son of David the glory
of His Messianic Reign and [Millennial] Kingdom.
Then when the Lawyer asked, “And who is my neighbour?” there came from the lips of
the Master the beautiful story of the traveller who fell among thieves while on
his way down from Jerusalem to Jericho.
And what a fearful indictment of the religious leaders of that day, and especially
of their interpretation of the Scriptures.
Spiritually understood the way from
Thus we conclude that the question
that was on the lips of every pious Jew, equally becomes the lips of every
sincere Christian: “What shall I do to inherit eternal
(Millennial) life?” And the compassionate
Saviour has not left us without an answer (Luke 14:
25, 33; Heb. 12: 14; 1 John 3: 1-3).
I may remind the reader before
we pass on that he ought not to leave this chapter until he has
satisfied himself of the radical antagonism between the Pre-millennial and the
Post-millennial [and Anti-millennial] conceptions of the Second Coming
of Christ. The man who accepts and stands
by the [two]
latter deliberately puts himself in the power of the great enemy of God and man,
and as deliberately defies [Page 38] the Holy Spirit to lead him into
the truth. Our
narrative of the Young Ruler is only one out of hundreds and even thousands of
Scriptures which cannot be understood apart from the Premillennial view of
Christ’s Second Advent, His parousia, or personal presence. One
of the most notable of these is Rev. 20:
1-6. It is the antagonism between truth and error, between righteousness and unrighteousness, between God and Satan. Yet
I have no definite assurance that even Pre-millennialists, generally, will accept my interpretation of the narrative we have been studying. If
they reject it they must do so on [anti-millennial
and] post-millennial grounds.
In conclusion let us not forget
where we are ethically and exegetically: If we have established our thesis we
have accomplished two positive ends with certain negative results following by
logical implication. Positively, (1) we have found the correct
interpretation of the narrative of the Rich Young Ruler; and (2) we have established a principle
of interpretation of universal significance throughout the total length and
breadth and height and depth of the Revelation of God in His Holy Word. Our entire outlook on God and
Human Destiny is fundamentally transformed. And, on the negative side, we
are obliged to infer that the whole body of Reformed Theology is affected, discounted more or less; and the traditional eschatology is
demonstrated to be an elusive fabrication, a cruel imposition, a
masterpiece of the Prince of the Power of the Air. If the reader has any doubt of
this let him resolve by the gracious aid of the Holy Spirit to follow the clue
still further.
While we believe our argument is
conclusive as to the true interpretation of the portion of Scripture under
consideration, the reader will remember that we have omitted the testimony of
two sections, the evidential value of which is of infinite significance. The first of these is found in the expression
“Eternal Life”,
and the second in the complimentary conception of the Messianic - Theocratic [and Millennial] Kingdom. The former we will at once proceed to examine
in our next chapter.
As the work stands in manuscript
form there are seven chapters, the title of the seventh being, “The Covenanted Messianic-Theocratic Kingdom”, but I
find it impossible to get the last chapter in without extending the work beyond
certain necessary limits. But the
argument is not only complete as far as it goes, but also, I believe,
unanswerable, so far, at least, as the main contention is concerned. I am hopeful that the seventh chapter will
appear before long in another connection.
* * *
Page 39
CHAPTER 2
THE DUALISM OF ETERNAL LIFE
“In the
ordinary branches of human knowledge or enquiry, the judicious questioning of
received opinions has been the sign of scientific vitality, the principle of scientific
advancement, the very source and root of healthy progress and growth. If medicine had been regulated three hundred
years ago by Act of Parliament; if there had been Thirty nine Articles of
Physic, and every licensed practitioner had been compelled, under pains and
penalties, to compound his drugs by the prescriptions of Henry the Eighth’s
physician, Doctor Butts, it is easy to conjecture in what state of health the
people of this country would be at present.” - Froude’s Essays.
It is the purpose of this
chapter to state, illustrate, enforce, and apply the truth of the “Dualism of
Eternal Life” as I find it in the word of God, especially in the New Testament.
By the above heading I mean to
convey the thought, the truth, that the phrase “Eternal
Life” is used in a dual or twofold sense, in the Scriptures. In the Former it designates the free gift of
God to the soul that believes on Jesus Christ as the only Saviour from
sin. In the second sense it means, no
longer the free gift, but the prize of which Paul speaks in Phil. 3: 7-14. This prize is the gracious privilege granted
to believers who like Joshua and Caleb, like John and Paul, wholly follow the
Lord, of sharing in the glory of the first resurrection and the unspeakable blessedness
of Christ’s Messianic-Theocratic-Millennial Kingdom in the age to come (Matt. 19: 27-30).
The gift of Eternal Life
contains potentially the prize; but that potentiality may never
be developed in the present period of the [regenerate]
believer’s probation; and if such be the case he will miss the Kingdom and its glory in the
coming age.
Dualistic combinations run all
through the Bible. They take various
forms as to moral character. They may be
synthetic, or antithetic. In this chapter
we emphasize the former. As examples we
may take Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca.
In the New Testament we have Christ and His Bride; the Spirit and the
word; Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Examples of antithetic dualism are found in Abel and Cain, Isaac and
Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, the Church and the World, Grace and Law.
There is one special point,
under the head of synthetic dualism, where the leaders of the people both in
the Jewish and Christian dispensations have, at fearful cost, failed God. This is the grand synthesis of the two
advents of Christ. The Jewish outlook on
the future saw but one advent of Messiah and that in glory to establish His
Kingdom and deliver the children of Abraham from Gentile thraldom. They had no room for a humble, suffering
Messiah preparatory to the glory of His Messianic Rule. The Levitical offerings, as well as passages
like Isa. 53, ought to have saved them from this error. The Old Testament everywhere presents the
Messiah as reaching His throne through suffering (Psalms
22 and 89). So also the people of God in this
dispensation have no room for the thought of the same Christ still suffering
for the truth’s sake in the members of His mystical [Page 40] body. The loss to vital Christianity has been enormous,
as carnal Christians will discover to their sorrow when they stand before the
judgment seat of Christ. 2 Cor.
5: 10.
The Church admits the two
advents but so completely disassociates them
from their historical and prophetic settings as to rob them of their synthetic
beauty, power, and glory; and also of their spiritual and eschatological
significance.
Associated with this, and
growing out of it, comes the subject of the present volume, where it seems to
me the Christian Church has made the greatest mistake in her whole career. This is her
failure to recognize and emphasize the “Dualism of
Eternal Life” and its corollaries.
When the Church lost this truth, so central and vital to both
Testaments, I do not know. It is
doubtful, however, if the date is later than the third century A. D.
It is perfectly clear to the
mind of the writer that our exegesis of Luke 18:
18-30, as
presented in Chapter 1, has established the
fact that the Young Ruler is not a sinner seeking [eternal]
salvation from the guilt of sin, and possession of the
free gift of eternal life; but a
real son of Abraham seeking how he may be assured of a place in Messiah’s
coming [millennial]
Kingdom. And it is equally certain that Peter’s
question and Christ’s reply (Matt. 19: 27-30) constitute an extension and amplification of
the subject introduced by the Ruler. In
addition to this Christ’s two replies indicate that “eternal
[Gk. ‘aionios’] life” and
the “
We will now examine closely the
two terms in the phrase “eternal life”. There are three Greek words in the New
Testament all translated in A.V. and R.V. by one English word, “life”. This is
confusing. The three words are bios, psyche
and zoe (with the “o” and “e”
long).
[The term] bios occurs eleven times in the New Testament. It is especially associated with man’s day,
and usually refers to the material or sensuous side of human existence. Thus: “He divided
unto them his living” (Luke 15: 12; so 2 Tim. 2: 4; 1 John 2: 16).
The word psycho occurs about one
hundred times and is translated life, or soul.
It expresses the idea of the natural life in man, and generally with the
suggestion of subjection to sin and death.
Thus: “If any man will save His life he shall
lose it” (see Matt. 16: 25; 10: 38; Mark 8: 37). This term is used to express the thought of
the natural life of Christ as laid down in His atoning death (Matt. 20: 28). The
adjective aionios
(usually translated “eternal” or “everlasting”) is never found in association with bios or psycho. The reason is that the life expressed by
these words is subject to mood, time, and circumstance. And these are the only life which man by
nature can know.
Page 41
The third term is zoe. It occurs in
the N.T. about one hundred and forty times.
In its Divine original it is uncreated and indestructible. It is “that eternal
life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us” (1 John 1: 2; John 1: 4). This is the life imparted in the new
birth. But its latent potentiality can
only be developed by the crucifixion of the self-life (psyche), and by continual fellowship with
Christ as the despised and rejected One; and also as the Victor over sin and
death and hell.
This distinction between the soul and the Spirit, and between
the psyche and the zoe,
both so fundamental to biblical interpretation, is ignored and virtually denied by modern theology; yes, indeed, and by
historical and systematic theology generally.
As a matter of fact this
distinction between psyche and zoe ought to be the primary postulate of all science and
philosophy. If it were so science would keep absolutely to its own realm - the investigation
of natural phenomena, never daring for a moment to step over the line of
demarcation, but ever with bared and bowed head pausing at the boundary line to
worship and adore that sacred, awful, personal reality without which and whom
the phenomenal world could have no meaning, no purpose, and no existence. So far as Christian Theology has any life in
it, and wants to give a reasonable apology for its claim to a hearing, it must
contend for this distinction with all its might, and in the full consciousness
of its unrivalled dignity and supreme worth. To affirm that Christian Theology
has a right to the first place, at the head of every other branch of knowledge,
not merely as a matter of classification, but as of organic vitality, unity and
worth, is only another way of saying that Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is now dejure and will soon be de facto, King of Kings, and Lord of lords before
whom every knee in Heaven and earth and hell, will yet bow in absolute
subjection. Apart from this
great fundamental distinction, and its ethical
and spiritual implications, theology
ceases to be Christian, becomes the
handmaid of rationalistic philosophy and the plaything of ecclesiastical
opportunists.
Apostolic Christianity has taken
the word zoe out of its degraded
associations in the literature of heathen Greece, given it a new and heavenly
fellowship, infused into it divine energy and given it a central place in the
galaxy of Christian verities. For what
is love and joy and peace and long suffering - but so many attributes of the
substance called life. This life could
not be eternal if it were not consubstantial with the Son of God; - nor
consubstantial with the Son of God if it were not eternal. But this is not to affirm that matter is
eternal.
What I want now to prove is that
the phrase, Eternal Life, is used in
the Scriptures to convey two
quite distinct conceptions. It is (1) the free gift of God to every sinner
who sincerely and scripturally accepts Jesus Christ as the Saviour from the
guilt of sin; and (2) It is used to
designate the blessedness of the [Page 42]
Millennial Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We will take two passages from
the Epistle of Paul to the Romans to illustrate the difference. In Rom. 6: 23 it is
expressly stated that “The wages of sin is death but
the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord.” This is so clear that it
needs no comment. In Rom. 5: 20, 21, we have
the following:
“Moreover
the law entered that the offence might abound;
but where sin abounded, grace did much more
abound; that as sin has reigned unto death even
so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ
our Lord.”
In the former case it is a gift
to be had by any sinner for the simple taking, regardless of his past record. Rom. 6: 23 comprehends the simple fact that [eternal]
salvation is provided and freely offered.
But Rom. 5:
21 carries
the thought farther. Sin did more
than come in. It abounded. Therefore God must meet this and provide a
means whereby the reign of grace will overtake and exceed the power of sin and
death in every individual who so desires.
At the Cross God damned (katakrino) sin in
the flesh; and thus Christ having spoiled principalities and powers made a show
of them openly, triumphing over them in it (the Cross; Rom.
8: 3; Col. 2: 15). How
did Christ win this victory? By
grace? No, there was no grace for
Him. He was made sin for us. He met the demands of the Law to the fullest
extent by a life of absolute surrender to God.
Thus was grace made possible for sinners? Grace for pardon, and also for
deliverance. Grace must do in the
individual what sin has been doing, manifesting its power to control and direct
the energies of the person. As sin
reigned through an unholy life (psyche); so must grace reign through
a holy life, (zoe); and if it does [this is conditional] the reward is “Eternal [aionios] Life” in the coming
Messianic Kingdom; but not otherwise. Can a man live a holy life till he is born again
and is in possession of the free gift of eternal life? The gift
is the “blade” but the prize is the full corn in the ear. This is expressed in Rom.
5: 17. “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they
which receive abundance of grace and of the
gift of righteousness shall reign in
(Millennial) life by one Jesus Christ.
Did grace reign in the Galatians? No. The result then is exclusion from the
“But God
commendeth His love toward us in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were sinners, we were
reconciled to God by the death of His son, much
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved
by His life.”
Here in the most explicit terms
we have the doctrine of a twofold
salvation. The believer was saved from the guilt of sin and
justified the moment he believed in [Page 43] Christ. The verb, were reconciled, is in the aorist
tense, and indicates a past act definite
in time and place: (a)
judicially, when the reconciliation was effected by Christ on the Cross; and (b) actually when the believer accepted
Christ as his Saviour. This provides a
solid basis on which grace may operate
and abound subjectively. I say, “may” for there
are conditions which the [regenerate]
believer must fulfil.
These being met the process of
sanctification begins, and thus “we are saved by
His life”. As to conditions, see Luke 9: 23; 11: 28; 14: 25-35. “He that endureth to
the end shall be saved”
(Matt. 24:
13).
This is the path into “eternal [‘aionios’] life”; that is, the Messianic Kingdom.
The above interpretation is
further confirmed by the prepositions employed in Rom. 6: 23 and 5: 17-21. In the
former passage the words, “in Christ Jesus our Lord”,
the preposition is en ([… see Gk.]) with dative of the place, or locality,
where the gift is found without any
reference to the way in which it is procured, or how it is to be
developed. But in the latter the
preposition is dia ([… see Gk.]) with
the genitive: “By
Jesus Christ our Lord” indicating that it is not by the
death of Christ merely, that the second stage of
salvation is to be effected; but
by His continual intercession for us at the right hand of God, and the continuous impartation of His
resurrection life by the Holy Spirit.
And these are conditioned by
unswerving faith [and obedience (Acts 5: 32)] in the believer.
In John
3: 16 we have the dualism expressed
in the unity of one outward form, and on the principal that the greater
includes the lesser. This verse is usually
understood to speak only of the free gift of life in Christ. If God so loved the world that He made
provision in Christ for the pardon and justification of sinners only, that
would be wonderful; but He did far more than that. He made provision that grace might abound to,
and in, and through the believer, so that once saved he might not perish but have eternal life in the Messianic Kingdom.
“Then believers may perish”, you say. Of course they may. But in what sense? In the sense that they are excluded
from the [millennial and Messianic] Kingdom and have no part in the glory of
the first resurrection, being still held by the power of death.* But
the [regenerate] believer does not thereby lose what he had in the first place - the gift of
eternal life. Grip this thought
firmly.
[* See 1 Peter 1: 9-12ff. Compare
Isaiah 11: 9-10; Habakkuk 2:
14; Revelation
20: 4-6:
and Psa. 16: 10 with Acts 2: 27, 34; and Genesis 15:
7; Luke 16:
23; Acts 7:
4b, 5
with 2 Tim. 2:
18, 19. R.V.]
It is here that the respective
theories of the Calvinist and the Armenian break down. They fail to explain and correlate the
facts. We will resume this phase of the
subject later.
But here arises a new problem:
If “Eternal Life” as the prize differs from Life
as the gift; and also, if “Eternal Life” as the prize is synonymous with the
coming Messianic Kingdom, and that Kingdom is limited to 1000 years, it follows
logically that the adjective aionios does not mean - [in a number of scriptural
texts and contexts] - what it says in English [translations]. In other words, that our translations in both A.V. and R.V. are
wrong. This is what we claim and desire
to prove.
Page 44
As, day by day, I followed up
the clue given that December morning, 1913, I was convinced that those passages
where aionios could be translated “eternal”
were very few; and that fuller light would likely establish the conclusion
that, so far as its essential meaning is concerned, it ought never to be so
translated and interpreted. But as this
is not necessary in order to establish our main line of argument I have decided
to make no attempt to carry the discussion to its fullest limit. But inasmuch as the traditional eschatology
is built almost exclusively on the assumption that “eternal”
is the proper translation of aionios, it will follow that if this
can be proven false, and therefore unscriptural, the generally accepted views of the churches of Christendom concerning
the future state of both saved and unsaved will have to be abandoned. This is a very solemn matter and deserving of
the most serious and painstaking consideration.
I am quite well aware that here
we are on keenly contested ground; and, also, just as certain that in this very
matter the last word has not been spoken.
Right here Canon Farrar
failed at his strongest point, that is, as a linguist. And as in the past, so now and in the days to
come, we can count on the great enemy of truth and righteousness to still work
through his favourite weapons, prejudice, custom, and gratuitous assumption, to
keep out the light of God’s word on this great subject. Permit just one sobering interrogation before
coming to our task: Is there any room for doubt, so far as reason and
observation can go, that if the traditional theory be true the Devil is going
to reap a tremendously great harvest of lost souls; and Jesus Christ,
notwithstanding His awful sufferings in which He tasted death for every man, is
going to be compelled to be contented with a few crumbs from under the table of
the World’s Despotic Master and Ruler.
But in the true light of the actual facts of the incarnation, life,
death and resurrection of the Son of God, is this the best that God can
do? Surely not! in such case can the
Christ ever see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied? But let us pass from the realm of
probabilities and conjectures, however plausible, to that of irrefutable
facts. And we may here remark that what
will most offend orthodox readers in this study is not what is said concerning
the future state of the unsaved, but of
the saved. Thus we have to meet the
force of the orthodox view in two opposite directions.
What is the meaning of the Greek
adjective aionios? As most
religious people depend largely, even chiefly, on human authority rather than
on what the word of God says, it may be well to note a few points in this
connection by way of preliminary remark and evidence. Note the following data:
1.
2. Trench in his work on “Greek Synonyms”
admits that aionios sometimes has a limited significance.
3. Dr. Vincent in his “Word Studies in the
New Testament” is most emphatic in his assertion that aionios never
means eternal as English readers use the word.
See his valuable note on 2 Thess. 1: 9. Thus it
becomes evident that in our contention for a more exact rendering of this Greek
adjective we are not without the support of scholarship. But we have more conclusive evidence than
this.
SOME POSITIVE FACTS
1. It is a fact that when the A.V.
was made the Latin language was far better known, and more extensively used, than
the Greek; and therefore the translators were greatly influenced both by the
extensive use of Latin and by the Latin Versions then in use. Beza’s
translation and the Vulgate both translate aionios by aetemus,
the cognate noun being aeternitas, whence come our English
“eternal” and “eternity”. This looks very suspicious. From the above it is as clear as the light of
noon-day that the King James Translators instead of going back to the original
Greek and translating the Greek aionios went to the Latin Vulgate and translated the Latin aeternus. If they had gone to the Greek, and acted as becomes scholars, they would have given us the
same translation as
2. It is equally a fact that the theology of the
West was not that of the Greek Church, but that of Roman Catholicism. It was Latin theology.
And just as it is beyond doubt
that the revisers, translators, and lexicographers, were chiefly influenced by
the Latin language and Latin translations; so is it equally beyond doubt that
the theologians of the Reformation were far more influenced by Latin Theology
than Latin theology than by the word of God.
It is admitted that the theology of Calvin was derived from
Let us for a moment examine the
condition of Latin Theology at the time when the traditional eschatology was
fully established. I will quote from Milman’s Latin Christianity. Let it also be remembered that the first four
great Church Councils refused to formulate any creedal statement on
eschatological lines. Nevertheless it is
to Augustine, especially, that we
must trace the roots and the foundation of the system of eschatology which has
prevailed in the Protestant Churches since the reformation. In this connection Milman says:
“Augustinianism
was not merely the expression of the universal Christianity of the age as
administering to, as being in itself the more full, fervent, continuous
excitement of the religious sentiment, it was closely allied with the two great
characteristic tendencies of Latin Christianity.”
“Latin
Christianity, in its strong sacerdotal system, in its rigid and exclusive
theory of the church, at once admitted and mitigated the more repulsive parts
of the Augustinian theology.
Predestinarianism itself, to those at least within the pale, lost most
of its awful terrors. The Church was the
predestined assemblage of those to whom and to whom alone, salvation was
possible; the Church scrupled not to surrender the rest of mankind to that
inexorable damnation entailed upon the human race by the sin of their first
parents. As the Church, by the jealous
exclusion of all heretics, drew around itself a narrower circle; this startling
limitation of the divine mercies was compensated by the great extension of its
borders, which now comprehended all other baptized Christians. The only point in this theory at which human
nature uttered a feeble remonstrance was the abandonment of infants, who never
knew the distinction between good and evil, to eternal fires. The heart of Augustine wrung from his
reluctant reason, which trembled at its own inconsistency, a milder damnation
in their favour. But some of his more
remorseless disciples disclaimed the illogical softness of their master.”
“Through
the Church alone, and so through the hierarchy alone, man could be secure of
that direct agency of God upon his soul, after which it yearned with
irrepressible solicitude. The will of
man surrendered itself to the clergy, for on them depends its slavery or its
emancipation, as far as it was capable of emancipation. In the clergy, divine grace, the patrimony of
the Church, was vested, and through them distributed to mankind. Baptism,
usually [Page 47] administered by them alone, washed away original sin; the other rites and
sacraments of which they were the exclusive ministers, were still conveying,
and alone conveying, the influences of the Holy Ghost to the more or less
passive soul. This objective and visible
form as it were, which was assumed for the inward workings of God upon the mind
and heart, by the certitude and security which it seemed to bestow, was so
unspeakably consolatory, and relieved, especially the less reflective mind,
from so much doubt and anxiety, that mankind was disposed to hail with gladness
rather than examine with jealous suspicion these claims of the hierarchy. Thus the Augustinian theology coincided with
the tendencies of the age towards the growth of the strong sacerdotal system;
and the sacerdotal system reconciled Christendom with the Augustinian theology.”
- Milman’s
Works. Vol. 1, page 171.
No student of ecclesiastical
history will doubt the accuracy and the literal truthfulness of the above
description by Milman of the condition of Christendom
in the middle Ages. And the ability of
the clergy to keep the people in abject submission to their authority depended more than anything else on their boasted power over the souls
of men [in Gk. ‘Hades’
= Heb. ‘Sheol’]
after they had left the body.* For
this purpose it was essentially necessary to formulate and boldly enunciate a
system of eschatology which would, if
the clergy so willed fix irrevocably the future destiny of the soul [from the time of Death until its Resurrection]. And
not only so, but it was necessary to
so manipulate those portions of Scripture which threatened future judgment [in that place (Heb. 9: 27)] on
the believer, in case of disobedience and unbelief, as to make them apply not to [regenerate] Christians but to [unregenerate]
sinners. And
the same necessity exists today as we shall see later.
[* See Luke 16: 22, 23, R.V. cf.
Acts 2: 34;
Rev. 6: 9-11 and 2 Tim. 2: 18, etc.
See also Mr. G. H. Lang’s ‘Firstfruits
and Harvest”.]
But while Latin Christianity
wielded mighty power for many centuries, it did so because the human mind
during those centuries was sleeping the sleep of death; hence the arbitrary
power of the clergy and at the same time their gross immorality. Falsehood and superstition can only flourish
in an atmosphere of intellectual lethargy and moral paralysis. Consequently, as soon as there came, in the
good providence of God, the dawn of the Renaissance in the 14th century,
Latin Theology could not face the light of even a morally barren intellectual
awakening. From that time Latin
Christianity began to wane. Then the
process of illumination received a mighty impetus from the Reformation under
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox.
3. Blessed, however, as was this
work of God and man, it went neither deep enough, nor far enough, with the
result that many of the most pernicious features of Augustinian theology and
Latin Christianity survived the Reformation, and continue to this day to darken the heavens and benumb the moral and
spiritual sensibilities of God’s [redeemed] people; and
thereby prove an [Page 48]
inseparable barrier in the way of the progress of vital Christianity. Nevertheless, God is getting out of the world
His “seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” By the grace of God we want to help on the
good work. The conclusion we draw from
the above is simply this:
It was absolutely essential to
Augustinian theology with its blighting emphasis on the doctrine of
predestinarianism to mistranslate the Greek adjective aionios, and put on it a meaning which the Greek will not for a moment allow in
its respective applications to salvation and judgment. And that which was essential to Augustinian
theology was equally essential to Latin Christianity from the days of Augustine
to those of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli. And the same necessity exists in the
Reformed Theology from then till the present. To say nothing of other words, the Calvinist simply cannot, dare not, face an honest and truthful interpretation
of the two frequently occurring words with which we are now dealing, namely, “eternal
life”.
Perhaps the reader will say “Amen!” before he gets to the end of the book.
4. It is a fact that aionios is derived from the noun aion. By means of this latter word and its
compounds the Greeks expressed their conceptions of time, past, present and
future. No language can get along
without some such word, or words. F. W. Grant in his Facts
and Theories as to a Future State says aion is sometimes used
for a limited time, and sometimes for unlimited time, namely, eternity.
QUERRY: How is
it possible to derive an adjective expressive of unlimited time, or duration, from a
noun which always conveys the thought of
limited time?
Sometime after this thought had
occurred to me I met it in Wilson’s
Diaglott.
5. Wy did
the Revisers of the A.V. insert, or rather, retain the word “world” in Matt. 28: 20? They
make Christ say: “lo, I
am with you always, even unto the end of the world”. But what He did say was: “Lo, I am with you always,
unto the end of the
age.” In reply to Peter’s
question, He promised to those of His followers who were
faithful to Him during His absence, He would give
great reward in the ‘age (not world) to come’;
plainly implying that those who were
unfaithful would not share in the rewards, and, as He indicates in
other passages, will not even
share the blessedness of the coming age and Kingdom. I
repeat the question: Why did the
Revisers translate aion by ‘world,’
instead of ‘age’?
Because the Postmillennial* theory of interpretation stands completely
condemned before the correct rendering; and with its fall the traditional
eschatology must also fall.
[* NOTE: ‘The Postmillennial
theory of interpretation,’ teaches that this
present evil age, (by the preaching of salvation by God’s grace (Eph. 2: 8, 9), and the
‘free gift of God is eternal
life’ (Rom. 6:
23, R.V.), will introduce the millennium before
the return of our Lord Jesus: and the Anti-Millennial theology, (the apostates’
teachings so popular within the Church of God today), is an open denial of our Lord’s inheritance,
during “the age to come” (Ps. 2: 8; Heb. 6: 5, R.V.)!
(See also Psalms 78.;
96.; 110.
cf.
Lk. 24: 21-26 and 44, etc.]
6. The idea is almost universal,
and especially among scholars, that the primary and essential significance of aionios
is that of time, whereas it is quality.
The thought of time is not absent but it is secondary. In such expressions as the “eternal world.” the “eternal
Spirit”, the “eternal God”, this is the
significance. In these cases aionios
conveys the thought of existence, or being, which is above the limitations of
time and the accident of circumstance, but says nothing about eternity past or
future. Besides this, if the main idea
of aionios was that of time the adjective would be superfluous, because
eternity is one of God’s attributes; and is therefore always latent and implied
in the names of the Deity. It is
singular that the lexicons should have been so confused in reference to the
real meaning of this word. The above six
lines of evidence demonstrate conclusively that the Greek aionios cannot be translated by the
English eternal; and to do so is to give ourselves up to
the darkness and delusion of the Middle Ages.
Page 50
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF EXEGETICAL NECESSITY
7. We believe that the evidence
already given is unanswerable, but that which we are now about to give is even
more forceful. The word aionios
occurs some seventy times in the New Testament.
Wherever it is found in association with the names of Deity it makes
good sense to render it by “eternal”, but as
already noted that is not its proper meaning.
We will now examine this term where it is applied otherwise than to the
names of Deity.
“Therefore
leaving the principles of the doctrines of Christ, let us go on unto spiritual maturity; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead
works, and of faith toward God; of the doctrines of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and resurrection of
the dead, and of eternal judgment” (Heb. 6: 1, 2).
“And
being made perfect He became the author of eternal
salvation unto all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5: 9).
Here we have the antithetical
terms “Eternal Judgment” and “Eternal Salvation.”
Turn up what orthodox commentary you may, practical or critical, or
listen to whatever orthodox preacher you may, and they will all give their
united testimony that the former has reference to the eternal damnation of the
unsaved, and the latter to the eternal bliss of believers.
Will the reader please pardon me
if I seem presumptuous when I affirm that this is all wrong and utterly
contrary to the principles of sound exegesis; and at
the same time subversive of truth and righteousness. What we are about to prove is
that both statements have reference to [regenerate] believers only, and
are to be realized in the age to come;
that is, within the limits of one
thousand years. They have no reference
to eternity except by implication. And
surely it is manifest that [regenerate and not nominal] believers
cannot he eternally damned and eternally saved.
The two ideas are mutually exclusive.
And it is manifest that if this
position can be established as scriptural the traditional eschatology, as to both the saved and the unsaved, will be undermined and must fall in
irreparable ruin. Fact is the ruthless enemy of fiction.
God’s great instrument in religion is truth; whereas the Devil’s is
fiction, that is, imitation of truth.
Truth is, and was, and shall be, because God is, and was, and shall
be. Fiction is something manufactured
for the occasion and is successful only so far as it has the appearance of
reality. The traditional eschatology has
a little truth and a great mass of fiction.
Page 51
FIVE FACTS
1. The Bible divides all
men into two classes - the saved
and the unsaved.
2. It subdivides the saved into two
classes - the carnal who live
according to the flesh; and the spiritual
who live according to the spirit (Rom. 8: 13-14).
3. It presents the
4. The Bible explicitly affirms that all believers are in the Kingdom in
it’s present phase; but carnal believers will not be
able to enter the Kingdom in glory in the age to come (Gal. 5: 19-21; Matt. 5: 20).
5. The state in which believers die is that in which they
will come before Christ to be judged. This judicial process may issue either in
eternal (age-lasting) salvation, or
eternal (age-lasting) judgment,
according to Heb. 5: 9; and 6: 2. Let
the reader note that we are here using the word “eternal”, not in its English sense,
but as a translation of aionios, that is, age-lasting, or lasting
while the age lasts.
Before coming directly to our
examination of aionios, permit another remark: We have seen the teaching of
the Westminster Standards and of Protestantism generally as to the future state
of believers. They say that at death the
believer passes immediately into the presence of God and never can know any future judgment or sorrow. This
is another of these flesh-pleasing fictions of the Middle Ages devised by
priestcraft.
We may affirm, as a general and
universal principal, that God, as a moral necessity inheriting in his holiness,
cannot bestow any gift, either external or internal, on man without holding him
strictly accountable for the use he makes of it. Why should the free gift of eternal life be
an exception? But as a matter of fact it
is universally assumed to be so. This is
a great mistake. We will take an
example. Dr. Schofield’s notes, in
his Reference Bible, are, on the whole, excellent; but occasionally he makes a
serious slip as in his note on 2 Cor. 3: 10, where Paul says:
“Ye
(Christians) must all appear before the judgment seat (bema) of Christ that every one
may receive for the things done in his body,
according to that he has done, whether it be
good or bad.”
Page 52
On this passage Dr. Scofield comments as follows:
“The
judgment of the believer’s works, not sins, is in question here. These (his sins) have been atoned for and are
remembered no more forever. Heb. 10: 17; but every work must
come into judgment (Matt. 10: 12; Rom. 14: 10; Gal. 6: 7; Eph. 6: 8; Col. 3: 24, 25). The result is “reward” or “loss” (of reward), but he
himself shall be saved” (1 Cor. 3: 11-15).
An examination of this paragraph
reveals the following. Heb. 10: 17: “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” A mere glance at the context shows that the Holy Spirit is not here
speaking of Christians, nor of this
dispensation, but to the saved
remnant of
The third proof text used by the
Doctor is Matt. 10:
12 and it
has no bearing on the subject whatever.
Eph. 6:
8 has reference to the Christian’s good
deeds, but says nothing of the evil; and the
other three passages affirm the very opposite of the Doctor’s contention. How very emphatic is Col.
3: 25: “But He that doeth wrong (assuming that he has not made
it right) shall
receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons.”
Surely that is plain enough. Those who hold the theory in question say it
is the believer’s works and not his person that is to be judged. Is it conceivable that an evil work, apart
from the person who does it, can be judged, the sentence executed and justice
satisfied thereby? How would the theory
work in civil jurisprudence? Suppose
society should say, “We will let the murderer go free,
but we will judge and punish the deed.”
But says one of the advocates of orthodox eschatology: “the believer’s sins were all judged at
Was God’s purpose in the
atonement to put a premium on sinning; or was it that Christians might not sin
(1 John 2: 1)? The theory is essentially antinomian. Paul met it in his day as when he said, “Shall we sin then because we are not under the law but under
grace?”, and meets the thought with an emphatic “God forbid.” Christ bore the believer’s sin and sins on the cross
judicially. But this will not save the believer from sinning; nor from reaping as he sows. Christ not only bore the sins of the believer
at the cross, but of the whole world, but
this does not secure the salvation of any man apart from repentance and faith.
God took
[* See Num. 14: 23; 16: 26-30. cf.
Matt. 5: 20; 7: 21; 12: 36 with Lk. 16: 23-25; Rev. 6: 9-11 and 2 Tim. 2: 18, R.V.]
“Therefore
we ought to give the more earnest heed
to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip;
for if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense
of reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?”
Thus we see that salvation is
dual, or two-fold, first from the guilt
of sin, and second from the power of
sin; and these agree with and condition “eternal life”
as the gift and as the prize. it is salvation in this second [age-lasting] sense that the Holy Spirit is speaking of in Heb. 1: 1-4; 2: 3; and 5: 9; and it is
this that Christ has in view in Matt. 7: 13, 14; 24: 13; and Luke 13:
24. The
two classes of believers are described as to character in Matt. 7: 24-27. Very few believers really hear Christ’s words
and do them, and thus they build on sand, while true [Spirit-taught]
believers dig deep and build on the rock.
Luke 6: 46,
49.
In Romans
11: 14-24
the Holy Spirit warns Gentile believers that if they abide not in Christ they
too shall be cut off. And this has been
the actual state of the Church as an organization since the fourth century.
And what is it for members of
the Church to be “cut off?” I am assuming the Church to be made up of
people who are saved in the first degree.
It is (a) to be put out of fellowship with Christ and the
Divine Trinity here and now; and (b) to be excluded
from the Messianic Kingdom for one thousand years. The
Holy Spirit enumerates the works of the flesh, deadly personal sins, sins
which have characterized the Church from the days of the Apostles to the
present time, and then declares most
solemnly that they which do such things ‘shall not
inherit the Kingdom of God’ (Gal. 5: 19-21).
