[Page 3]

THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM

 

 

The Message of its Five Chief Preachers:

A re-examination of Dispensational Teachings

 

 

 

G. H. LANG*

 

 

-------

 

 

[* “He will give also the patience and strength to meet the opposition that may come.

It is forbearance when opposed that commends the truth professed- G. H. LANG.]

 

 

 

IN theology, as in any other science, we should avoid or escape from many serious errors were we more carefully to collate and to compare all the relevant facts before forming theories.

 

 

In these papers we wish to examine the statements of Holy Scripture regarding the subject matter of the preaching of John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus Christ, and His foremost messengers - the apostles, Peter, Paul, and John. Positively we may thus discern much illuminating truth, and incidentally we may detect some confusing errors.

 

 

I. JOHN THE IMMERSER

 

 

(1) The Kingdom. It must have been a mighty message given in mighty energy which could draw from their duties and pleasures into the deserts the vast masses and all classes of a whole country. Such it indeed was, its burden being this stupendous announcement: “Repent! for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near(Matt. 3. 2; etc.).

 

 

Some five centuries earlier, just when world dominion had passed from Israel’s kings to Gentile sovereigns, the prophet Daniel had outlined to the first Gentile emperor the divinely foreseen course of world history, and had declared that in the days of certain kings, to be ten in number, “the God of the heavens shall set up a kingdom ... which shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2. 44). This was the culminating event to which all prophecy pointed; it became the ardent hope of true believers (Luke 1. 67-79; 2. 38; 23. 51); and naturally, the countryside was thrilled when one in the spirit and power of the great Elijah cried, “The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near - for the use of this expression would recall to the hearers the well known phrase in Daniel. Its retention in the written record in the gospel narrative serves similarly to refer the reader to Daniel, and so it forms an illuminating verbal connection between the beginning of the New Testament and the Old Testament.

 

[Page 4]

But we may not assume that the masses of John’s hearers understood his message correctly. They were as liable as we, though perhaps with more excuse, to read into it what they wished to hear, and to gather from his words what they did not say. It is for us to notice exactly what he did say and also what he did not say.

 

 

John did not announce that the time had arrived when the Stone cut out from the mountain without hands should break in pieces all world-powers, and establish by force a new universal and imperishable empire. Daniel foretold this, and this will most assuredly come to pass. But John did not declare this to be imminent or then possible. He could not have done so without exposing himself to the immediate and fatal retort that the ten kings were not present in whose days those events were to happen. Any such assertion would have destroyed his character as a prophet. World conditions in his time did not correspond to those required by [divine] prophecy.

 

 

What he did announce was that the kingdom of the heavens had “drawn near Here is to be observed the vital need that translation should be as strictly accurate as language can possibly admit. The rendering “the kingdom ... is at hand” naturally raises the idea of it being near in point of time, but this is not contained of necessity in the word, and should not be introduced unless that be of necessity the sense, which here it is not. For other meanings being possible, this one is not the necessary meaning.

 

 

Two kingdoms may be said to have drawn near to each other when the sovereign of one visits the territory of another, for a kingdom is concentrated and represented in its king.

 

 

Again, a small state may cut itself out of an empire by rebelling and setting up its separate government. The empire may be said to have drawn near to such a state if the emperor should venture thereinto with an appeal for submission and an offer of pardon. And should any rebels accept such gracious overture, and return to their true allegiance, they would thus, morally and legally, have received the empire and have entered into it, though perchance continuing [for a time] to reside on rebel territory.

 

 

The statement of John demands no more fulfilment than this, and this strictly and fully corresponds to the historic facts. Through John, His ambassador and forerunner, and then in person, Jesus, the Sovereign of the kingdom of the heavens, had [Page 5] drawn near to this rebel world with a call to repentance and an offer of pardon. Such as submitted to the call received the King (John 1. 12) and received the kingdom (Mark 10. 15), and thus to their vast advantage found that the kingdom had indeed drawn near. These would then await the day, near or distant, when the forces of the empire should suppress the rebellion, to the destruction of persistent rebels, and by power reincorporate the state into the empire. The waiting time in the midst of rebels from whom they had seceded would often be difficult and even dangerous, but the hope of the triumph of the empire would animate their hearts and guide their actions. But already, without the coming of that time, they would know that the empire had drawn near to them, that they had received it and were now [the King’s ambassadors] in it, being [repentant, faithful, and obedient] subjects of its sovereign.

 

 

Nothing further than as above is required to fulfil John’s announcement; therefore nothing further should be read into it. It has been taught dogmatically that John offered to Israel the immediate establishment of the visible kingdom in glory; that because Israel as a nation rejected the offer it was withdrawn; that thereupon another offer was substituted therefor: but these ideas do not arise from anything which John said or anybody else ever said, as will be apparent when we advance to what later preachers taught.

 

 

(2) Repentance. From the nature of John’s message it followed that his first call was for repentance: “Repent ye, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” Repentance, as the Greek word shows, means a change of mind. This may or may not be accompanied by profound inward disturbance, by anguish of heart, emotional display. Its essence is that one accepts and acts upon a new view of matters.

 

 

Change your mind as to God and His divine rights and demands; as to your false, rebellious, self-opinionated attitude towards Him; as to the sin of independence of and animosity against Him. Adopt His view of the situation in place of your own; yield your own demands and consent to His terms; surrender your arms, cast yourself on His mercy; cease to do evil, learn to do well. Such was John’s [and our Lord’s]* imperious, inflexible condition as preparation for [an entrance into] that kingdom in which no sin is tolerated, in which unquestioning, undeviating obedience to the will of God is the law of life, the secret of bliss.

 

[* See Matt. 5: 3-10, 20, R.V. Cf. 7: 21-24, R.V.]

 

 

Such repentance is an inevitable preliminary to entering the [Page 6] kingdom of God in any sense, present or future, for rebellion against a sovereign of necessity excludes from his - [Millennial (Rev. 20: 4-6; 11: 15; cf. 2 Pet. 3: 8, 9, R.V.)] - Kingdom.

 

 

(3) Baptism. It is further emphasized that John preached “the baptism of repentance” (Mark 1. 4). The term “to baptize” means to dip, to immerse. The plunging of the person beneath the water was a symbolic burial, as of one who had died, with a view to his resurrection into a new life. In this sense the act was already well known to Jews and to heathen. John called repenting sinners to acknowledge by this step that their former life was so wrong as to merit death, that they held themselves as in heart‑intention dead to the former life, and that they desired henceforth to live in that new moral world of which John was the herald, the kingdom of the heavens. After death - never before - comes burial. None but the dead should be buried: all the dead should be. After burial comes resurrection, a walking in newness of life in a new world.

 

 

(4) Faith. As a faithful herald John directed the hearts of his hearers away from himself toward his Sovereign. Paul summarizes John’s ministry thus: “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus” (Acts 19. 4). His message was, that entrance into the kingdom was by faith in Christ.

 

 

But never a hint did John give that if the people would receive Jesus as Messiah,* the visible kingdom ** could forthwith be set up. In truth his message was exactly the contrary: “he seeth Jesus coming to him, and saith, Behold! the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world And this he repeated, saying on the morrow, “Behold! the Lamb of God” (John 1. 29, 36). The daily ritual of fifteen hundred years, the substitutionary death of millions of lambs, had taught the people that the lamb must die, its blood must be shed, ere any sinner could escape death and enter into life under the favour of the Holy One.

 

[* NOTE: The word ‘messiah’ is the title given to a world-ruler. Saul, the first king of Israel, was anointed by Samuel, the prophet of God as King, to rule over His  redeemed people Israel.