I have actually seen these words quoted by an orthodox writer as a proof
text for the eternal damnation of the wicked.
As has been said, “The Church delights to steal
As the truth of justification is
prominent in the Epistle to the Romans; so that of sanctification is prominent
in Hebrews. And, moreover, as
justification paves the way to practical sanctification, so the latter
qualifies for the
The Epistle to the Hebrews not
only emphasizes the importance of the doctrine of practical sanctification, but
also reveals God’s will for it. Christ
not only died for his people, but He rose and ever liveth to make intercession
for them. Christ is greater than the
angels; greater than Moses; and greater than Aaron (Heb.
chaps. 1,
2).
But there is real danger that
such riches of grace will be abused;
and if so God’s displeasure will surely follow as in the case of
Search the accepted Creeds and
Confessions of Christendom and you will find that the Church knows nothing, of
such a hope. And yet without
this hope, and the type of character which it develops, there is nothing but exclusion for [regenerate]
believers. “But”, you
say, “Does not the expression, ‘There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God’ (Heb. 4: 9) include all believers whether sanctified or carnal?” Pardon
me if I shock you by saying, No, it does not. There is a difference between the redemption
of purchase and the redemption of appropriation. God can even [Page 55] now say of the twelve tribes of
“Then
they that feared Jehovah (the covenant keeping God) spake often one to another; and
Jehovah hearkened and heard it, and a book of
remembrance was written before him for them
that feared Jehovah and that thought
upon His name; and they shall be mine saith
Jehovah of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them
as a man spares his own son that serveth
him” (Malachi 3: 16, 17; Matt. 5: 1-14; Luke 6: 48; Eph. 3: 17, 19; Lev. 17: 23).
Were the ten spies and those
murmurers in the wilderness among the Lord’s jewels? Were the Corinthians, the Galatians, and the
Laodiceans? But in every age God has a
few jewels like Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, David and others. It is of these that Christ Says, “Fear not little flock for it is your Father’s good pleasure
to give you the (Millennial) Kingdom.” This is the
hope, and this is ‘the prize’. Phil 3:
7-14.
There are many portions of the word of God which
belong especially to this little company and which carnal believers cannot
appropriate (see Heb. 11; Rom. 8; Matthew 5-7, and the Epistle to the Ephesians).
In Hebrews
chapter five, the Holy Spirit points out the fact that notwithstanding
God’s rich provision (4: 14-16), the
people addressed were falling back and were only able to take in the simplest
Gospel truth, the milk of the word (Heb. 5: 12-14). In chapter 6 he exhorts them to go on to perfection,
that is, Christian maturity (Heb. 6: 1-3). In 6: 4-8 he warns them of the consequences of falling
back, that is, of failing into a state where repentance becomes subjectively
impossible, and in that case exclusion is inevitable. Then in 6:
9-20 the
writer expresses a hope of “better things”; and
“things that accompany (Millennial) salvation”; and again speaks of God’s rich provision
for an overcoming Christian life. He
speaks of God’s promises and God’s oath, and cites Abraham as an example of
successful perseverance who “after he had patiently
endured obtained the promise” of a son (Isaac is the type of Christ), and therein assurance of the Millennial
inheritance (Heb. 6: 15).
Let the reader turn up any
orthodox commentary and it will tell you, as does Doctor Scofield, that Hebrews 6: 4-8 has no reference to believers, but to mere
professors and legalists who know nothing of the new birth. Here are the [Page 56] Doctor’s words:
“Hebrews
6: 4-8 presents the case of a Jewish professed believer who turns
back after advancing to the very threshold of salvation, Even “going along
with” the Holy Spirit in His work of enlightenment and conviction (John 16: 8, 10). It is not said that he had faith. This supposed person is like the spies at
Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. 1: 19-26) who saw the land and had the very fruit of it in their
hand, and yet turned back”.
We will endeavour to prove that
this is bad exegesis. The Doctor errs in
interpretation and in application. Will
the reader note the following considerations in opposition to the traditional
view?
1. The Epistle as we have seen is addressed to believers.
2. Its theme is holiness (hagiasmos, Heb. 12: 14) as
the condition of entering the Messianic Kingdom where God is fully revealed.
3. Up to Hebrews
chapter 6, the sinner does not come once within the horizon of the
writer, for he is writing exclusively to believers.
4. In Hebrews
6: 1-3,
and 9-20,
the exhortation is very definitely to believers, containing the most solemn
warnings and … great encouragements, and so to the end of the Epistle.
5. Is it exegetically possible
that the writer could pass from the case of the unfaithful believer to that of
the sinner between verses 3 and 4 and give not the slightest hint of such an
abrupt transition in the unfolding of his thought? And then, again, assuming that he does, is it
possible that he could jump back to the case of the believer at verse 9 without the slightest indication of any
change of subject matter and without any particle of transition? Besides, if we grant that he is addressing
sinners in verses 4-8,
what relevancy would that have to the subject in hand (the sanctification of
believers as a preparation for in the age to come)? None whatever, for he is speaking of believers going on to maturity as the condition of
avoiding exclusion from the Messianic Kingdom.
6. In Hebrews
6: 9, 10,
he says:
“But
beloved, we are persuaded better things of You, and things that accompany salvation though
we thus speak; for God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love.”
Thus we see the perfect
continuity of the theme. The very ones
who were in danger of failing away beyond possibility of renewal are the “beloved” of whom he is persuaded “better things and things that accompany (Millennial) salvation.” In
other words, two possibilities lay before the people addressed: [Page 57] on the lower As that of failing
back so as to come under the sentence of eternal (age-enduring) judgment; and
on the upper side that of going on like true sons of Abraham to eternal (age
lasting) salvation. Or, to state the
case more forcefully, the believer of this age has the choice of
spending the age to come (the thousand years) in Hadean shame and darkness, or
in celestial glory and light.
The reader will admit that this is a tremendously serious matter. But to
make still more sure of our ground let us examine verses
4 to 8 internally:
(1) They had been once enlightened.
(2)
They had tasted the heavenly gift.
(3) They had been partakers of the Holy
Ghost.
(4)
They had tasted the good word of God.
(5) They have tasted the powers of the
age to come.
(6) They have had a taste of the coming
glory.
Now I ask the reader, did ever any
unregenerate man have such an experience as that? Is it not perfect and blessed as far as it
goes. It is safe to say that ninety per
cent of believers on the earth today can not testify to anything better than
that; and the majority of them cannot come up to it. And yet orthodox writers would fain have us
believe that the people addressed (in these verses) were un-regenerated
sinners. Nothing but the dire
necessities of a false theory of interpretation handed down from the darkness
of the Middle-Ages could induce any man to so pervert the word of God in the
interest of carnal expediency. No doubt
the Doctor is sincere, and is not to be classed with post-millenarian
interpreters; but like many others was unable to fully extricate himself from
the traditions of men. Indeed no man has
been able to do this except in the degree that he is under the power of God’s
Holy Spirit.
(7) “If they
shall fall away.” He does not say
they will. If, however, they do fall
away, to which we are all liable, the penalty is exclusion from the Messianic
Kingdom; and this involves the believer in the age-lasting judgment of chapter 6: 2.
If on the other hand they walk
in the steps of Abraham, the Father of the faithful, they will through faith
and patience inherit the promise. Hebrews 6: 15. Can it be said of a mere professor, an
unregenerate sinner, that if he keeps on in the path before him it will be well
with his soul in the end? Surely not! And if so, then the writer is not talking to
sinners but to [regenerate] Christians.
Page 58
And was not the peril of
apostasy among the Hebrews also the peril of the Corinthians and the Galatians
in Paul’s day; and of the Ephesians in John’s day? And is it not the peril of [born again] believers
all through this dispensation? Thus
Dr. Scofield cites the case of
the ten spies (Deut. 1: 19-26) as though they were lost sinners. On the contrary they are a type of the great
mass of official believers who are yet full of unbelief in reference to the
truths of prophecy and the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ. So with the children of
“Now
these were our ensamples (warnings) to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as
they also lusted (1 Cor.
10: 1-10).
How could they be examples to us
if they do not belong to the same class and if we are not in danger of the same
judgment?
Let me here state an awfully solemn
fact: From such passages of Scripture as Matt. 13: 1-49; 16: 21-27; 24: 32-51; 25: 1-30; 1 Cor. 10: 1-10; Rom. 11: 14-44; and Rev. chaps. 2 and 3; as well as from an honest study of the history
of Christendom, we are obligated to conclude that very few of the
saved in this dispensation will be able to share in the glory of the first
resurrection and the Messianic Kingdom; so that exclusion with its
disciplinary and penal consequences is their sure inheritance. Truly it is a
fearful thing (for a worldly Christian) to fall into the hands of the living
God (Heb. 10: 31; 12: 29). Personally, I confess that except
as I follow Christ in the way of the Cross with its rejection by the world, especially the religious world, I have no hope of a place with Him in His Millennial Reign (Luke 9: 23; 14: 25-35).
Let no man say that the teaching
of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not for Gentile Christians in these respects.
The children of Israel held three positions and they are all typical: (1) In Egypt under the blood of the
Passover Lamb - the type of Christ; (2)
in the wilderness on their way to Canaan - type of the believer’s utter
dependence upon God as he journeys through this spiritually barren world; and
also the natural dislike of the flesh in the believer for such a position; (3) and then in the land of
promise. Let me put it thus:
Page 59
Romans 6 gives
the believer’s standing and immeasurable objective riches in Christ; and also
the path by which these riches are to be made subjectively real (6: 3-5). But the
believer has yet to learn how to walk in this path so that Christ may get His
rights in him.
Romans 7
represents the believer beginning to recognizes of his inheritance in Christ
and reaching out after them only to find himself under the dominion of the
self-life, because he does not understand the place and work of the Holy Spirit
as the only one who can bring him through death to self into Canaan. He seeks to reach the goal in his own
strength, though unconsciously, and fails.
The flesh is stronger than the spirit.
Romans 8. Here the believer has given up his fleshly
struggle, sells his all for the pearl of great price and puts on the whole
armour of God and is able to say, “The law of the
spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death”,
Here he stands by faith. This,
spiritually, is an earnest of the land of promise.
To suppose, with Arminian
Theology, that Rom. 8
is the experience of one seeking salvation by works is as contrary to sound
exegesis as it is to Christian experience and observation.
Thus on grounds of exegetical
necessity we have demonstrated that the adjective aionios in Heb. 6: 2 and 5: 9 cannot be rendered eternal or everlasting, but age-lasting;
that is, lasting throughout the age referred to. At the end of that age the judgment will be
lifted after that the carnal believer has got right with God, and he will then
enter the Kingdom in its really eternal state.
This throws some light on at least one phase of the truth of Acts 3: 21. In our study of the narrative concerning the
Rich Young Ruler we were obliged, on grounds of exegetical necessity, to come
to the same conclusion concerning the meaning of the word aionios.
We believe that we have now
established a principle which we may formulate thus: Wherever we find the
adjective aionios associated with nouns other than those which are
descriptive of God, or His attributes, we are to interpret it as confined to
the age to come, and as falling entirely within the limits of the
After having come to this conclusion,
I began to search in order to find if any other writer had been lead in this
path. I found that Samuel Minton in “The Glory of Christ” had caught the clue for a moment
and then lost it.
Page 60
We will now examine several
other passages where aionios occurs. Let us postulate three facts: First, the
personal ministry of Christ was exclusive to the Jews. He said, “I am not
sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Matt. 19: 16, 21; Mark 17: 30; Luke 10: 25; 18: 18-30; John 3: 15, 36; John 14: 36; 5: 24, 39; 6: 27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10: 28; 12: 25, 50; 17: 2, 3; Acts 13: 46, 48; Rom. 2: 7; 5: 21; 6: 22; Gal. 6: 8; 1 Tim. 1: 16; 6: 12, 19; Titus 1: 2; 3: 7; 1 John 2: 25; 5: 11, 13, 20; Jude 21.
Sometimes, as in John 3: 16, the
free gift of eternal life by implication lies behind the prize and is taken for
granted; but the main idea looks forward to the full realization of Israel’s
most glorious hope in the Millennial Kingdom.
The following expressions refer to the same period, “eternal judgment” (Heb.
6: 2); “eternal redemption” (Heb.
9: 12); “eternal inheritance” (Heb.
9: 15); “eternal glory” (1 Peter 5:
10); “The
everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” In all the
above cases aionios should be translated “age-lasting.” The reader will be ready to admit that if
what we have just said is true, the sub-title of the book - “A Revolution in Eschatology” - is quite appropriate.
We will enlarge briefly on a few
of the above passages. Take 1 Tim. 1: 16: “Howbeit for this
cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus
Christ might show forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them (Christians) who should
hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” It is evident that Paul is not here referring
to the gift of “eternal life” but to the prize; and he indicates that it
can only be won by living the kind of a life he lived. This agrees with Matt. 7: 13, 14; Luke 13: 24;
Paul says to Timothy; “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and has confessed a good profession before many witnesses”
(1 Tim. 6:
12).
Timothy had been converted many years before this, and was therefore in
possession of the free gift of eternal life.
Paul could not exhort him to contend for something he already
possessed. On the other hand, eternal
life in this passage cannot refer to the eternal
state beyond the Millennium, for the reason
that absolutely all [regenerate] believers are sure of that. The problem is, shall
we spend the one thousand years with Christ in glory, or in the darkness of the Hadean [Page 61] world? Peter
urges believers thus:
“And
besides this, giving all diligence add to your
faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge self-control; and to self-control patience;
and to patience godliness; and to godliness
brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness
charity; for if these things be in you and abound, they make you that you shall be neither barren or unfruitful in the
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he (the believer) that lacketh these things (and most [regenerate] Christians do lack them) is blind,
and cannot see afar off (to the Messianic
Kingdom), and hath forgotten that he was purged from
his old sins (sins committed before conversion).
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to
make your calling and election (to a place in the Messianic Kingdom) sure; for if ye do these things ye shall never fall (implying
that if they do not do them they will fall); for so an
entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting (age-lasting) Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
We feel sure that every honest
reader now sees clearly the distinction between the free gift and the prize; and
also the different methods by which each is secured; the one by faith without
works, and the other by faith expressed through works. Let us listen to the Saviour’s talk with the
woman at the well: “Jesus answered and said unto her,
‘Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever shall drink
of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I
shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting
life” (John 4: 13, 14). Let us
now translate the fourteenth verse correctly: “But
whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall not thirst for,
or in, the age (to come); but the water that I shall give him shall become (not eimi but ginomai) in him a
fountain of water springing up into age-lasting life (in the Messianic
Kingdom)”.
The majority of believers does
not understand nothing of the ever flowing fountain within coming into
expression in thought, word, and act because of the presence and effective
operation of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the crucified but now glorified
Christ. They know an inner fountain, but
one of an altogether different kind (Matt. 15: 18, 19, 20; Gal. 5: 19-21). We all know this only too well. God alone can displace it with the fountain of
life (zoe).
On another occasion Christ made
use of the following expression:
“Verily,
verily, I say unto you,
If a man keep my saying he shall not see death for,
or in, the age (to come)” (John 8: 51).
Now this cannot mean physical death,
for it is appointed unto men once to die, from which even the Apostles were not
exempt. The meaning then is that those [Page 62] who really hear and keep the
word of Christ in their hearts will be in a state of real life and fellowship
with God in glorified bodies during the Millennial period; but those who do not
hear and obey the word will continue in
a state of death and partial alienation from God, and consequent exclusion from
His presence during the same period.
Christ said to the Jews:
“Search
the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal (Millennial) life; and they are they which
testify of me” (John 5: 39; 6: 68, 69).
I would again remind the reader
that the prophetic outlook of patriarchs, historians and prophets of the Old
Testament, WAS NOT ON ETERNITY, but on the Messianic Kingdom. The New Testament also begins and ends with
this same thought in the foreground; and rarely passes the dividing line
between time and eternity. The
recognition of this fact is vital to scriptural exegesis.
I wish now to call the reader’s
attention, in the light of the above facts, to a new interpretation of a
particular portion of scripture, and request that he put more than usual energy
into his powers of volition and discrimination.
It is this:
“And to
you who are troubled (there were many believers in that day who were not
troubled, as now, because they avoided the offence of the cross (John 12: 42-43; 9: 22; 16: 2; Gal. 5: 37; Matt. 10: 37-39; 1 Tim. 6: 13), rest with us (who
are kept by the power of God through faith (1 Peter
1: 3-5)
when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
His mighty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
and that obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord
and from the glory of His power, when He shall
come to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all them that believe,
because our testimony was believed among you, in that day” (2 Thess. 1: 7-10).
The universal interpretation of
this passage, as to the judgment foretold, has applied it to [unregenerate] sinners
and to them only. But, astonishing as it
may appear at first sight, I am convinced that its reference is to carnal
believers. It was one of the fatal
errors of the Jews to imagine that because they were the children of Abraham
they could never by any possibility become the objects of God’s displeasure; or
that their beautiful City and magnificent
Page 63
Let us look for a moment at 2 Thess. 1: 7-10. Note the following points:
(a) Very few Christians have suffered
for the Kingdom’s sake.
(b) Only a very small proportion of them
believe in the pre-millennial coming.
(c) Very few of them know God (1
John 2: 3-6).
(d) Very few of them obey the gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ. In this they are
like
(1 Sam.15: 22; Jer. 7: 23; 2 Thess. 3: 14; Heb. 5: 9).
There is something more serious
than age-lasting destruction for sinners.
“His
saints” in verse 10 does not here
include all believers, but those that have really lived holy lives (Heb. 12: 14 in contrast with 1 Cor. 3: 1-15 and Gal. 5: 19-21).
“To be
admired in all them that believe”.
Here again not all [regenerate] believers are included but only those who believe the full gospel, and
by the grace of God live it out in their lives. This interpretation agrees perfectly with Matt. 7: 13, 14; Luke 13: 24; 1 Cor. 10: 1-10; Rom. 11: 14-24; Gal. 6: 7-8; Rom. 2: 1-11; and Rev. 3: 14-20. Paul
affirms that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in
unrighteousness.” One has only to
examine the history of Christianity ever so superficially to see the prevalence
of these sins in the Church ever since the days of the Apostles. I feel free to say with absolute assurance
that I am speaking the truth, that he
who accepts the Post-Millenarian [and
Anti-Millennial] interpretation of the Scriptures is holding
the truth in unrighteousness.
In 2 Thess.
1: 9 we
have the expression “everlasting destruction.”
Now it is certain that no man
who has in him God’s free gift of eternal life can ever suffer “eternal destruction” from the presence of the Lord;
but he may suffer age-lasting destruction.
This is clear from Matt. 10: 37-39 and John 8: 51. God’s
ancient people, with few exceptions, are even now undergoing this kind of
destruction. It has been assumed that neither olethros
nor apoleia
(both translated destruction) are ever applied to the believer in the
scriptures; but this is a wholly gratuitous assumption which is in perfect
keeping with many other unscriptural factors in the traditional
eschatology. We cannot enlarge on this
point at the present time. It is a
sobering thought to think that of the six hundred thousand men who came out of
We should remember that the sin
of Moses was not like that of the people.
He was not guilty of murmuring. Yet in the face of these most solemn warnings
orthodox teachers tell us that the believer is, at the moment of his death,
made perfect in glory, and this in the face of the other fact that the Holy
Spirit through Paul says:
“For if
the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and
every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense or reward;
how shall we
escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which
at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed unto us by them
that heard Him” (Heb. 2: 1-3; 5: 9; 1: 14; Matt. 24: 13).
In reference to 2 Thess. 1: 7-10, the orthodox interpreter faces a dilemma: The
reference is either to believers or sinners.
If to believers, then there is surely age-lasting judgment for those who
disbelieve and disobey the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Heb.
6: 2). On the other hand, if it belongs to sinners,
then he must write himself down a restitutionist, for in this case the wicked
will not suffer eternally, but only one thousand years, for we have proven that
aionios
in all references to [the Christians’ good works after their
regeneration and] the future is limited to
the Millennial Period. Let the reader
decide where he stands.
There are, as already remarked,
two great motives to holy living. They
are love and fear, and in the nature of things they are complimentary for the
reason that God is to be loved and feared.
He is to be loved for what He is, and what He does for His creatures
both in creation and redemption; and He is to be feared because of His holiness,
His hatred of sin, and the certainty that He will punish it. In the very nature of things the man who
loves God most will fear Him most. The
Scriptures say, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him and He will show
them (and them only) His covenant”.
Yes, even of the Lord of glory it is said, “He
was heard in that He feared”
(Heb. 5: 7). How
blessed it would have been for the children of Israel if at Kadesh-Barnea they
had feared the unbelief and disobedience of their own hearts rather than the
giants and walled cities of Canaan. Compare Numbers
13 and 14 with Hebrews 3 and 4.
Before closing this chapter we
will turn our attention briefly to a few of the orthodox strongholds of this
plausible but delusive theory which we have been seeking to bring into the limelight
of God’s infallible truth; namely, that there is no judgment for
believers. The first of these
strongholds which we will examine is Romans 8:
1: “There is
therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ [Page 65] Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
We will take the verse just as
it reads in the A.V. Examining the
passage on purely grammatical grounds we see that it is composed of one
independent and three dependent propositions. Thus:
“There
is no condemnation (to certain persons).” There are three dependent propositions all of
which qualify and limit the pronoun “them”:
(1)
who are in Christ Jesus (this excludes all unsaved sinners).
(2) who walk not after the flesh (this
excludes all believers who walk after the flesh). There are few who do not.
(3) but who walk after the Spirit (this
limits the “no condemnation” to the very small
number who walk in the Spirit. Thus Paul
and the Master are in perfect accord (Luke 13:
24).
The plain implication is that
for believers who walk after the flesh there will be condemnation; and in Gal. 5: 19-21 Paul
positively affirms that there will.
But someone will reply, “The R.V. omits the last two dependent propositions, and
reads, ‘there is therefore now no condemnation
to them that are in Christ Jesus,’ and with
this correction our fortress still stands, and stands firmly.” We think
the R.V. is correct in the omission. This being granted, we have a new problem
on hand, for how are we then to reconcile Rom.
8: 1 and
such passages as Gal. 5: 19-21; Rom. 1: 17-18; and scores of others Scriptures? We lay it down as an axiomatic principle that
the word of God is one and harmonious in all its parts. Therefore the first
thing to do is to open our Greek testament and see if the translation of
There are in the Greek Testament
four words to be examined in this connection, all nouns. They are krima, krisis, katakrima, and katakrisis. The
last two are formed by prefixing the intensive preposition kata to the first two. Now the strongest of the four, that is, the
one expressive of the severest punishment, is katakrima, and it is never applied to believers,
while the other three are, though not exclusively. Katakrima occurs only three times.
Thus: “Judgment was by one (Adam) to damnation” (Rom.
5: 16). “Therefore by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
damnation” (Rom. 5: 18). “There is therefore
now no [Page 66] damnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” (
We may add that katakrima
in its verbal form, katakrino, occurs
nineteen times, but it is not necessary for our present purpose to discuss
these. That there is judgment for the
believer we have seen in Heb. 6: 1-8; 10: 26-31. To these we may add Matt.
7: 2; 1 Cor. 11: 29-34; James 3: 1. And this
judgment may issue in krima but not in katakrima. Krima is used in the following
passages: Matt.
7: 2; 23: 14; Mark 12: 40; Luke 20: 47; 23: 40; 24: 20; John 9: 39; Acts 24: 25;
Another stronghold of the
traditional eschatology is John 5: 24:
“Verily,
verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth My word and believeth on Him that sent
Me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation (krisin,
accusative singular of krisis); but
is passed from death unto life.”
It really looks as though the
traditionalists had a secure hiding place here.
But if so, the question comes up again, “How
shall we reconcile the verse with scores of other passages which affirm
positively that the believer will be judged (Col.
3: 24-25)?” I wrestled
with this verse for some time before I found the secret and saw its harmony
with other parts of the word. The
inductive Method of Bible study demands that we examine every available fact,
and establish as far as possible its congruity with the whole body of facts so
far as already known. The key to John 5: 24 is
in the clause, “and believeth on Him that sent Me.” We get light from Heb.
7: 25.
Our great High-Priest is “able to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by Him”.
Here we see again how that the dependent proposition qualifies and
limits “them”.
It is possible to come to Jesus for pardon and the New Birth, and yet
not go through Him to the Father. The
congregation of
* *
*
Page 64
CHAPTER 3
ANTITHETIC DUALISM
OR LIFE VERSUS DEATH
“Let it
be assumed that each article of our creed is well warranted by Scripture; it may
notwithstanding be true that indefinite misconceptions, affecting the Divine
character and government, or that certain modes of feeling generated in evil
days, and still uncorrected, exist, and operate to benumb the impulsive and
expansive energies of the Gospel. Our
interpretation of Christianity may be good, and may be pure enough for private
use; it may be good in the closet, good as the source of the motives of common
life, and good as the ground of hope in death, and yet may be altogether unfit
for conquest and triumph. That it is so
unfit, should be assumed as the only pious and becoming explication we can give
of the almost universal ignorance and irreligion of mankind.” Fanaticism, by Isaac Taylor.
-------
The whole Universe so far as
it is brought within the comprehension of man by scientific observation or
revelation, is divided morally into two great empires, good and evil, which
include the sum total of rational created being. I say “created being”,
for while God is imminent in both, yet He transcends both. Each of these empires seeks supremacy and
universality at the expense of the other.
There is no third empire and there is no neutral ground. Every rational intelligence is here, or
there, or nowhere. The antithesis is constitutional, ineradicable, and
universal. One of these opposing empires
may, I do not say it will, some day cease to be; but while it exists and
persists it cannot be or become other than it is by virtue of its essential
nature. Light in its essence can never
become darkness, nor darkness light. The
Empire of truth and purity and love can never bring aught to man but what is
essentially good, though the good may not always seem to be what it really is.
So, on the contrary, the empire of darkness can never bring aught but evil,
though it may often seem otherwise. This truth is not open to intellectual
demonstration except through the avenue of the heart; and not even there except
through the fellowship of the Christ and His Cross. Compare Gen.
3 and Phil.
3.
Herein lies the problem of life,
a problem which every finite intelligence is seeking consciously or
unconsciously to solve by way of
If each of these vast antithetic
empires occupied a place, or territory, or world, by itself, the one equally
alive to the other, and one could choose for himself to live here or there, the
problem would be vastly simplified for honest hearts. But would not the very fact of such simplification
carry with it by logical sequence the nullification of latent possibilities?
How then would that “eternal life” which was
with the Father and which was brought into manifestation through the agony of
Gethsemane and the tragedy of Golgotha get a real root and a firm footing in
the heart and life and destiny of man?
That which was born into objective being in the Christ through
indescribable moral conflict can only become subjectively real and victorious
in man by extension of the same ethical process through the power of the Holy Spirit within. “If we have been
planted together in the likeness of His
death we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection”, Rom. 6: 3, 5, and not
otherwise. In the nature of things there is no [Page 65] simplification of the necessity
and mystery of
It is difficult to conceive of a
world of absolute goodness into which children might be born where neither they
nor their parents had ever known evil even through the prohibition of something
within the limits of human desire; and where at the same me, moral integrity
could be preserved only by a heroic choice of the will. Could freedom, virtue, and personality, have
anything more than an imaginary existence in such a state?
The thought of God as unitary,
self-existing, self-determining, eternal, immutable, and holy, is not only
thinkable but absolutely necessary. The
thought of God as not self-existent and self-determined is unthinkable, and
such a God would be dependent, and therefore not God at all. The dependent is the finite and relative, and
implies the independent, the infinite and absolute. A chain of unlimited antecedents, or
sequents, is unthinkable; therefore the conception of independence,
self-existence, eternity and holiness, considered individually and in their
unity as attributes of God, is a primary postulate of the human mind and heart.
Thus there is no room and no possibility of an antithetic dualism in God. This conception of God is immediate and
intuitive.
But on the other hand that which
precludes the possibility of such a dualism in the Creator is the very thing
which makes it possible, and, I might almost say, desirable, in the creature,
as the world, as the universe, as man.
God could not contemplate the
work of creation as He made it without foreseeing the possibility and, indeed,
the certainty of the entrance of evil, for the simple reason that an
independent, self-existing creation is an impossibility. The rational creature must be free to choose
between moral opposites in order to possess rationality and moral integrity
worthy of man in his relation to his fellows, the world, and God. Such a being must be bound to God and to the
whole of which he is a part by many bonds of relationship - physical, mental,
and spiritual - with their accompanying power of affirmation and negation, of
knowledge and ignorance, moral integrity and moral obliguity. Thus, and thus only, can freedom in choice,
loyalty to truth, and devotion to God be embodied in human personality worthy
of intimate, comprehensive, and [Page 66] abiding
communion with God.
Thus this antagonistic dualism,
with all its latent possibilities for good or evil, is not only in the world,
but it is in man; and not simply in man as a sinner, but in man as a
saint. It is in every man who is born of
woman and begotten of man. But there was
and is One Man born of woman but not begotten of man, and He was absolutely
sinless. And yet in being “made sin for us” He entered into the profoundest
experience of the heights and depths of this awful dualism in a way forever
beyond the capacity of any finite personality.
And in doing so He broke its power for all who truly love Him, and paved
the way for the everlasting separation of these two great empires, with
complete victory on the side of truth and righteousness and God. Thus, indeed, will the empire of evil lose
its relative greatness. Jesus Christ is
not a son of a man; but He is the Son of Man. The Fall came through man and so
must the Restoration.
Granting then: 1. The self-existing and holy God; 2. the fallen sinful creature; and 3. the incarnate God-Man between and
with one hand on each, I conclude that this is the best of all worlds into
which a man can be born; and where freedom, virtue and personality can, because
of the presence of good and evil, be developed to the highest possible degree
of perfection; and thus man to all eternity may find the most intense and
comprehensive correspondence in thought, feeling and volition with the ultimate
First Cause - the Triune God. This, and not mere locality, is what constitutes
Heaven. And the want of this with its
ethical and spiritual implications, and not mere locality, is what constitutes
Hell.
Thus the consciousness of a
subjective dualism, involving as it does betimes the most fearful conflicts
both within and without, is not really a calamity except as we deliberately
make it so by personal choice of the evil in preference to the good.
Shall we then say that sin was,
or is, a necessity? Not so if God were
satisfied with man as a creature only.
But this could not satisfy the love and wisdom and power of God. He could and did produce His image in man by
creative fiat; but He could not impart His nature so that fallen men might
become His sons, except by the incarnation, the suffering and sacrificial death
of the Christ, wrought out first objectively and then subjectively.
To ask the question: Was sin a
necessity? is virtually the same as to enquire: Could man become what
Christianity proposes to make him without being subjected to the process of
discipline implied in his position in a world where he is permitted to
voluntarily choose between good and evil in various ways and under diverse
circumstances? If so we have no way of
knowing it, or even conceiving of it. I
state this not to raise the discussion of a metaphysical problem in which men
are apt to lose themselves in useless speculation, but because the fact and the
question have [Page 67]
profound eschatological significance and real profit.
Redemption is not an expedient of
Divine wisdom to repair the damage effected in the first creation by the
introduction of sin; but it is the fact and the process whereby the first
creation can find its true use and end in providing a platform on which the
mystery of the incarnation and the tragedy of the Cross might be enacted and
God revealed. In short, apart from the
fall man never could have been what he now can be and will be. And may I go a
step further and say that without the fall of man God could never have been
what He is, and yet shall be, in manifestation of the deepest glory of His
character. God is Spirit; God is Light;
God is Love. And that not as inward
potential possibility; but as outward manifested reality and glory. This is equivalent to saying that the
ultimate end of creation and redemption must justify the Divine permission of
evil, and that on a scale of overwhelming magnitude.
In the former chapter we were
occupied with the words “eternal life”; and
there we saw that the Scriptures reveal a synthetic dualism - the gift and the
prize, the former containing the latter in germ, and the latter carrying to
full manifestation the inherent potentiality, worth and glory of the former.
But once
the gift has been received there rests upon the receiver a tremendous responsibility
in that he must co-operate with the Holy Spirit and with the Divine Trinity in
developing the latent possibilities of the germ, so that God may perfect
through discipline the work He began in the new birth. The Christian who resists the Spirit’s
leading and neglects God’s provision in this matter is a greater sinner than
the Israelite who refused to overcome the difficulties of the wilderness and
thus enter
In other
words, THE BELIEVER IS ON PROBATION. He has to choose between eternal
(age-lasting) salvation; or eternal (age-lasting) judgment. The Church on earth does not so teach nor
believe; but the Bible does; and so do all the saved who have passed behind the
vail. Moses said to
[Page 68]
Here is
a mighty truth and its exposition will show how defective and delusive is the
eschatology of the various churches for many hundreds of years, both in its
relation to the saved and the unsaved.
In demonstration of the truth of this position we must lay our
foundations deep in the word of God. We
are not anxious about anything else.
Man’s approval or disapproval is nothing except as it expresses the mind
of Christ.
In the preceding chapter our
discussion turned chiefly on the Greek adjective aionios. In this we will investigate a biblical phrase
of somewhat synonymous meaning, and doing so will find ourselves conducted to the
same conclusion and with corresponding effect on the traditional teaching of
the churches as to the future state.
That phrase is eis ton aiona,
which is usually translated in A.V. and R.V. “forever”,
a meaning which it never has, and therefore should in no case be so rendered
into English. We have pointed out the
fact that the adjective aionios (translated indifferently “eternal” or “everlasting”
in A.V., and “eternal” only in R.V.) is derived
from the noun aion an age, a period of time short or long with clearly marked beginning and end.
In the phrase eis ton aiona,
aiona is the accusative singular of aion. The word eis
is a preposition usually rendered in,
into or for. The little word ton
is the accusative singular, masculine, of the definite article.
Our of the New Testament aion
leads us back to the olam of the Old Testament - its
equivalent. It is impossible, as already
remarked, for any language to get along without words which mark time; and in
this respect what the aion was to the Greeks the olam
was to the Hebrews. When longer periods
of time are involved the idea is expressed by plural forms, or by
duplication. The olam is employed with or without the prepositions le
and ad,
signifying to, or into, also min, from. In both A.V. and R.V. the olam
of the Old Testament is translated “everlasting”
or “for ever” which are utterly misleading and
confusing, and wholly indefensible from the standpoint of scholarship and of
exegetical consistency, as we shall soon see.