 

At present, this sin-cursed world has two God-given messiahs! - Satan, -‘the god of this world’, and Jesus, - our ‘Lord’ and divine ‘Saviour’. Satan’s time is now almost at an end; and, after apostasy, rebellion, and Divine Judgement, he will be replaced by God’s presently, rejected and crucified Messiah.]

 

 

Thus from the beginning John taught that Jesus must die as the substitute of men in order that the sin of the world might be expiated. This was an entirely indispensable preliminary to this earth being incorporated into the kingdom of God at last, or to any individual entering that kingdom in present heart experience.

 

 

The theory that the visible [millennial] kingdom* could be offered to Israel then and there without the sacrificial death of the Son of God, if only Israel had been willing, proposes what was a legal and moral impossibility. Divine law and sound morality demand that sin shall be punished, and law and morals be thus vindicated; and that this be effected through the punishment of a willing and worthy Substitute if the actual culprits are to have opportunity of pardon and of entrance into the kingdom of God.**

 

[* That is, for entrance into both: (1) God’s Messianic* (Matt. 17: 9, R.V.), and (2) Eternal** kingdom: (Rev. 3: 21. cf. Rev. 21: 1, R.V.): would be a “legal and moral impossibility” before the death of Christ Jesus - the “Firstfruit” to rise “out of dead ones” (Acts 4: 2, Lit. Gk.).]

 

 

The theory is, of course, flatly contradictory to the Old. Testament Scriptures. It would have meant that Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and all such passages, never would have found fulfilment - a sheer impossibility. John never could have made such a proposal without exposing himself to the condemnation of making void the whole sacrificial ritual of Moses, and the express and many declarations of the prophets that Messiah must suffer. In simple fact, it was upon Christ as the atoning Lamb that he called men to place their faith, obviously pre­supposing His death.

 

 

(5) Remission of sins. Upon the basis of the prefigured and soon to be accomplished atonement, John proclaimed, what upon no other ground whatsoever would he have dared to declare, the forgiveness of sins: “he preached the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins” (Mark 1. 4). Then, as now, it was blessedly true of God that “He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe His holy gospel the genuineness of the repentance and confession being attested at the time by public submission to baptism.

 

 

(6) Evidential Works. John laid the heaviest possible stress upon the producing of proof of heart repentance and renewing by the doing of good works: “Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance” ... “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3. 8: Luke 3. 8). He smashed with a blow all trust in godly parentage; “think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father he insisted that each tree would be judged by its own fruit, and if this were not good the tree would be cut down and cast into the fire: he protested that the Coming One, to whom he directed men, would, preserve only wheat, but burn up all chaff.

 

 

(7) A New Society. This implied, in effect, that Christ would in result gather a new society of men~ composed of [Page 8] persons compared to trees bearing good fruit, to wheat.

 

 

(8) The Baptism in the Spirit. Finally, John announced that the One of whom he spoke, standing unknown as yet in their midst, was He who should fulfil the ancient and rich promises of God, given through Ezekiel (36. 26, 27) and Joel (2. 28), and baptize such as believed on Him in the Holy Spirit. Thereby should be made inwardly effective and enduring that preliminary work of repentance and faith and holiness which it was John’s high honour to begin by preaching and by baptizing in water, so preparing the way of the Lord Jesus.

 

 

II. THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

 

 

(1) The Kingdom. John had a just conception of his own position in relation to his Lord: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3. 30). Presently he saw his public ministry concluded by imprisonment, and this occasioned the commencement of the public ministry of Christ. “Now when He heard that John was delivered up ... from that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, Repent ye; for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near” (Matt. 4. 12, 17). To the end of the age the message must be continued, though the former messengers disappear; so Christ continues what John has commenced. The Lord’s announcement is made in exactly the same words as John’s: their subject was one and the same.

 

 

It is to be remarked that Matthew reports Christ as declaring that “the kingdom of the heavens has drawn nearwhereas Mark gives as His message that “the kingdom of God has drawn near” (1. 15). This makes evident that essentially the two terms describe but one object, which may be seen elsewhere also. Matthew (19. 14) gives Christ’s statement concerning little children as “of such is the kingdom of the heavens but Mark (10. 14) and Luke (18. 16) say “of such is the kingdom of God In Matthew 13. 31-33, it is the kingdom of the heavens that is compared to a mustard seed and to leaven; in Mark 4. 30-32 and Luke 13. 18-21, it is the kingdom of God. Still more noticeable is Matt. 19. 23, 24, where the Lord first says, “It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” and then in His very next sentence varies His statement to “the kingdom of God As the [Holy] Spirit of truth used the terms interchangeably, let us not seem to be wiser than He by inventing or accepting any imaginary distinction.*

 

[* NOTE: To teach that “the gospel” (i.e., ‘good news’) of the Kingdom” is synonymous with “the gospel of the Grace of God,” would suggest, contrary to all scripture, that our works after regeneration, are necessary to obtain “ the free gift of God” which is “ETERNAL LIFE” (Rom. 6: 23, R.V.)!

 

But when “the Spirit of truth’ causes an Apostle to use the word “kingdom” instead pf the word “grace” (in a context of a regenerate believer’s works), He is teaching an entirely different gospel-message - a message about Messiah’s coming millennial ‘kingdom’ (Rev. 20) - which can only be understood as an event which will appear in the future: after the Death and Resurrection of a suffering Messiah.

 

All who believe in an “age” yet to come by a ruling Messiah, will understand the following command in this context:-

 

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. Verily I say into you, There are some of them that stand here, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart:” … “And as they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, ‘Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead:” (Matt. 16: 27 - 17: 1, 9, R.V.).

 

This coming ‘Kingdom’ can only appear, throughout this restored earth (Rom. 8: 18-22, R.V.), at the time of our Lord’s manifested “GLORY.” See 1 Pet. 1: 11, 13-17; 4: 13, 14; 5: 1, 4; 2 Pet. 1: 13-20, R.V. Cf. Isa. 35: 2ff.; 40: 5; Hab. 2: 14, R.V.etc.).]

 

 

The difference between the terms is that one describes the region where the kingdom centres, whence its government proceeds; the other names its King. Yet it is but one [Messianic] kingdom. It is thus one may speak of the kingdom of England, or of the kingdom of Queen Elizabeth II: in this case no one would argue that the kingdom was not one and the same. All consequences deduced from the unwarranted distinction in view are invalid and confusing.

 

 

There is no room for conjecture as to the sense in which Christ preached the kingdom, for John the apostle was guided by God to record an instance of the Lord preaching the kingdom privately some time prior to the public preaching. For the kingdom was His theme in the conversation with Nicodemus (John 3). Verse 22 of the chapter mentions events after that conversation, and then (24) we are informed that “John was not yet cast into prison So that the conversation preceded the preaching in Galilee which, as we have seen, followed upon John being put in prison. John 3 gives, therefore, the earliest example of the teaching of the Lord, and inasmuch as He never contradicted Himself, His subsequent ministry must be read in harmony with this first example.

 

 

Now to Nicodemus He said not a word about the visible kingdom being then possible. Rather it is things spiritual that He presses upon His visitor: such as the ineffaceable contradiction between two moral natures, flesh and spirit; the absolute necessity that the new nature be begotten in a man if he is ever to see or to enter the [manifested] kingdom of God; that this change is a sovereign work of the [Holy] Spirit. But most important of all, as determining what was Christ’s outlook at that period, is His definite and emphatic statement that, with a view to men receiving the life eternal, He Himself must of necessity die upon the cross: “the Son of Man must be lifted up

 

 

Thus from the beginning of His ministry the Redeemer was contemplating and announcing His sacrificial death as a positive necessity, which entirely precludes the notion that He was at the same time contemplating and announcing His willingness then and there to set up the kingdom in visible glory. Such an offer He could not have made bona fide; it would have involved on His part a mental reserve, an equivocation, which it were sheer blasphemy to attribute to Him.