Young invariably translates olam as he does aionios by “age-lasting”. So also Browne’s Triglott.
In the Greek New Testament we
have the noun aion (age) with its derivative adjective aionios (age-lasting);
but in the Hebrew of the Old Testament we have the noun olam with no
corresponding adjective, so that the noun has to do double service; i.e., it
has to serve as adjective and noun. The
Hebrew language is said to be rich in nouns and verbs but deficient in
modifiers.
Before going back to investigate
the use of olam in the Old Testament let us take a few examples of
mistranslations of aion in the New Testament.
First, as to the use of the noun without the preposition and
article. Here the A.V. and R.V. have
confounded the aion with kosmos, owing to the fact that they
usually translate both words by “world”.
Now kosmos is always properly translated “world”, but aion
ought never to be so rendered. I am not
ignoring Heb. 1:
2 and 11:
3. [Page 69] They make Christ say “Lo! I am with always, even unto the
end of the world”. Matt. 28: 20. But what He does say is, “1o, I am with you always even unto the end of the age (aion).”
The consequence is that the Church, with few exceptions, believes that
Christ will not come till the end of the world (which, by the way, is not a
biblical expression). But He says He is
coming again at the end of the present age; and He spoke of the “age to come”, after this age has run its course, when He will establish His Millennial
Kingdom in power and glory; and when
He will reward the faithful and punish the unfaithful among His people as we
have seen in 2 Thess.
1: 7- 10; Heb. 5: 4-8; 10: 26-31.
In Matt. 13: 39, the versions make Him say, “the harvest is the end of the world”; but He says “the harvest is the end
of the age (aion)”, meaning, this age of grace. In verse 38
the translation “world” is correct for it is not
aion but kosmos. See margin of R.V. In Luke 18:
30 it is aion. We have given only three
samples out of many. Were the translators
and revisers really trying to bolster up that sorry tradition of
post-millennialism? Their acts would lead one to that conclusion.
Let us now take two samples of
the false rendering of the adverbial phrase eis ton aiona. When Christ cursed the fig tree, the type
of barren but showy Judaism, they make Him say to the good olive tree (Rom. 11: 17), “Let no fruit grow on
thee henceforward for ever.” But
the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3: 16) did not,
and cannot say that. He said, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for the (this) age” - the time limit of the curse. What a decisive exegetical difference this
makes both in process and conclusion.
But it is only by such, shall we say, deliberate confusion of terms that
the illusion of postmillennialism [and
today’s anti-millennialism] can perpetuate its fictitious existence and wield its
enslaving, blighting power. And this
remark is true of the traditional eschatology as a whole. Right here it may be opportune to quote some words
of Lord Bacon as to the process of logical reasoning. He says:
“The
syllogism consists of propositions; propositions of words, and words are
tokens, or signs of notions. Now if the very notion of the mind be improperly
or over hastily abstracted from the facts, vague and not sufficiently definite,
faulty, in short, in many ways, the whole edifice tumbles”.
Before proceeding farther in our
discussion I ask the reader to seek grace to apprehend and, if possible, also
to progressively comprehend a great Biblical fact, in order to get the correct
view point and perspective in this study.
It is this:
The
grand outlook of the Saints in both Testaments was not on eternity and
completely consummated redemption; but on the Messianic Age and its glorious
And what is more: The Old
Testament prophets and saints, by no fault of theirs, did not see the present
dispensation. It was a mystery hid in
the mind and plan of God. Their vision
was beyond, to the glorious Messianic Kingdom, the time limits of which they
did not know.
On the contrary the Church,
since the third century, has been so deeply absorbed in the coming eternity
that it refuses to see this most pernicious and fatal heresy of
post-millenarianism in the history of Christianity.
This great truth not only
affects Biblical Eschatology, but the whole range of Biblical Theology. Historical and Systematic Theology for 1600
years have refused to see the facts from this point of view; but have painted a
picture of the future according to the carnal fancy of Ante-Nicene and
Post-Nicene apostacy. And let the fact
be remembered and pondered, that Past, Present, and Future, constitute a unity
in truth or in error, in God, or in Satan.
I cannot be wrong as to the future and right as to the present and the
past; and vice versa. The unity of
personality demands this. Past and
future can only be viewed through the medium of what I am. Fiction here will project and objectify
itself there. Hence the necessity of a
pure heart, a surrendered will, and a renewed mind. These, however, can only be realized by
degree and in fellowship with the Christ as rejected on earth and accepted in
heaven.
We will now cite a few passages to
show the practical force and utility of this manner of viewing the past,
present and future, and specially with reference to its bearing on Biblical
Eschatology:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat
manna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from
heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread
which came down from heaven: if any man eat of
this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore
strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto
them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you. Who so eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the
last day; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. This is that bread
which came down from heaven: not as your fathers
did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead: he
that eateth of this bread shall live for ever”. John
6: 47-58.
Page 71
Here we have aionios zoe (eternal life) twice, verses
47, 54; and we have also the phrase eis ton aiona (for the age) twice, verses 51, 58.
The latter modify and complete the predicate “shall live”.
Thus we see the synonymous character of the two thoughts. Now the traditional and orthodox method of
treating these words of Christ assumes that He is here speaking and discoursing
concerning what English readers understand by the “eternal
state” which follows the judgment of the Great White Throne. But this is all wickedly wrong. The subject under discussion
here is the same as in Luke 18: 18-30; namely, THE AGE TO COME; that period of time after the second advent
of Messiah and lying between the judgment of the Bema, 2
Cor. 5: 10 (where only the saved appear) and the judgment
of the Great White Throne - Rev. 20: 11-15; these time points definitely marking the
termini of the period; and John tells us that the time between them is 1000
years. Rev. 20:
1-6. Strictly speaking there is “a little season” between the end of the 1000 years and
the White Throne judgment. Rev. 20: 3. Now if this be the correct interpretation it
is easy to see its tremendously significant bearing on Biblical Eschatology;
and at the same time the delusive falsity and fatality of the traditional
interpretation.
We will therefore proceed to
establish the fact. In the light of Lord
Bacon’s warning let us be mercilessly severe in our definitions. Let us also remember the Jewish expectation
of their Messiah and His Kingdom as their one hope. They were right in “the
hope” but wrong in their manner of cherishing it. They thought that when Messiah came it would
be in glory and irresistible power, and that He would at once break the hated
yoke of the Romans and set them free.
They never dreamed of a humble, rejected, crucified Messiah; and much less of their need of special moral
and spiritual preparation for entering the Messianic Kingdom when the time had
come. In short, the priests and
people alike were the helpless victims of a
false and delusive system of interpretation. And,
let me add, this is one cause of the trouble in the Church in the present
dispensation. And who but a blind man
can fail to see the hand of the Prince of this world behind the whole matter? 1 Cor. 2: 14; John 14: 30; 9: 39-41.
In the
Synoptic Gospels the condition, when once salvation from the guilt of sin has
been received, of entering this Messianic Kingdom is utter self-denial, and the
sacrifice of everything for the love of Christ and one’s neighbour. Matt. 19: 16-30; Mark 10: 17-31; Luke 18: 18-30 and 10: 25-37. But in
John’s Gospel, as might be expected, Christ goes deeper and reveals the fact
that no man can fulfil such a condition except by a living abiding union with
Himself as the Bread of Life. John 6: 35-63; 10: 1-10. And this union with Him and abiding in Him
implies that all other relations in life must, if evil, be abandoned, and if
good take a wholly subordinate place. Luke 14: 25-35; Jas. 4: 4; 1 John 2: 15-17. This means complete separation from the
world and deliverance from its enslaving spirit. It means conformity to Christ in life and in
death. And this is secured by
nothing less than abiding in Him and continually eating His flesh and drinking
His blood. In Robinson’s Lexicon of the
New Testament I find a couple of remarks to the point in this connection. In his definition of
“Perhaps too 1 John 5: 6, 8 and especially John 6: 53-58, where the phrases to ‘eat the flesh’ and ‘drink blood of Christ’, signify to become wholly united and incorporated with Christ, i.e., to imbibe
His Spirit and appropriate to oneself all the benefits of His advent, to be
wholly conformed to Christ.”
Were the Corinthians and
Galatians thus living on the Life-giving Spirit of the Christ? 1 Cor. 15: 45. Only those so living are the wheat to be
gathered into the heavenly garner. Matt. 13: 30; 13: 49; Luke 3: 15-17. When Christ revealed to John in Patmos the
spiritual condition of the seven representative churches in
The “fathers”
came out of
But their position in this state
of relative death was not that of the Egyptians, or of other nations generally.
They were still God’s people. The death in
which the nations are involved is not relative but absolute death. But to this
day the “fathers” are in this state of relative
death. John
6: 49. But how different was and is the case of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? They too died
as they had lived. They lived by faith (Hab. 2: 4) in
fellowship with the living God. Thus God
is only really the God of those of His people who live and die in faith. These and these only will share, physically
and spiritually, in the first resurrection.
He will become ‘the God’ of the others
later on. Only those of the saved who
live and die in faith by continually eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His
blood will attain to eternal (age-lasting) life in the Messianic Kingdom. Heb. 11: 13. He said
to the Jews:
Search the Scriptures for in
them ye think ye have ‘eternal (age-lasting) life’ (in the Messianic Kingdom), and they are they
which testify of Me (your Messiah). John 5: 39.
But, like Christians, instead of
searching the Scriptures, they searched the traditions of the elders and asked,
“Have any of the rulers of the Pharisees believed on
Him”? John 7: 48. Their faith in man
made faith in Christ impossible.
[Page 73]
That the above is the correct
interpretation of John 6: 49 and Matt. 22: 31, 32, is clear from John
6: 50 and 11:
26; 1 Cor. 10: 1-10. “This is the bread that came down from heaven that a man may
eat thereof and not die”. Now, Peter, James, John and Paul, all ate of
that bread and yet every one of them died physically. This proves that He is not talking of
physical but of spiritual death; and in the case of the saved not of absolute
but of relative death; and not of the life in the eternal state beyond the
White Throne judgment, but of
age-lasting life in the Millennial-Messianic Kingdom after the Bema Judgment,
2 Cor. 5: 10; for He says, “he
that eateth of this bread shall live for the (millennial) age”. John 6: 51, 58; 8: 51. Thus
the “eternal life” of John
6: 47, 54;
and the “shall live for ever” of 6: 51, 58 are identical expressions, and should be
translated “age-lasting
life” and “shall live for the age”, respectively.
Here we quote again from
Robinson’s Lexicon of the New Testament.
In his definition of Zoe, he says:
“In the
Christian sense of eternal life, i.e., that life of bliss and glory in the
It is
significant not only that he defines “eternal life”
in this way, but also that he adduces as proof text the question of the Young
Ruler. Note also his assertion that this
“eternal life” is only for “the true disciples of Christ”, and to be entered only
“after the resurrection”. Thus he distinguishes by implication between
eternal life as the gift of free grace, and eternal life as the prize; for
every saved man has the former whether true to Christ like the Thessalonians,
or untrue like the Corinthians and Galatians.
But it is almost certain that Robinson failed to see the real
eschatological significance of his own distinction.
Let us now turn from John to
Paul:
“Howbeit
that for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me
first Christ Jesus might show forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him
to life everlasting”.
He is here not talking of the ‘free gift’ as in Rom.
6: 23,
but of ‘the prize’ which can only be secured through fellowship with
Christ in His sufferings; and says that God has appointed him (Paul) to be a
pattern to other believers, that by word and deed he might persuade Christians
to “put off the old man which is corrupt according to
the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the
spirit of your mind, and that ye put on the new
man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”, for only
thus can those who have received the new birth believe unto life age-lasting
(in the Messianic Kingdom). Alas! how
few Christians seek honestly to do this.
With the thought of failure among the saved he says:
[Page 74]
“Brethren,
be followers together of me, and mark them which
walk so as ye have us for an example. For many (Christians) walk, of whom I have told you
often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction,
whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in
their shame, who mind earthly things.”
How pathetic the thought that
for the great majority of [regenerate] Christians their end is not maturity and
Millennial glory, but exclusion, destruction and age-lasting judgment. Alas! How will we preachers and teachers of
the Word stand before our judge in that terrible day? Surely Isa. 3: 12 is appropriate here. We have tried to save our life from the
offence of the Cross, but in doing so we have lost it for the age to come with
the consequence that we have exposed ourselves to eternal (age-lasting)
judgment. The Master has pictured the
true and false servants in Matt. 24: 42-51. But
thank God for Paul and Peter and James and John. Listen to Paul again:
“But
refuse profane and old wives’ fables (and much of theology comes under
this head), and exercise thyself rather unto Godliness. For bodily exercise
profiteth little; but godliness is profitable
unto all things, having promise of the life that
now is, and that which is to come.” 1 Tim. 4: 7, 8.
Ungodly believers may have the
life that now is and it is true life (zoe), but they have no claim on the life of the age
to come. Contrast Gal. 5: 19-21; and Matt. 19: 27, 30. The
antithetic Dualism in different classes of [regenerate] believers is very clearly
marked here.
Listen to Paul further:
“But
thou, O
man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal ([i.e.] ‘age-lasting’)
life” whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.”
1 Tim. 6:
11, 12.
There is no need of fighting for
the ‘free gift’.
The hand of faith simply reaches out to the God-Man and takes it. Not so, however, with ‘the prize’. In verse 19 Paul exhorts the rich in this world’s
goods who think that by means of their money and social position they know
something of real happiness, “to lay hold on the life
that is life indeed.” R.V. With
such pictures of the Millennium as we have in Isaiah,
chapters 52-66,
Ezek. 40-48, Psa.
72, Rev. 22, the contrast between this age and that, even
on earth, will be extraordinary. But if
the glory be so great on the terrestrial side of the Kingdom, what infinite
bliss will be the portion of those on the celestial side, those who share in
the first resurrection? We can only
reply: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.” 1 Cor. 2: 9. True,
indeed, “God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit”,
but we see through a glass darkly, oh, so darkly. And note the limitation of this coming blessedness
which
God hath prepared for them that love [Page 75] Him. And who are they that love Him? Not all the saved. Only the saved and sanctified, the overcomers, the Lord’s
Jewels. Matt. 3: 16-17.
In this connection let us look
for a moment at the death of Christ: Two views which are complimentary:
1. Objectively and historically: We are disposed in our
conception of death to emphasize the physical element, the dissolution of soul and
body; and we are in danger of missing the essential factor in the fact. The physical death of Christ was a fact, a
necessary fact, but His death was primarily a soul-death. In the circumference of His being He died to
physical comfort, to physical pain; but deeper than that, in His soul He died
to the world, to sin, to self, and emphatically and fundamentally, He died for
and to the Law. He died unto sin once
for all and forever. Rom. 6: 10. As the
Federal Head of the new creation, and the Sin Bearer, both sin and the law had
claims on Him, for the strength of sin is the Law. But He died to both. Here we are in Romans
5 and 6. But when He had so died death could not hold
Him. Because by dying to sin and the Law
He had overcome and abolished death, and therefore rose as Conqueror of sin and
death. The relation of the resurrection
to the death therefore was that of effect and cause. Note further, and this is vital: When Christ
died on the Cross - the consummation of a death process reaching from childhood
onwards - the whole human race, past, present and future, died in Him
Judicially; and in His resurrection rose with Him potentially. 2 Cor. 5: 14; Rom. 5: 12-21. The
conception of a limited atonement is a mental and moral monstrosity; and in
this respect the Confession of Faith is really a confession of Unbelief. But please notice carefully the modifying
power of the two adverbs, “Judicially” and “potentially”.
Do not read the sentence as if I said “actually”.
2. Subjectively and experimentally: The fact that Christ
judicially tasted death for every man does not necessarily compel any
individual man to accept that death as endured for him. In this case the logical result is as if
Christ had not tasted death for every man.
This leads us to ask, What was the purpose of the death of Christ
considered as an objective and historical fact, and in its essential physical
and spiritual essence? It was: (1) That God in the expression of His
infinite love might impart the free gift of eternal life to all who in their
hearts believe on Christ as the Sin-Bearer of the world. This presupposes repentance, regeneration and
justification. (2) That He might bestow the prize of eternal (age-lasting) life in
the Messianic Kingdom on all who earnestly desire to have Christ by the Holy
Spirit live in them to will and to do of God’s good pleasure. This implies
separation from the world,
emancipation from its spirit, having the seed of the word fall into the heart
as into prepared soil and bringing forth fruit 30, 60, or 100-fold. It means actual fellowship with Christ in His rejection by men and His acceptance
with God. In other words, it means that
the very spirit of the death of Christ, the utter self-denial of Christ, shall
work in us as it did in Him and thereby secure to all [Page 76] who will have a place with Him
in the first resurrection, and that “so an entrance
shall be ministered unto you abundantly into His everlasting
(age-lasting) Kingdom. 1
Peter 1: 10-11.
Thus to obtain the free gift and
yet to despise the prize; that is, not to be willing to pay any price and
endure any pain for it, is not only to nullify, temporarily, the purpose of the
atonement and thus do despite unto the Spirit of grace, but it must also be
regarded ethically and spiritually as an abortion. Heb.
12: 6-8. “We which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake
that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh”. 2 Cor. 4: 11. This manifestation is physical, intellectual
and spiritual. And this affirmation is
not of all Christians, nor of the many, but of the few. Matt. 7: 13, 14. The
vast majority refuse to be delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake. John 6: 64-68; Luke 13: 24-25. Only a few Christians can be said to be “dead indeed unto sin and alive unto God”. The converse is true of the many. Matt.
24: 12; Gal. 5: 19-21; 1 Cor. 3: 1-15. “She (a
believer) that liveth in pleasure is dead while she
liveth”. 1 Tim. 5: 6. As Paul speaks of carnal and spiritual
Christians, so does he speak of dead and living Christians, and the two
expressions are synonymous. “If a man (a
believer) abide not in Me, (the source of life) he is (by the law of life) cast
forth as a branch, and is withered
(spiritually); and men gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned”. John 15: 6. Be careful not to carry the figure too far,
for if you do you cannot stop short of annihilationism. The fire here is the
same as Mark 9: 49,
50; Heb. 12: 28, 29; Matt. 3: 10-12. Every
saved man must have his baptism of fire now in this age, or in the age to
come. God is not mocked. Gal. 6: 6-8. Only thus can sin's kingship in the soul be
destroyed.
The altar sanctifies the gift,
but only by fire. Matt. 22: 22. This baptism follows full consecration.
I believe that from the standpoint
of the New Testament the two great Biblical facts of Synthetic and Antithetic
Dualism in the
We will now go to the Old
Testament and look for our facts there; and owing to the organic nature of the
Scriptures it may be assumed as an axiom that there can be nothing explicitly
affirmed in the New Testament that is not implicitly contained in the Old. And we shall not only find the truth for
which we are contending in the O. T., but we shall find it there in a glorious
process of unfoldment. The unbelief of
the Jews stopped the process in that age just as the unbelief of the Church has
done in this age. The victories of the
Book of Joshua in that dispensation and those of the Acts of the Apostles in
this should have continued till the commission was executed and the goal
reached. But in both cases the Holy
Spirit not only gave the commission but He foretold the failure, apostasy, and
rejection. Deut. 28;
and Rev. 2.
& 3.
It may
surprise the reader to be told that the Old Testament has far more to say about
the Age to Come and its glory than the New.
It is a fact nevertheless. The
Patriarchs and Prophets of that Age knew nothing of the present age, nor yet of
the Eternity which lies beyond the Age to Come.
They were wholly occupied with the latter and did not know how long it
might last. Placing various prophecies
side by side, however, they could easily perceive from passages like Isa. 65: 17, 22 that the Age to come, so far as the earth and
its people were concerned belonged to the sphere of things temporal.
THE HEBREW “OLAM”
This noun is derived from the
verb alam, to hide, to conceal. Psa. 90: 8; Isa. 58: 7. Gesnius defines it thus:
“What
is hidden: specially hidden time, long: the beginning or end of which is either
uncertain or else not defined: eternity, perpetuity. It is used of time long past, antiquity.”
There is
an apparent inconsistency here. He
speaks of the olam as a period of time, as having a beginning and end, but of
which the one or the other may be “uncertain or else
not defined”. That statement is all right. But notice what follows: with a semicolon
after “defined” he adds, eternity. Surely that is an illogical and indefensible [Page 78] process. Eternity proper as understood in English is
without beginning or end. How can he
effect the passage from the finite to the infinite except by simply making an
assertion which the facts of the primary definition will not allow. This is the way all error creeps in, and once
in there is the piper to pay in order to drive it out.
Of course it is quite proper to
speak of eternity past and eternity future.
But surely there is an unbridgable gulf between past eternity and
antiquity. So is there a like difference
between the age to come and future eternity. Among the passages cited by
Gesenius under this head are Amos 9: 11; Mic. 7: 14; Isa. 63: 9; Deut. 32: 7; Gen. 6: 4; 1 Sam. 27: 8; Psa. 26: 5; Pro. 8: 11; Isa. 42: 14; Isa. 58: 12; 61: 4. Let us look at some of them.
Amos 9: 11. This is a prophecy that after the children of
Israel have been chastened for their sins, the nation shall again come together
at the second advent of Christ, and the coming glory will be like that in the
days of old (olam); that is, as it
was in the days of David and Solomon, only better. Mic.
7: 11-14 is the same.
There is no reference to eternity. Isa. 63: 9: He bare
them and carried them all the days of old (olam). This refers to Jehovah’s kindness to
So in Deut.
32: 7; Gen. 6: 4. In Gen. 6: 3, “Olam” is
rendered “always.” Psa,
25: 6 is
the same as Deut. 32:
7; Isa. 42:
14: “I have long
time (olam) holden my peace.”
This, as Gesenius says, refers to the Babylonian captivity.
The only place where eternity
(past) seems to be in view is Pro. 8: 23; and even
here, as far as this text is concerned, it is sufficient to render, “I was set up before the world was created.”
The Editor of Bengel’s Gnomon (Matt. 25: 42-46) says:
“The
Bible has no metaphysical distinctions, therefore it has no one word to express
eternity.”
This is equivalent to saying
that neither the olam of the O.T. nor the aion of the N. T. is used with reference to eternity; and this is all I
contend for.
Dr. Tregelles (editor of Gesenius) takes him to task for his translation of
Dan. 9: 24, where the prophet speaks of “everlasting righteousness”. Gesenius makes it refer to the past, the
righteousness of the fathers; while Tregelles affirms it is to be future, and
in this he is right.
[Page 79]
But what future? Here is what he says:
“It
hardly need be pointed out to any Christian that this passage in Daniel can
have no such meaning as this; it speaks of the everlasting righteousness to be
brought in through the atonement of Christ.”
But Tregelles makes it refer to
eternity future which is not true. The
passage does not refer merely to What Christ procured by His holy life and
vicarious death; but to the actual establishment of that righteousness in the
Messianic‑Millennial Kingdom, and as definitely embodied in the domestic,
social, and national life of
Let us look briefly into R. B. Girdlestone’s HEBREW SYNONYMS: In Chap. 30, and under
the heading Eternal, Everlasting, The Age to Come,
he begins beautifully:
“The
Old Testament words representing duration, and their Greek equivalents, call
for the most careful consideration in consequence of the fact that the whole
revelation of man’s future destiny must depend to some extent upon their
accurate interpretation.”
That is well and truly put. But it is one thing to see a general principle
and quite another to accurately apply that principle to particular cases. We all fail here, and often to the
irreparable injury of our selves and our fellow men. This work of Girdlestone is of exceeding great value to the Bible student; but
in the realm of eschatology he has followed the beaten path altogether too
closely.
Let us note a few examples of
this. Under the definition of the Hebrew
ad
he refers to the Greek phrase “eis to telos,” and says:
“Three times
in the New Testament we read that, he that endureth to the end (eis telos) shall
be saved. By this we are to understand
that he who holds on fast through tribulation, without wavering, shall
ultimately find God to be his deliverer.”
Not so. The man who holds on, endures, is the man who, like Joshua and Caleb in the wilderness, is finding God a deliverer every hour as
he moves towards the telos, the goal, and there receives the prize. See Paul, Phil. 3:
7-14. The believer has his daily choice of two
things:- to abide in Christ (by a continuous surrender of his will to God)
then, “bear more fruit,” and “much fruit;” and have that fruit unto holiness and the
end (telos) everlasting (Millennial)
life. John
15: 1-10;
Rom. 6: 22; or, by preferring his own will to God’s will,
become unfruitful and be cut off and withered [Page 80] and cast into the fire; because the wages of sin is both
physical and Spiritual death. John 15: 6; Rom, 6: 23; 8: 13. In other words, he must press on through the wilderness
and entering Canaan begin to possess his possessions; or he must back-slide and
die in the wilderness and thus forfeit all claim on the first resurrection and
the glory of the Messianic Kingdom. Obadiah 17; Deut.
6: 23; Heb. 4: 1.
On page 502 he says: “In Isa. 60: 15, Olam is rendered eternal, “I will make thee an eternal joy,” and he assumes that
the prophet has eternity in view, whereas the reference is to the terrestrial glory of Israel during the
thousand years; and aionios, or olam, should here be
rendered age-lasting. Then he quotes Psa. 12:
7; “God preserves
the righteous for ever,” and assumes that this is correct, when the reference is to the same Messianic Age
and should be rendered, “God preserves the righteous for the age (to come)”. Compare Luke 18: 28-30; John 6: 58; 8: 51; Matt. 13: 43, 49; 1 Tim. 6: 12. He quotes Psa. 61: 4; 73: 26; 81: 15; 112: 16; 125: 2; Ecc. 3: 14; Isa. 40: 8; 51: 6; Dan. 7: 18; and takes it for granted that “for ever” has exclusive reference to future eternity,
whereas in every case the writer has his mind on the Messianic
Millennial Kingdom, or some nearer period of time.
Before giving the next quotation
from Girdlestone let the reader reflect on the fact, that, with the probable
exception of Pro. 8:
23; the passages we have cited from those he
adduces as example, have no reference to eternity, because the outlook of
Prophets and Patriarchs was exclusively confined to Israel’s Golden Age, when the Messiah shall sit as a Priest-King on the throne of His
father David. Psalms 2, 45, 72, 110. Recall
also the first sentence we quoted from his book and then read the following
from page 503
“In the
passages quoted which are a considerable proportion and a fair specimen of the
whole, the LXX rendering is usually aionios,
or eis ton aiona;
these Greek phrases when they appear in the N. T. must be interpreted in
accordance with the word olam. They give a conception which though negative,
is sufficiently clear. Eternity is endlessness;
and this idea is only qualified by the nature of the object to which it is
applied, or by the direct word of God.
When applied to things physical it is used in accordance with the
revealed truth that the heaven and the earth shall pass, and it is limited by
this truth - When the word is applied to man’s future destiny after the
resurrection, and after the passing away of all things physical, we do right
(unless there be some revelation to the contrary) to give it the sense of
endlessness, without any limitation”.
This paragraph completely
nullifies the gracious concession he made at the beginning of the chapter. He has already laid down the general
principle as to the need of great care in the interpretation of eschatological
terms; and then, when face to face with the facts, he so construes them as to
abandon the principle, and especially where the specific application of the
principle might have turned darkness into light. Read again, if there be any doubt, our
discussion of the term aionios in Chapter 2.
[Page 81]
Note a few remarks on the above
quotation:
1. He says the meaning of the
Greek adjective aionios and the phrase eis ton aiona must be interpreted in accordance with the
word olam. That is, the Hebrew determines the Greek, because
it is the language of God’s revelation to
He says:
“When
applied to things physical it is used in accordance with the revealed truth
that the heaven and the earth shall pass, and it is limited by this truth.”
I freely grant the
deduction. Let us take a passage to
illustrate his meaning. In Gen. 49: 26 Jacob says to Joseph:
“The
blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors
into the utmost bounds of the everlasting (olam) hills”.
His reasoning is to the effect
that as the heaven and earth are to pass away, therefore the “hills” must pass,
and on that account they cannot be everlasting.
The temporal nature of the hills necessitates a limitation of the
adjective. That is good logic. Wherein then is he wrong? He errs thrice. (1) Since the English word “everlasting”
has the idea of endlessness, eternal, why does he not challenge the translation
and insist that, in this case at least, clam should be rendered into idiomatic
English by age-lasting, or age-abiding, for when thus used we see that the
adjective refers to temporal things and limited periods of time; and thus we
harmonize etymology and exegesis. We
have no more right to apply the term everlasting to “hills”
than to sunflowers.
(2) He ignores the fact that the age, aion, or olam, to follow
the present lies this side of eternity, and that the present heaven and earth
will continue through that age. He
assumes that the “age to come” is the eternal
state beyond the White Throne judgment; whereas it is wholly on this side of
that great event and within the limits of temporal existence so far at least as
the [present] earth is concerned. We
have already proven this in our discussion of Luke
18: 28-30;
and will yet give fuller proof.
Page 82
My point is this: Why apply to
the Hebrew adjective (olam) in the
present age a principle of limitation guaranteed by revelation and deny the
application of the same principle to the same word in the age to come when the
natural phenomena of heaven and earth, hills and mountains, seed time and
harvest, summer and winter, continue substantially as they are in this and past
ages? The only way that
post-millenarians can plausibly evade the inconsistency is to deny that between
the present, or 6th age, in the unfoldment of God’s Plan of the
Ages, and future eternity, there is another, a 7th age, an age of
Millennial blessedness and while men on the earth are still in the flesh. But to do this is to oppose the explicit teaching of Patriarchs and Prophets as well as
of Christ and His Apostles. In other
words it is to substitute the Nicean Theology of the
so called “fathers” of the Church, for the
Evangelical Theology of the inspired founders of Christianity. See the quotation from Dean Stanley in the
introduction.
(3) He affirms that where olam is applied to man’s future destiny
after the resurrection we are “to give it the sense of
endlessness without limitation.”
Very well: Grant it and see how
the assumption will work. We have proven
from Scripture that carnal believers at and after the resurrection will be excluded
from the
The ground of his erroneous
definition of olam and his false
exegesis is the unproven and unprovable assumption
that there is only one resurrection, and that at the end of the world when
heaven and earth pass away. This, however,
is only one of a concatenated series of assumptions which go to constitute, in
a large measure, the very warp and woof of traditional theology, and especially
of traditional eschatology. The leaven
of unrighteousness pervades and saturates the whole structure of Modern
Christianity as an anomalous survival of Latin Christianity. As a matter of imperishable fact there are
two resurrections - one at the second coming of Christ, and the beginning of
the Millennium; and the other at its end when the present heaven and earth pass
away. These two pivotal events stand out
in contrast and yet in unity as parts of one system as clearly as do the Old
and New Testaments, as records of God’s working in Creation and Redemption.
Page 83
I quote again:
“The adjective
aionios is used more than forty times in the N. T. with respect to eternal
life, which is regarded partly as a present gift, partly as a promise for the
future secured to all disciples of Christ.” page 504.
Here he follows closely the traditional
path which ignores one of the most important distinctions in the Bible - that
between the free gift of eternal life and the prize of eternal life. Surely the thing for which Paul urged Timothy
to contend (1 Tim. 6:
12) was not the thing he received when he
became a Christian. If it were would
Paul not rather have urged him to hold on to what he already had. John says, “This is
the promise which He hath promised us, even
eternal life (life in the Messianic Kingdom)”. The International
Commentary says that the phrase “Eternal Life”
in our Lord’s Day was synonymous with Messiah’s Kingdom. And of this there can
be no doubt. But the writer being a
post-millenarian does not see the real significance of his own remark. Bishop
Swete says the phrase “Eternal
Life” first appears in Dan. 12: 2. But when he comes to interpret it and look at
it in the light of Christ’s talk with the Rich Young Ruler he completely misses
the mark.
Let us analyse the quotation
from Mr. Girdlestone as given above:
Here he assumes (1) that “eternal
life” as a present gift and a future realization are simply two phases
of one and the same thought; whereas one is the free gift of God to naked
faith, and the other is the prize to be won by conflict, even to soul agony and
the loss of all that the natural heart counts precious. Luke 13: 23, 24. If we suffer with Him we shall reign with Him
- not otherwise. 2 Tim. 2: 10-13. The
Young Ruler refused to go thus far. His is a typical case. Bishop Swete following Bengel says we are not to infer that
because Christ adopted this method of dealing with this particular enquirer
that the Saviour meant thereby to affirm a general principle applicable to all.
But he would not have said this if he had known the exact meaning of the Young
Ruler’s question. “Except a man forsake all that he
hath he cannot be My disciple” is of universal application when the
Messianic Kingdom is in view, and is specially applicable to preachers and
bishops. Then you say, “Few will get in”.
That is the very thing the Christ affirms, and which the Church refuses to believe and teach.
He
assumes (2) that the outlook on
eternal life as properly understood in Luke 3:
18-30,
and many like passages, is identical with the outlook on the
Page 84
He assumes (3) that this eternal life which was the subject under discussion in
the conversation of the Young Ruler with Christ is sure to all believers, all
the saved, when on the contrary is only sure to the righteous, the holy, those
who forsake all to follow the Master. Matt. 13: 49; Heb. 12: 14; Gal. 5: 19-21; Luke 18: 18-30.
I am hopeful that by this time
the intelligent and unbiased reader is fully convinced that so far as Biblical
Eschatology is concerned, Christian Scholarship has pathetically failed in its
illuminating purpose and solemn mission, and has left the people groping in the
darkness of the Middle Ages. This is
surely a crime against truth and righteousness, against Humanity and God. We have some idea of the terrific judgment of
the Jewish people, and especially their leaders, as the result of false
teaching - false interpretation of God’s Word.
Then, since in the mercy of God through Christ much more light is given
in this age, will not the people, and
especially the accredited [Anti-Millennial]
teachers, be correspondingly
responsible, and subject to and
deserving of a much severer penalty.
This is the explicit teaching of the Bible. Heb. 2: 1-3; Luke 12: 46-48; 1 Cor. 4: 2. The fear of being found
unfaithful in That Great [Judgment] Day,
quite as much as the love of truth and righteousness, makes me cling tenaciously,
amid storm and conflict, to the
narrow way, the way marked and made
sacred by the foot-prints of the Son of Man. It will be openly demonstrated in the
judgment of believers at the Bema (2 Cor. 5: 10), just as effectually and solemnly as in the
judgment of sinners a thousand years later at the Great White Throne (Rev. 20: 11-15), that
God is no respecter of persons and that He is not mocked. Gal. 6: 7. The [regenerate, couldn’t-care-less, and
disobedient] Christian who enters upon and
wilfully follows the easy path of conformity to the world and thinks that he is
safe because he can plead the blood of Christ to cover his sins, is
mocking God; and that more daringly
than the thief, the drunkard, or the harlot. In the light of reason and
revelation such a man ought to reap as he sows.