 

 

In addition, the reasons given above why John could not [Page 10] make that offer apply equally to Christ: the public circumstances for the fulfilment in that sense of Daniel’s prophecy were not present, and the predictions concerning a suffering Messiah must have fulfilment. So definite was the Lord upon this last matter that He regarded as foolish and blameworthy that His followers ever expected anything else as to Himself, saying, “O foolish [senseless] men, and slow of heart, to believe in [after] all that the prophets spake! Behoved it not the Messiah to suffer these things, and” - [after His Second Advent] - “to enter into His glory?” (Luke 24. 25, 26).* Where was the justice of this severe rebuke had a large part of His own ministry encouraged the opposite expectation!

 

[* See also 1 Pet. 1: 11, R.V.]

 

 

He knew that in the roll of the Book these experiences were prescribed to Him (Psalm 40. 1, 2, 7), and the guiding rule of His whole life was that [all of] the Scriptures must be fulfilled. From time to time He had laboured to impress upon the disciples that He “must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer ... and be killed, and the third day be raised up;” and He had sternly rebuked Peter for proposing that He should avoid such experiences, declaring Peter’s sentiments to be the mind of man, indeed of Satan (Matt. 16. 21-23: Mark 8. 33: Luke 9. 22; 18. 31-33). The Lord’s uniform teaching to this effect is joined in one unbroken circle by the use of the same emphatic term at its beginning and at its close. To Nicodemus He said, “It behoves (dei) the Son of Man to be lifted up on the way to Emmaus He repeated, “Behoved (edei) it not the Messiah to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory?” In due time Peter learned this lesson well, and summarized the whole Messianic message of the Old Testament prophets in the statement that “the Spirit of Christ, which was in them ... testified beforehand the sufferings [which should come] unto Christ and the glories that should follow them” (1 Peter 1. 11). The glory must follow the suffering; it could in no wise precede it. The end portion of Psalm 22 (22-31) could not be fulfilled before the earlier portion, and Isaiah 53. 12, had said, “Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great ... because He poured out His soul unto death

 

 

When therefore Jesus declared that “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has drawn near” (Mark 1. 15), He did not mean that the time had come for the “Son of Man to come with the clouds of heaven,” which would be the manner of [Page 11] setting up the visible [messianic and millennial] kingdom according to Daniel (7. 13); for the Son of Man had already come, and was there present in humble guise, nor, obviously, could He come with the clouds of heaven, until after He should have died and returned to heaven; but He meant that the time had arrived for Zion’s King to come “just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass according to Zechariah 9. 9. In accord with this is the fact that early in His ministry, in the synagogue at Nazareth, the Lord, expressly declaring the object and nature of His then appointed work, ceased quoting Isaiah’s prediction (ch. 61) immediately before the clause announcing “the day of vengeance of our God It is certain from all Scripture that the kingdom in [manifested] glory must of necessity be ushered in by a day of destruction of the enemies of God, but Christ would not that any should have the thought that this was His then [First Advent] business on earth. It is remarkable that some who have seen that the non-quoting of the clause meant that the day of vengeance had not then come, appear not to have seen that by necessary consequence the [Millennial and Messianic] kingdom in glory could not then be offered.

 

 

When, therefore, Christ announced that the kingdom had drawn near, He was continuing John’s message with the same meaning, which is clear in such statements as these following, all addressed to the world. When the Pharisees said that He cast out demons by Beelzebub He answered, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you” (Matt. 12. 28). Therefore the kingdom, in the sense in which Christ heralded it, had come upon them from the beginning of His ministry, for all along He had been casting out demons (Matt. 4. 24); but it had not come in visible glory and external government.*

 

[* See Isaiah 6: 3; cf. Isa. 35: 2; 41: 16; 66: 18, R.V.]

 

 

Again, “being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God cometh He did not seize the occasion to press the possibility of the kingdom coming in the sense they had in mind, if only they would receive Him as Messiah, but He asserted the exact contrary as the then present aspect of the kingdom, saying, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation [as somewhat that may be discerned by intent watching], neither shall they say, Lo here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17. 20, 21). Here is express repudiation of the idea of a present outward display of the [promised Messianic and Millennial] kingdom. If the last clause “is within you” be taken as the correct translation, [Page 12] it states definitely that the kingdom was at that time a spiritual experience, an affair of the heart. If the margin “is in the midst of you” be read, it will mean that the kingdom was already among them in the presence of the King and His loyal subjects, His disciples. Either meaning excludes the sense of the kingdom in [its manifested] glory.

 

 

And again, to His foes Christ foretold that “days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them [the disciples], and then shall they fast in those days” (Luke 5. 35). This announcement of His coming departure from the earth, and the consequent trials of His followers, was made early in His ministry, and distinctly precludes the notion that He was at the same time proposing the kingdom in glory.

 

 

Down to the last days of His life the Lord continued the same theme, speaking of the kingdom, calling it now the kingdom of God, now the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 21. 31, 43; 22. 2; 23. 13). It was the very kingdom which the leaders of Israel were about to lose that another “nation” should gain, that is, that “holy nation” of which Peter speaks (1 Pet. 2. 9), the church of God. It was “this [same] gospel of the kingdom” that should be preached all over the earth prior to the arrival of the end of this age (Matt. 24. 14). It was “this gospel” which should everywhere include mention of the woman who anointed Christ with a view to His burial (Matt. 26. 13). The fulfilment of this prediction all through this gospel age shows that the gospel still preached is the gospel Christ preached, not another message brought forth because Israel rejected the kingdom.

 

 

(2) Repentance. In consequence, the Lord’s demand was the same as John’s: “Repent ye, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1. 15: Matt. 4. 17).

 

 

(3) Baptism. Like John also He called for immersion in water on the part of those who professed repentance, Himself in grace fulfilling this righteousness by being baptized, and forthwith instructing the disciples to baptize such as wished to be known as His disciples (John 3. 26; 4. 1, 2). Further, after His resurrection, when charging the apostles to preach the gospel in all the world, and engaging to be personally with them in so doing “even unto the end of the age He made thereby this ordinance of perpetual obligation upon preachers and converts until that end of the age should have come, [Page 13] (Matt. 28. 18-20: Mark 16. 15, 16).

 

 

(4) Faith. Christ’s message, like John’s called for faith: “Repent ye, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1. 15). This good tidings Mark had just before described as “the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (ver. 1). Himself being the subject of it, to believe in it meant to believe on Him. So He declared human destiny to turn upon faith in Himself, saying, “Except ye believe that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8. 24); but, on the other hand, “whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3. 16). And even as at the first He said to Nicodemus that “the Son of Man must be lifted up so later He said publicly, “When ye have lifted up the Son of Man” (John 8. 28). He never expressed a willingness to sit at that time upon Messiah’s throne, but privately and publicly foretold that He must occupy Messiah’s cross, so fulfilling the word “they pierced My hands and My feet” (Psalm 22. 16). It was to faith in Him in this holy office that He first invited men, as had John before Him. He knew full well that as Priest He must offer Himself to God as the Lamb before He could reign as King, and that sinful men must rely on Him as the former before they could rejoice in Him as the latter.

 

 

(5) Remission. With what profound, inexpressible delight of heart must the gracious Son of God have uttered such words as, “Son, thy sins are forgiven” (Mark 2. 5), and to the repentant woman, “Thy sins are forgiven” (Luke 7. 48). He possessed “authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2. 10); but He was deeply aware that He must acquire this precious right by Himself bearing our sins in His body upon the tree; and so the night before His passion He said, “this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26. 28). Repentance by the sinner without atonement by the Saviour were unavailing.

 

 

(6) Evidential Works. Like John, the Lord laid mighty stress upon good fruit being the one conclusive proof that the tree is good; and, like him, and by the same figure, declared the judgment of men to be as the hewing down of a bad tree and it being cast into the fire (Matt. 7. 16-19). The scribes and Pharisees taught righteousness, but did not practise it (Matt. 23. 3); Christ plainly announced that without a better practical righteousness than that, not even disciples should on any [Page 14] account enter into the kingdom of the heavens, nor if they cherished pride and carnal ambition (Matt. 5. 20; 18. 3).

 

 

(7) The New Society, the Church. Thus He too implied a separation between men and so the forming of a new society. This thought He developed further than John by speaking of it distinctly as of a new structure which He would erect of living men, which He named “My church and then “the church” (Matt. 16. 18; 18. 17).

 

 

The falseness of the exegesis which asserts the Gospels to be “Jewish not of direct Christian bearing, can be easily seen. For the purpose of this theory Matthew is the most “Jewish” of the four. The Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7) is for a supposed remnant of the Jews of the tribulation era who believe in Jesus (though Scripture knows nothing of such a remnant), or it is the laws of the kingdom during the millennium (though the moral and social conditions regulated will then not exist). Chapter 10 is instruction for preaching the “gospel of the kingdom” at the end of the age, not for the guidance of preachers of the “gospel of the grace of God” to-day. But chapter 13 interposes with what is confessed to be a prophetic-historical outline of this present age. Chapters 14 and 15 are “Jewish then chapter 16 breaks in with the church of God. Chapter 17 is again “Jewish but in chapter 18 the church again emerges. “Jewish” matters once more occupy Matthew, and in particular the Olivet prophecy looks to the period after the church, as is alleged, will have finished her course on earth; but in chapter 26 the present time is in question, for the holy supper is to be observed until Christ shall come. Then follows the account of that death and resurrection which no one questions is the basis of all blessing for the church of God, as for Israel and all the nations hereafter; but this theory (in at least its extreme and logical development) regards the proclamation of that death and resurrection commanded in chapter 28 as applying to a coming time, and not for the present.

 

 

Let such as can regard this as exposition; we deem it arbitrary and confusing. Is it not inexplicable that the most “Jewish” of the Gospels, (Matthew) should be the very one that records the Lord’s teachings concerning His church?

 

 

And if Matthew was being guided to write a “Jewish” Gospel, which specially should report that the earthly kingdom had been offered and rejected, why was he also guided to record [Page 15] that the kingdom that had been offered was the kingdom of the heavens? He alone of the evangelists reports that this description was used, of which fact is there any better explanation than that the intention was to emphasize that it was the heavenly, the spiritual form of the kingdom that was then proclaimed? When the Gospels were issued the break with Judaism was far advanced, if not complete, and they were penned by Christian writers for Christian readers, so that the Lord’s command might have fulfilment and all disciples “observe all things whatsoever” He had commanded the apostles (Matt. 28. 20). Thus the early church viewed them; and into, the second century at least, as Justin Martyr tells us, they were regularly read publicly in the Christian assemblies.

 

 

(8) The Baptism in the Spirit. This portion also of the preaching of John, Christ continued and amplified, enlarging upon it both before and after His resurrection (John 14. 16; 20. 22, 23: Acts 1. 4. 8).

 

 

III PETER

 

 

(1) The Kingdom. Even after the resurrection, but prior to the gift of the [Holy] Spirit of truth, the apostles were still entertaining the idea of an immediate setting up of the visible kingdom: “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel(Acts 1. 6). This is surprising since Christ had laboured to disabuse them of this as a then present expectation. Quite shortly before His death, and expressly because “they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear,” He spake a parable to teach that He was to be as “a certain nobleman that went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return” (Luke 19. 11-27).

 

 

Almost certainly this parable must have recalled to His hearers that, some thirty years before, at the death of Herod the Great, his son Archelaus had hurried off to the Emperor at Rome seeking his confirmation of the will of Herod which gave to him the kingdom. But the Jews, abhorring the family, sent an ambassage to desire the Emperor to relieve them of that race, and to appoint a Roman governor. On his return as king of Judea (Matt. 2. 22), Archelaus took full vengeance on all implicated in that embassy.

 

 

Now under the conditions of travel of those days the going to and coming from a far country meant of necessity a long [Page 16] journey, especially with the tedious and momentous matter of a kingdom to be discussed. The Lord thus taught that, while His return as king is certain, His absence would be long. And what an illuminating suggestion is here as to the business now on hand in heaven, even the steps necessary for securing the kingdom to its rightful King.* And so careful was the Lord that the outlook of His followers upon this point should be correct, that after only a few days He reimpressed the same matter upon the four to whom He explained so much on Olivet. He warned them that they should take heed “that no man lead you astray for many [Anti-millennialists] would attempt to persuade them that the end was come; but, said He, “the end is not yet” (Matt. 24. 4-6), “the end is not immediately” (Luke 21. 9).

 

[* See Psa. 2: 8; cf. Psa. 110: 1-3, R.V.).]

 

 

This was plain enough; but repeating the parable just noticed, the Lord added: “For it is as when a man going into another country, called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods ... Now after a long time the lord of those servants cometh and maketh a reckoning with them” (Matt. 25. 14, 19).

 

 

We notice in passing the emphatic expression, “his own servants To escape the disagreeable lesson concerning the “wicked and slothful servant it is suggested that this man is not to be viewed as a real servant, but as a hypocrite. But in John 10. 3, “He calleth his own sheep by name the expression is the same, yet no one suggests here any such meaning, for only blessing and comfort is in question. The exposition is surely wrong which nullifies exercise of conscience in [regenerate] believers, and disannuls the solemnity of the judgment seat of Christ for Christians. It is to such, to those who are really “His own that the Lord is speaking.

 

 

Now Peter was one who heard this repeated emphasis by the Lord upon a lengthy absence being ahead. Peter heard, too, their question as to the immediate restoration of the kingdom to Israel put on one side as untimely. Peter knew that in point of fact the good tidings had to be spread over the whole world, and that this was the primary purpose for which they were to be endued with power from on high; and he must have been well aware that this was bound to prove a long, long task, amply sufficient to fill out the long absence that Christ had foretold. Peter knew also, by an express statement of the Lord, that he was to live to be an old man, and was then to die [Page 17] a violent death, and the rest of the brethren also knew this (John 21. 18, 19, 23). And what of all this may not have been wholly clear at the time, must surely have become so to Peter’s mind directly he received the [Holy] Spirit of truth at Pentecost.

 

 

Yet it has been diligently asserted, and widely accepted, that a few weeks after Pentecost, Peter was nevertheless saying exactly the reverse, and was telling Israel that the offer of the visible kingdom was still open, and that even then if they would receive Jesus as the Messiah He would forthwith return and establish the kingdom in glory.

 

 

It is marvellous that acute and sincere minds - [today, even after regeneration, should be so easily duped by Satan, and] should have involved themselves in such an impossible contradiction. But if the theory - [so popular amongst the Lord’s hyper dispensational people today] - puts Peter in an obviously false position, where does it place the Holy Spirit Himself? Was He inspiring Peter to contradict Christ? or was Peter not speaking by [divine] inspiration at all?