Let us now, and briefly, turn to
the Word for a little further light on this momentous and ever pregnant
question of human destiny. The worth of
theology, of ethics, and all humanitarian theories, must prove their essential
claims to recognition by being able to stand unabashed in the awful white light
of God’s Holy Word when consistently interpreted and faithfully applied. If any where and at any time in his life,
surely here, mortal man should remove his hat, bow his head, and worship as one
consciously treading on holy ground. Here, if anywhere, tradition, sectarian
bias, antiquated scholarship, and all exegetical parleying should be regarded
as unclean and insufferable intruders. The aim of Biblical Science quite as
truly as any natural science, say anatomy, is to discover facts and their
relations and arrange them systematically and concisely for convenient
practical use. Utility is the immediate
goal.
Page 85
Tne
Biblical use of olam.
In Gen. 6: 3; 1 Chr. 16: 15, it is translated “always”. “My Spirit shall not
always strive with man”. If, as
the authorities maintain, its one abiding meaning is eternal, or eternity, why
did the translators not render it so, and read, “My
Spirit shall not strive eternally with man?” If they answer that that would not express
the thought of the writer, I reply that this is just what I am contending for:
namely, that we should seek the aim of the writer, and in our translation
preserve his thought as nearly as possible.
But the difficulty is that postmillennialism compels its votaries to put
a construction on the language of Scripture which substitutes another meaning
for the true one. For example, as
already noted, Christ says, “Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the age,” this age; but the translators make Him
say, “unto the end of the world”. Matt. 28: 20. The servant who says:
“I love
my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out free. Then his master shall
bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring
him to the door, and to the door post; and his master shall bore his ears through with an awl;
and he shall serve him for ever” (olam).
Why, in
the interest of truth and common sense, did they not say: “and he shall serve him as long as he lives.” One might
think from the A.V. that the institution of human slavery was going to extend
its evil influence into the eternal state, even into the purity and freedom of
heaven. We find the same confusion of
terms in 1 Sam. 1:
22:
“But
Hannah went not up; for she said unto her
husband, I will not go up until the child be
weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may
appear before the Lord and there abide for ever” (olam). See ver. 28.
As in Gen.
49: 26, the
force of the adjective was limited by the fact that the hills must pass away;
so here by the fact that man is mortal.
It may
be said of God that He is everlasting; and of the hills that they are age-lasting,
but neither term is applicable to man in his present state.
We will
now take another use of the word olam which is of vital importance in
its bearing on Biblical Eschatology. One
of the essential factors in the Abrahamic Covenant was the promise of the land. No one element in the Covenant is more
emphasized than this. The promise is
repeated seven times. The Holy Spirit
foresaw that post-millenarians [and Anti-millenarians] would spiritualize this Covenant so as to
nullify its prophetic significance, and therefore took this precaution to safe
guard the truth by repetition, also by the oath. Gen. 22: 15-18; Heb. 6: 13-18.
Page 86
“And Jehovah said unto Abram after that Lot was separated from
him, lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land that thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed for ever (olam).” Gen.
13: 15.
In Gen.
15: 18,
the land is geographically defined as from the Nile to the
Note carefully:
1. The
land is promised to Abraham personally as well as to his seed. Gen. 12: 1-3; 13: 15; 15: 18.
2. He never got possession of any
part of it during his life time except the field and the cave which he bought
of Ephron the Hittite for four hundred shekels of silver. Gen, 23: 1-20. Abraham
regarded himself as a stranger in the land.
Gen. 23:
4; Heb. 11: 18.
3. The proto-martyr Stephen and
the Apostle of the Gentiles testify that the promise still holds good. Acts 7: 5; Rom. 4: 13; Heb. 6: 11-19; with Gen. 22: 11-18.
4. The time when the promise is
fulfilled is the time when the human family is still divided into nations and
therefore must be this side of the eternal state. Gen. 22: 18. This promise cannot be fulfilled through the
ministry of the Church, for God’s favour to the Gentile nations is through
restored and converted
5. Therefore the Abrahamic
Covenant must he literally interpreted; and in the light of this interpretation
we know that at no period in the History of Israel, even in the days of David and
Solomon, was the nation in possession of all the land from the river Nile to
the river Euphrates; and at the present time that land is in possession of the
“worst of the heathen” - the Turks. Ez. 30: 1-7; 36: 21-38.
1 Kings 4: 21 was a little foretaste. The reigns of David and Solomon were typical
and prophetic. Psalms - 45, 72, 110; 2 Sam. 7.
6. The promise of the land to Abraham and his seed, and the
promise of the Kingdom - to David (2 Sam. 7) cannot be fulfilled in the eternal state for
the same reason already given by Mr.
Girdlestone. I will repeat that part
of the quotation which is pertinent to the subject in hand. He says:
Page 87
“When
applied to things physical it (olam) is
used in accordance with the revealed truth that the heaven and the earth shall
pass, and it is limited by this truth.”
That is, the Hebrew olam
when applied to things physical, like hills and mountains, cannot be translated
everlasting, neither, by implication, can it be translated for ever, which is the
equivalent of everlasting. Therefore since the words everlasting and for ever
cannot be applied to “hills”, because they must
pass away, neither can they be applied to that portion of the land promised to
Abraham for the same reason, because the land, as now constituted, must, as
truly as the hills, pass away to make room for the [restored] new earth. Isa. 65:
17;
And if this be granted, as it
must where there is honest dealing with the Word of God, it follows that the
Hebrew olam whether used as noun or adjective, and in the singular, is
employed only as the designation and measure of definitely limited periods of
time. And in the same manner, because of this affinity and interdependence, we
infer that the same limitation applies to the Greek noun aion, and its cognate
adjective, aionios. I need hardly point out the tremendous effect of this
conclusion in its bearing on Biblical Interpretation, and specifically on
Biblical Eschatology.
The
inevitable conclusion, based solidly on the above Biblical facts, which are
only samples of scores of the same evidential significance and value, is
approximately this: That the traditional advocates of eternal punishment are
obliged to surrender from 80 to 90% of their proof texts, their working
capital. Will any honest Bible student
with the facts before him dare to deny it.
And, more than that, they are obliged to confess that a very large
proportion of those Scriptures which they have supposed to reveal the eternal
peril of the sinner, on the contrary actually reveal the age-lasting peril of
their own souls. If a Christian were
trying to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ, and out of one hundred Scriptures
quoted ninety were irrelevant, I would feel it my duty to protest, and also to
insist that Scripture doctrine must be Scripturally supported and legitimately
demonstrated. This is why I discriminate
between the “traditional” and the real.
7. It is clearly evident from numerous Scriptures that Abraham
and the “heirs of the same promise,” some already
deceased, and others living on the earth, must at the appointed hour inherit
together; that is, at one and the same time.
In short, there can be no fulfilment of the promises, in accordance with the terms and [Page 88]
specifications of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants,
except in and through the resurrection of the dead, and the conversion of the living; and since there can be no
resurrection of the dead apart from the Second Advent of the Christ in Glory,
we are obliged to infer by deduction that
the Second Coming must be premillennial; and this conclusion is overwhelmingly confirmed by an inductive study
of the Word. Thus we conclude that
the Covenant with Abraham was not, and is not, an everlasting Covenant at all,
but an age-lasting covenant, a
covenant for the ‘age to come’.
Of course its final issue is everlasting, eternal blessedness. But this
farther eschatological horizon is not within the vision of Prophets and
Apostles except occasionally, incidently, or by implication. Therein we find the reason for the emphasis
which Paul placed on the (first) resurrection.
Acts 17:
18; 17:
32; 23: 6;
24: 15, 21; Phil. 3: 10-11. Compare
Rev. 20: 6; Luke 20: 35; 21: 36.
To Paul “the hope of the first resurrection” was the full, literal, and spiritual
realization of the unsearchable riches of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants,
and of the New Covenant through the shed blood of the Son of God, the latter
being the basis and medium through which they come into full effect.
We will take one more instance
of the use of the olam and this of a negative character:
“And the
Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in
Both the A.V. and R.V. would lead
us to believe that Eli and his sons are eternally lost, whereas the declaration
is to the effect that they are to be excluded from Messiah’s
Over against this sentence on
Eli and his family read the following:
“And I
will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall
do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind; and he shall walk before mine Annointed
(Jesus Christ) for ever (for the
age to come). 1 Sam. 2: 35.
Page 89
Who can this priest be who is to
take the place of Eli in the Messianic-Millennial age? He is Zadok.
See Ezek.
44: 15;
40: 46;
43: 19;
Ezek. 48:
11; Ex. 32: 25-29. Surely the most superficial examination of
the text and context demonstrates that the above passages from Samuel and
Ezekiel have nothing to do with the
We may
conclude this chapter by a well grounded and far reaching generalization:
Namely, The words eternal, everlasting and for ever, except when they apply to God and the free gift of eternal life, ought to be banished from our Bibles and
Lexicons with the least possible delay. Let it not be overlooked, however, that so far have we have not touched the discussion of the terms olam and aion in their plural and duplicated forms.
These carry us far beyond the
limit of the age to come. Whether or
not they convey the idea of absolute endlessness in every case is not so easy
to determine. Thus: “To Him that liveth unto the ages of the ages (eis tous aioonas toon aionoon). Rev. 4: 9, 10; 22: 5. That God’s existence is absolutely eternal
there is no doubt. The point is as to whether the Greek Language, even by means
of these plural and duplicated forms, can express that conception, if we may
thus speak of that which is inconceivable while yet believable. “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever
(eis aioonas aioonoon)”. Rev.
14: 11. I will not dare, with present light, to bate
one jot from the terrible force of that expression. We may, however, keep in mind two facts: 1 - This declaration has reference to a
special form of sin-taking the mark of the Anti-Christ. Matt. 12: 31, 32 seems to
convey the same idea. This fact greatly
limits the comprehension of the term. 2
- We have only a partial revelation of the farther eschatological horizon, just
as in the age of Moses and the Law they had only a partial revelation of the
nearer eschatological horizon. And as
the present age of Grace brought all needed light on the nearer, so will the
advent of the age to come bring a full unfolding of all the facts connected
with the more distant. In the meantime
let us be careful not to confound and confuse the two as we now know them, at
least, may know them.
The
conclusion to which we now come as a result of our studies so for may be expressed
thus: For those who truly love God and His Word, and are determined at any cost
to walk in the footsteps of the Christ (Luke 14:
25-35),
there is the assurance that even in this present life sin’s power in the heart
shall be completely broken and the love of truth and righteousness shall be
there enthroned; and that at death all consciousness of the subjective dualism
with its implied limitations and restrictions shall for ever be dissolved; and
that then the gift and the prize shall be merged i n the divine
synthesis of consummated redemption, when the
subjects of the first resurrection will enter into the fathomless bliss of the
Messianic Kingdom [Page 90] and that on its celestial side.
“Oh, bliss of the purified! bliss of the free!
I plunge in the crimson tide opened for me;
O’er sin and uncleanness exulting I stand,
And point to the print of the nails in His hand”.
But for all others of the saved
who like the Rich Young Ruler refuse to put all on the altar and meet the conditions
dictated equally by the mercy and holiness of God, the fact,
and the consciousness of the fact,
of the antithetic dualism will continue into and through the intermediate state
and be an abiding source of unrest and distress. And be
it remembered that this is only the subjective side of the intermediate state.
Such a subjective condition must have an
objective environment to match it.
The inner and the outer are both embodied in the very solemn teaching of
Christ to His own disciples as we find it in Matt.
18: 1-9 and 25: 30. If
God’s people could only be brought to see this very solemnizing truth what a
tremendous change it would make in their mode of living and in their relation
to the
* *
*
Page 91
CHAPTER 4
A REVOLUTION IN ESCHATOLOGY
“The
Holy Spirit often dwells in sanctifying power where He does not dwell as an illuminating
power in the deep things of God, and time embalms the errors it does not
destroy, and creeds are propagated from father to son.” Nathaniel West.
“Nevertheless,
as Cato the Censor said, That the Romans were like sheep, for that a man were
better drive a flock of them, than one of them; for in a flock if you could get
some few go right the rest would follow.” Bacon.
-------
Will the
“old bottles” of the traditional theology hold
the new wine generated by the operation of the Holy Spirit working in and
through the “new things” brought forth from the
inexhaustible treasury of Holy Writ? They could not when the Son of Man taught
on earth, nor can they today. But spite
of this fact Luke was able to marshal in stately array his “many infallible proofs”, and it is very probable that
Theophilus was able to drink deeply from this new well of salvation.
It is
not easy for religious people to accept and appreciate the flavour of the “new wine” when they have long been accustomed to the
old wine of traditionalism. They still
say, “the old is better”. Viewed historically it seems to have been
vastly easier and much more congenial to religious people to fight sanctifying
truth than to oppose and expose the consecrated conventionalities of sanctified
error.
So far
as we have gone in the three chapters already covered we have come to some very
important conclusions, whatever the reader may think as to their truth or
falsity in relation to the tremendous subject of Biblical Eschatology, and in refutation
of traditional theories.
But one
object in what has already been written is to prepare the way for a new and
astonishing interpretation of two well-known portions of God’s word; and for a
still more astonishing conclusion based on said passages. At no point in the
book will the reader’s intellectual, moral and spiritual resources be more
severely taxed than in the present chapter.
But at the same time it is equally true that in no part of the book is
our position supported by a more plenteous and diversified array of
unassailable Scriptural proof. But just
as Luke’s “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1: 3) had
absolutely no weight with the typical Jew; so is it almost certain that the
following procession of Scriptural passages and heir organic cohesion and
structural correlation will seem like just so much insufferable nonsense to the
average Christian of the easy-going, self-indulgent Laodiceanism of these
deeply intoxicated and hilarious days.
Nevertheless, we feel sure that there will be not a few un-gowned, un-mitered, and un-heralded lovers of truth, who, however they
may be shocked at the first reading, will read a second time, and a third, and
then, with bowed head as in the presence of God, exclaim, “It is true,
the argument is logical, the exegesis is Scriptural, the conclusion is unassailable, and the writer’s thesis is established!”
The first of the two passages
referred to is as follows:
Page 92
“There
was a certain rich man which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full
of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs
which fell from the rich man’s table; moreover
the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came
to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by
the angels into Abraham’s bosom; the rich man
also died, and was buried; and in hell [Gk. ‘Hades’]* he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off,
and Lazarus in his bosom, And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on
me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of
his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am
tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy
lifetime receivedst thy good things, and
likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is
comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between
us and you there is a great gulf fixed; so that
they which would pass from hence to you cannot;
neither can they pass to us that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee
therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house; for I have five brethren;
that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They
have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one
went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they
hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16: 19-31.
[* See also “Hades” in the Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, The New King James Version, Numeric English New Testament, New International Version and New Translation (J. N. Darby), etc.]
The traditional, or orthodox interpretation
of this Scripture says this Rich Man was a man of the world, a sinner among
sinners, that he has gone to hell and is lost for the endless ages of eternity.
On the contrary we affirm that
he was a son of Abraham, an actual member of the Jewish commonwealth, though a
selfish one; that after his decease he went to the Hadean world (in the bowels of the earth) and into that part of it
known in the Scriptures as Gehenna - [i.e., “in the heart
of the earth” (Matt. 12: 40); that
is, into Heb. ‘Sheol’ = Gk. ‘Hades’ (Matt. 16: 18; Acts 2: 27, 34, R.V.)] that he is there today in full possession
of all his rational and moral powers; that
a time will come when he shall have served out the sentence of judgment imposed
on him by his Holy judge; that then
he shall come forth and take his place among the redeemed in glory. Yes, yes, I hear the orthodox exclaim, “Purgatory! Purgatory!” “Away
with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not
fit that he should live.” But
invective is not argument, and the mandate of conventionality cannot silence
the voice of God in the breast of any man to whom truth and righteousness are
clearer than the plaudits of the crowd.
We will not attempt any demonstration of the truth of our solution just
at present; but we would ask the lover of traditionalism what
authority he has for his bold assumption that this Rich Man is eternally lost? Does
the narrative say so? Does any portion
of the Bible say so? or does it warrant such a conclusion? No. Then the very best that can be said on the [Page 93] orthodox side, after a careful
reading is that the Word of God neither affirms nor denies in regard to the
finality or non-finality of his position and state in the Hadean world.
The other portion reads thus:
“And
many of them that sleep in the dust of
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life,
and some to
shame and everlasting contempt.” Dan.
12: 2.
The traditional view says this
is the final judgment of saved and unsaved, and that the permanent state of each
is here unalterably and eternally fixed.
Again in the name of sound exegesis and in the interest of truth and
righteousness we must dissent, and affirm that the facts of the case do not
warrant any such conclusion. Sinners are
not present at this judgment scene in any sense. We are here dealing with the
nearer eschatological horizon, and that only.
The case and doom of the sinner lies on the distant horizon in the vista
of futurity.
Now for the still more astonishing
conclusion based on these two interpretations.
It is this:
Since the beginning of
Christianity down to the present day, the vast majority of the saved (I am not
including mere [unregenerate]
professors) have died in unbelief and sin, and have gone, and are
still going, at death, to the same Hadean locality as the
Rich Man of the narrative; and many
of them to a lower depth and to a deeper darkness because fuller light and
greater sin.
I am aware that in the light of
the darkness (Matt. 6:
23) of historical theology this statement
will seem to the majority of Church people as a senseless perversion of
truth. But it will be admitted that this
was the condition of things in Judaism prior to and at the first advent of the
Christ. And it is equally apparent that
His blameless life: matchless teaching had no effect in arresting the downward
momentum of the mass both politically and religiously; but rather accelerated
it. What veritable incarnations of
malice, of hatred and general depravity were those “priests,
scribes and Pharisees”; and yet through devotion
to conventionality the blinded masses followed them recklessly to their awful
doom. The stunning words of the Master,
“Except ye
repent ye shall all likewise perish,” only intensified their hatred and
deepened their guilt. Genuine
Protestantism has no doubt that what we have affirmed of Christians generally
is woefully true of the Greek and
Page 94
We will
now examine briefly Dan. 12: 2. This Scripture has afforded no end of
perplexity to commentators and exegetes generally. They have flustered and
floundered hopelessly in an intricate maze of baseless hypotheses, refusing to
dig deep enough to discover that beneath the foundations of traditionalism
there were certain subtle, plausible, nevertheless gratuitous assumptions which
vitiated all their learned exegetical processes. If the reader wishes to witness the muddle he
can do so by a look into “Peter’s
Post-millenarians place this
judgment at the end of the world and make it inclusive of the totality of the
saved and the lost. Pre-millenarians
place the first “some” at the beginning of the
Millennium and the second “some” at the end of
the Millennium, and regard the two as inclusive of all the saved and all the
lost. But it is fatal to both hypotheses
that Daniel speaks only of “many of them that sleep in
the dust of the earth.” This
leaves a large proportion of the sleepers not accounted for; while Rev, 20: 1-6 and 20: 11-15, include absolutely all the sleepers.
The two “somes” of Daniel 12:
2 have nothing to do with Rev. 20: 11-15 which is
a post-millennial event, while Rev. 20: 1-6 is pre-millennial and embraces the two classes mentioned
in Dan. 12:
2.
The Holy Spirit,
foreseeing the exegetical subtleties of post [and
anti]-millenarian theologians,
has taken special care to guard this truth in the most unmistakable manner by
indicating two resurrections of the dead and placing the first before
the Millennium and the other at its close. He
separates the two by a period of ‘one thousand years’, and reiterates the fact no less than five times. [Anti and] Post-millenarians
put the whole of Dan 12: 2 at the end of the thousand years, while Pre-millenarians put part at the
beginning and part at the close. Both are wrong, The scene is entirely pre-millennial, and the subjects of the judgment are believers and [regenerate]
believers only.
Dr. S. P. Tragelles, of
blessed memory, laboured hard to find something in the Hebrew words and
construction which would enable him to place the first “some” and the second
“some” one thousand years apart, but it would not work. Peters cites Prof. Bush as making the two “somes” equivalent to “these”
and “those”, assuming “these”
to include the totality of the “many” and
reserving “those” for the rest of the dead - the
wicked to be raised at the end of the thousand years. But it is transparently manifest that the “many” includes the two “some”,
the “these” and the “those”,
and we should read simply “these” and “these”.
The ground and fallacy of all
these bewildering expedients lies in the assumption that the saved can never
appear before Christ in a judicial capacity.
They say the believer’s sins were all judged on the Cross and that
therefore he can never come into condemnation.
But we have elsewhere proven the fallacy of this kind of exegesis. In fact the Protestant Churches ever
since the Reformation stand before God as the deliberate founders and defenders
of a gigantic system of ecclesiastically [Page 95] petrified Antinomianism. They have perniciously misconstrued and
perverted the doctrine of free Grace.
They
were so anxious to get rid of the Roman Catholic doctrine of “works” that they went to the apposite extreme and
reduced Christian freedom to lawless license; and, as only one of the
many evil results, have thereby
divorced theology from ethics and virtually informed the people that if they
keep the first table of the Moral Law they can afford to be quite indifferent
to the second, forgetting that this
is of the very essence of Antinomianism and Phariseeism. Matt.
5: 21-26; 18: 21-35; 1 John 2: 13-11; 4: 20, 21. We have already seen how Martin Luther erred
on this point and history has not been slow to tabulate the concrete results. We may here briefly look at the teaching of
the Confession of Faith along this line.
“They
whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His
Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from grace; but shall
certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved”.
Confession of Faith, Chapter XVII
Note:
1. Why insert that superfluous word “effectually”?
Paul and Peter never use it in this connection.
The Divine call in the first degree is always effectual. See Chapter 6 of this book.
2. Are there not multitudes of Christians who are called and
yet know nothing of sanctification by the Spirit? It goes without saying that all “who are sanctified by His Spirit” will persevere to
the end. But what of carnal [i.e.,
sensual and worldly, but not obedient ‘born
again’] Christians?
1 Cor. 3: 1-15; 2 Cor. 12: 19-21 [cf. Acts 5: 32.]
3. Since most Christians live and die in a carnal state it must
follow that it is possible to fall from grace and yet not be eternally
lost. There must be a middle way.
In section II of the same
chapter we read:
“The
perseverance of the saints depends, not on their own free will, but upon the
immutability of the decree of election.”
What a pity that a rational
human being could be found on the face of the earth who could believe such a dogma
of unblushing fatalism face to face with the concrete facts of experience,
observation and revelation. 1 Cor.
10: 1-10, to say nothing of thousands of similar
passages of Scripture, grinds such a dogma to powder and scatters it to the
winds. Yes, and the framers of the Confession of Faith as a class know it now
to their own unutterable sorrow.
In the Holy Light of God’s Word,
written and living, there is no escape from the conclusion that the majority of
[regenerate] believers live and die in [disobedience,] unbelief and [“wilful” (Heb. 10: 26)] sin. Rev. chs. 2. and 3.
Page 96
The Reformed Churches have never
yet construed and taught the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith
according to the Spirit of Truth. I have
never met a work on justification which will bear the light of Scripture. We will endeavour to amplify and explain this
statement.
We must distinguish sharply
between the believer’s standing and his state, and the Scriptures which deal
with each. Those portions of the Word
which deal with the former tell us of what Christ in life and death did for His
people, and thus provided the believer with an imperishable standing in the
presence of God representatively in Christ.
We may quote here as to standing the following as samples: Rom. 6: 6a; 1 Cor. 1: 30; Eph. 2: 14-16; Col. 2: 10. Note
that the believer had no part in this great work of the Saviour, and had no
power to resist, or hinder, or change it one iota, for it was all done before
he had any actual existence: Yea, even the wicked Jews and the Romans and the
very powers of hell could not, with all their deadly opposition and cruel
malignity, prevent the outflow of God’s great love in the awful tragedy of the
Cross of Calvary.
He who sincerely accepts Christ
as his Saviour from sin is in turn accepted of God, for Christ’s sake,
forgiven, regenerated, and justified.
This gives him from the beginning a perfect standing in Christ
regardless of his past life, and also regardless of the fact that sin is still
strongly entrenched in his fallen nature.
This is his justification as a sinner.
And we may affirm, as a general principle, that it can never be lost,
because “the gifts and calling of God are without
repentance”. Where God grants the
free gift of eternal life in response to faith He never recalls it.
We may therefore place the [regenerate] believer’s standing in Christ at 100, that is, perfect.
Now let an imaginary line be
drawn under all that we have said in reference to the matter of “standing”.
Below the line write, “the Believer’s State”. Theoretically and relatively we may place
this at 10 as soon as the new birth becomes a fact, i.e., when the free gift of
eternal (not age-lasting here) life is imparted. His responsibility is now wholly with his
state, which he is under the most solemn
responsibility to improve to the utmost limit of his opportunity and God's
grace. Growth in grace, which
includes the symmetrical development of heart, mind and will, must advance his
state from 10 to 20, to 30, 40. 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and, if possible, to 100,
in order that state and standing may ultimately harmonize, so that the mature
believer may, in the day of judgment, stand before God and “be found of Him
without spot and blameless.” 2 Peter 3: 14; Eph. 5: 27; Song of Solomon 4: 7.
This is the most tremendous task
that any man ever faced, and the conflict increases as the process of
sanctification advances into deeper, and still deeper deaths, in the fellowship
of the Cross of the Christ. The
Christian ideal is unrelenting [Page 97] and
imperious in its holy and just demands: “Be ye
therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” “So likewise shall my
heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother
their trespasses.” “For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we
neglect so great salvation.” “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God.” Matt.
5: 48; 18: 34; Heb. 2: 1-3; 10: 31. Truly and with deep emotion may we ask with
Paul, “Who is sufficient for these things”? and
God’s response is, “My Grace is sufficient for thee;
for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” 2 Cor. 12: 9. It is
this fact, the full salvation of believers, that explains the deep solicitude
and tremendous earnestness of the great “Apostle of the
Gentiles.” To Timothy he says, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on Messianic-Millennial life.” To the Thessalonians and with profound
satisfaction he says, “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you,
beloved brethren in the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to
(Messianic-Millennial) Salvation through sanctification
of the Spirit and belief of the truth
(concerning the Messianic Kingdom).” 2 Thess. 2: 13: 1 Pet. 1: 1, 2; 2 Pet. 1: 4; Acts 20: 32; 26: 18; Heb. 10: 19-21; 12: 22, 23. By way
of contrast see 1 Cor. 3: 1-15; 2 Cor. 12: 19-21; Gal. 5: 4; 6: 6-8; Heb. 6: 4-8.
Now nothing is more common in
the history of religion than for fresh converts to on with the Lord for a while
and then go back to the world. Col. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 10; Gal. 3: 1-3; Rev. chs. 2. and 3. Others never
feel any real sense of obligation to try to go on. There are two classes of backsliders; those
who repent and return, as Peter, David, John Mark; and those who do not return,
do not repent, but go on in the “broad way” and die
in unbelief and sin. The point is this: In neither case is the standing of the [regenerate]
believer affected; but the state is, and consequently the Scriptures use the
words “justify” and “justification”
with references to the “state” of believers as distinct
from their standing. Every believer
must, as regards his state, be, at any given moment, either justified or
condemned. If justified he is designated
by the term “just” or “righteous”. If in sin and under condemnation he is “unjust”, “unrighteous”,
“wicked”. Pro.
4: 18; 2 Pet. 2: 9. Acts 13: 39 has
special reference to the believer’s state.
David said, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute
sin.” He, himself, was [before repentance and subsequent restoration] that man.
After his great sin, through repentance and forgiveness, he stood before
God justified. But the [redeemed, disobedient and
unrepentant] believer who dies in his sin,
condemned, must go to the Hadean prison house and there, now
and in the Millennial age, reap as
he has sowed Matt. 5: 21-26; Gal. 6: 7; Col. 3: 25. But
they are prisoners of hope. Zech. 9: 12; Psalms 69: 33; 79: 11. Many a [regenerate] believer on reading these words will be
moved to anger and will say, “This is awful. What! a child of God, redeemed by the blood
of Christ, possessing the free gift of eternal life, and having his name on the
role of such and such a Christian Church; is it possible that such an one can
live and die a believer and with a true standing in Christ, and yet go where
the Rich man went? Such teaching
terrifies me. It can’t be scriptural.” It had been well with the Rich Man if the
truth of God’s word had smitten him with terror a little sooner.
Page 98
Well, is it not better to be terrified
now than, like Dives, to postpone the crisis till the word of God passes from
warning to actual realization. Read Matt. 18.
again; Rev. 2:
20-23.
Typical orthodox [regenerate]
believers, like the framers of the Westminster Standards and their lineal
descendants, have no hesitation in consigning all but a small percentage of the
human race to a literally eternal hell, and yet will be horrified at the
thought that they, dyed with sins of which many sinners have never been guilty,
should find their abode in hell [Gk. ‘Hades’] even
for one thousand years. Will it not do
them good to take at least a taste of their own medicine? Matt. 7: 1-5, 21-23; Heb. 6: 4-8; 10: 26-31.
I admit that this teaching forms
a startling contrast to that of the orthodox clergy, especially on funeral
occasions when deceased believers, between whom and the world there was no
visible line of separation, are pictured to fancy as arrayed in white robes,
crowned with golden crowns and standing in the presence of God and in every way
sharing in the glory ineffable. No doubt
the Rich Man of Luke 16: 19-31 had just
such a funeral.
We have spoken of the
justification of the sinner above the line; and of the backslider below the
line, the one having reference to “standing” and
the other to “state”. But there is another great fact under the
line which we have not noticed: Namely, the justification of the believer as
the result of unflinching obedience to the voice of God when put to the test,
and where there is no sin in question.
The inspired writers say:
“Abraham
believed the Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Gen. 15: 1-6;
Referring to this the
Pulpit-Commentary cold-bloodedly affirms:
“Abraham believed God and God forgave his sin.” How absurd, and trifling is such a careless
exegesis. Abraham had just returned from
the slaughter of the kings who had captured
Page 99
Where
does the sin come in? It can only be
found in the text after it is read in. And
what did Abraham really believe? He
believed God for the promised Son, for the gift of the land (Gen. 12: 3; 13: 15; 15: 7); that God would raise him from the dead and
put him in possession of the land and there and then make his seed numerous as
the stars in heaven. In substance he
believed God for the glorious
Abraham continued to believe and
obey God, rising by degrees to a higher and higher level of justification as to
his state, till the series of testings culminated in his offering of his son
Isaac. And as he rose from 50, to 60,
70, 80, etc., God kept reckoning his faith to him for righteousness. After the offering of Isaac we read of no
more testings. Abraham was here established on this high level as a permanently
justified man as to his state.
To r reckon a man righteous (as to his state) is
the same as to justify him (as to his state). Gen. 15: 6;
Abraham was a saved man when he
entered
“He that endureth to the end shall be saved”. And the secret of endurance is obedience to
the voice of God as expressed in the word.
Of course all this presupposes the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit as the ultimately efficient cause of both [Page 100]
faith and works. Now observe a great truth:
Abraham, lsaac,
and Jacob (with many other Old Testament Saints) lived in obedience to God’s
word and will; and they “died in faith not having
received the promises”, Heb. 11: 13; but
they will yet receive them; and so it is said of them that “they are now living and that God is their God;” and
because they are living (in real communion with God) they are ready for the
first resurrection. Lev. 23: 17; Phil. 3: 9, 10; Rev. 20: 5, 6. But on the contrary Christ said, of those who
came out of Egypt under the blood of the Passover lamb, and who lived and died
in disobedience and unbelief (the marks of their evil state), to the Jews: “Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness and are dead
(spiritually).” They are not now in real
fellowship with God as are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore they are not in the same place,
locally, or spiritually. Then Christ
adds: This (Truth) is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may
eat thereof and not die (spiritually); but “live for
the (Millennial) age.” John 6: 48-51; 14: 6. And
these two classes of believers in the Old Testament, the living and the dead,
have their perfect anti-type in the New Testament.
And let us not forget that the
names of all Jews who came out of Egypt, actually under the blood of the
Passover lamb, are still borne on the breast of the Great High Priest in Heaven;
and in God’s sight, who sees the end from the beginning; and “counteth the things that be not as though they were”, the
twelve stones shine with undimmed lustre and fascinating prophetic
brilliancy. Ex. 28: 15-21; Isa. 49: 14-16;
Before leaving the question of
the believer’s standing and state permit three remarks:
a. The adjective just, righteous
(dekaios), is seldom, if ever, applied to a believer
on account of his standing, though, of course, the cognate verb (dikaioo) is. God
said to Noah “Thee (only) have I seen righteous (tsaddiq, the
equivalent of dikaios) before me in this generation.” Gen. 7: 1. “The path of the righteous is as the shining light that
shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Pro.
4: 18.
See Deut. 25:
1.
Thus a righteous man is not merely one who is born again, but one who is
living in the fear and favour of God. In
the Seth line there may have been many believers in the true God, and really
saved in the first degree, but there was only one believer in the true God who
was really living in fellowship with [Page 101] God - righteous Noah.
Let us suppose that in the City of
A
believer’s standing in Christ cannot save him from the judicial consequences of
sin in the life, even though it be done in ignorance, unless before he dies he has
made it right with God by repentance and confession. Luke 12: 41-48. “Now is the day of
Salvation” - for the believer as well as for the sinner; for in both
cases, though in different senses, “the wages of sin is
death.” Rom.
6: 23;
Rev. 22: 12. To affirm that it can be otherwise is not
merely to contradict Scripture, but to sanction the worst kind of antinomianism
and put a premium on licentiousness. But
God is not mocked by either. Gal. 6: 6-8.
b. It is common to speak of the “finished work of
Since
the time of Count Zinzindorf
(1727-1780) there have been groups of people here and there, with a
predisposition to fanaticism, who have sought to claim Scriptural warrant for
the application of this expression to the diagram below the line, and to the
believer’s state. This also leads to
antinomianism and licentiousness.
Abraham, when he offered Isaac, must have come as near to the goal as a
saved and sanctified man can in this life.
So Paul. Compare Phil. 3: 7-14. and 2 Tim. 4: 6-8. Yet we
must keep pressing continually toward
the goal. Heb.
6: 1, 2; 12: 14. Contrast. Heb. 5: 14-16; 1 Cor. 3: 1-15; Gal. 5: 19-21. But so
long as the believer carries the fallen Adamic nature, which shows its presence
in physical decay, in mental fallibility, and many other ways, the work is not finished.
c.