 

 

That Peter had the [promised messianic and millennial] kingdom before him is clear. In his first address he spoke of “that great and notable day of the Lord and quoted the words, “Sit Thou at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet” (Acts 2. 20, 34, 35). But that he did not offer to Israel the immediate return of Christ to restore the kingdom to Israel is plain from the very statement often used to assert that he did. His words were (Acts 3. 19-2l): “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus:” and here the quotation from his words must stop if they are to give the impression desired: but actually he added the material sentence, “Whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of His holy prophets that have been from of old

 

 

These words suggest an absence of the Lord in the heavens for some period, not at all His instant return thence to the earth; for had the latter been in the mind of the speaker the phrase, “Whom the heavens must receive until would not have occurred to him. And he indicates sufficiently clearly the circumstances that will attend the close of that period of absence. The prophets had taught that the times of restoration of all things will be ushered in by such developments as these:

 

 

(1) The readjusting of world-empire into a ten-kingdom [Page 18] confederacy. (2) The subsequent emergence of another small kingdom. (3) The conquest by this last of three of the ten kingdoms, with the subsequent rise of its sovereign to world supremacy. (4) His oppression of the people of God for three years and a half. (5) Other prophecies are to be fulfilled, such as the re-peopling of Elam, Ammon, Moab; as also Babylon, but this last to be finally and permanently destroyed. There were also to be the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews, but just lately denounced against them by Christ Himself in Peter’s hearing, with (6) their regathering as predicted in ancient times.

 

 

With these and other such stupendous events to be fulfilled in connection with the restoration, and yet no sign of any one of them as then in sight, how could a Spirit-taught apostle have suggested the return forthwith of the Deliverer of Zion?

 

 

If Peter’s own epistles be cited to show what Peter taught to his fellow Israelites - and this is proper, for an inspired teacher will not have to correct early statements by later - we learn without difficulty what he did really teach. It was a new birth through the death and resurrection of Christ, with a view to inheriting an imperishable portion in heaven, even as Christ had from the very beginning taught Peter, saying of the persecuted, “great is your reward in heaven” (Matt. 5. 12). But this inheriting [after our Lord’s return], Peter taught, must therefore be preceded by an experience of manifold trials on earth, demanding that the [regenerate and obedient] believer walk here as an alien and pilgrim, passing through a land not his own to his own country elsewhere. This has nothing in common with the [popular] view of his message which we repudiate.

 

 

(2) Repentance. In brief, his message was precisely that of John and his Lord. “Repent he cried, “and with many other words he testified and exhorted” - his words were solemn, his call urgent; but not to beg them to expect the immediate coming of Messiah - but he said, “save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2. 38-40). This generation is doomed to suffer the stored-up wrath due to long centuries of wickedness confirmed by present stubborn sin (as Christ had openly declared: Matthew 23. 35, 36); it remains only that you separate yourselves from it. Repent!

 

 

(3) Baptism. “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you Die! be buried! enter the new circle of disciples of [Page 19] Jesus! and at once 3,000 hearers did so, and the building of Christ’s church went on apace from that day.

 

 

(4) Faith. He also pointed to Jesus Christ as the object of saving faith: “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

 

 

(5) Remission of Sins. He also proclaimed remission of sins; “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins

 

 

(6) Evidential Works. Peter also insisted upon good works by the baptized, and was the first in the church to bring condign judgment upon evil-doers, even to the premature death of Ananias and Sapphira for lying. His epistles further show how heavy was the emphasis he placed upon godly living.*

 

[* NOTE: God willing, immediately after this writing is completed, it is my intention to place an extensive article (on “BAPTISM” by G. H. Pember. To obey the command is much more important than multitudes of regenerate believers imagine!]

 

 

(7) The Church. The immediate result of the preaching of Peter was the addition of thousands to the new society (Acts 2. 41), who continued steadfastly in the teaching, fellowship, ordinance, and united worship of the new community (Acts 2. 41, 42). All the features of the corporate life of the church of God were thus present from the beginning, including the apostles as its first elders (Peter describes himself as an elder, 1 Pet. 5. 1), and quite shortly deacons (Acts 6. 1-6). Hence, the society is shortly described as “the church which was in Jerusalem” (Acts 8. 1). Thus Peter was the first agent of the Lord for building up His church. But what was this but exercising the privilege given to him by the Lord in the words, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens words spoken in most immediate connection with the announcement, “I will build My church” (Matt. 16. 18, 19). So then, the church and the kingdom of the heavens are one institution for the purpose of that statement of Christ and of His present business on earth. Of what a mass of elaborate expository confusion this relieves the subject.

 

 

(8) The Baptism in the Spirit. This portion also of the gospel Peter proclaimed, saying to his hearers that upon repentance, baptism, faith, remission, “ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

 

 

Thus exactly the elements that were combined in the message of John and Jesus were continued by Peter.

 

 

IV PAUL

 

 

The theory that the first three gospels were primarily “Jewish” was possibly not carried to its full logical [Page 20] development by those who, introduced it a century ago, but later this was done thoroughly. The outcome was that only the prison epistles of Paul were finally left as of direct Christian application; the rest of the New Testament, including Hebrews and the Revelation, being primarily “Jewish

 

 

The theory demanded the insertion of an “interim dispensation,” ending, as its inventors alleged, with the rejection of Paul by the leaders of Jewry at Rome (A.D. 60/61), as recorded in Acts 28. From that time the church dispensation is properly to be reckoned, the prison epistles of Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, etc.) giving the true, complete doctrine as to its character and destiny.

 

 

This included, of course, earlier assertions; such as, that Paul’s gospel differed in character from that of John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus, and Peter; that to Paul personally was first given the revelation concerning “the church which is Christ's body that to him was first given also the knowledge of that resurrection and rapture mentioned by him for the first time in 1 Thessalonians 4, and later in 1 Corinthians 15, and not revealed until he was writing to the Thessalonians.

 

 

As far as I can discover, the origin of this whole network of suppositions is this. Over a hundred years ago, when some devout men were pioneering in prophetic truth, they thought they saw clearly that the resurrection and rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 must certainly occur before the rise of Antichrist at the close of this age. The closest scrutiny of those passages cannot yield this idea; the indications are the other way: but these men felt sure as to this point.

 

 

But they were faced with the undeniable feature that the Old Testament knew nothing of any descent of the Lord Jesus from heaven until His appearing in glory at the close of the reign of that great and last tyrant; nor does the prophetic teaching of Christ speak of any such earlier coming; nor is it indicated in the Revelation.

 

 

Presently a seemingly feasible solution of this problem was found in a suggestion that all that preponderating mass of prophetic scripture applied to Israel, not to the church; that the church is an unique company, revealed to Paul as to its character and destiny, not before; and that it will, and must be, removed from the earth before the dealings of God with Israel can recommence, and consequently its removal will entail a [Page 21] secret coming of Christ prior to the end days. “This saying, therefore, went forth among the brethren and ever since the most part believe as they have been taught; yea, “this saying was spread abroad and continueth unto this day But it has no more real basis than those two other sayings to which the words now used apply (John 21. 23: Matt. 28. 15).

 

 

Strikingly enough, it is Paul himself who shatters this whole scheme by declaring that the “blessed hope” of Christians, so far from being a secret coming of Christ, is in fact nothing else than “the appearing [forthshining] of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2. 13), which is manifestly the same event as the Lord Himself described in the words, “They shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24. 30). Were these not the same, then we must expect two forthshinings of the glory, and even then we shall be still without that supposed secret coming of Christ. To avoid these dilemmas, in the interests of the theory, some have resorted to the desperate shift of stating that the “blessed hope” is one event, even the alleged secret pre-tribulation coming, and the “appearing of the glory” a second event, even the later visible coming. We cannot think that any true unbiased scholar will thus do violence to the Greek, for, as Alford says, “hope and appearing belong together;” and the passage should read “the blessed hope, even the appearing for which sense see Weymouth, Conybeare, Faussett, Rotherham, etc.