The third chapter of Romans states and illustrates God’s provision for
the justification of the sinner; and then in chap.
four Paul takes up the Justification of the
believer. This is a distinction of
incalculable importance. Chap. 3 gives
redemption facts which belong above the line; and chapters
4 below.
The reader who has followed the
line of thought so far will have no difficulty with the remainder of the
chapter. And those who have not should
read a second time before going any further.
The reference in Dan. 12: 2 is confined to the millennial period. We have the same division of believers here
that we had in our discussion of the narrative of the Rich Young Ruler in our
first chapter. Unless this young man
repented, and returned, and accepted the Master’s stern conditions, he will
appear at the resurrection among those raised to age-lasting shame. But there
will be degrees in this state.
In Luke
18: 28-30
Christ makes it very plain that only those who forsake all to be wholly His
will enter the Messianic Kingdom. This is confirmed in a thousand ways. Luke 14: 25-33; 9: 23; Matt. 7: 13, 14; Heb. 2: 1-3; Luke 6: 27-49.
In the introduction we laid down
three fundamental conditions of security in the study of the Bible: Correct
Translation, Correct Interpretation, and Correct Application.
The traditional use of Dan. 12: 2 violates all three. This is but one example out of thousands.
The word translated “shame” is cherpah. It is translated also, reproach,
rebuke, scorn, contempt; and its use in such passages as Micah
6: 16; Isa. 54: 4; Josh. 5: 9; Isa. 25: 8; Jer. 31: 19; Ezek. 36: 30, shows that it is always used of temporal
sorrow or loss. The word rendered contempt appears only in Dan. 12: 2 and Isa. 66: 24, and
expresses in the former the thought of something reputed as not fit for
acceptance; something rejected; and in this it agrees with Matt. 7: 21; 25: 12; 1 John 2: 28; Heb. 12: 14, in all
of which the reference is to believers who are not ripe for glory, and who may
be carnal, worldly.
And as to the idea of
translating either the Greek aionios, or the Hebrew olam (when used in the construct state) by the English “everlasting” or “eternal”
except when they refer to God and His attributes, and when the concept of
eternity is already in the noun, is nothing short of a monumental disgrace to
Christian scholarship. Of this I am
absolutely sure, on historical, philological and exegetical grounds. It would be interesting to find the Christian
scholar who has the courage to attempt a concrete denial of this impeachment.
Page 103
We will now consider the case of
the Rich Man in hell [Gk. ‘Hades’]. Luke 16:
19-31.
We all
know from our childhood that this man is looked upon as irretrievably and
eternally lost. The Lord only knows how many
thousands and even millions of sermons have been preached on “eternal punishment” with this narrative as the text.
May I remind the reader once more that I am not trying to disprove, or
combat that doctrine. My aim is to rightly divide the Scriptures. It must be admitted, however, that if we
succeed in the accomplishment of our task, the traditional advocates of this
doctrine will find themselves deprived of a huge amount of their munitions. For example, we cannot allow them any longer
to translate the Hebrew olam and the Geeek
aionios
into English by the words eternal or everlasting, or the Greek eis ton aiona by for
ever. Nor can we longer tolerate the
application to sinners of passages of Scripture which manifestly belong to
Christians, such as Heb. 6: 2, 6: 4-8; 10: 27-31; Matt. 5: 21-26. But in doing so we must not overlook the
terrific force of such portions as: “the smoke of their
torment ascendeth up unto the ages of the ages”. Rev. 14: 11. So also
Matt. 12:
30, 31. Note, however, that neither of these passages
applies to the unsaved generally, but to certain sinners guilty of special
forms of evil.
The light of truth has, in the
last four hundred years, compelled
What had this Rich Man done to
merit the supposed doom of eternal, unending damnation? The fact is, so far as
the narrative goes, that he had done nothing.
The ground of his condemnation
is not that he did this or that; but rather for what he ought to have done and
did not do. His sin is one of omission
and not of commission. It is not
affirmed that he had inflicted any positive injury on Lazarus, or anybody
else. His sin was that of negative
inhumanity. Then I ask, are there not
thousands of Christians who are deeply guilty, not only of negative but of
positive inhumanity. And God is no
respecter of persons. Reader, just do a
little thinking for yourself here.
Some Pointers:
1. It is a
universal law of nature and of the
Page 104
2.
The present is, for believers, specifically the age of sowing, and that
to come the age of reaping. Luke 18: 28-30; Gal. 6: 6-8. What believers know of sorrow or joy between
the new birth and their decease, is only of anticipatory character, an
earnest. Of course, we must distinguish
between the sorrow of the world which works death, and that of the fellowship
of the Cross which works life. 2 Cor. 4: 11-18.
3. It is no part of the intention
of God in the atonement effected by Christ on
4. The Scriptures teach that when
a man repents and comes to Christ all his past sins are forgiven and put away
as far as the east is from the west. Not so, however, with sins
committed after conversion, rather, after regeneration. These
may or may not be forgiven in this life, this age. If not the account
must be squared in the age to come.
Matt. 5:
21-26; 18: 21-34. This
does not teach that God will never forgive the sin of His child, but simply
that he [or she, if unrepentant,] will pay the penalty God’s holiness
demands.
5. The Holy Spirit makes it very clear
through Paul that the Jewish Church, if we may so designate it, and the
Christian, stand related as type and
antitype. There are some prominent
marks in the analogy: Both began in a special manifestation of God. Compare Ex. 12-14 and Acts 1-3.
Both
very quickly went into a state of
apostasy. Judges
2; Acts 20: 28-30; Rev. chs. 2. and 3. Both are finally rejected of God. Hosea 1: 11, 13; Rev. 3: 14-17; Rev. 2: 1-7. In each case there is a spared remnant which
remains faithful. Isa. 65: 1-16; Heb. 11.; Rom. 8: 28-39; Rev. 3: 4; Matt. 7: 13, 14, 24, 25-27. In each case God holds the
religious leaders of the people responsible for the apostasy. Ezek. 34; Isa. 3: 12; Hosea 4:
6; Acts 20: 28-30; 1 Tim. 4: 1-3; Rev. 2: 1, 12, 18; 3: 1, 14. (Angel -
pastor, preacher.)
And,
finally, all the backsliders of both dispensations will in the coming age be
ultimately restored. Surely this is the
Gospel of a rational and divine optimism.
Hosea 2: 14-23; Matt. 5: 21-26; Acts 3: 21.
But let us,
under this fifth head, particularize somewhat more generally so as to see the
exact agreement of type and anti-type:
(1) In case of disobedience on the part
of the people He had redeemed from Egyptian bondage, God threatened the most
awful judgments conceivable. Lev. 26 and Deut. 28. Paul
says, these things happened [Page 105] unto
them for examples to us. 1 Cor.
10: 1-10. “He that hath ears to
hear let him hear.” How often the
master used that expression. The Jews were sure they could hear and see. Matt. 13: 10-17.
(2) He told them that if they forsook
Him He would forsake them and give them up to His four sore judgments, and He
kept His word. Ez.
14: 21; Matt. 18: 1-34.
(3) Jehovah declared in the most solemn
manner that when the cup of their iniquity was full nothing would turn Him from
His purpose to judge, and chastise, and afflict. The only deliverance then and
now is righteousness of life, and holiness of character. Ezek. 14: 12, 14; Heb. 12: 14. The
language of Ezek chs.
5-7 is
awfully solemn, but it is the word of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the
Holy One of Israel. So is Matt. 18: 1-34.
(4) He threatened them with expulsion
from their land and He brought it to pass. Isa. 6: 9-12; 2 Kings 17: 13-23; 25: 1-25; Deut. 31: 16-21; Rev. 3: 16. The suffering in these captivities must have
been indescribably great. To this day
they have no national home.
(5) The great sin of
“Incline
your ear and come unto me; hear and your soul
shall live; and I will make an everlasting
(age-lasting) covenant with you, even the
sure mercies of David.” Isa.
55: 1. This has no reference to eternity. Before Christ descends into the air He will
say to the angels, “Gather my saints together unto Me;
those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.”
Psa. 50: 5. See Rom. 12: 12. The “elect” of
Matt. 24:
31 are the “few”
of Matt. 7:
14.
All other [regenerate] believers
belong to the “many” of verse
13.
(6) The failure of
(7) He affirms that just as in
(8) The Holy Spirit indicates that as the age of Grace is one of
greater light than that of the Law, so the penalty for disobedience will be
relatively that much greater. Heb. 2: 1-3. This
confirms our interpretation of 2 Thess. 1: 7-10 given
elsewhere.
We will now return to our main
line of thought.
6. In His beautiful and solemn
teaching on the vine and its branches the Master shows that one of two things
must happen: The branch (the believer) must bear fruit or be cut off and cast
into the fire. This figure would appeal
vividly to the Eastern mind because it was a land of vineyards. But we must not carry the figure too far lest
we lend support to the doctrine of annihilation. The standing of the believer, thus cut off,
is not affected. Nor was that of the
saved Jew who was cut oft, for if so how could it be said that he would be
grafted AGAIN into his own olive
tree? The leprous, or unclean Israelite
was put out of the Camp, but he did not thereby cease to be a member of that
Camp. He simply lost for a time the enjoyment
of the rights and privileges associated with that position.
Every [regenerate] believer must have his baptism of fire, to destroy the
self-life and make room for the Christ-life, either in this age or in that to
come. Thus John
15: 6 agrees with Heb. 6: 4-8; 2 Thess. 1: 7-10; Gal. 5: 19-21; 6: 6-8.
7. In Matt.
18: 1-34 Christ speaks most solemnly of the
responsibilities of discipleship, and of the moral accountability of His
followers in the day of [Page 107]
judgment. Why should preachers and commentators
hand this chapter over to [unregenerate] sinners?
There had been a contention among the Apostles as to which of them would
be the greatest in the coming Kingdom.
At that time they did not understand the nature of the Kingdom. Nor did they see that the rejection of
Messiah necessitated the postponement of it; nor yet that the death and
resurrection of the Son of Man was the first step in that direction. It was not till after the resurrection of
Christ and in the conversations of the forty days, and the experience at and
after Pentecost that the dispensational purpose of God for this age was made
perfectly clear to them. Acts 1: 1-14; 11-36; 3: 17-21.
To
affirm, as post-millenarians do, that the Apostles, even after the ascension of
Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, were deceived as to the nature of
the Kingdom and the true character of this dispensation is silly nonsense, and
betrays woeful ignorance of God’s Plan of the Ages. Some say also that the Apostles expected the
return of Christ in their own life time.
This is contradicted by Acts 20: 28-30; 2 Pet. 1: 13-15; 2 Thess. 2: 3; Matt. 25: 19. (After a long time, now 1900 years). Besides, the prophetic succession of the
Seven Churches had to run its appointed course.
8. Speaking of His coming to
judgment at the close of this age, and with no reference whatever to the farther
eschatological horizon at the close of the age to come, the Master says:
“The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that
offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth in the Kingdom of their
Father.
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
Matt. 13:
43, 49. The term righteous excludes all carnal,
worldly Christians.
This
word finds concrete embodiment in the Beatitudes. Matt. 5: 1-12. Few
Christians can stand this test.
It is
fashionable to assume that “them which do iniquity”
includes only sinners. But is it not a
lamentable fact that Christians in general these days do iniquity with
avidity? With what scheme for pleasure
getting and money making are they not mixed up?
Look at Matt. 13: 41, 49 in the light of 1 Cor. 1: 1-15; Gal. 5: 19-21; Matt. 13: 34; 1 Cor. 10: 1-10. The Rich Young Ruler came very near to the honour
of being worthily designated righteous; but the Rich Man whose heart was [Page 108] unmoved by the pathetic appeal
of Lazarus was far from it. But both of them had quite as good a claim as 90%
of Christians today. “If we would judge ourselves we would not be judged.” 1 Cor. 11: 31; Rev. 3: 14-20. “They shall gather
out of His Kingdom (as it is in mystery during this age) all things that offend.” And what could possibly be more
offensive to Him who prayed so earnestly for the unity of His people in love
than this huge Mustard Tree, this gigantic
and universal system of Denominationalism with its historical jealousies,
unseemly rivalries and corrupt theologies, professing to be His duly appointed
representative in the earth? I can only
think of one thing - a union of all these religious organizations on a basis
from which every fundamental principle of Christian truth and righteousness has
been eliminated.
9. The purpose of the Sermon on
the Mount, Matt. chs. 5-7, is to show the way into the Messianic Kingdom. Some preachers are inclined to look upon it
as Utopian, as presenting an impossible standard for the individual, and an
inaccessible ideal for society. They
say, or assume, that its value lies in its ideality. But as a matter of fact there will be none in
the Messianic Kingdom, on its celestial side at least, except those who have
walked in this glorious pathway.
How beautiful are the Beatitudes
of the Master: “Blessed are the meek; Blessed are the pure in heart; Blessed are they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness; Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”
What does the average Christian
of this Laodicean age know of this blessedness?
Absolutely nothing. His whole
life is ordered on the basis of the law of self-preservation and
self-gratification, and this in the face of the Master’s solemn warning as to
the peril of such a course. Matt. 10: 37-39; John 12: 23-26.
When Christ uttered that
startling warning in Matt. 7: 13, no doubt
He had specially in mind His own people.
On the contrary, orthodoxy takes it for granted that [regenerate] believers cannot be found in the broad way to
destruction. When the believer indulges
the flesh and walks with the world, delighting in its ideals, and sharing its
ambitions, he is in the broad way to destruction, so far as the Messianic
Kingdom is concerned.
Paul is very emphatic and
specific in his unqualified declaration that those believers who give
themselves up to the works of the flesh shall not enter the Messianic Kingdom. Gal. 5: 19-21; Rom. 1: 18; 2: 3-11; Phil. 3: 17-19. We will touch this topic in Chapter 6.
10. John says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection;
on such the second death bath no power.” Rev. 20: 15. Compare
the word blessed with Matt. 5: 1-12; and holy (hagios)
with righteous
(dikaois). See
Heb. 12: 14.
Page 109
From this it
is clear that none but those who have
in some definite degree the qualities expressed in Matt. 5: 1-12 will share in the first resurrection. The meaning of the “second
death” is easily gathered from Mark 9:
38-50; Heb. 10: 26-31; 12: 25-29; 2 Thess. 1: 7-9; and when
he says, “But the
rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” Rev. 20: 5. What an inconceivable loss it will be to
the Christian to be shut out from
the Messianic Kingdom for a thousand years, and confined in the Hadean prison? Matt.
5: 21-26. Surely
the “wages of sin is death” for the carnal Christian as well as for the sinner. And why should it not be so?
What do these ten propositions
establish? That if the Rich Man whose
great sin was negatively inhumanity is lost eternally so are the vast majority
of Christians who have lived during the present age, for their sins are of a
far deeper dye. But they are not, therefore
he is not; and the time of their restoration will be his time also. So shall it be with millions of others who in
that dark age died in a similar state.
A few Particulars From the Text.
(1) The Bible does not say this Rich Man is lost eternally. Then why read it into the text?
(2) This man’s sin was one of omission, of negative inhumanity, and God is no respecter of persons. If this man has been consigned to a literally
eternal hell [i.e., in ‘the lake of fire’
after
‘Hades gave up the dead’ (Rev. 20: 13, R.V.] what hope is there for most of us?
(3) He addresses his great ancestor as “Father
Abraham”, and Abraham did not deny the relationship.
(4) Abraham addressed him as “Son”.
(5) The “
(6) Christ assures us that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven
in the age to come, except the sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there is
no forgiveness. Matt. 12: 31, 32. Let
both parts of the above propositions have all the force which the language of
the Master will permit.
(7) The ground of the final deliverance, of all who ever shall be
saved, is the atoning death and effectual intercession of Jesus Christ - the
God-Man; and; also, so far as it concerns believers who have died in
disobedience and sin, the fact of their imperishable standing in Christ.
Page 110
A few of the outstanding
features of the apostasy of the Christian Church:
1. The very early abandonment of
the Hope of the
Dr.
Shedd says, “The period between the year 150 and 250
is the blooming age Millenarianism”.
History of Doctrine. Vol. II.
page 392. If he had read his Bible more
inquisitively than he read Church History he would have discovered that the
blooming age of Millenarianism was from A. D. 34 to A. D. 100; that is, Acts 1: 1-11 to Rev. 22: 20. I have yet to find a Church historian of the
post-millenarian type who would not rather quote the Church fathers than the
Prophets, Apostles and Christ; though it is openly admitted that the former
were “notoriously unreliable.” I regret to have
to say that the infidel Gibbon is far more reliable on this point than the
typical writer of Church History.
2. The very rapid development of
Nicolaitanism in its threefold progressive manifestation in Presbyterianism,
Episcopacy, and Popery. Nicolaitanism is the enslavement of the
people through the instrumentality of Church government and false doctrine. The woman who mixes the leaven (of error in
doctrine and polity) in the meal of God’s truth is the same in every case. The only difference is that of degree. Matt. 13: 33.
3. The adulterous union of the
Christian Church with the Pagan Roman Empire at the beginning of the fourth
century. The address to the angel of the
Church in Pergamos has its prophetic application here. Rev. 2: 12-16; James 4: 4; 2 Cor. 6: 14-18.
4. The Roman Catholic perversion
of the Bible Doctrine of works. The address
to the Church in Thyatira forecasts this. Rev.
2: 18-24.
5. The Protestant perversion of
the Bible Doctrine of Grace. The Sardian
letter applies here. Rev. 3: 1-4. Of the
last two each is the complement of the other.
The deception is one while the manifestation is two-fold.
There are, as I have pointed out
elsewhere, two great motives to holy living.
They are the love of God and the fear of God. These include the love of truth and
righteousness and holiness; and also the hatred of sin in all its abstract and
concrete forms. The Father says with
delight to the Son during His life on earth, “Thou hast
loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore
God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil (the Holy Spirit) of joy above Thy fellows”. Heb. 1: 9. What is it that keeps thousands of people
from stealing other people’s property?
Nothing but a sober fear of the civil law. God intended it should be so, not only in
civil but also in divine government. The
atonement was not intended to abolish the law of cause and effect but rather to
emphasize and glorify it.
Page 111
“The
fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. Prov. 1:
7.
“He was
heard in that He feared.” Heb. 5: 7.
Through an antinomian perversion
of God’s truth the churches have turned the doctrine of free grace into a
Divine approval of sin; and Christian liberty into a licence to practice
iniquity with impunity.
* * *
Page 112
CHAPTER
5
HUMAN DESTINY
OR
THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS
“Idolatry
of intellect. The part of man which is especially worshipped is that by which
he was at first led astray, seeking to be as God, and going in quest of the
knowledge of good and evil. Other things are depreciated; the want of intellect
brings contempt; the supposed possession of it elevates, even in the absence of
moral qualities. Cleverness, genius,
ready wit, originality, and such like these are the things that men admire,
nay, worship.
Hence man’s wisdom
uses in esteem, and the simplicities of Christ are disparaged. The Bible is only admired in so far as it is
an exhibition of intellectual power, or as the means of enabling man to display
his intellect. That age is evil when, by the worship of human talent, man is exalted;
and that part of his being, which has always been most hostile to God, made the
object of all but divine adoration.” - Journal
of Prophecy.
“When
the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all
the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon
the throne of his glory; and before him shall be
gathered all nations and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep fron
the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his
right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world; for I was an hungered,
and ye gave me meat; I
was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took me in; naked and ye clothed me; I was
sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison and ye came unto me. Then shall the
righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee
drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked,
and clothed thee? Or
when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the
King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I
say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done
it unto me.
Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was
an hungered, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me
no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited
me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or in prison, and did not
minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting
punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.”
Matt. 25:
31-46.
We will come to the heart of our
subject with as little delay as possible.
The problem of Human Destiny surpasses in importance all others with
which the mind of man may be occupied.
The worth of all knowledge, and all human “goods”
of every conceivable kind culminates in victory or defeat at that moment when
the spirit of man closes its eyes on this earthly scene and opens them face to
face with the stern verities of the other world. And that, there is another no sane man will
deny. Neither will any sane man deny
that the relation of the present to the future is that of cause and effect.
Page 113
THE ORDER OF EVENTS
The signs of the times, viewed
in the light of prophecy, indicate with infallible certainty that we are very
near the end of the present [evil] age, or dispensation, the
most tremendous crisis in the history of the world. Note the following:
1. Sixty-nine of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks (of years) closed with
the crucifixion of the Christ. Dan. 9: 24-27; Ex. 12: 1-20; Matt. 26: 1-66.
2. The Seventieth Week will begin with the appearance of the
Antichrist in
3. At the middle of the Week (three and one-half years) he will
break the covenant and become their persecutor. Dan.
9: 27.
4. By this time the Ten Kingdoms of the Roman Earth, and the
revived
5. At the end of the second half of the Seventieth Week, Gentile
World-Dominion will come to an end in Universal Catastrophe. The Holy Spirit tells us of this in Rev. 19: 11-21; Dan. 2: 43-45. The present World War is simply the prelude to
the opening of the Seventieth Week, and, especially, to the Great Tribulation
which begins at the middle of the Week. Dan. 9: 27; 12: 1, 2; Matt. 24: 21.
6. Just before the last blow, which utterly paralyses and
annihilates all Gentile World-Power, the Second Advent of Christ takes place.
7. Concurrently with this is the resurrection of the righteous
of all dispensations, and the judgment of the saved. 2
Cor. 5: 10. The
first two parables of Matt. 25 come in here.
This carries us over into the next age, or dispensation.
8. The first steps are taken
towards the establishment of the
Thus two important facts are established: First, This is not in any sense a
judgment Believers; Second, This judgment scene is not at the end of the world
(the Millennium), but at the end of the present [evil] age. Thus we have settled the Time of the
judgment, and the Subjects of it. But
most important of all, we must now decide The Nature of the judgment.
Page 114
I will here anticipate my
finding prior to the demonstration of the fact.
The conclusion reached through the line of study here pursued along the
highway of analysis and synthesis to the goal of a logical deduction was not
the avenue through which the truth was first reached. It was not reached by a logical process at
all. It was a discovery resulting
immediately from intuition and by way of inference. And it is this:
Matt. 25: 46 has
absolutely nothing to say of the eternal state of either the saved or the
unsaved; and has direct reference only to the age to come, the thousand years
intervening between the second coming of Christ and the Judgment of the Great
White Throne. Rev. 20:
11-15.
Just very shortly after the true
interpretation of Luke 18: 28-30 was
flashed into my mind, Matt. 25: 46 came
before me, and the inevitable inference was irresistible. But no honest student will let matters rest
there. Truth reached by revelation or
intuition must submit to be thrown into the crucible of a logical process. The logical faculty has a right, within
certain limits, to challenge the intuitive faculty, and demand of it the reason
why. This being so, at the first opportunity I went to work on the passage (Matt. 25: 31-46),
examining every verse and every important word in the original, with the result
that I found not one single iota of fact to cause me to doubt the correctness
of my inference. The reader has a right
to be conducted through every step of the process and to have permission to
challenge it at any point where he has reason to suspect any unintentional
oversight, or wilful concealment of facts.
But before entering on our study
let me insert a remark or two growing out of the very nature of the case:
Once grant that in between the
present age and eternity there is another age which has its own distinctive
eschatology with its accompanying outlook on the future, that is, on eternity,
is it probable, is it logical, to suppose that the eschatological outlook of
the present age would extend its horizon beyond the age to come and into the
eternal state? I submit that it is not only very improbable, but dispensationally impossible. It would make an awkward break in the God
ordained progression of the ages. But I
do not have to insist on this. The
exegetical wealth of the text makes external support unnecessary. At the same
time it will be evident to the reader that only a portion of the facts can be
produced within the space at our disposal.
SOME FACTS LYING MOSTLY ON THE SURFACE
1. There are no Christians here;
that is, none of the saved of this dispensation, nor of any former
dispensation.
2. There is no question of
resurrection, or judgment of the dead.
3. There is no question of having
been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the [Page 115] world, nor of the blood of Christ, nor of the Holy Spirit.
4. There is no question of their being changed in the twinkling
of an eye.
5. It is explicitly affirmed that they are Gentiles, living
nations.
6. They are in mortal bodies, and, as we shall see later, the
sheep continue in mortal bodies after entering the Kingdom.
7. They are divided according to moral character and not faith,
into two classes, sheep and goats.
8. Their relation to Christ is that of subjects to a King. He is never spoken of as King in relation to
the Church. He is the Head of the Body, the Church.
9. There are no terms of endearment as in John 13: 33
(little children).
10. No possessive pronouns as “My”,
“Your”.
11. The sheep here are therefore not those of John 10: 11-19.
12. Neither the sheep nor the goats have ever before known
Christ.
13. In every feature the judgment is distinct from that of Rev. 20: 11-15, as to
time, as to subjects, and as to results.
14. The goat was not so valuable as the sheep, but it was by no means a worthless animal. It was much used in the sacrifices to
Jehovah.
15. In the age to come, the
millennium, there will be nations, even Gentile nations, on the earth. Not so in the eternal state.
16. In the millennium there
will be sin and death. Isa. 65: 20. Not so in the eternal state. Rev. 21: 1-7.
17. There is forgiveness of sin in the age to come for sins
committed in this age. Matt. 12: 31, 32. I do
not say that this is so in all cases.
18. Probation does not
always end at the end of the present age.
It does at the end of the age to come.
19. The age to come is distinctly said to be an age of restitution. Acts 3: 21.
Not so the eternal state.
Page 116
20. All the heathen who have never
heard the Gospel will hear it in the age
to come if not sooner.
21. The punishment into which the
goats go is not eternal, but age-enduring, age-lasting, lasting during the age
to come; and in that time they will have
an opportunity to repent and be saved.
22. The eternal life into which the
sheep go is the Messianic Kingdom, and the earthly sphere of that Kingdom. And
in that sphere there will be many, very many unsaved people. This is clear from
many passages. Otherwise, when the Devil is let out of his prison at the end of
the Millennium for a little season he would not be able to deceive the
multitudes of Gog and Magog. Rev. 20: 7-9. These
multitudes will have been in the Messianic Kingdom though not of it. So the sheep of our narrative will have to be
saved by a living faith in Christ. There
is no guarantee that they all will do so.
If not they will be lost.
“When
the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all
the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon
the Throne of His glory.” ver.
31.
It is not as God, essentially, but as the Son of Man that He is acting
in the capacity of judge. The Redeemer
must also be the judge. Grace offered must precede judgment as to final
results. But results here are not final. See John 5:
27.
This is the same coming as that mentioned in Matt.
24: 29-31. And as
there is no room for a millennium before the great tribulation mentioned there,
the coming must be pre-millennial.
The Throne of His glory here is
the same as that in Rev. 3: 21. The
overcoming saints of all past dispensations will be seated there with Him and this will be no small part of His
glory.
“And
before Him shall be gathered all nations; and He
shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the
goats; and He shall set the sheep on His right
hand and the goats on His left. Then shall the King say unto them on His right
hand, Come ye blessed of my Father (not
your Father), inherit
the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Ver. 32-34.
This is the Messianic Kingdom
promised to the Fathers, especially to David.
2 Sam. 7. The Son of David and the Son of Abraham will
then rule in irresistible power and marvellous glory. Psalms
45, and 72. As already remarked this Kingdom will have two spheres, the earthly and the heavenly. In the latter everything will be in the full
power of resurrection life and glory.
Not so on the earth. These sheep
unlike those in John 10 inherit the Kingdom,
but on the earthly side, or sphere, and all such will be in mortal bodies. Here
positions of vantage once held may be lost the same as in the present
dispensation.
Page 117
The “King”
of verse 34 is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is now King de facto, whereas he has
been King dejure for eighteen [hundred, now 2,000] years. If the reader will examine Dan. 7: 9-14 he will
see that just before the judgment of the sheep and goats Christ has been
crowned King in the heavens and has now entered on his work of conquest. The crowned King requires an actual [restored earthly (Rom. 8: 19-22, R.V.)] kingdom
with territory and subjects. The whole
of Matt. 25
presents the King clearing the way for the full manifestation of the grace of
God in the earth in order to bring such scenes as Psa. 72
to an actual realization.
The manner in which the sheep of
verse 34 inherit the kingdom is quite
different from the manner in which the saints of this and past ages
inherit. The latter come into the
possession of the kingdom through fidelity and righteousness, in other words,
by conquest. Matt. 5: 1-12; Rev. 3: 21; Jas. 1: 12. These
all belong to the sphere of the heavenly kingdom. But when Christ sets up the earthly sphere
with
In verses
35 and 36 Christ gives the reasons
why the sheep have been spared and permitted to enter the Messianic
Kingdom. He says, “For I was an hungered and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye took me in; naked and ye clothed me; I was
sick, and ye visited me; I was imprisoned and ye came unto me.”
The
reader will note that there is not a word here about faith, or atonement, or
cleansing through the blood, nor quickening by the Holy Spirit, not
overcoming. The response of the sheep in
verse 37-39
indicates clearly that they had no previous personal acquaintances with
Christ. In verse
40 we have His reply to their fivefold question. It is this: “Verily I
say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto
one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto Me.” The word brethren may have a double
significance: (1) as applied to the
Jews, the saved remnant of Zech. 13: 9; and (2) as applied to saints who have just
been previously removed from the earth and who are now associated with Christ
in the judgment. Rev. 3: 21. The
expression “My Brethren” implies that they, the
sheep, are not His brethren. Let it not
be forgotten that all [spoken of here] who are
in the earthly sphere of the kingdom are in mortal bodies. When we speak as above some one will reply
that ‘flesh and blood cannot i nherit the
The “ready”
of Matt. 25:
10, and the “prepared”
of Matt. 25:
34, are the same in the original, only that
the one is adjectival and the other verbal.
Compare Matt. 22: 1-14. The
wedding was ready, but those invited were not worthy.
We must now examine the word
righteous in verse 37. Quite evidently these are not the righteous (dikaioi) of Matt. 13: 43, 49. This word, except when applied to God, is a
relative term. Different persons may be
righteous in different degrees, just as others may be wicked in different
degrees. Even of unsaved men certain
acts may be said to be righteous, that is, according to the laws of nature,
while others may be designated wicked.
See Acts. 10:
30-35,
and
The sheep are designated
righteous on the simple ground that they have been kind to the King’s brethren,
even though they did not know Him. When
we think of the suffering of the Jews
in Europe today, of their awful persecution by [the Moslems and] the
Russians, and then on the other hand reflect that here and there are unsaved
nurses and benefactors ministering, to their needs without any thought of their
nationality, or of the fact that they
are God’s chosen people, we have a living, present-day illustration of the
truth of our narrative. There are some
people who think that God takes no note of kindly acts done by the unsaved, but
this is a fearful mistake and contrary to the word as we have seen in Rom. Chs. 1. and 2.; and Acts 10.; Josh.
6: 22-25.
Page 119
“Then
shall He say unto them on His left hand, Depart from me ye cursed into
everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels”. Those addressed
are the goats. Let us examine this word
more carefully. The main key to a true
exegesis must be sought in the exact meaning of the terms which the Holy Spirit
employs. It is the same when men
converse, or correspond, or do business.
Not to use words of clearly defined meaning is inexcusable in an
educated man. To deliberately choose
ambiguous terms is to play the mean part of a Jesuitical sophist. The Holy Spirit is exceedingly careful and
discriminating in His use of words. See,
for example, the two words for love and the two for feed in John 21: 15-17.
In the New Testament there are
two words for goat. They are tragos and eriphion, the
latter sometimes taking the masculine form, eriphos. Tragos means a
full grown goat. In the O.T. the he-goat
sometimes is the symbol, or type, of a wicked man, a leader in wickedness. It is thus used in Ezek.
34: 17,
and the Septuagint translates it by tragos. Compare Isa. 3: 12; and notice that in the addresses to the Seven
Churches in
Now in the judgment we are
considering the word tragos does not once
appear. It is one of the two forms eriphos, or eriphion, which means
a little goat. Compare pais a boy, and paidion
a little boy. Matt.
21: 15;
and Mark 10: 13.
We thus properly conclude that
the goats of our narrative are little sinners.
The great sinners, he goats, have been removed before this judgment
takes place. Rev.
19: 11-21.
“Depart
from Me ye cursed”.
Moses pronounced fearful curses
on the children of
This word prepared appears here for
the third time in our narrative. ver.
10, 34, 41. In ver. 10 it is translated ready. Note the
contrast: “the Kingdom prepared for you”; and “fire prepared for the Devil and his angels”. This is
not without eschatological significance.
The sin and the sins of the Devil and his angels are all widely
different from those of the fallen sons of Adam. God said to Abraham:
“I will
bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee.” Gen. 12: 3. Matt. 25: 41 is a
particular application of God’s solemn declaration to His faithful
servant. But let us observe that this
sin is covered by the atonement. I have already
remarked that personal sins can be dealt with in two ways: By pleading the
blood of Christ, confessing the sin and abandoning it. Second, by enduring the penalty. Peter’s denial of his Lord, and the falsehood
of Ananias and Sapphira are illustrations to point. Here, in these cases, we have only [regenerate]
believers. There is also a difference in
the sins of the unsaved. The sin of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost hath no forgiveness. The man who refuses to accept the vicarious
atonement of Christ as God’s only way of [eternal] salvation for sinners cannot be
forgiven. We may set it down as an axiom
of Biblical Theology and especially of Biblical Eschatology, that the one
ground of eternal perdition is personal wilful rejection of the one atonement
which Jesus Christ has effected in His life and in His death as bearing the sin
of the world; and thereby satisfying the most absolute requirements of the
Divine Holiness. Of course the sin of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and the taking of the mark of the Beast, and
such like, are wilful rejections of Christ and His atoning death. We are perfectly justified, then, in
concluding that there is nothing per se in the sin of the goats to finally
exclude them from a share in the benefits of the great redemption, any more
than there was in the case of the Rich Man which is the case of the vast
majority of Christians.
Since the beginning of the
fourth century the Church has erred in the interpretation of our narrative in
three respects: In respect to the sheep, the goats, and the Devil, and
especially in reference to the last. How
comes it that the New Testament has so much more to say on this subject than
the Old Testament? The fuller revelation
of God in Christ and of His Plan of the Ages necessitates a correspondingly
full revelation of the Devil in his antagonistic relation to that Plan, and of
the stages of the concurrent outworking of the two great mysteries of Godliness
and of Iniquity. The one cannot be
studied apart from the other without disturbing the equilibrium of truth. But as a matter of historical fact and
current personal observation it is only too apparent that the Church has for
hundreds of years abandoned the teaching of [Page 121] Scriptures on both sides of the mystery to her own
undoing. Which side did she abandon
first? T his would be difficult to determine.
It is very probable that the two evils grew up side by side. It is certain, however, that by the middle of
the second century the great truth of the pre-millennial coming of Christ was
rapidly losing ground; and the post-millennial view of prophecy was
proportionately gaining. Thus in
proportion as Christ was theoretically taken out of His Scriptural place as the
rejected One of earth, and proclaimed as King of the Church and Ruler of the
world the Devil was displaced, theoretically, doctrinally, from his Scriptural
place as the enemy of the Church, of truth and righteousness, and the actual
ruler of the world within divinely prescribed limits. The damage of this double displacement to
theology as a science, and to the Church as the body of Christ, has been
incalculable as well as irreparable. The
Church cannot, dare not, give to the Devil the attributes, functions, and
prerogatives which the Scriptures assign him without thereby necessitating an
internal revolution in her theology, ethics, organizations and polity. The reason is that a misplaced Devil is the
adversative complement of a displaced Christ.
It is impossible to give the Son of Man His imperial
rights in the Church till the Devil is first by faith dethroned. All
error in doctrine, or polity, or depletion in spirituality implies the
relative exaltation of Satan in the professed temple of the living God. The
result has been the almost complete obliteration of the line which in Scripture
divides the world from the Church. This is most manifest in those countries
where there is a
THE GROUND OF CONDEMNATION
“I was
an hungered and ye gave Me no meat; I was
thirsty and ye gave Me no drink; I was a
stranger and ye took Me not in; naked and ye
clothed Me not; sick and in prison and ye
visited Me not”.
Will the reader notice
thoughtfully that these are all negative sins, sins of omission. And as already stated in the case of the Rich
Man such sins cannot provide a sufficient basis for the awful sentence of
irreparable damnation. If they could
there would be no escape for the vast majority of Christians from the same
doom, unless we are prepared to affirm that one of the purposes of the
atonement is to put a premium on sin for the convenience of carnal
Christians. Millions of Christians have
been guilty of these and worse sins against the Lord’s brethren, the Jews.
The reply of those symbolized by
the goats is that they were not aware of having been guilty of such sins as the
judge specifies. This indicates that
they had no personal knowledge of Christ either as a Saviour from sin, or in
any other capacity, or aspect. And are
there not literally thousands of people even in the most civilized nations, to
say nothing of heathen nations so-called, who are in this very condition of
ignorance, darkness and apathy.
Page 122
In the 45th. verse Christ, the King, indicates the very close
relationship between Himself and His brethren; and at this time especially His
Jewish brethren. On the 10th.
of Nisan A.D. 34, God gave them up in a special manner to judicial blindness
because they rejected His Son, their King. John 19:
15.
Four days later they crucified Him.
Thus was the type of the Passover lamb fulfilled. “And the whole assembly of the congregation of
“And I
will pour upon the House of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of Grace and of supplications; and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for His only
Son, and they shall be in bitterness for Him as
one that is in bitterness for his first-born.” Zech.
12: 10. But this is not all. If it were the sorrow would be unbearable:
“In that
day there shall be a fountain opened to the House of David, and to the inhabitants of
Thus the curse has been removed,
the judicial blindness has been lifted and they are once more His brethren both
by redemption and appropriation, as well as by kinship. These, forgiven and restored, stand by the
side of the King while He judges the remnant of the nations. Zech. 14: 1-21. Any kindness or evil done to them, even when
in the state of judicial blindness, is regarded by the King as done to
Himself. And He, the King, is not here
speaking of what Christians have done or have not done to the Jews. That will be settled at the Bema Judgment. 2 Cor. 5: 10. Many, indeed, of them also shall receive a
sentence very similar to that passed on the goats. He is here speaking only of the nations; or
rather, those portions of them which have survived the time of trouble such as
never was before and never will be again. Matt.
24: 21-31.
“And
these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.”
This brings us to the crucial
point of the narrative, the pons asinorum of ecclesiastical eschatology. Actual Biblical Eschatology has no real
difficulty here, except to get the former out of the way, and by so doing
clarify the spiritual horizon. So far as
man had a part in the objective revelation of truth there is no danger in the
human factor, for there man is in his proper place, the willing, efficient,
humble instrument of the Holy Spirit.
Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel, John, James, [Page 123] Peter and Paul, are more or less
transparent media; the heavenly light flows through them freely and
beneficently. This is pre-eminently true
of the human side of the Christ. “In Him was life and the life was the light of men”.
But when we come to the
subjective apprehension of that revelation the danger looms large to those who
have the vision of God in reality. Here
man is no longer the medium of communication subject to the Spirit of God; but,
viewed historically, the prolific producer and elaborator of ideas, theories,
systems and institutions which even in outward form have little or no
resemblance to Christianity. Paul as a
medium on the objective side of revealed truth is all right. But John
Calvin, or James Arminius, or Martin Luther, as media on the
subjective side, the Church side, is
another matter entirely. Here, not
yonder, is the peril of the seeking soul. And to that very large number of
religious people to whom the Church, their Church, is not only synonymous with
Christianity, but is Christianity, the peril becomes a soul tragedy and the
tragedy develops into a catastrophe.
But the danger is
inevitable. Owing to the nature of man
and also to the nature of the problem and the plan of redemption, the human
instrument and medium is as indispensable on the subjective side as on the
objective. The law of interdependence holds everywhere. And in the mechanism of the divine plan it is
inevitable that some must lead and others must follow. From this standpoint the organic
interdependence of the individual units which make up the ecclesiastical
organism differ nothing from those of the political organism. The difficulty is not to get the masses to
follow, but to find men who are competent to lead and worthy to be followed. God is not looking for good followers so much
as for good leaders. The death of these
has been the standing-disgrace of the Church.
Human nature is prone to observe that great law of mechanics whereby
every force is said to seek the line of least resistance. The fallacy lies in the assumption that we
can reason from mechanism to organism, from physical force to moral force, and
from a thing to a personality. All
things considered the line of least resistance for the Christ lay through
Gethsemane and
We must now face the problem
presented in Matt. 25:
46.
So far in
our progress through the successive chapters of this work our most efficient
instrument has been the scientific principle of accurate definition. The reader will do [Page 124] well to recall and reflect anew
on the quotation from Bacon in this connection.
And in doing so it is impossible to avoid conflict with the reasoning
and conclusions of men who are famous for learning and whose opinions have, in
orthodox circles, all the weight of inspired oracles. But the honest and devoted seeker after truth
will take nothing for granted, nor will he recognize any absolute standard of
truth except the word of God; and that only as properly translated, interpreted
and applied.
I take it for granted that most
candid readers feel obliged to confess that the generally accepted definition
of the Greek adjective aionios is contradicted by the
facts of etymology [i.e., the
study of insects],
history and consistent exegesis. When we know, for example, the length of
a given age (as in Luke 18: 30), and find the term aionios applied to that age, and then translated into English by such words as “eternal”, or “everlasting”, a very ordinary logical faculty ought to scent the suspicious odour of
logical inconsistency and traditional bias. I have already pointed out that if the proper
translation involved no other difficulty than an appeal to the simple fact of
etymology a school boy might settle the question for all time. The supporters of certain
theological theories and dogmas ought to know that if they define such words as
Aion, aionios, and olam, in
accordance with their plain etymological signification, they will be obliged to abandon some of
their dogmas, and consent to the
need and demand for revision of traditional theology in general, and of eschatology in particular.
Once admit that between the close of the present age and the judgment of
the Great White Throne there is another age during which Israel is restored to
the place of corporate testimony in the earth, and you cut the ground completely from under the post-millenarian.
This he cannot tolerate. A false interpretation is preferable to the
humiliation of having to admit and confess that the teaching of this or that Church
has been untrue and misleading. But when they discover, as in the majority of cases they certainly
will, that their devotion to the traditions
of men has cost them the loss of the Messianic Kingdom and involved them in
age-lasting destruction, their
sorrow will be exceedingly great. May the study of this book save many from so
terrible a calamity. This is one of its purposes.
Before proceeding to a more
critical examination of the passage before us, I would ask the reader to
consider his standpoint, and especially to consider with keen discrimination what
is the true eschatological horizon before us as determined by Matt. 13, 24, 25. Nothing could be more self-evident than the
fact that we are here dealing with the
nearer eschatological horizon. Very,
very rarely does the perspective of the Master rest upon and bring into relief
the solemn facts of the final judgment at the end of the Millennium. And what is true of the four Gospels is also
true of the New Testament as a whole and, indeed, of the entire Bible. Discrimination between the
nearer and farther horizon is fundamental not only to Biblical Eschatology, but to the whole range of Biblical Theology. Not only do the majority of
writers and preachers fail to make this distinction; but, as already remarked, they are under the grip of an imperious necessity
to deny that any such distinction exists. With the above reminder before us we will
proceed:
Page 125
There are in Matt. 25: 46 three words the proper definition of which must
contribute very largely to a true interpretation of the passage. They are zoe
(life), aionios (everlasting, eternal), and kolasis (punishment); and
the compound formed by the first two. We
have already demonstrated that the
phrase “eternal
life” has two meanings in
Scripture - the ‘free gift’
and ‘the
prize’. The Rich Ruler was after the latter - the
Messianic Kingdom. We cannot, however,
examine the term kolasis without some further discussion of the term aionios.
Kolasis
has as its synonym the term timoria (long o).
The
former occurs twice in the N.T. as a noun (Matt.
25: 46,
and 1 John 4: 18); and twice in verbal form
(Acts 4: 21,
and 2 Pet. 2:
9).
The latter is found only three times.
In Heb. 10:
29 as noun; and in Acts
22: 5; 26:
11 in verbal form. The rarity of these words should perhaps
remind us of the fact that judgment is God’s “strange
work”, something He would rather not have to do. Isa. 28: 21; Ezek. 18: 23, 32.
It will be necessary to consult
the authorities, but in doing so we must endeavour to see with our own eyes and
not theirs. And our eyes will see no
more of truth than others save as the eyes of our understanding (lit. heart)
are enlightened by fellowship with the Father and the Son. Eph. 1: 18; 1 John 1: 7.
Thayer's Lexicon defines the
verb koladzo thus: 1 prop. prune, as trees. 2. to check, curb, restrain. 3. to chastise, correct, punish: so in
N.T., 2 Pet. 2:
9; Acts 4: 21.
That
definition of the verb, as we shall see later, fits in exactly with our
interpretation of Matt. 25: 46.
He
treats the noun kolasis as follows: correction,
punishment, penalty, and quotes Matt.
25: 46. In a note he says:
Synonyms - kolais, kolasis, timoria: the noted definition of Aristotle
which distinguishes kolasis and timoria as that which is disciplinary and has
reference to the good of him who suffers, while the latter is penal and has
reference to the satisfaction of him who inflicts, may be found in his rhet. 1, 10, 17.
This ought to satisfy every
enquiring mind as to the classical use of the word kolasis, namely, that it expresses the idea of
correction, or punishment, with a view to the good of the individual on whom
the punishment falls.
Dr. Vincent is strangely
inconsistent here. After his excellent
remarks on “everlasting destruction”, 2 Thess. 1: 9, one might
well expect him to apply the same process of logical reasoning to Matt. 25: 46. Here is
what he says on Heb. 10: 29:
“The distinction sometimes asserted between timoria,
retribution,
and kolasis,
chastisement
for the amendment of the subject, does not hold in N. T. Neither kolasis nor koladzein
convey any sense of chastisement.” Acts 4: 21; 2 Pet. 2: 9; [Page 126] Matt. 25: 46; 1 John 4: 18.”
We see here how he contradicts
Aristotle, and we shall see later how he contradicts the Scriptures. I wish to
remark in passing that the Scriptural use of these two Greek words does not
lend the slightest support to the traditional form in which the doctrine of eternal punishment has been held. This will become apparent in our exposition a
little later.
When we miss our way in
reasoning on any subject the most common cause of our deviation from the
straight path is that somewhere at the basis of our logical process there is an
unwarranted assumption. In the case
before us the unwarranted assumption is that 2 Pet. 2: 9 and Heb. 10: 29 are
spoken in reference to sinners, and has therefore nothing to do with Christians. But
the reverse is the truth.
Peter’s Second Epistle, while
intended for the guidance and comfort of God’s true people all through the
dispensation, has special reference to the end of the age, the days we are
living in and those immediately to follow.
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts”. 2 Pet. 3: 3. We do not need to deny that this has an
application to sinners, but this is not the governing thought in the Apostle’s
mind. In 1:
19 he refers to the deep darkness in which
the world during this age must lie because of the fact that its ruling prince
is Satan; and warns the faithful that
their security must be found in giving prayerful attention to “the sure word of prophecy”, the very thing which Christians are
careful not to do, and which the leaders
of the people generally will not do.
The result is that the heart is not cleansed according to 1 John 1: 7,
and in this state becomes and remains the very soil in which the enemy loves to
sow the seeds of error, and to cultivate that which he has sown until he brings
it to maturity. Then in 2: 1 he speaks of the false teachers and their followers who bring shame and
disgrace to the cause of Christ. Are these false teachers in the
church? Of course they are. Have
they the free gift of eternal life? They
may have it. The general conditions then are the same now, only more aggravated and nearer the crisis point. Peter says that many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the truth
shall be evil spoken of. Is this language not generally true of
professing [and regenerate] Christians today?
In 2: 15
he says these false teachers have “forsaken the right
way”. Could this be affirmed of any unsaved person. Can sinners forsake the right way when they
have never known it. How expressive are
the words “the wages of unrighteousness”. The
temptation to hold back and hold down the truth for the sake of material
advantage never was stronger than it is today. But this is only one of a trinity of
temptations which always work hand in hand to seduce the servants of
Christ. They are (1) indifference to the blood
of atonement; (2) the love of money; and (3) ecclesiastical
ambition. See Jude 11. Listen
again: “These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the midst of darkness is reserved for the
(millennial) age”. The false translation “for ever” justified the assumption that Peter was
speaking of [unregenerate] sinners. 2 Pet. 2: 17. Do you
reply, “but the R.V. omits “for ever”? Very [Page 127] true. Nevertheless, as
he is speaking of [regenerate] believers, even though in a backslidden state, is not the idea
implied as the necessary completion of the predicate “is
reserved”? This view is confirmed
by Jude 13, and Matt.
22: 13;
and is sustained by the analogy of God’s
dealings with His ancient people. Heb. 2: 1-3; John 6: 49. The severest penalty threatened against the
unfaithful Israelite was to be “cut off from the
congregation”. Lev. 17: 10; 20: 3-6. This carries with it the implication of exclusion from the Messianic
Kingdom. Read 1 Cor. 10: 1-10.
Thus we may affirm, in opposition Dr. Vincent, that both timoria
and kolasis
are used in the Scriptures with reference the
chastisement of (carnal) believers.
That the sufferings implied in this state of chastisement are in a sense
penal, there can be no doubt. We therefore conclude - at the so-called “eternal punishment” of the goats is not “eternal”, but age-lasting. And this for the reason also that the word kolasis
is used only of discipline with a view to the salvation (in either a primary,
or secondary sense) of the individual.
Let us now examine the processes
and conclusions of Archbishop Trench as set forth in his “New Testament Synonyms” on the subject in hand. Here we will find a pathetic example of the blinding, benumbing effect of devotion to the
traditions of men. I quote his
remarks in part only.
TIMORIA, KOLASIS
“In imoria, according to its
classical use, the vindictive character of
the punishment is the predominant thought.
In kolasis, on the other hand, is more the notion of punishment as
it has reference to the correction and bettering of the offender, and naturally
has for the most part a milder use than timoria”. That is good. Now listen to the following:
“Could
be a very serious error, however, to attempt to transfer this distinction in
its entireness to the words as employed in the N. T. The kolasis aionios of Matt. 25: 46, as is plain, is not
merely corrective, and therefore temporary, discipline; cannot be any other
than the adeialeiptos
timoria (Josephus), the aidioi timonai (Plato), with which the Lord elsewhere threatens finally
impenitent men (Mark 9: 43-48).
Surely that is a fine example of
“begging the question” by means of artistic
word juggling in order to bolster up and propagate a baseless theory, and a pet
illusion of the Dark Ages. I sincerely desire to respect scholarship, and will
ever seek to do so when the facts justify it.
But it is as pathetic as it is tragical to see scholarship
prostituted to the service of the powers of darkness in the obscuration and
perversion of the truth of God’s word, and especially
so as it bears on the awfully solemn realities of the future state. In this respect the educational leaders of the
Lord’s people in the present Christian age are in perfect accord with those of
the past Jewish age. It would require
too much space to fully expose the fallacies apparent and involved in the above
quotation, and so I leave it to the intelligent reader to judge for
himself. Let me offer just one remark:
Read the last three words of the quotation thus: “finally
impenitent (carnal) believers”, and the fallacy becomes condemningly
transparent. How much more becoming,
both as a man and a Christian, when this distinguished Churchman could not
reconcile his philology and [Page 128]
theology, if he had resolved to remodel and recast the latter even to its very
foundations. No doubt this is his own
conviction today. The most
imperative need of the Kingdom of God all down the ages has been that of men
who will rightly interpret the Oracles of the Most High, first in the abstract forms of consistent harmonious thought; and then, and at the same time, in
the concrete of a holy life. But it’s a costly business. Ask
Paul what he thinks about it.
The point with which we are now
dealing is one of strategical importance and therefore I beg the indulgence of the
reader while we consult one more writer of recognized authority. I have already
quoted somewhat extensively from “Old Testament
Synonyms”, by Girdlestone, in an earlier chapter. In order to demonstrate more fully how
unreliable and misleading are the traditional standards of critical
scholarship, permit me to make a couple more extracts from the last named work
as to the meaning of the Greek term aionios. On page 504 he says:
“We also find
the word used with reference to eternal fire, Matt. 18: 8; 25: 41; Jude 7; eternal punishment, Matt. 25: 46; eternal judgment or
condemnation, Mark 3: 29; Heb. 6: 2; eternal destruction, 2 Thess. 1: 9. The word in these passages plainly
implies finality, and signifies that when these judgments shall be inflicted, the
time of probation, change, or the chance of retrieving one’s fortune, will have
gone by absolutely and forever. A state of existence is entered upon, which (so
far as God has told us) is as hopeless as it is endless. We understand very little about the future,
about the relation of human life to the rest of existence, and about the moral
weight of unbelief, as viewed in the light of eternity, but we must not let our
ignorance constitute us critics of God’s truth.
If, on the one hand, it is wrong to add to God’s word, on the other we
must not take away from it; and if some feel it morally impossible to hold the
doctrine of eternal punishment, they must be content to wait, cleaving to the
Gospel of God’s love, and seeking to announce that love to others, while
confessing that there is a dark background very terrible, which they are unable
in their ignorance to comprehend”.
The words of Job 38: 1, 2, are quite appropriate right here:
“Then the Lord
answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without
knowledge?”
The quotation from Girdlestone is a perfect jumble of
gratuitous assumptions, illogical processes, and unwarranted deductions. We may note just a few points. He assumes:
1. That the
meaning of aionios in these passages
is “eternal”, whereas it is age-lasting.
2. That in Matt. 18: 8 Christ is warning [unregenerate] sinners, whereas He is warning selfish [and
regenerate] believers. Read from the first
of the chapter. So with Heb. 6: 2 and 2 Thess. 1: 9.
3. That all these passages given
at the beginning of the quotation have reference to [Page 129] eternity, whereas not
one of them does so.
4.
That the states thus described indicate finality of condition, whereas this is not the case unless it be in
Mark 3: 29.
5. He says we must not let our
ignorance constitute us critics of God’s truth, and in the same breath gives us
a most transparent example of the very
thing he condemns.
6. He confesses that this view of
the character and actions of God give us a very dark background, whereas the darkness is very largely the
child of his own theological fancy.
7. He warns us neither to take
from nor add to the word of God, whereas
he is guilty of both sins and that on a daring scale.
As remarked above, the one main source of all this confusion has its basis in that
audacious imposture whereby traditional theology, in the name of truth and righteousness, picks up that great and grand assemblage of eschatological material
which the Holy Spirit has definitely located at the close of the present
dispensation, and carrying it down
the stream of time one thousand years deposits it with pious genuflections at
the end of the age to come. This is equally a crime against humanity and
God.
We may therefore justly sum up
our discussion of Matt. 25: 46 in a few
simple but far aching propositions:
1. The eternal life spoken of is not eternal life at all, but age-lasting life.
2. The so-called eternal punishment is not eternal but age-lasting.
3. The sheep are not said to have eternal life, but they enter
into it. Here, manifestly, eternal (age-lasting) life is synonymous
with the Messianic Kingdom.
4. The sheep go into the Kingdom on its earthly side in mortal
bodies, and after doing so must become the subjects of redemption. In the days of David and Solomon there must
have been thousands of unsaved Israelites, but they were all in the Kingdom as
privileged citizens, and in this they were greatly blessed.
5. The punishment inflicted on the goats is both penal and
disciplinary. It is with a view to their
ultimate individual salvation. But an
unyielding will on their part may resist the will of God. In that case their opportunity must forever
pass away.
6. Both classes must ultimately appear at the Great White Throne
judgment for confirmation in the faith of Christ, or for irrevocable
condemnation.
Page 130
A GOSPEL OF SANCTIFIED OPTIMISM
I will conclude this chapter
with a very radical and at the same time a very comprehensive statement of
impregnable FACT based on the
Scriptures of Truth. My statement must
of necessity be very brief; but when the proper time comes it will admit of
abundant defence and glorious expansion.
I will first put it in the form of a definite and easily intelligible
proposition, and then adduce some Scriptural facts in its support.
I freely admit that we must be
careful to avoid mere rationalistic speculation on so momentous a subject as
human destiny. But seeing that
traditional theology has speculated so much and so recklessly, it behooves every real lover of truth and righteousness to
make the very best use possible of all the material at his disposal in the word
of God, that we may to some extent illuminate the fearfully dark background
which everywhere accompanies the picture which traditional theology has for
centuries wickedly associated with the character of God. To see God and know Him as revealed in the
history of redemption, and as unfolded in type, in promise, in prophecy, in
covenant, and in the various phases of the Kingdom, is thee one aim of this
book. I therefore ask for an attentive
and unbiased hearing as I formulate the following proposition and then proceed
to demonstrate its Scriptural validity.
It is this:
NO SON OF ADAM WHO HAS EVER LIVED, OR DOES NOW LIVE, OR SHALL
YET LIVE, CAN BE LOST ETERNALLY
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A DEFINITE OPPORTUNITY OF KNOWING CHRIST AND HIS
SACRIFICIAL DEATH ON BEHALF OF THE RACE, AND BY A DELIBERATE ACT OF WILL AND PERSONAL CHOICE DETERMINING FOR
HIMSELF WHETHER HE WILL ACCEPT THE SAVIOUR OF MEN; AND IF SUCH
OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT OCCUR WHILE IN THE BODY AND ON THE EARTH, IT MUST BE FOUND
[IN ‘SHEOL’
/ ‘HADES’ UNDER
THE EARTH AND] IN THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.
I hold that all the heathen who
have died, or may yet die, in helpless ignorance of Christ and His wondrous
revelation of the love of God, can by no means perish eternally till they have
had this revelation and have dealt with it on the grounds of personal
responsibility and intelligent choice.
And if within the pale of Christendom there be any (I do not say there
are) who in God’s estimate have not had a real opportunity of knowing Christ
and His Great Salvation, they must yet have it.
Inasmuch as God has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth it
follows that He will do all in His power to save to the uttermost short of
forcing the will of His creatures.
On reading the above not a few
will at once reply, “then you believe in a second
chance for the sinner.” Will all
such please read again both in the lines and between the lines of the above
propositions and then say where you find such a thought.
Page 131
Nevertheless
there are those of whom I can affirm that they will have a second chance. 1. The Jewish Nation will have a second
chance. Isa. 40-66; and
As to
common sense, by which I mean humane sentiment, where is the man who denies to
the heathen the possibility of a chance, one chance, of being saved, who will
dare for a moment to put himself in the place of the heathen, and with
sufficient human compassion in his heart to realize ever so imperfectly how
unutterably awful is the position of one helplessly and innocently exposed to
the terrors of an eternal hell, and yet not wish that he himself might have
just such a chance? And what about the
Golden Rule in this connection? Shall we
not do to others as we would that they should do to us. In the light of the Golden Rule both
Calvinism and Arminianism are seen to be destitute of humane sentiment. The Christ had limitless compassion on the
multitude; but where He had pity they have only curses, the anathema of a
hopeless, conscienceless doom.
Then as to the fact of reason I
ask: Is Nature reasonable, or is it not? Of course it is. Who has ever discovered anything unreasonable
in the relations of numbers and in the principles of mathematics? Is not the whole structure of modern science
based the assumption that Nature throughout her whole length and breadth is to supremely,
universally and benevolently reasonable?
The aim of philosophy is to discover and correlate the great principles
which lie at the basis of all the sciences; and the man who denies the
fundamental unity and harmony of these principles cannot take even one step
towards the desired goal. Not only so,
but by the denial of this scientific axiom he must give himself up to the most
hopeless scepticism, and to the despair of an universal infidelity. Even in the construction of a theology based
on elation the investigator cannot dispense with the intuitive facts and forces
that are native to the soul; for they supply the subjective ground and
justification of an objective and supernatural revelation. And is not the God of Nature also the God of
redemption? But I am quite willing to
make the appeal wholly to the Scriptures.
This atmosphere is most
congenial of all.
And why does the typical
theologian hold and teach that the heathen are eternally lost? The most candid and truthful answer that can
be given to that question is that he inherited the dogma from his lineal
ecclesiastical ancestors. I once heard a
profound thinker deliver a lecture on the science of political economy in which
he [Page132] pointed out the need of certain legislation in order to open
the way and give effect to the laws of nature; but at this point he found that
the politicians systematically blocked the way in the interests of class
legislation. Then, dropping his voice to
a lower key, he added deliberately and sententiously: “The
politician is not a pathfinder”.
And the same self evident truth may, with even greater felicity, be
applied to the typical theologian. He,
above all men, is not a pathfinder, unless it be the path of ease, of
compromise, and of accommodation to the shifting standards of
conventionality. The history of the
Church for eighteen hundred years buttresses this statement with an invincible
“Amen”.
“But there have been exceptions”, you
say. Yes, indeed, and let us never cease to thank the Lord for them, even
though they have seldom attained to greater dignity among the powers that be
than that of voices crying in the world’s great wilderness of organized sham,
fascinating illusion, and poorly veneered hypocrisy. The enslavement of the theological and religious
leaders of the Lord’s people to the traditions of men and the spirit of the age
in which they have lived is one of the most pathetic and tragical facts in the
history of Judaism and of Christianity.
But some one may say, Is it
really a fact that representative teachers of the orthodox schools give the
heathen over to a hopeless future state?
I will give just one example:
“The
argument respecting the future state of the heathen may be stated in a few
words: 1. There can be no doubt that
they are sinners. They have broken the
law of God, - that law which is written on the heart of every human being. 2. Having broken the law of God, they
are exposed to its penalty, which is eternal death. 3. This penalty they must suffer unless they are forgiven. 4. They cannot be forgiven unless they
repent. 5. With few exceptions, here
and there, they give no evidence of repentance, but the most painful evidence
to the contrary. 6. The conclusion,
therefore, is irresistible, that the great body of the heathen, throughout the
world, live and die in sin, and perish for ever.” (Pond’s Christian
Theology, page 595. Dr.
R. A. Torrey takes the same view).
Will this statement of the case
stand the test of common sense, of reason, or of Scripture? Let us see:
To the first proposition I say,
Amen. That goes without saying. But we
will see to it that any deduction he draws from this is valid.
The second proposition is a
transparent non sequitur. It does not
follow. The Bible says the wages of sin
is death. Why add the word “eternal”? And if we permit its use as legitimate, what
is its meaning in this connection? And,
again, suppose we grant that the wages of sin is “eternal
death”, the question still remains, What effect had the death of Christ
on that fact, even though the heathen have never heard of atonement by
substitution? And is there any place
within the lids of the Bible where it is positively affirmed, or even implied,
that the heathen are never to have a chance to accept the sacrifice of
Christ. Thus we see that the second
proposition is full of gratuitous assumptions.
Page 133
The third proposition assumes
that they cannot be forgiven except while on earth and in the mortal body. This position is absolutely without
Scriptural support. We shall see later
irresistible evidence to the contrary.
The same reply is equally appropriate to the fourth proposition; and
also to the fifth. Besides, this may be
applied to the great majority of Christians, and “with
a few exceptions, here and there, they give no evidence of repentance.”
Consequently the conclusion
contained in the sixth proposition is absolutely invalid, a mere begging of the
whole question.
SOME PERTINENT FACTS
1. Since the fall of the first pair all men are conceived and
born in sin.
2. For this very potent fact they are not morally responsible.
3. Moral depravity is innate, constitutional, ineradicable and
universal. For this fact also, as such,
they are not morally responsible. Sin in
the flesh is one thing, but sin manifest through the flesh is another. The latter only, involves volition.
4. In addition to facts 1
and 3, there is the damaging
complementary fact that mankind are born into a world which is under the curse
of God because of the sin of the first man.
No moral responsibility can attach to any living man on this account.
5. The world, within certain
prescribed limits, is controlled and governed by the Devil and his demon
spirits. No responsibility attaches to any living human being for this fact.
6. The reason the heathen have never had a chance to accept the
redemption that is in Christ is because the Church has utterly failed in her
duty towards them. This is a great sin,
for the evangelization of the world was her supreme mission in this age. For this state of things the heathen are not
responsible.
7. If the Gospel, which has not reached the heathen here, cannot
reach them in the intermediate state, that fact will in no way involve them in
moral responsibility on that account.
God foresaw all this and provided for it. The end includes the means. As I contemplate the above facts, free from
sentimentality, the solemn impression is borne in upon my soul that it will be
more tolerable for heathen
Page 134
Prompted by the frivolous spirit
which Paul condemns in
1. The Master says, “Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations”.
2. He also
says, “Pray ye the Lord of the harvest that he will
send forth labourers into His harvest”.
What
moral significance there is in the following interrogation: “Why call ye me Lord, Lord,
and do not the things that I say?” How searchingly do these imperative,
unqualified commands and that stinging interrogation expose the heartless
hypocrisy of all such trifling with the verities of God’s word.
3. Does not the fact that I have
this salvation of Christ put me under the most solemn obligation to give it to
those who have it not, apart from any positive injunction from the Master?
4. Does not my sanctification and
qualification for a place in the first resurrection depend on my obedience to
the word and Spirit of God?
5. Have not the heathen as much
right as I have to run in the race for
the prize?
6. It is the intention of the
Father to select a bride for His Son from every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation? How can this ever
come to pass unless the Gospel is universally proclaimed?
7. The second advent of Messiah
cannot come to put an end to the wicked “Times of the
Gentiles” until “this Gospel of the Kingdom be preached among all nations for a
witness.”
Thus the attempt to found a plea
of indifference and unconcern, as regards the heathen, on our doctrine in order
to reduce it to ridicule and contempt, is wholly without warrant.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Will the reader follow closely,
critically, honestly, in the path now about to be outlined.
1. The Scriptures affirm that (in the purpose of God) the Blood
of Christ was shed from the foundation of the world.
Page 135
The eschatological potentiality
of this fact is beyond human comprehension.
The progressive unfolding of this affirmation in the history of
redemption so far confirms this expectation.
2. The incarnation in its ultimate
analysis cannot be explained by reference to the will of God, but to the
subjective necessities of the Divine Nature.
God cannot deny Himself. His
fathomless love had to find vent in voluntary self-manifestation. And that which explains the incarnation must
be the determining factor in all the processes required to give expression to
the purpose of the incarnation as conceived by the Divine Trinity.
3. That which explains the
incarnation must also explain the work of creation and preservation. While creation was first in point of
historical manifestation, it was second in point of Divine volition. Creation was in order to redemption; and has
found its purpose and justification in providing a material platform for the
objective manifestation of the greatest mystery in the universe - redemption by
substitution.
4. The most fundamental element in the character of God is
love. Calvinism subordinates the love of
God to the will of God. Not only that,
but it so exalts the Divine Will at the expense both of the Love and Wisdom of
God as to make the consequent conception of Deity repulsive to the better moral
instincts of humanity, and that even while in a fallen condition.
5. There is no innate, subjective antithesis between the love
and justice of God. They are not two but
one. But the purpose of the judgments of
God, which are made necessary by His justice, is, so far as humanity is
concerned, to make a way for the free flow and fuller manifestation of His
love. The proof of this proposition is
found in the historical fact that the heaviest judgments have
always occurred at the point of transition from one age to another; and they have invariably been followed by a fuller manifestation of
Grace. There is incalculable
eschatological significance in this fact.
I do not deny that the gift of
free agency to man may make it possible for him to defeat permanently the
beneficence of the love and will of God as regards the problem of human
destiny. At any rate I prefer to keep on
safe ground until a fuller evolution of the history of redemption clarifies the
more distant horizon. But the above
propositions amply justify the conclusion that the number of the finally saved
will vastly exceed the number of the finally lost.
6. It is a fact that the sufferings of Christ in life and in
death were all vicarious; and that in them He tasted death for every man. Heb. 2: 9. He was,
and is, the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins
of the whole world. John 2: 1, 2. “God was in Christ RECONCILING
THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF, [Page 136] not imputing their sins unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” 2 Cor. 5: 19.
And with infallible truth like
this before our eyes are we credulous enough to believe that the heathen are
today in the same place that they would have been if Christ had never suffered
for the sins of the whole world, theirs included? Beyond a doubt the death of the Christ has
potentially affected, in some marvellous way, the future destiny of the
heathen. I have no hesitation in saying
that in justice to Christ, apart altogether from justice to the heathen, the
latter must, to the last man, on earth or in the intermediate state, have a
personal opportunity to embrace the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. He shall surely see of the travail of His
soul and be satisfied.
7. We need special supernatural
illumination to hold the proper balance between Scriptures which seem to deal
with the same subject in a way that would almost indicate contrast, if not
contradiction. We have in Rev. 14: 11 the solemn declaration, “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever
(unto the ages of the ages).” Over against this (in appearance) we have
Paul’s very comprehensive statement in Rom. 5: 18:
“Therefore as by the offence of one (man) judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one (Man) the free gift came upon all men UNTO JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE”.