 

 

Let us turn from theory to the facts.

 

 

(1) The Kingdom. Summarizing his three years’ ministry in the very church to which he shortly afterwards wrote what is confessedly the chief “church” epistle, Paul himself says (Acts 20. 25), “I went about preaching the kingdom To him, as the words immediately preceding show, this was “testifying the gospel of the grace of God,” the message of the kingdom and the gospel of grace being thus identified. And his ministry at Rome, four or five years later than at Ephesus, in which (as the theory declares) he was at length setting forth the full doctrine of the church, his companion Luke summarizes thus: he was “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28. 31). The kingdom of God and the position in it of the Lord Jesus Christ were therefore Paul’s topics. But it has never been suggested - [Page 22] indeed, it would annihilate the scheme above outlined - that Paul offered the immediate setting up of the visible kingdom if only Israel would accept Jesus; for that, even according to the advocates of the scheme, would mean that he taught the same as his predecessors, which he himself stated explicitly in 1 Corinthians 15. 1, 7, 9-11, where, referring to “the gospel which I preached and mentioning “all the apostles he says, “Whether then it be I or they, so we preach

 

 

But if now we drop out of mind the human suggestions criticized, and consider the statements just quoted, it is evident that Paul did in fact proclaim exactly the same gospel as John, the Lord, and Peter. Their message could be just as exactly and fully summarized in the words applied to his, “the kingdom of God and the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ

 

 

Now as Paul did not offer the immediate establishment of the visible kingdom, the more that his ministry was mainly among Gentiles, it could only be that he offered the kingdom as a present spiritual experience, to be consummated in the kingdom visible at the time of the restoration of all things, even as his predecessors had done. And this is supported by his own statements. To the Romans he said that “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking” - not external, material, physical - “but righteousness and peace and joy in [the power of] the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14. 17); that is, it consists now in spiritual conditions and walk. And to others having this inward experience he wrote: “God delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son [who is pre-eminently the object] of His love” (Col. 1. 13). And those who laboured with him to introduce men into this experience he calls “fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God” (Col. 4. 11).

 

 

Yet that he looked for the kingdom hereafter [yet to be manifested] is certain, for he wrote that “God calleth you unto His own kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2. 12), and He joined together Christ’s “appearing and His kingdom” in connection with a [future] judgment of the living and the dead* (2 Tim. 4. 1).

 

[* That is, a judgment of the dead before the time of their Resurrection! Heb. 9: 27; Luke 20: 35; Phil. 3: 11; Rev. 20: 4-6; cf. Acts 2: 34; 7: 5.ff; 2 Tim. 2: 15-19, R.V.).]

 

 

Thus his outlook and his teaching as to the kingdom were precisely that of his predecessors.

 

 

(2) Repentance. He said that he “testified both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God and not only at Ephesus, but from the very beginning of his ministry after his [Page 23] conversion he had “declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent” (Acts 20. 21; 26. 20).

 

 

Thus he never at any time had but one message, and it was the same for Jews and heathen, as had been that of John before him, who had said to heathen soldiers who asked him, “And we, what must we [non-Jews] do similar things to those he said to Jews (Luke 3. 14).

 

 

(3) Baptism. Christ did not send Paul or any one else with baptism in water as the leading item of their commission, but with the preaching of the gospel, with the view to making disciples [i.e., followers of Jesus -those who are prepared to walk with Him], as the primary work (Matt. 28. 19: Mark 16. 15, 16: 1 Cor. 1. 13-17). Yet Christ did command the baptism of such as should avow discipleship, and so did Peter, and so did Paul, as the context of the Corinthian passage shows. He had himself baptized the first converts he made in that city- Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus, and they baptized further converts, as is clear from the fact that these had been baptized. Paul also baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus the disciples that he later found at Ephesus (Acts 19. 5). This contradicts the idea that the ordinance of baptism was for “Jewish” purposes at first, and then lapsed, to be revived in the “Jewish” age which some expect to follow the church age; for Paul practised baptism for both Jews and Gentiles, as did Peter (Acts 10. 47, 48).

 

 

(4) Faith. That Paul’s preaching called for faith in Christ does not require proof. His message, as he himself said, to both Jews and Greeks, was “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20. 21). His sternest conflicts were against those who would place works beside faith or instead of faith for justification before God.

 

 

(5) Remission of Sins. This also formed a primary element in Paul’s message. “Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this Man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins he had declared on his first tour in Asia Minor (Acts 13. 38). “In Christ we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,” was still his teaching after the supposed “interim” period had closed (Eph. 1. 7).

 

 

(6) Evidential Works. None more firmly than Paul rejected works, before or after conversion, as a ground of [a future] salvation;* [Page 24] none more firmly demanded good works as a consequence of [that coming (Heb. 2: 3ff., R.V.)] salvation. The letter to Titus is as fully an epistle of good works as is that of James. He epitomizes his message thus: “I declared ... that they [Jews and Gentiles] should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance” (Acts 26. 20). An immediate object of Christian teaching is “that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works for it was an express purpose for which “our Saviour Jesus Christ gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, zealous of good works” (Titus 3. 8; 2. 14).

 

 

(7) The Church of God. We have seen above that the church which Christ foretold was the church which Peter commenced to build. As evidence that “the church which is Christ’s body as described by Paul (Eph. 1. 22, 23), is none other than this same institution, Paul’s own words are decisive. It is in the very epistle in which he most largely employs the picture of the “body and in the verses which immediately follow that discussion, that he terms the original community at Jerusalem which Peter and others built up “the church of God,” saying, “I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15. 9). That by “the church of God” he meant the same society as the church which is the body is clear by his application of both terms to the one Corinthian community (1 Cor. 1. 2; 12. 27, 28). Once more we see how one single fact may be as a high explosive shell to shatter a whole structure of theory.

 

 

Again, Peter, following his divine Teacher, compared the people of God, viewed corporately, to a temple: “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2. 5). Paul uses the same comparison, saying that the building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple (Eph. 2. 21). Now it is of “the mystery the one new man, that Paul is speaking, which later in this epistle (4. 16) he illustrates by the picture “body The “body” and the “temple” are, therefore, the same company, the church, according to Paul; and the “temple” of Paul and Peter is the same, for God was not at that time building two spiritual houses on earth, one by Peter [the Jews and], another by Paul [the Gentiles]; and therefore the “temple” of Peter is the same society as the “body” of Paul, for things which are equal to the same things are equal to one another.

 

 

Various figures are employed to convey fully God’s thoughts [Page 25] concerning this society. Primarily it is pictured as simply a building, without defining its nature or use: “I will build My church” (Matt. 16. 18). Because it pleases God to make its members His abode on earth it is then “the house of God Because it is God who dwells therein it is not simply a house, but a holy house, a temple, a sanctuary. Because it is a living temple, being built of living stones, and the one Spirit of Christ animates and utilizes each member, the thought passes on easily to the idea of a body, analogous to the human body and its head, in which also one spirit animates every part. Because the vital force of the Head produces in it the fruit of good living, the comparison to a vine is employed. And lastly, because of the intimacy in glory with Christ to which its members are called of God, the picture of its final state is that of (1) a bride to the bridegroom and (2) a capital city as the residence of the sovereign (Rev. 21; 22).

 

 

But these many figures are of only one society, as far as the New Testament is concerned. And for exact exposition and true learning it is most important to observe the period and the limit of object in the use of each several figure. For example, the term “bride” is never used of present relationship to Christ, but only of the future [millennium] in glory. Now the believer is an affianced virgin (2 Cor. 11. 2): “I espoused you to one husband, that I might [on the marriage day] present you as a pure virgin to Christ;” and again: “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her; in order that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the laver [composed of] water in the word; in order that He might [on the marriage day] present the church to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5. 25-27). It is only when the “marriage of the Lamb is come” that the affianced maiden becomes the bride (Rev. 19. 7, 8). Moral evil among Christian mystics might perhaps have been avoided if seductive ideas attached to the bridal relationship had been avoided, by not bringing forward to the present what Scripture attaches only to the morally perfected state of the future.

 

 

On the other hand, the figure of the body is used in Scripture only of present relationship to Christ, never of the future at and beyond His coming. If now we seek to learn from this picture aught concerning that future, we shall learn nothing, [Page 26] though we may, of course, imagine anything. Thus, when it is proposed to determine by this figure that every believer, without any possible exception, must rise in the first resurrection because otherwise the body of Christ would be mutilated or incomplete, the argument is invalid, being merely an inference concerning the next age from a figure used in Scripture only of this age. That question must be settled on other grounds by other passages. This figure is used to enforce practical moral teaching, not dispensational. Its misapplication to the latter only misleads in that sphere and weakens its force in the other.

 

 

But it will be urged that Paul declared that the mystery (that is, the secret) of the church had not been revealed before it was made known to him. To this we oppose a positive and emphatic denial. He not only never said this, but he said precisely the contrary. That this truth was made known to him by direct revelation from the Lord, not through others, he does indeed declare, but it is a wholly unwarranted inference that it had not been made known to others also, or before the time he received the revelation of it. If one says, “I had this information direct from the man himself,” that does not assert that the man had told no one else, and had never before mentioned the matter.

 

 

Paul’s words are (Eph. 3. 3-6): “by revelation was made known unto me ... the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; that is to say, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel Here it is to be observed:

 

 

1. That other apostles and prophets had received this revelation, not Paul alone. That it is in his writings principally and most largely that God caused the permanent record of this truth to be preserved for later times in no wise means that others did not know it equally with Paul or before him.

 

 

The argument from silence is treacherous, and must always be scrutinized closely. The New Testament does not preserve any full and formal exposition of the doctrine of justification other than by Paul, but no one infers that other apostles and evangelists did not know and teach that truth, though on this, [Page 27] as on the subject of the church, their references to it are occasional. The Bible is not a complete collection of the writings of inspired men, as this very Ephesian passage shows (“I wrote before in few words:” see also Col. 4. 16). It is a symposium, each writer contributing somewhat that God saw it needful to preserve permanently; and there is comparatively little repetition, save in some historical portions. It must not, therefore, be argued that other writers did not know what any one of them may have been used by the [Holy] Spirit mainly or solely to mention.

 

 

2. Paul’s words before us deny also that this “mystery had been completely concealed until the revelation given to him. What he says is, that “in other generations it was not made known unto the son of men as it hath now been revealedIt had been revealed, but only faintly, as of a thing far off, and partially.

 

 

The “mystery” has two dominant features: (a) that into the one new society Gentiles would be incorporated, not only Jews; (b) that the final place and state of this company would be heavenly, not on the earth. There will be a millennial period, with Israel and the nations on earth in their respective portions and blessing, as announced by the prophets. Later there will be a new earth, and vast numbers of the saved thereon (Rev. 21. 2, 3, 24); but this other [the resurrected,] and most privileged company from the saved will throughout share [also] the heavenly reign and glory of its Head (John 14. 2, 3; 12. 26; etc.).

 

 

(a) With regard to the first matter, Paul himself had already shown (Rom. 15. 8-13) that it was an integral element of God’s promises to the fathers that Gentiles should be brought into blessing, and on the same footing as Israel: “Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people This, indeed, was the goal to which God’s primary covenant with Abraham led: “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12. 3). In Eden the Devil had subjugated the whole race by conquering its first parents, and the history of their descendants shows this. The great God was not content to save out of this race of slaves only one small section, Israel: He proposed to Himself to recover all the families of the earth, beginning with the sons of Abraham and through them reaching out to the rest.

 

 

From its very beginning the law of Moses had made provision that the foreigner should not be oppressed [Page 28] (Lev. 24. 22: Deut. 24. 14; 27. 19; etc.), but should be loved by an Israelite as if he were an Israelite (Lev. 19. 33, 34). The ban against an Edomite or an Egyptian entering the assembly of Jehovah was to be lifted in the third generation (Deut. 23. 7, 8). The foreigner might be incorporated into Israel (Ex. 12. 48). Rahab and Ruth foreshadowed the union of Gentiles with Christ; Rebecca forsaking her people and country to be joined to Isaac pointed to the union of Christ and the believer, Eleazar’s service to this end being a picture of such a preacher as Paul betrothing the believer unto Christ (2 Cor. 11. 2, 3).

 

 

As we have noticed, the prophets had messages to or concerning Gentile peoples, as Jonah for Nineveh, and John the Baptist had a message for heathen soldiers. Though the Lord was not at that time sent directly to Gentiles, but primarily to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, yet He readily healed the servant of a centurion, at the request of the officer, and rejoiced at the superior faith of this non-Israelite (Matt. 8). Later He responded to the appeal of a Syro-phenician woman (Mark 7). He also looked forward to the time when many from all parts of the earth should share the kingdom with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt. 8. 11).

 

 

Though Peter permitted old prejudices to warp his mind and to restrain his obedience to his Lord’s command to preach to the whole creation, he was at length constrained to go among Gentiles and to perceive that “in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10. 34, 35).

 

 

But by what measures and by what stages this union in blessing would be brought about was developed, and could only be developed, by the birth on earth of the “Seed” promised to Abraham for the purpose, and by His atoning death, His resurrection in power, and the consequently possible enduement of men with His divine Spirit. Thus it had been before made known that Gentiles were to be fellow-heirs, yet not so made known as it came to be through Christ’s apostles and prophets.

 

 

(b) It had been also made known of old that there was a “calling on high” (as it is termed in Phil. 3. 14), as well as a calling to blessing on earth. For Enoch had been taken into the upper world, as Elijah was later. And Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Jacob, had “all died in faith, not having [Page 29] received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth They desired a better country than even Canaan, “that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed of them to be called their God; for [i.e., it is plain He is not ashamed of them, for] He hath prepared for them a city because “they looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose architect and maker is God,” that is, for the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 11. 8-16).

 

 

A thousand years later again a similar prospect had been opened to Joshua, the high priest, after the return of Israel from Babylon (Zech. 3. 7): “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: If thou wilt walk in My ways, and if thou wilt keep My charge, then thou shalt also judge My house, and shalt also keep My courts [present privilege], and I will give thee a place of access among these who stand by the angel servants of the Angel of Jehovah (see verse 4) - that is, future reward in heavenly places for fidelity to God in His house on earth. Upon this whole book, and this vision especially, see David Baron’s masterly commentary The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah.

 

 

Thus the heavenly calling and prospects had of old been opened to men of faith and embraced by them, but as afar off, and here also the steps of resurrection or rapture by which that upper world would be reached were not plainly indicated till Christ had come. There was light, but it was the dawn, not the noontide of revelation; yet exposition which - [ignores God’s conditions (Matt. 5: 20), and] - darkens that dawn must be misleading.

 

 

That the whole of Paul’s message was contained, at least in germ, in the Old Testament he distinctly asserted to Agrippa: “I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come; how that the Messiah must suffer, and that He first by resurrection from among the dead (ex anastaseos nekron) should proclaim light both to the people [of Israel] and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26. 22, 23).