There
can be no denying that the “all” of the first
part and the “all” of the second part form a
perfect equation. Grant this, and it logically follows, that the vicarious
atonement effected on
8. We are absolutely safe in
affirming that, as one result of the atonement, the guilt of original sin has
been removed from the fallen race individually and collectively. This fact provides a foundation and a
starting point for the work of actual [Page 137] redemption in the race units.
See props. 1, 2, 3,
4.
But we must not overlook the fact that while men are not responsible for
indwelling sin, they are responsible for the outbreakings which may flow from
it, in thought word and deed.
9. The Scriptures affirm that
Christ put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Heb. 9: 26. I
grant that this was a judicial act; but also affirm that it was for the
race as a whole. This is equivalent to
saying that, owing to the sacrificial death of Christ, the whole of the fallen
race was and is potentially saved. John 3: 16. He said
on the cross, “It is finished”.
10. As a result God’s attitude
towards men is that of universal benevolence.
“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of
God who will have all men to be saved, and to
come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Tim.
2: 3, 4. Calvinists would much rather Paul had
not written that. But it remains a fact
that “whosoever will may come”.
11. We take as an axiom of sound
theology that in all God’s dealings with His creatures He is absolutely just
and merciful. And this being so there
are certain things which God cannot do and be consistent with His own holiness,
that is, with Himself. For example -
(1) He
cannot fail to keep His covenant with Abraham concerning the restoration of his
natural seed to the land of promise.
(2) He cannot reject the soul who comes
to him for pardon in the name of Jesus.
(3) He cannot deny those who do not deny
Him in their [true]
testimony before men. They must have a
place in the first resurrection.
(4) He cannot deny the heathen an
opportunity to share in the salvation of His Son. The holiness of God demands the fourth just
as really as it does the other three.
12. God is no respecter of persons; and on the basis of this
great Bible fact we may take it for granted that His plan of the ages involves
some means of equalizing the opportunities of men who live in different ages,
and under dissimilar conditions.
Contrast the superior advantages of
13. God promised Abraham that He would make him and his Seed
(Christ) a blessing to all nations.
This promise covers all time and all nations in the most literal sense. See props. 1-4.
14. Think of God’s mercy to
Paul. Acts 9. Would not this religious Jew have gone straight
to perdition if God had not interfered in an unusual and supernatural way? How many millions both of Jews and Gentiles
might have been saved had the same means been adopted? But He saved Paul that through him He might
save others? This is Bible election.
Then think of what the Lord is
yet going to do for unbelieving
“It
were a one-sided view to regard the Babylonish exile as only a punishment for
“All
the anxieties of the exiles are allayed by this betsdek,
which traces back the revolution proceeding from Cyrus to Jehovah’s
righteousness, i.e., to His action as absolutely determined by love and as
aiming directly at the salvation of His people, and, at bottom, of all peoples”. Delitzsch
on Isaiah 45: 13.
15. The light which Christ brought to this earth, and the
benefits He procured for men, He also
carried to the under world and there began the work of conquest:
“The
land of Zebulon, and the land of Nephthalim,
by the way of the sea, beyond
Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death
is light sprung up.”
Matt. 4: 15, 16. Beyond
all room for doubt we can affirm that this last clause has reference to the Hadean
world; and the people who dwell
there. It is highly probable that when the Saviour
descended to this department of God’s world - [where the disembodied souls of the dead are presently waiting for resurrection (Matt. 12: 40; 16: Matt. 16: 18; Acts 2: 34; Rev. 6: 9-11. cf.
2 Tim. 2: 18, R.V.] - He
there, within certain moral and geographical limitations, actually established a ministry of the Gospel. Does
the word not say that He, Himself, preached to the spirits in prison? 1 Pet. 3: 17-20. The
desperate efforts of the [deceived]
defenders of the traditional theory of human destiny to rid themselves of the
Holy Spirit’s testimony in this Scripture are both pathetic and ludicrous. 1 Pet. 4: 6 is
even more specific. I have
absolutely no doubt that millions of Christians, who while on earth lived for
their own selfish gratification, have, in this very abode [of the holy dead], some measure of hope in the consolations of that ministry. Nothing
could be more absurd and sentimental [Page 139] than
the prevalent idea that when believers die they immediately enter into the
presence of God [in Heaven] and [from] there await the resurrection of the body. According to the teaching of the Master, very, very ‘few’
will have that felicity even in the Messianic Age. Matt. 7: 13,
14; Heb. 12: 14. We
must not confound “present with the Lord,” and “present with Jesus Christ” - the God-man. The latter is localized.
16. The Holy Spirit though Ezekiel gives at least one concrete case of the restoration of one of the wickedest of
heathen communities to the enjoyment
of Gospel privileges in the Age to Come.
“When I shall
bring again their captivity, the captivity of
17. “When they were filled He said unto
the disciples, ‘Gather up the fragments that
remain, that nothing be lost’”. John 6: 12. Is it possible that the Christ can be so
careful for a few crumbs of bread, which can know neither sorrow nor pain, and
yet be so prodigal of millions of souls whose nature He assumed and whose sins
He bore on the Cross, as traditional orthodoxy would have us believe? And Paul puts the pregnant interrogation; “Doth God care for oxen?” And the Prince of Life Himself said, “I have compassion on the multitude”.
“And God
said to Jonah, ‘Doest thou well to be angry for
the gourd?’ And he said, ‘I do well to be
angry, even unto death’. Then said the Lord,
‘Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it to grow; which
came up in a night and perished in a night. And should not I
spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six-score thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand
and their left hand; and also much cattle?’” Jonah
4: 9-11.
Yes, indeed, the heathen must
have a chance to know and experience the marvellous love of God through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The
Christ will be the judge in that Great Day, but it will be on the basis of
mercy offered and accepted or rejected by a personal and intelligent act of
choice. I cannot but regard it as
radically wrong to say with Calvinism, that God, had He so decreed, could have
left the whole race to perish in its sinful and helpless condition. On this point the Arminian is undoubtedly
right; the race and, indeed, the
individual, have certain claims upon their Creator which He will not and can
not ignore. Deny this and there is
no escape from the most soulless fatalism the human mind can conceive.
Having
read this chapter, I ask the reader to interrogate his own reason and
conscience in the light of the facts and principles set forth, and as far as
possible in freedom from religious bias, and then give his honest judgment as
to whether the [Page 140] views
herein contained, or the orthodox, do most honor to
the LOVE, wisdom, power and justice
of God.
In the spring of 1915 I met a
returned missionary from
“A few years
ago I met a very highly educated Indian, and proceeded to press on his
attention the claims of the Gospel.” He replied, “I will have absolutely nothing to do with your
religion. Christianity does not commend
itself to me, and I will not have it”.
I said, “Will you then be kind enough to tell
me why you take so decided an attitude against Christianity?” He replied quickly, “I
will. My father and my mother died in
total ignorance of this Gospel you bring to us; so did all my ancestors for
thousands of years, and your Christianity tells me they have all gone to an
endless Hell. That’s why I do not
believe, and will not have anything to do with your religion”. Then said the missionary, “What could I say? I
was dumb”. Yes, indeed, what
could she say? unless with a heart of stone she had, in the real spirit of
Calvinistic fatalism, replied, “Since God ordains
whatsoever comes to pass, no doubt He has ordained this also, and so the best
thing you can do is to show your submission to the will of the eternal God by
silently and reverently submitting to His inscrutable decree”. But even God is subject to Law - the Law of
His own Holiness. “But if”, said the missionary, “What you tell me is true I want to know all about it, for
then I shall have an answer for the next man I meet of that class.” The following chapter will throw some light
on this very problem. In the meantime
let us believe that the true Christian’s God is One “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto
the knowledge of the truth”. 1 Tim. 2: 4. Dr. A. A. Hodge says this does not mean
what it says. But we appeal from the man
at the circumference to the man at the centre - Paul, the bond slave of Jesus
Christ.
* * *
Page 141
CHAPTER 6
THE FALLACY OF CALVINISM
OR THE CALLED AND THE
“Augustine, whose method was the
vicious one of all dogmatists, which is first to lay down certain propositions,
which are little else than our own philosophical conceptions, and then turn to
the Bible for verbal proof of these rash over-reachings beyond that which is
written, is thus an example and a warning. In his Enchiridion he piles up one
assumption on another till we stand amazed at what a flimsy support the whole
structure of his theology rests on. ... Is it accidental -
we think not - that three Carthaginian doctors, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, are responsible for that
arbitrary magisterial view of religion which is more Roman than Roman law
itself? This is too often the colonial
type of mind, to exaggerate the qualities of the mother country. American Puritanism ran to seed the home type
of Calvinism, as we know, before the middle of the last century. Predestinarianism in
The amount of Scriptural material available as
evidence in proof of our main thesis grows upon me daily; and so fascinating is
the study that it is difficult to take time to write. But I trust that enough has been said already
to convince the unbiased reader, and especially the God-fearing Bible student,
of the far reaching effect of our exegesis on the subject of Biblical
Eschatology, and beyond that on the whole question of Biblical Interpretation.
The theme of this chapter is found in Matt. 22: 1-14, and
particularly in the last verse - the 14th.
These solemn and profoundly significant words
were uttered by our Saviour very shortly before His passion; and as a fitting climax
to the Parable He added the trenchant words, “For many
are called but few are chosen.” Exegetes pass over these eight words as
if they were a merely accidental appendage of no relative importance. We will
see later what a serious mistake this is.
The relation of Matt.
22 to what precedes and follows is well
worth noting. The public ministry of
Christ has now lasted more than three years and in a few days He will seal the
verbal testimony of His sinless life with the still more eloquent testimony of
His vicarious death. Never was He more
anxious than during these closing days to speak to those of His own nation of
the riches of God’s grace; and never did His message of mercy and His thrilling
call to repentance, as the prime condition of mercy, meet with more malignant
opposition and open contempt from the leaders of the people than during these
pathetic and tragical days. Such
strained relations between Him and the Jewish Hierarchy could not continue much
longer without precipitating a bloody crisis.
And they knew it quite as well as He.
They were convinced that their social and religious prestige must be
recovered and vindicated [Page 142] even though to do so
necessitated the judicial murder of the Prophet of Nazareth. They resolved to take no chances.
He knew quite well that the main cause of His
failure to get the ear and sympathy of the masses was chiefly owing to the attitude of their religious leaders
towards Him. Hence His words of
warning concerning the leaven of the Pharisees. Matt.
16: 6, 12. Indeed,
it was with difficulty he was able to rescue the Twelve from its foul
contamination. He also foretold the same evil in the present age. Matt. 13: 33. But
notwithstanding the admonition the deadly leavening process
goes on as if never a word of warning had been spoken.
In Matt. 19: 12, we find
the Man of Sorrows heading towards
In Matt. 21: 1-11 Christ fulfils the prophecy in Zech. 9: 9.
“Tell ye the daughter of
Behold thy
King cometh unto thee,
Meek, and riding upon an ass,
And upon a
colt the foal of an ass”.
Let the reader put the above prophecy side by
side with passages like Matt. 2: 1, 2; John 1: 41, 49, and then
ask himself if these prophecies are substantial facts or mere fictions; and if
facts have they been fulfilled, and if not - when will they?
But when the elders, priests and high priests heard
the reception given
We will now come to the subject matter of our
study. Matt.
22: 1-14.
Page 143
THE MARRIAGE FEAST AND THE WEDDING GARMENT
“And Jesus answering,
spake to them again in parables, saying,
‘The Kingdom of the Heavens is likened to a Man - a King - Who made a
Marriage-Feast for His Son; and He sent forth
His servants to call them who had already been called to the Marriage-Feast, and they were not willing to come. Again He sent forth other servants saying, “Speak to those who have been called, ‘Behold, I have made ready my Dinner, my oxen and the fatlings
have been killed, and all things are ready, come ye to the M arriage-Feast.” But they, neglecting it, went away, one indeed to his own farm and another to his merchandise; and the rest having laid hold on His servants, maltreated and slew them. And the King was enraged, when He heard this, and having
sent forth His soldiers He destroyed those murderers and set their City on fire. Then said the King to
His servants, “The Marriage-Feast, indeed, is ready, but they which had been called were not worthy. Be going, therefore, into the crossways
of the roads; and as many soever as ye may find, call into the Marriage-Feast.” And those servants, having gone forth to the ways,
did gather all, as many as they found, both bad and good, and the
banqueting hall was filled with those reclining. And the King,
entering in to inspect the guests, saw there a
man who had neglected to put on a wedding-robe;
and He says to him, “Friend, how did you come in here not having on a wedding-robe?” And he was speechless. Then said the King to
the ministers, “Binding him feet and hands,
cast him forth into the outer darkness, there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth; for many are called but few are chosen.”,” Matt. 22: 1-14.
It is of prime importance to note right here
that the parable has a two-fold application: First, to the Jews at our Lord’s
first advent; and, second, to the Christian Church at His second advent.
It is a common remark among certain students of
the word that this or that Scripture is for the Jews, and to assume that
thereby the Christian need not pay any attention to its admonition, or
rebuke. This is a dangerous
business. Let there be no doubt in the
reader’s mind that owing to the fact of his having greater light the above
parable has a more searching application to the Christian than it had to the
Jew of our Lord’s Day.
EXPOSITION
The value or utility of exposition is found in
its application. The exposition of a
given portion of Scripture may exhibit scholarship of a high order, and a mind trained
in the subtleties of abstract thought; and yet, if the exegesis proceed on the
assumption that the author had in his mind an object and a purpose entirely
different, and even opposite to the real one, the exposition will be
practically useless. We have already had
an example of this in our study of the Rich Ruler. Our present study will afford us another
example of the same kind. And it will be
found that the vitiating presupposition [Page 144] is the same in both
cases; that is, that the application is
to the sinner while in reality it is to the children of God. That which was a fundamental weakness in the
typical Jew while reading his Bible, is equally apparent in the history of
biblical interpretation during the present Church Age; that is, the
disposition, the desire to pass over and get rid of all portions of God’s word
of truth and righteousness which speak of judgment on God’s [redeemed] people. It is
doubtful if there is a single writer of repute from the fourth century onwards
in whom this innate tendency is not more or less visible. I do not mean to say that it was
intentionally so in all cases. Habits of
thought may become cruel masters.
The substance of the parable seems to me to be as
follows: The King Who makes the Marriage-Feast is God the Father. The Son for Whom it is made is God the Son
even the Son of Man. The guests who are
called to the Marriage-Feast are primarily the Jews, and they alone among the
nations of the world.
The Banqueting Hall is the Messianic Kingdom
with the Christ as the Son of David reigning on David’s Throne 1 Chr. 29: 23; Luke 1: 31-33. The Joy of the Marriage Feast is the
inconceivable felicity of the Messianic Kingdom when such portions of Scripture
as Psalms 8, 16,
45, 72,
and 89 will
be literally realized. See also Rev. 21: 9 to 22: 14.
Two calls are clearly set forth in the parable:
First, when God through Moses and Aaron called
the people of
Second, when the Christ came to the Jews,
presenting Himself as their long promised Messiah, and for the purpose of
fulfilling the Davidic and Abrahamic Covenants in the actual establishment of
the Messianic Kingdom according to the teaching of the Fathers of Israel and
their Prophets. Amos
9: 11-15;
Acts 15: 13-18. This, of course, would involve the raising of
the faithful
dead up to that time. Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob would then come into the inheritance.
Gen. 15:
8.
The preaching of Christ and His Apostles was the
second call. This was not a call out of
Page 145
How absurd then to apply the parable to the
sinner the unsaved. It has nothing to do
with such. The Holy Spirit says, “He came unto His own (possessions
- idia),
and His own (people
- idioi)
received Him not.” The Messiah began His preaching with the
words, “Repent, for the Kingdom
of the Heaven is at hand.” This
too was the message of the Baptist. The
establishment of the Kingdom and thereby the accomplishment of the promises
made to Abraham and David was impossible except on the basis of repentance and
a mighty turning to God. But when
The
As we have already remarked, the first call was
given by Moses and Aaron; and it was an effectual call. The aim of the prophets in
Israel was to keep alive the Messianic Hope, but it was a difficult
task owing to the materialistic and polytheistic tendencies of the people. Listen to Isaiah:
“And in this mountain
(
The second call, if accepted, would have
accomplished all this for the Jews.
Alas! now blind the people were and hence the lament of the prophet:
“Hear, O heavens, and give ear,
O earth, for Jehovah
hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up
children, and they have rebelled against Me. The ox knoweth his
owner and the ass his master’s crib; but
Page 146
But the servants of the King who gave the second
call to the Marriage-Feast, as no longer now a thing of hope and prophecy, but
as at hand, were the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy along with a few others,
Yea, and even the Master Himself, for He took the place of a servant. Isa. 52: 13. What supreme delight, what infinite felicity
lay bound up in that call; and what centuries of unutterable sorrow the nation
of the Jews might have been spared had they accepted it! Who could foresee it all but He who uttered
the parable; but He did. Who shall ever
fathom the depth of pathos contained in the words:
“Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,
and ye would not. Behold your house is
left unto you desolate.”
Alas! how desolate the City, the Land, the
People, for these nineteen hundred years.
But the third call is just at hand, and it will not be given to the
dispersed of
“And His feet shall
stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which
is before Jerusalem on the east”, “and I will
pour upon the House of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit
of grace and of supplications; and they shall
look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in
bitterness for his first-born.” Zech.
14: 4; 12: 10.
Till then the vail will remain on God’s ancient
People, and till then the covering will remain on the eves of the Gentile
nations. 2 Cor. 3:
14; Isa. 25: 7. There is absolutely no deliverance for the
latter except through converted and restored
There is a marked difference in the recorded
treatment of the servants of the King.
It is not necessarily implied that all of those who refused the second
call did so with any conscious enmity in their hearts. Comparing what they had in possession with what
the Messiah offered, they preferred to have things remain as they were. We find the same truth in the Parable of the
Great Supper. Luke
14: 15-24:
“When one of them that
sat at meat with Him heard these things he said unto Him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the
Now it ought to be apparent on the very surface
that the Great Supper cannot be salvation as now enjoyed on earth even by the
most spiritual of God’s people. It is that conception of [a yet future] salvation which will be
realized when Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob and all the overcomers of all dispensations are raised from the
dead, and when Messiah’s [Millennial] Kingdom is established over the whole earth and Satan
and his demon spirits are bound in the Abyss.
This and nothing less was what the Rich Young Ruler had in his mind when
he asked the Master what he must do in order to qualify himself for the Great
Supper.
But while some of the called treated the
invitation with mere indifference and preferred the life (psuke) of the fallen Adam
to the life (zoe) of the incarnate Christ, it was not so in every case. Besides the farmers and the merchants there
were others whose souls were inspired by Satanic passion, and they laid hold on
the servants, maltreated them and finally slew them. They
were the leaders of the people and
especially the priests and high priests; the very ones who ought to have been the first to hail the advent of
David’s Greater Son. Hence the righteous indignation of Matt. 23. See also what immediately precedes and
follows our parable of the Marriage for the King’s Son. Compare Matt.
20: 1-16.
A few words from Alford on Matthew’s Gospel may
be helpful:
“The whole narrative proceeds more
upon a Jewish view of matters, and is concerned more to establish that point,
which to a Jewish convert would be most important, - that Jesus was the Messiah
prophesied in the Old Testament. Hence
the commencement of the genealogy from Abraham and David; hence the frequent
notice of this or that happening because it was foretold; hence the constant
opposition of our Lord’s spiritually ethical teaching to the carnal formalistic
ethics of the Scribes and Pharisees.”
Nothing could be clearer than that the main
purpose of Matthew was to establish the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be the
promised Messiah and therefore the LITERAL
King of the Jews and the Fulfiller of the Davidic and Abrahamic Covenants.
But since God had set the Jewish Nation aside
and the Christian Church had taken the place of testimony for God in the earth,
what end was to be served by calling the attention of Jewish converts to the
Messianic claims of the Christ? Why,
manifestly to show to the seed of Abraham that as a Nation they were not cast
off forever, but only for the present parenthetical Church Age, at the end of
which the Church would be removed and Israel (the whole twelve tribes) be
restored to the honourable place of testimony, and that in the abiding fullness
of Pentecostal power, and in which they, if faithful, would reign with the Christ,
the Messiah, on His Millennial Throne.
In other words, if the postponement of the Messianic Kingdom was
rendered necessary by the unbelief of the Jews as a corporate body, that fact,
though much to be regretted because of the suffering of the Nation while in a
state of judicial blindness [Page 148] and contempt among the
Gentile nations, in no way invalidated the specific contents of the two above
mentioned Covenants, but simply postponed their fulfilment and the consequent
blessing to the whole world. To Patriarchs and Prophets and to the Jews of our Lord’s Day, including
the Apostles, the Messiah was to be a literal, anointed King, reigning on or through, the
Throne of David. The spiritualized conception which began to come
into vogue in the second century,
and was almost universally prevalent in the fourth, never entered the mind of any honest Jew previous to the crucifixion
of Christ. The Old Testament Scriptures know absolutely
nothing of such a wicked departure from the truth, and the Covenants as revealed to the Fathers. It remained for the woman, the Church, to mix
the leaven of falsehood in the three measures of meal which God had given to
Why is it that up to Matt.
12 not a single parable appears, and after
that they are continually in evidence? Because up till that point the
establishment of the Messianic Kingdom in the earth was still regarded as a
possibility. But when the Jews charged
the Messiah with the accomplishment of His mighty works through demon power (12: 22-45), the Nation was temporarily cast off and the
Kingdom postponed. Therefore that which
was postponed is of necessity now absent, and also that which in its time must
be restored. In the meantime the Gentile
Nations continue their wicked course under the sovereign rule of Satan, the
Prince of the power of the Air. It is
not surprising that the said Nations should dislike this portentous truth; but
it is surely a preposterous anachronism that the Christian Church, while
professing to be Christ’s witness in the earth, should hate this sublime truth even more than the Gentile Nations. If one wishes to see an example of the
intensity of man’s dislike of real Kingdom Truth he must turn up the pages, not
of the expert in civil jurisprudence, but of the theologian. It is not necessary to give examples, at
least in the present connection.
We have already remarked that the parable has a
double application: First, to the Jews as a corporate body at the first Advent
of Christ; Second, to the Christian at the second Advent. And the Scriptures clearly foretell the
parallel in the history of the two Heaven appointed Witnesses for God in the
earth -
[Page 149]
Turn up almost any commentary that comes to hand
and the author will tell you that the Feast is now on, and that believers every
where are sitting at the King’s Table and partaking of the oxen and fatlings
which He in His goodness has provided.
But what are the facts? Was the
first century after Pentecost a time of feasting for the
“Of the Jews five times
received I forty stripes save one; thrice was I
beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a
night and a day I have been in the deep?”
Truly, there came a time in the History of the
Church when she began to feast. But it
was not at the table of King of kings, but of Pagan Rome, when “she become an organized society incorporated with the
political systems of the world”. But for this kind of adulterous
feasting she has paid a fearful price and will pay a still greater price when
she faces the issues of the Bema Judgment - not any longer as a corporate body
but in her individual units who have shared the profits and emoluments of that
adulterous union. Ezek. 16, Matt. 13 and Rev. 17 should be
studied side by side as type and antitype.
Compare also Rev. Chs. 2. and 3.
In the eschatological outlook of Matt. 24 and 25 we have some very interesting data when
considered in connection with the portentous signs of the times in
irrepressible evidence during the years 1914-1916 A.D.
At 24: 15 the Master comes to the actual time of the end
and only a little beyond 1916 (how far no one knows). Then 24: 21-31 records the Great Tribulation, the Second
Advent and the gathering of sanctified believers from all parts of the world
and their implied rapture to glory. In 24: 37-51 He returns to the times immediately prior to
the Great Tribulation, including 1914-1916 A.D.
It is to [a
time after] this latter period that
the THEN
of Matt. 25:
1 refers.
“THEN shall the kingdom of
heaven be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps and went forth to
meet the Bridegroom; and five of them were wise
and five were foolish - And at midnight there
was a cry made, Behold the Bridegroom cometh;
go ye out to meet Him. Then
all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us
of your oil; for our lamps are going out.
But the wise answered, saying,
Not so, lest there be
not enough for us and you; but go ye rather to them
that sell and buy for yourselves. And while they
went to buy the Bridegroom came, and they that
were READY went in with HIM to the Marriage (Feast); and the door was shut. Afterwards
came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, [Page 150] Lord, open unto us. But He answered and said, Verily
I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore (this is specially applicable to[day]), for ye know neither the day nor
the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh.”
Please note:
a.
The kingdom of heaven here is not the kingdom of heaven in Matt. 19: 23. The
former belongs to the present age, and the latter to the age to come. The context shows this. It is just as easy for the rich as for the
poor to enter the kingdom now.
b. All ten virgins were saved
people - they all had oil (type of the Holy Spirit). The difference was in measure.
c.
The foolish virgins are not to be identified with any of the three classes
enumerated in the Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son. There we have not only utter indifference,
but bitter antagonism. Not so the
foolish virgins. They were really
interested in the coming of the Bridegroom.
But the truth of the message had
not fully gripped their hearts. There is a somewhat close resemblance
between them and the man without the wedding garment which typifies holiness of
heart and life.
Heb. 12: 14; Gal. 5: 19-21.
If therefore the absence of holiness, as the
negative mark, and the presence of carnality as exhibited in the works of the flesh,
as the positive mark, of all Christians who are to be excluded from the
Marriage Feast for the King’s Son, what percentage of Christians are likely to
find access to the Feast, that is, to the Messianic Kingdom of the thousand
years? Whether we look at the Church
from the historical standpoint, or from that of personal observation, the
answer, if facts are to count in our estimate, must of necessity savour of
pessimism, so far as the condition of the Church is concerned. But the Master is careful to
tell us the number will be very small. Matt. 7: 13, 14; Luke 13: 24. Where can one go among the big
denominations of Christendom today to hear the invitation to the Great Supper, or to the Marriage Feast for the King’s
Son? Or to state the matter in other words, Where can a hungry, anxious
soul go to hear the Good News concerning the glory and blessedness of the Great
Messianic Kingdom of the Age to Come which is the immediate goal of prophecy
and hope in both Testaments?
The Jews under the O. T. believed in a literal
kingdom under Messiah, and they regarded it as future. But they did not think it necessary that they
should repent of sin and get right with God in order that it might come with
the Advent of Messiah. The result was
the rejection of the Nation and their present dispersion and sorrow.
The Church since the third century believes in a
kingdom, but it is not literal and it is not future. The Christ on the Throne of the Father is now supposed to be reigning over the earth
according to the requirements of both Testaments, thus confounding [Page 151] the Throne of God with that of David. 2 Sam. 7.
In the interpretation of our parable, therefore,
let us note and remember that the Marriage Feast for the King’s Son has nothing
to do with the Christian’s earthly life, except by way of preparation, and also
that it does not belong to the present dispensation, or age, but to the age to
come; and that no Christian will enter the Banqueting Hall, or share the joy and the glory, except as he has made preparation for it by a holy life. Heb.
3.
& 4.
and 12:
14.
The word “dinner”
in verse 4 of the parable is misleading.
The original is ariston, which means a
light meal, similar to our luncheon, only that it was the first meal of the
day. The Dinner (deipnon) came later, and
usually when the day’s work was done.
This fact throws light on the use of the plural “Marriage-Feasts.” Thayer defines gamos,
a wedding or marriage-festival, and adds: “Under the
figure of a marriage here is represented the intimate and everlasting union of
Christ, AT HIS RETURN FROM HEAVEN,
with His Church.” Referring to Rev, 19: 9, he says
it is “a symbol of the future blessings of the
Messiah’s Kingdom,” but overlooks the fact, which is the turning point of the whole matter, that the Messianic-Marriage-Festival is not
for all the saved, but for the true,
the faithful, the overcomers. The
Holy Spirit is careful to emphasize this fact in many different ways. Thus, “the Marriage
of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself
READY”. Rev. 19: 7. “And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen,
clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness
(righteous deeds) of the saints.”
Could it be affirmed of the Corinthians, Galatians, or Laodiceans, that
they generally were ready, and that, if brought before the judge at the Bema,
they would be found clothed in fine linen clean and white? And surely no one
can deny that their state spiritually was a very fair sample of the professing
Church since that time.
No, the King’s oxen and fatlings were not for
the morning lunch, but speak of the wonderful provision God has made for the
felicity of the faithful [and obedient] during the whole of the
Messianic Period. The Eastern marriage feast usually lasted for
at least one week, but this for the King’s Son will last for a thousand years,
when God’s provision for those who have loved Him and served Him in this and
previous ages will be found to surpass description, going infinitely beyond the
utmost reach of the most fertile imagination of man while still in the place of
preparation. 1 Cor. 2:
9.
THE FALLACY OF CALVINISM
This brings us to the discussion of the 14th. verse. Who are the called? and who are the chosen?
and what is their relation one to another?
The assumption of the Westminster Standards, and practically all
expositors is that the called are sinners who have rejected the message of the
free gift of Eternal Life; and that the chosen are those who have listened to
the call and have accepted the gift and that they only [Page 152] are saved.
Please note the following sections from Chap. III of the Confession
of Faith:
III. By the decree of God, for the
manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto
everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus
predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeable designed;
and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased
or diminished.
V.
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life,
God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and
immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath
chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory out of His mere free grace and love,
without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of
them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him
there unto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect
unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will,
foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being
fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in
Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted and
sanctified.
Neither are
any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted and saved,
but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind, God was
pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He
extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power
over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for
their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
For many years I have had a growing suspicion of
the ‘Confession of Faith’, and during the last two
years that suspicion has become a positive revulsion. Its faith is not that of the Son of God. It had been much more becomingly designated a
“Confession of Philosophical Determinism”, with
a veneer of religious pretension.
The absurdity of this thing does not lie so much
in the fact that a number of men two or three centuries back should formulate a
body of doctrine, so essentially anti-Christian, as that the Reformed Churches
for the intervening time should profess to study the Word of God and to live in
an age of progress, and yet continue to carry about their necks such a galling
yoke, and not know that they were the victims of a [Page 153] Mediaeval
delusion. The Reformed Churches received it from Calvin; and he got it from
Augustine, and Augustine got it in
art from heathen philosophy and in part from Roman Jurisprudence.
I give a quotation from “Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament”, by E. Hicks,
D.C.L. p. 149:
“Christianity travelled
from the East to the West, and though for the first two centuries it was still
under the influence of Greek thought and the Greek tongue, the characteristics
of the Roman spirit forbade that it should for a lengthened period be ruled by
the influence of
We will quote again from Arthur P. Stanley:
“This fundamental
contrast naturally widened into other cognate differences. The Western theology is essentially logical
in form, and based on law. The Eastern
is rhetorical in form and based on philosophy.
The Latin divine succeeded to the Roman advocate. The Oriental divine succeeded to the Grecian
sophist. Out of the logical and legal
elements in the West have grown up all that is most peculiar in the scholastic
theology of the Middle Ages, the Calvinistic theology of the Reformation. To one, or both of these causes of difference,
may be reduced many of the divergences which the theological student will trace
in regard to dogmatic statements, or to interpretations of Scripture, between
Tertullian and Origen, between Prosper and Cassian, between Augustine and
Chrysostom, between Thomas Aquinas and John Damascenus.” Eastern
Church, p. 111.
What a shame that neither East nor West has a
Theology based on the Bible.
In the first place the framers of the “Confession of Faith” make use of two phrases that are
not found in the Bible; and moreover, are thoroughly misleading. They are “effectual
calling” and “everlasting life”. In the
use of the former there is the false assumption that the called are not saved
unless they are effectually called;
and therefore the called are not saved.
In the
latter they assume that the prize of age-enduring
life has to do with the eternal state,
whereas it has to do with the Messianic Kingdom for the age to come. In connection with the sections quoted above
they cite about forty proof texts, and fully ninety percent of them are either
misapplied or have no bearing whatever.
The teaching of our parable, as we have already
stated, has a double application - to the Jew then, and to the Christian,
now. In it the Master speaks of the
unfavourable reception and even the open hostility to His message of love for
the professed people of God in that day; but at the same time He utters a most solemn prophecy as to a
like indifference and hostility in this Church Age to the same message
concerning the same but postponed Marriage Feast for the King’s Son.
Page 154
All through the present age, from the Apostles
downward, the proclaimers of this real Gospel of the Kingdom have, as a rule, been rejected, evilly treated and often slain. The
Master Himself, then Peter, James, John and Paul, all suffered
martyrdom for their testimony to [Messianic] Kingdom Truth. Preachers of the true doctrine of the Kingdom
have always been teachers of the separated life, of purity and holiness. We have
only to think of ‘The Friends of God’ in the twelfth century, of
the Waldenses, of Spener in
We must now come to the most critical part of our
subject, namely, an inductive study of the two principal words in the last
verse of our parable - ‘Many are CALLED but few are CHOSEN’.
We will state the case again that we may see
clearly the proposition before us:
The Westminster
Standards assume that the called are not saved; that only the chosen are
saved, and moreover, that the rest of the human race cannot be saved, but are “foreordained to everlasting death.” In opposition to this I affirm
that the called are all saved, but not necessarily sanctified subjectively; and that the chosen are both saved and sanctified, and will therefore have part in the first
resurrection, while the former will
be excluded. Rev. 20: 6, 5.
The Rich Young Ruler was called but not chosen,
but he almost attained to the second class.
I have no doubt the man found in the Banqueting Hall devoid of the
wedding-garment was called, but not chosen. This is required by the trend and purpose of
the parable. It is not denied, but
rather assumed that he was a Jew; that is, a member of the Nation to whom “pertaineth (even now) the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the
giving of the Law, and the service of God,
and the promises.”
The
wedding-garment presupposes sanctification. Compare
the case of the man with the one talent. Matt.
25: 24-30. See the
force of “His own servants.” The Man travelling into the far country is
Christ Himself. Surely He does not commit the gifts of the Holy Spirit to
unsaved sinners. The conclusion following
from this fact is that the Kingdom
Parables are not for sinners, but
for the saved. Grip this fact
firmly. It is evident, therefore, that
if we can establish the above distinction and relativity of the two words ‘called’ and ‘chosen’, the very foundations of Calvinism are
undermined and the whole structure must tumble to pieces as a cruel and
insufferable illusion, a child of
darkness and sin. Our task is a
simple one. The method of proof is
scriptural and the logical conclusion is irresistible.
Page 155
THE CALLED - KLETOS
The word translated called is kletos,
plural kletoi. It is the
participle of the verb KALEO (long
o). Some such noun as guests is
understood, in the absence of which the participle becomes a noun. Thus we have the verb kaleo, the participle kletos,
and the noun klesis, calling or vocation.
We will require to examine each of these with care.
“Even us whom He hath called,
not of the Jews only, but
also of the Gentiles.” Rom. 9: 24. Here the verb is evidently applied, not to
the unsaved, but to the saved. There is
no need to insert the word “effectually” here.
To do so is only to add an element of confusion and discord. So far as the first degree of salvation [i.e., initial and eternal] is concerned the idea of
effectuality is already latent in the verb as one of its constituent elements,
just as heat is implied in the idea of fire.
“But when it pleased God
who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called
me [‘by’ A.V. or ‘through’ R.V.] His grace.” Gal. 1: 15. Was
that an effectual call or was it not?
What is the use of adding superfluous words to Holy Writ except it be to
lend plausibility to an unscriptural theory?
“By faith Abraham,
when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for
an inheritance, obeyed.” Heb. 11: 8. This call was not a mere expression of desire
on Jehovah’s part; but a work of power which forever separated the Father of
the Faithful from the land of his nativity and made him the true servant of the
living God. These three citations ought
to be enough. Listen to Thayer:
“Everywhere in the N.
T. only those are spoken of as called by God who have listened to His voice
addressed to them in the Gospel, hence those who have enlisted in the service
of Christ.” Let that suffice for
the verb.
THE PARTICIPLE - KLETOS
“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle” Rom.
1: 1. “And we know that all
things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to His purpose.”
Rom. 8: 28.
“For we preach Christ
crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block,
and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 1
Cor. 1: 23.
So in all other places where the participle occurs. It is never once applied to the unsaved, and it is invariably effectual.
Page 156
THE NOUN - KLESIS
“The gifts and calling
of God are without repentance.” Rom.
11: 29. “Called
(aorist participle) with an holy calling
(noun)”. 2
Tim. 1: 9. “That our God would
count you worthy of this calling”. 2 Thess. 1: 11. Thus we
see that all three words - are used
exclusively in reference to [regenerate] believers. There
are passages where the participle, followed by a genitive of the person as
possessor, carries with it more than is
implied in justification [by faith alone] and the new birth, and makes kletos
virtually equivalent to ekletktos . As “Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ (kietoi
lesou Christou).”
Now if the verb, the participle, and the noun,
be all applied exclusively to believers, what becomes of the Mediaeval
theory of the ‘Confession of
Faith’ which affirms that all
the called are eternally lost, and
only the elect are saved? This is
Calvinism. How simple and conclusive is the exposure of the fallacy, and yet this hideous product of heathen
philosophy and Roman Law has, in the
name of Christianity, held millions
of God’s people in the galling fetters of a bondage almost as cruel as that of
Roman Catholicism, and perhaps quite
as offensive to the Great Head of the Church. And yet it is only a few years since Dr. B.
B. Warfield delighted the conservative element of the New York Presbytery with
a most eloquent eulogy of this anomalous survival of a semi-barbaric age. Read the quotation from Froude’s Essays at
the beginning of a previous chapter.
But we are not yet done with this little family
of words, each in itself a torch and all three a living flame of holy fire.
I have pointed out the fact that whether the
verb, the participle, or the noun be employed the implication is always present
that the call is effectual. This cannot
be denied.
Let us now note the fact that these three words
have a twofold use in the N.T. First,
when the sinner is called out of the old creation and into the new. This has been the prominent thought in the
passages already cited. This call, being in its nature effectual, issues in the
new birth and [the
Christian’s initial] justification. The man so called is saved in the first
degree. They are employed, second, when
the Holy Spirit would lead men, already saved in the first degree, on to maturity and thus prepare them for
entrance into the Messianic Kingdom, which fact is symbolized and
parabolized in the teaching of the Great Supper (Luke
14: 12-24);
and also in the Marriage-Feast for the King’s Son. This distinction is of the most vital
importance if we are to have sound exegesis and make logical deductions. Just a few examples:
Page 157
“The
Thus our first illustration is from the very
parable we are studying. The Jews were
looked upon and treated as a people in covenant with God. As already pointed out they had, as a Nation,
been called by Moses and Aaron and accepted by God at Sinai as His people. How plain is the fact that the parable could
have no possible application to the people of
“God makes every
possible effort, with tireless patience, to bring men to the Gospel.”
“These preparatory foretastes
of the great supper which the Church now enjoys.”
“Only when Christ was
crucified on
“Their abrupt refusal
at the eleventh hour, after all was ready to receive them, partook of the
nature both of breach of engagement and disloyalty.”
“None of the excuses
that men make are of any value. There is
not one they will dare to offer in the judgment day”.
“It is very strange
that any wish to be excused. Excused
from what? From God, from heaven, from
glory, from happiness, from immortality, from the noblest life possible to man”.
In every one of the above quotations, which are
truly representative of the best orthodox teaching of the Church for centuries,
the writers invariably apply the instruction of the Master to sinners, and
characterize their conduct in refusing the offer of salvation as inexcusable
folly. But as a matter of
fact, deduced by sound exegesis, the [unregenerate] sinner is not within
the whole horizon of the Saviour of men as He gives forth the momentous truth
of the parable. True,
indeed, the Jews were sinners, but their sin consisted essentially in
their rejection of the Messianic claims of the Son of
“God makes every
possible effort, with tireless patience, to bring BELIEVERS into the Messianic Kingdom, but THEY
WILL NOT COME.”
Page 158
Besides, it is not true that when Christ was
crucified on
“For the
An excellent illustration of this use of the
verb is found in Rom. 8: 30. There is no reference to [unregenerate] sinners here. It is
the second call. We find the participle
employed in this higher spiritual sense in Rom.
8: 28: “We know that all things work together for good to them that
love God, to them who are called according to His
purpose.” This call is to the
Marriage of the King’s Son, and it is effectual. Compare 1 Cor.
1: 24;
and Jude 1.
It is not true that all things work together for good to Christians who [disobey Christ and] love the world. Rom. 1: 18; 2: 1-9; Jas. 4: 4.
The use of the noun with reference to the coming
Messianic Kingdom may be found in the following passages:
“That ye may know what
is the hope of His calling
(kiesis).”
Eph. 1: 18.
“Walk worthy of your vocation
(kiesis).”
Eph. 4: 1, 4.
“For the prize of the high calling”.
Phil. 3: 14.)
We have the two calls in verse tree: “He sent forth His servants to call them who had
(at a certain time previous) been called, to the wedding.”
Why did the Revisers, both A.V. and R.V., translate the first verb by
call and in the second by bidden? In the
former the verb is in the infinitive present, and in the latter it is the
perfect participle, thus indicating that
the first call had preceded the second by some time. In this [Page 159] respect the parable is
based on the social customs of the Jews.
Kitto says, “It is still customary in the East
not only to give an invitation some time before hand but to send round servants
at the proper time to inform the invited guests that all things are ready”.
The whole Jewish Nation had been called through
Moses and Aaron; and at Sinai God, Jehovah, formally and openly took the Nation
to be His own in a peculiar sense, and from that day till the rejection of the
Christ they were so regarded. Yes, and
even now they are His, though for a time cast off. The time of their restoration is almost at
hand. Jer.
31: 1-40.
In the eighth verse of the parable we read
concerning the King: “Then saith He to His servants, the wedding is ready, but they which were called
were not worthy”. In the
first call out of
Page 160
When a sinner comes to Christ for salvation (in the
first degree, the new birth and justification) there is no more room for
personal worth than in the case of the typical Israelite when called out of his
bondage and ignorance as a slave of Pharaoh, the embodiment of the world
spirit. But as soon as the
first call comes there is, as with Israel at Sinai, a second call to “the obedience of faith”, a holy walk, a real death to the world, the flesh and the Devil; and all this in
order to prepare for a place in the coming Messianic Kingdom to be
established at the second advent of Christ.
It is here that the secondary use of the verb kaleo and its derivatives
comes into action. When once the reader gets a firm grip on this great fact it will seem
to him almost incredible that the Prince of the power of the air should have
blinded the eyes of God’s people,
and especially of its teachers and leaders, to a [yet to be literally fulfilled prophetic] truth of such vital and fundamental importance. Yet so far as my studies have gone I can find
no trace of it subsequent to the Apostolic Age.
But the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is full of it. Once the clue is really found you encounter
it everywhere. The psychical mind stands
in the way. 1 Cor. 2: 14;
It is also a fact well worth noting that secular,
philosophical, and even theological education, speaking academically, have no
tendency to work in the way of freedom from either the psychical or carnal
mind, but rather to deepen and intensify the bondage until the victim becomes
hopelessly insensible to the appeals and promptings of the Spirit of Truth and
Righteousness, and finally dies in a state of condemnation. The successful
seeker after truth must, while not despising educational institutions and
methods, find intellectual and spiritual emancipation in the School of Christ or not at all.
Luke 14: 25-37; Luke 9: 23; Psalm 23.
The above considerations are calculated to
prepare us for an examination of the essential significance of the second
definitive term in the last verse of our parable the word ‘chosen’. As a
matter of fact the whole force of the parable is summed up and crystallized in
this one verse. Every word contributes
its quota to the solemn and almost startling conclusion: The many and the few;
the for and the but; the called and the chosen.
Here again we have another family group of three
words: The verb - eklego; the participle - eklektos; and the noun - ekloge
(long e). These words are translated
into English in both the A.V. and R.V., by choose, chosen, elect, or election.
The ‘Confession of
Faith’ and ‘Reformed Theology’ generally
assume and even affirm that only the elect are saved and the called are all
lost. We have already demonstrated that
the called are all saved. What then is the
difference in the two words, for they cannot be synonymous. The adversative “but”
indicates not only difference but antithesis.
The solution is very simple. We
have only to follow the Inductive Method steadfastly and conscientially to
reach the truth. Very slight knowledge
of the [Page 161] original is requisite.
The called in its primary and most comprehensive
sense is the sum total of the saved. And
the chosen are a small company called (secondary sense) out of the sum total of
the saved, for special service and honour.
It is also evident on the very surface of the parable that the second
call, which issues in the election of the
few, is not the result of any arbitrary decision of the sovereignty of the
Divine Will irrespective of the freedom of the will of man, for the second call
was given to all who had the first call, but the majority “would not come”.
Let us proceed:
The verb (eklego) occurs in the N. T. only in
the passive and middle forms. We will
first hear what Thayer has to say. He
renders it, to pick out, to choose;
to pick or
choose out for one’s self; and
cites Luke 10: 42;
14: 7; “One out of many”, (of Jesus choosing His disciples). John 6: 70.
Then he adds:
“Especially is God said to choose
those whom He had judged fit to receive His favours and separated from the rest
of mankind to be peculiarly His own and to be attended continually by His
gracious oversight: thus of the Israelites, Acts 13: 17 (Deut. 14: 2; 4: 37)”.
Surely that is conclusive as to the real meaning
of the word. But it is one thing to
define a word and quite another to abide by that meaning in the construction of
thought; and therefore we must scrutinize the following part of the quotation
with suspicion. He adds:
“Of Christians, as
those whom He has set apart from the irreligious multitude as dear unto
Himself, and whom He has rendered, through faith in Christ, citizens in the
Messianic Kingdom. Mark 13: 20.”
This sentence needs interpreting, and in doing
so we find that he has utterly abandoned his definition and given a
comprehension to the verb which, while upholding tradition, nullifies the
Scriptures of truth. The definition
limits the act of choosing to a few
Christians out of many Christians. But
in exposition he makes the few Christians to include all Christians. Here is the little leaven which “leavens the whole lump”. According to Scripture usage
the verb eklego in its application to believers indicates the choice of a few out of the many, or all, of the same class Christians. This verb always presupposes the one which
precedes it in the verse we are dealing with (kaleo and its
derivatives). Matt.
22: 14.
Thayer’s error may be illustrated thus: Some men
are coloured; Americans are men; therefore Americans are coloured.
Page 162
We will now turn to the Scriptures and note how
the Holy Spirit employs the verb:
“And when it was day He
called unto Him His disciples; and of them He chose
twelve.” Luke 6: 13.
“Mary hath chosen that
good part”. Luke 10: 42.
“They chose
out the chief rooms”. Luke 14: 7.
“They chose Stephen, a man full of the
Holy Ghost.” Acts 6: 5.
“It seemed good unto us
to send chosen men unto you.”
Acts 15: 25.
Thus the verb is invariably used where there is the choice of a few out of many of the
same class.
THE PARTICIPLE - EKLEKTOS
In his definition and application of the
participle, Thayer is even more confused than in his treatment of the
verb. He proceeds thus: “picked out, chosen;
chosen
of
God to obtain salvation through Christ.” But here we have a right to ask, What salvation? To this question he has no answer. Is it salvation in the first, or second
degree? Is it the salvation implied in kaleo
or in eklekto? He carelessly
assumes it to be the former when in reality it is the latter. Then he adds, “hence
Christians are called the chosen or elect of God”. Again we enquire, What Christians? All, or some?
He takes it for granted, contrary to the specific statement of the
Master, that it is the former while it is clearly the latter. I quote again:
“Eklektoi, those who have become true partakers of the Christian
salvation are contrasted with kietoi, those who have been invited
but who have not shown themselves fitted to obtain it.”
But what is the true salvation? To this he has no answer, nor have the
expositors. One may consult any lexicon
he can lay his hands on and there is nothing but confusion and exegetical
inconsistency wherever you turn. And the
confusion arises from the fact that they do not see one of the most transparent
truths in the Bible; namely, the
dualistic character of salvation as involved in the two verbs kaleo
and eklego. In his definition of kaleo he says, “only those are spoken of as called by God who have listened
to His voice addressed to them in the Gospel”, but in the quotation
given above he says, “the kletoi are those who have
been invited to become partakers of the Christian salvation but who have not
shown themselves fitted to obtain it.”
What could be more utterly foreign to the inductive method, and to good
common sense than that kind of reasoning?
And there is absolutely no way out of the tangle apart from the line of
interpretation presented in the pages of this book. But to do this is to consign [anti and] post-millennialism and Calvinism to the Abyss whence [Page 163] they came. Better now than later.
We will now quote a few passages which exhibit
the Scriptural use of the participle:
“Many are
(effectually) called, but
few are chosen”. Matt. 22: 14.
“And they that are with
Him are called (in secondary sense), and chosen
and faithful”. - Rev. 17: 14.
“To whom coming as unto
a living stone - chosen of God and precious.” 1
Pet. 2: 4.
Here again we see that it is a few out of many
of the same class.
But it is when we examine the passages where the
participle (eklektos) is rendered into English by the term “elect” that the fundamental fallacy of Calvinism comes
clearly into view. Let the reader keep
in mind the basic assumption of Calvinism, that only the elect are saved, and
we will proceed with our argument.
“And except those days
should be shortened, there should no flesh be
saved; but for the elect’s sake those days
shall be shortened”. Matt. 24: 22.
“And shall deceive the
very elect”.
Matt. 24:
24.
“And they (the
angels) shall gather together His elect from the four winds
of heaven”. Matt. 24: 31.
“Shall not God avenge
His own elect?” Luke 18: 7.
“Who shall lay anything
to the charge of God’s elect?” Rom. 8: 33.
“All things are for the elect’s
sakes”. 2 Tim. 2: 10.
It is surely unnecessary to cite any more
passages. The universal assumption of
the lexicons, expositors, and theologians, is that the above Scriptures apply
to all Christians. But the solemn truth of
the matter is that they are predicable of only a very few
Christians. The days of the great
tribulation will not be shortened for the sake of all Christians then living on
the earth; but for the sake of the few, those who have loved the
Saviour above all else and have been true to Him in
their life and [prophetic] testimony. They are the Christians who have faith in God
when the great mass of believers are drifting with the world, and are the
victims of its ambition, its lust, and its hopeless delusion. And no sane man can deny that while the
relation of the Church to the world, as presented in the Scriptures, is one of
contrast and even antagonism, the line of demarcation today is practically
obliterated and therefore the professing Church must share with the world the
now impending wrath. The appeal [Page 164] of the Master is now to the individual only. Rev. 3: 21.
Indeed, the professing Church will be one of the agencies that will by
its sins [and
unbelief] call down the wrath of God upon the world, of
which it has become a part. Compare Amos 3: 2 and 1 Pet. 4: 17, 18.
THE NOUN - EKLOGE
Thayer defines it thus: election, choice, the
act of picking out, choosing.
We will note just a few examples to prove the unity
of thought and purpose running through this little family of words:
“He is a chosen
vessel (lit. a vessel of election) unto Me”. Acts 9:15.
“The purpose of God
according to election”. Rom. 9: 11.
“According to the election
of grace”. Rom. 11: 5.
“The election
hath obtained it”. Rom. 11: 7.
“As touching the election”.
Rom. 11: 28.
“Knowing, brethren beloved, your election
of God”. 1 Thess. 1: 4.
“Wherefore the rather,
brethren, give diligence
to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things ye shall never fall”. 2 Pet. 1: 10.
The one essential point to be carefully observed
in all three words (the verb, participle, and noun) is that they speak of a few
Christians selected for a purpose out of the great mass of Christians, and
that, too, on the ground of personal fidelity to truth and righteousness and
God. In other words, the unholy, I might
almost say blasphemous, thought, or dogma, of the sovereign election of a few
out of the great mass of sinners to eternal life, and that all the rest are
cast off and delivered to be eternally damned, is utterly foreign to the
Scriptures, and an inexcusable slander on the character of God. The open infidelity of all the Ingersolls,
Voltaires and Paines the world has hitherto produced have not done half the
damage to Christianity that has been done by this infidel dogma which lies at
the very basis of Calvinism. In His Word
Studies Dr. Vincent makes the following comment on 1
Thess. 1: 4:
“This, and the kindred words, eklegein, to choose, and eklektos,
chosen or
elect, are used of God’s
selection of men or agencies for special
missions or attainments; but neither here nor elsewhere in the N. T. is there any warrant for the revolting doctrine
that God has predestined a definite number of mankind to eternal life, and the
rest to eternal destruction.”
To this I say, Amen. But in the next two sentences of the same
paragraph the good Doctor falls into error and virtually contradicts, in part,
the truth of the above quotation.
Page 165
He says:
“The sense of this
passage seems to be defined by the succeeding context. The Thessalonians had been chosen to be
members of the Christian Church, and their conduct had justified the choice”.
But we have already proven that all the called
are saved and therefore are members of the Christian Church. It is the same old error, hoary with age, the failure to see the dualism of salvation,
first from the guilt of sin and second from its power and the bearing of these
on human destiny. The truth of the
matter is that the Thessalonians, because of their fidelity to the saving truths of the word, and especially the truth of the Lord’s
pre-millennial coming to establish the Messianic Kingdom, had proven themselves worthy of a place in
the first resurrection and in the consequent glory of that Kingdom, to which, on the ground of their fidelity, God had elected them. But the Corinthians as a body had given themselves up to carnality, and the Galatians had fallen into legalism,
and so they are not only not among the
elect but are exposed to coming judgment. 1 Cor. 3: 1-15; and
Gal.
5:
19-21; 1 Cor.
6: 5-10. It is the privilege of every man who has had the first call out of the world
to know that he is [eternally] saved, regenerated, justified. Being
assured of this it is his further privilege to listen to and accept the second
call to the Marriage of the King’s Son and by faith, by cleansing through the word and growth in grace, to get himself ready for the glorious
appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. But
such preparation is impossible except by the knowledge of dispensational and
prophetic truth. The second call was silenced, so far as corporate testimony was
concerned, about the end of the
third century. Since then the professing Church has been its most deadly enemy. But
nearly one hundred years ago the Holy Spirit began to revive that testimony
through the instrumentality of certain individual men, and today it is believed by tens of thousands. But it is useless to expect that the Church, in its corporate capacity, will
ever again place the seal of its
approval on this glorious truth so dear to the hearts of Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles; yea, and above all, to the heart
of the Christ of God.
In the meantime let every lover of truth and
righteousness give attention to the words of Peter:
“We have also a more
sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the Day Star arise in your hearts”.
2 Pet. 1:
19.
“He which testifieth
these things saith, Surely I come suddenly. Amen. Even so, Come Lord Jesus.”
* *
*
Page 166
APPENDIX
There is really no problem before the world
today, whether it pertain to matters of a constructive or destructive
character, which does not find its solution, at the last analysis, in its
relation of affinity or antagonism to the Christ of God, the Man of Nazareth
and the Son of Mary - the God-man. The
great world-war now being waged has its roots in religion, or rather in
irreligion, and back of that in the fundamentally determining principles of
Theology. To listen to some of the
speeches and watch the actions of the preachers and theologians of today,
especially in the nations more immediately involved in the struggle, one might
think that the only principles to be considered were those which fall within
the political, economic and commercial horizon.
But as a matter of fact all economic and commercial considerations are
conditioned by the principles of ethics, and at a lower depth these are in turn
determined by the principles of theology.
And the central fact in theology is the Person
of Jesus Christ and His relation to God on the one hand, and to man and the
world on the other. The antagonistic
attitude of the nations to the Christ explains everything; and for this
attitude the religious and theological leaders of the people are most
responsible. This being so it follows of
necessity that before the world moves,
or is moved, out of the present chaos and into a place of rest and peace,
the conflict must take on a religious character, and there must come a time of persecution for the true people of God which will
work the same havoc in the Church which is now being wrought in the State. Neither the Church nor the State have been
willing for eighteen hundred years to give the Christ His rightful place. And more than that they never will until they
do so under the compulsion of theocratic necessity. Psalms 2
and 110.
In reference to the claims of the Son of Man I wish to make a somewhat
lengthy quotation from “The Place of Christ
in Modern Theology,” by Dr.
A. M. Fairbairn. He is speaking of
the work done by historical criticism to recover for the Church the true
conception of the Christ:
“Now, the historical
spirit could not do its now destructive and now constructive work and ignore
the Supreme Person of history. He has
left the mark of His hand on every generation of civilized men that has lived
since He lived, and it would not be science to find Him everywhere and never to
ask what He was and what He did. Persons are the most potent factors of
progress and change in history, and the greatest Person known to it is the One
who has been the most powerful factor of ordered progress. Who this is does not lie open to dispute.
Jesus Christ is a name that represents the most wonderful story and the
profoundest problem on the field of history - the one because the other. There is no romance so marvellous as the most
prosaic version of His history. The Son
of a despised and hated people, meanly born, humbly bred, without letters,
without opportunity, un-befriended, never save for one brief and fatal moment
the idol of the crowd, opposed by the rich, resisted by the religious and the
learned, persecuted unto death by the priests, destined to a life as short as
it was obscure, issuing from His obscurity only to meet a death of unpitied
infamy, He yet, by means of His very sufferings and His cross, enters upon a
throne such as no [Page 167] monarch ever filled and a dominion such as no Caesar ever exercised. He leads captive the civilized peoples; they
accept His words as law, though they confess it a law higher than human nature
likes to obey; they build Him churches, they worship Him, they praise Him in
songs, interpret Him in philosophies and theologies; they deeply love, they
madly hate, for His sake. It was a new
thing in the history of the world; for though this humble life was written and
stood vivid before the eye and imagination of men, nay, because it veritably
did so stand, they honoured, loved, served Him as no ancient deity had been
honoured, loved, or served. We may say,
indeed, He was the first being who had realized for man the idea of the Divine;
He proved His Godhead by making God become a credibly, conceived, believed,
real Being to man. - The wonderful thing in the story is, that what in the
abstract would have seemed impossible romance is in reality the most sober
fact; while out of the story, when viewed in relation to the course of human
development, rises for philosophy the problem, Can He, so mean in life, so
illustrious in history, stand where He does by chance? Can He, who of all persons is the most
necessary to the orderly and progressive course of history, be but the
fortuitous result of a chapter of accidents?” pp. 6, 7, 8.
It will be conceded by the majority of those who
take an interest in theological problems that within the bounds of the
No sensible Bible student can deny that the
Christ of the New Testament is the Messiah of the Old Testament. The A.V. and
R.V. have to a great extent concealed this fact by their wicked suppression of the Greek article, which
in the Gospels generally precedes the word “Christ.” Peter said to the Master, “Thou art the Christ.” Here the
Revisers are good enough to insert the article, but why not do the same every place it occurs? The
Prophets of
What I want to affirm is that the teachers and
pupils of the so-called Historical School have done absolutely nothing to
recover this conception of the Christ; but on the contrary have done all in their power to keep it out of their theology, out of
their Christology and Soteriology.
It is both amusing and pathetic to witness the perplexity [Page 168] of one of Scotland’s most dignified and celebrated
theologians, and belonging to the same school as Dr. Fairbairn, as he puzzles
his brain in a fruitless effort to discover the personality of the King
referred to in the Second Psalm, whom Jehovah is soon to set upon
“His Holy Hill
of Zion.” There are two
things which are supremely characteristic of the men of this school, namely,
the extraordinary fund of knowledge which they possess concerning the
technicalities, conventionalities and absurdities of the Higher Criticism; and
at the same time their profound ignorance of some of the elementary truths of
Christianity. This recalls the
pertinency for the present day of some touching and trenchant words spoken by
the Master nineteen hundred years ago:
“I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and
Earth, that thou hast hid these things from the
wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto
babes; even so,
Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
Luke 10: 21.
It may be stated as an inflexible postulate of
sound exegesis,
that any interpretation of the Bible which denies to Israel the comfort and
inspiration of its Messianic Hope;
and thereby denies to Jesus Christ as the Son of David and the Son of Abraham
His right and place and glory as the primal heir of the Davidic and Abrahamic
Covenants; and thus shuts Him out
from that which was dearest to His heart as a Man, and for which He became incarnate; namely, that He might regain
as Federal Head of the New Creation,
all and more than was lost by the first man in intellectual dignity, moral worth and terrestrial sovereignty, is wholly
alien to the truth of revelation,
antagonistic to the Holy Spirit and subversive of the Divine Plan of the Ages,
and at the same time extensively
contributory to the out-working of the mystery of iniquity; and is therefore to be set aside as
utterly destitute of Divine sanction and to be shunned by every true child of
God. In short, [today’s popular anti-millennialism and] post-millennialism, the so-called historical method and the
higher criticism, are simply so many
ways of expressing the same thought and tendency and purpose - the universal
conspiracy to keep the Christ of God from the sovereignty of this world. Men seldom know the real nature of the
thoughts and theories they cherish in opposition to the will of God and the
claims of His Christ; but the prince of this world who inspired them does. Man’s ignorance of the real nature of
dynamite does not in the least affect its destructive power. So with Antichristianism in all its phases.
The number of theologians in our modern
educational institutions who can see the real truth concerning The Christ of
the N.T. and the Messiah in the O.T., can be counted on the fingers, while it
is clearly apprehended by thousands and tens of thousands of people in the
humbler walks of life.
From a literary and artistic standpoint the
above quotation from Dr. Fairbairn is beautiful and full of tender pathos; but
from a logical and theological and historical point of view it is characterized
by a large amount of subtle error. For
example, he dwells much and eloquently on the idea of “development.” But as a matter of fact [Page 169] the only development this age knows, or can know, is that
which in moral character modern nations have in common with ancient
“He (Christ) yet, by means of His very sufferings and His cross entered
upon a throne such as no monarch ever filled, and a dominion such as no Cesar
ever exercised.”
That is nothing more or less than pure
sentimentality. The fact is that this
very dominion is exercised by the greatest and most relentless enemy of the
Christ. Either this or the Bible is not
true, and the present World-War is simply a fantastic illusion the imagination
of soldiers, politicians and diplomatists. 1 John 5:
19.
In further proof of what I have said about the
inability of modern theologians to recover the historical Christ, I wish to
quote from another of the foremost leaders of religious opinion in
“The narrative and the discourses alike are thoroughly
saturated with the Messianic ideas of the time.
The Christ as expected by the Jews, is the one central figure round
which all the facts are grouped, the one main topic on which all the
conversations hinge. This is the more
remarkable, because the leading conception in the writer’s own mind is not the
Messiah, but the Word, the Logos, not the deliverance of
And I cannot but think that this distinct
separation is a remarkable testimony to the credibility of the writer, who,
however strongly impressed with his mission as the teacher of a great
theological conception, nevertheless keeps it free from his narrative of facts,
though obviously there would be a very strong temptation to introduce it, a
temptation which to the mere forger would be irresistible. [Page 170] The Messianic idea, for instance, is turned about on all sides, and
presented in every aspect. On this point
we learn very much more of contemporary Jewish opinion from the Fourth Gospel
than from the other three. At the
commencement and at the close of the narrative - in the preaching of the
Baptist and the incidents of the Passion - it is equally prominent. In Galilee (1:
41, 46, 49; 6: 15, 28, 30 sq.), in
I repeat that nothing could be more delightful
than that. Just as it stands there is
evidence of penetrating insight, subtle and exhaustive, analysis, and a mental
grasp which, so far as the letter is concerned, leaves nothing to be
desired. As a word picture it is simply
exquisite. Now watch the famous
Churchman as he steps back from his canvas and pelts the beautiful picture with
the mud of traditionalism, rationalism, and postmillennialism.
“The topic of our
Lord’s discourse with the Jews is not the Logos, for which his auditors would
feel neither predilection nor interest, but the Messianic expectation, in which
they were thoroughly absorbed. It was
shown that the Messianic conceptions are not the ideas as corrected by the
facts, but the ideas in their original form, not yet spiritualized, but coarse
and materialistic still, reflecting the sentiments, not of the second century,
but of the early years of the first; in a word, Jewish, not Christian.”
page 145. Alas! how are the mighty fallen!
According to this we are not to interpret the former quotation in the
light of its plain grammatical sense. On
the contrary we are to look at it through the bespattered lenses of second
century philosophical theology. In other
words, John and Peter and James who shared the common Messianic expectations of
the Jews generally, made a great mistake when they dreamed of a literal
fulfilment of the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and cherished “politico-theocratic hopes”; and that even the great
apostle of the Gentiles who about the year A.D. 60, when standing before King
Agrippa and the Jewish Hierarchy declared, “And now I
stand and am judged for the (literal) hope of
the promise made of God unto our fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob); unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come (in the Messianic Millennial Kingdom): for which hope’s sake King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews,” was also the insensible
victim of a cruel delusion. Poor Paul
and Peter and James and John, how they are to be pitied for their stupidity
when looked at in the light of modern rationalism and also in the light of the
apostatizing Church of the second century [and today].
Page 171
Note specially the
following words in the last quotation:
“It was shown that the
Messianic conceptions are not the ideas AS
CORRECTED BY THE FACTS, but the ideas in their original form, NOT YET SPIRITUALIZED, but coarse and
materialistic still, reflecting the sentiments not of the second century, but
of the early years of the first; in a word, Jewish, not Christian.”
Is not that the very essence of post-millennial
rationalism. What a suicidal and
revolutionary inversion of the inflexible order of God’s ordaining when we are
invited to look, ethically and theologically, at the utterances of inspired men
in the first century and interpret them in the light of the truth as known or
not known in the second century, when as Dean Stanley says, that the Church had
become, or was becoming, a part of the political systems of the world. This is the curse of theology-reading and
studying the Bible in the light of historical theology as exhibited in the
successive centuries of “this wicked and adulterous
generation.” Think of the
absurdity of it - “The ideas as corrected by the facts.” The “facts” he
refers to here are not facts at all but the absurd fictions of such men as
Philo, Clement of Alexandria. and Origen.
The plain fact of the matter is that the Lord
Jesus Christ in all His teaching up to a certain point encouraged the Jews in
what the orthodox theologians designate with contempt as “coarse and materialistic” hopes, for in no other way
can the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants ever be realized. God Almighty gave the promise of
the Land and the Kingdom to Abraham and David in the most literal sense and in
the face of the anticipated unbelief of this Church Age, and confirmed it with an oath. Gen. 22: 11-19; 15: 5-7; Heb.
6: 11-20; 11: 13, 39, 40.
It was only when the Jewish Hierarchy attributed
the miracles of Jesus to the Devil, and thus rejected the Christ as their
Messiah and true King, that the offer of the literal Kingdom was withdrawn, and
for the time being postponed. But that very Kingdom shall yet be
established in awful majesty and irresistible power. Acts 15: 14-18, and Amos 9:
11-15. We must not confound postponement with
abolition.
Which is the more productive of evil? To give out falsehood which is
openly antagonistic to the truth of the Bible; or, under the profession of
loyalty to truth as revealed in the Word, to fully
accept the great doctrines of the Bible and then so interpret and construe them
as to pervert their meaning and falsify their purpose? What
will be, in the Day of judgment, the penalty pronounced on those who are
responsible for the fabrication and perpetuation of this deadly spiritualizing
process of post-millennialism [and anti-millennialism] whereby the
traditions of men are substituted for the living truths of God’s Word? Surely this is holding down the truth in
unrighteousness,
Rom.
1: 18.
Page 172
The following are some
of the grounds on which [regenerate] believers will be
excluded from the Messianic Kingdom during the Age to Come:
An
unforgiving spirit.
Matt. 18:
35.
Clinging
to the world and its principles. Luke 18: 18-30.
Inhumanity. Luke 16: 19-31.
Not going
on to perfection.
Heb. 8: 11-18.
The works
of the flesh.
Gal. 5: 19-21.
Putting
stumbling blocks in the way of God’s little ones. Mark 9: 38.
Professing
the truth and not practicing it. John 13: 17.
Cherishing
a spirit of discord and division in the Church. Gal. 5: 19-21.
Pride. Mark 10: 15, 24, 31.
Carnality. 1 Cor. 3: 1-15.
Not
feeding the flock.
Matt. 24:
45-51.
Taking
away the key of knowledge -
substituting
man’s theories for God’s truth. Luke 11: 52.
Taking the
sword. Rev. 13: 10.
Yielding
to the natural love for self-preservation. John 12:
24, 25.
Lack of
spiritual fruit in the life. John 15: 6.
Being
workers of iniquity - profiting by the evil principles of the world in
commerce, politics, or in any way.
Luke 3: 13-27.
Lack of
fidelity in little things. Luke 16: 10.
Defrauding
the labourer of his proper wages. James 5: 1-5.
Monopoly
of natural opportunities. Isa. 5: 8, 9.
Murmuring
- the sin of
Lack of
watchfulness.
Luke 21: 2,
36; Ezek.
33. Failure to fight
the good
fight of faith.
1 Tim. 6:
12; Rev. 3: 14-20.
Turning
back. Luke 14: 25-33.
Lack of
fidelity in teachers and preachers. Ezek. 33; Matt. 24: 45-51.
Impurity. 1 Thess. 4: 6, 7; 2 Cor. 12: 19-21; Heb. 12: 14.
“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.”
Rev. 2: 7.
________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