 

 

The Lord Jesus had taught along the same line of basing teaching upon earlier revelation, and Paul followed Him. Christ had reproved Nicodemus that he, being an official teacher of the Old Testament, was puzzled by the nature of and necessity for a new birth by means of water and wind (ex hudatos kai pneumatos) for entering the kingdom of God, [Page 30] for Ezekiel had announced the purpose of God to “sprinkle clean water” and so to cleans from filthiness, and then to put within the cleansed a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36. 25-27), this latter operation being pictured as the wind breathing over the dead and re-quickening them (ch. 37). But in this matter also it waited fuller explanation as to what and when would be the fulfilment of that water of cleansing typified in the sprinkling of the leper (Lev. 14) or the otherwise defiled (Num. 19), and in that breathing of the wind in regeneration.

 

 

Even as regards the details of resurrection, most that Paul taught had been made known before. To the Thessalonians (4. 16, 17) he mentions these particulars. (1) It would be the Lord himself who should act in the matter. Now Christ had before said: “I come again, and will receive you unto Myself” (John 14. 3). (2) “The Lord himself shall descend Christ had said: “they shall see the Son of Man coming that is, from “the right hand of power” (Matt. 24. 30; 26. 64).

 

 

(3) “With a shoutPsalm 50. 3-5, had said: “Our God cometh ... He calleth ... gather My saints together unto Me and so again, in general connection with the triumph of Messiah, “God is gone up with a shout, Jehovah with the sound of a trumpet” (Psalm 47. 5). (4) “With the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God The Lord had added: “The Son of Man shall send forth His angels” (commanded naturally by the archangel), “with a great sound of a trumpet” (Matt. 24. 31). (5) “The dead in Christ shall rise first” (this is the one item that seems to be newly specified by Paul); “then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up Christ said, “they [the angels] shall gather together His chosen from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (6) “Caught up in the clouds“the Son of Man coming on the clouds” had been specified by Christ, and that it is to Him there the angels would gather His chosen is plainly implied. (7) “So shall we be for ever with the Lord even as the Lord had said, “I come again to receive you unto Myself, that where I am there ye may be also (8) To the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15. 52) the item was added that both resurrection and rapture would take place “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump” (compare Rev. 11. 15, 18), and thus Christ also had compared His [Page 31] descent to the equally instantaneous lightning flash, when those whom He would receive to Himself to be His companions (paralambano, to take to oneself, as a companion) shall be “taken as birds gather together to their point of attraction (Luke 17. 24, 34-37). (9) This consummation, so greatly to be desired, the truly “blessed hope” of believers, Paul indicates is founded on the Old Testament, for it will be the fulfilment of the ancient and triumphant prediction that “Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15. 54: Isa. 25. 8: Hos. 13. 14).

 

 

Thus all these details of the resurrection and rapture could be assembled by a Spirit-taught mind from Christ and the Old Testament. A properly new revelation to Paul was not needed, nor does he assert it. His statement (1 Thess. 4. 15) that he was speaking “by word of the Lord” is equally applicable to truth learned as above. Nor does his statement to the Corinthians, “Behold, I tell you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, etc.,” say, nor could he say, that the secret had been kept till he was then writing, for he had already declared this truth in the letter to the Thessalonians written some years earlier. The expression was natural when writing to men who all their life had been lost in the ignorance of heathen philosophy or the murky mazes of Judaism, for to such truly it had been a secret. It imports no more than that what had been only dimly foreshadowed in olden time had now been “manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished indeed (men) death, but (de) brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1. 10).

 

 

John had indicated generally what would mark the commencement and the close of the era of the preaching of the kingdom of God: the one, the sin-bearing work of the Lamb of God, followed by the baptism in His Spirit; the other, judgment upon the chaff by the Lord, but His gathering the wheat into His garner.

 

 

Christ had enlarged upon both subjects, giving fuller particulars as to His death, resurrection, and the gift of the [Holy] Spirit, and also as to judgments to close the age and the gathering of the wheat into safety. For He gave such details as the sowing of the wheat, the angels being the reapers, the clouds being the garner, His own descent from heaven in glory being the hour, and that a resurrection [at that time] of some from among the mighty host [Page 32] of the dead would then occur (Luke 20. 34, 35).

 

 

Peter, at the beginning of his ministry, taught that the sending back of Christ to the earth by God was to be the occasion of that restoration of all things which God had of old promised (Acts 3. 20, 21), and at the end of his days he was pressing the same point, exhorting his fellow-elect that they should “set their hope perfectly upon the favour that is being brought unto them at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1. 13), and that it is “when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested” that faithful servants will be rewarded (5. 4). It is to be observed that Peter also knows nothing of a secret invisible coming for the godly, but mentions the " “revelation” and “manifestation” of Christ as the expectation of believers.

 

 

Very clearly all this is the basis of, and included in, what Paul taught on the subject; any further details which he gives being an elaborating, systematizing, and completing of the same theme, not the announcing of something new and unknown.

 

 

We will notice one more important point in which this agreement may be traced.

 

 

Christ intimated plainly that sharing in that first resurrection which will lift dead believers - [out of ‘Sheol’ / ‘Hades’ (Matt. 16: 18; Psa. 16: 10; Acts 2: 27, 34; cf. Luke 16: 23; Acts 7: 5; 2 Tim. 2: 17, R.V.), and] - into the kingdom in glory requires that the individual shall have “attained” thereto and be “accounted worthy” thereof (Luke 20. 34, 35). Negatively He had taught plainly that practical righteousness of high degree, acquired and marked by strict obedience to the least divine command, as also true humility, were indispensable to entering that kingdom at all (Matt. 5. 20; 18. 1-3), so indicating the conditions of being accounted worthy and attaining.

 

 

Peter, concluding his ministry, addressed those who had obtained a like precious faith with himself in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1. 1-11); even persons to whom had been granted the precious and exceeding great promises of God, with the view that they might not only have the life of God (which every believer has immediately upon faith in Christ), but also might become partakers of the divine nature, and thus the character, disposition, and tendencies natural to God might become so in them, through claiming in faith the fulfilment of the promises pertaining to sanctity of nature and of walk. But for this to become fact they must add on their part all diligence in developing out of faith in other [Page 33] dominant Christian virtues. Thereby they should make secure their calling and election of God unto His eternal glory in Christ. For the calling of which Peter speaks is not simply unto deliverance from wrath, but to share the eternal glory of God (1 Pet. 5. 10), a prospect far nobler, belonging to the people of the heavenly calling only.

 

 

No true preacher of the gospel would say to unregenerate men, “If ye do these things you will secure eternal life,” for that is the “free gift of God” (Rom. 6. 23), “a righteousness of God apart from the law” (Rom. 3. 21). But, addressing [regenerate] believers, as above noted) and referring to the matter of their calling to [the coming manifested] glory, Peter distinctly puts the issue upon the ground of [their] works, saying, “if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble: for thus richly [emphatic] shall be supplied unto you the entrance* into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1. 10, 11). Thus did he enforce this portion of what his Master had taught.

 

[* That is, an “entrance” is “a thousand years” prior to the commencement of “the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”!]

 

 

Similarly Paul, ever most emphatic upon the acceptance of sinners by God being solely through the imputation to them by grace of the righteousness of Another, is equally definite that the final obtaining of the [millennial] glory of God is not a guaranteed certainty, but demands the fulfilment of conditions. So he prayed unceasingly for the Thessalonians that “God may count you worthy of your calling for which prayer there could be no call if they were already entirely secure of the same (2 Thess. 1. 11). But he knew otherwise, and therefore he most earnestly exhorted, encouraged, and testified “to the end that ye should walk worthily of God, who calleth you into His own kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2. 11, 12). As with Peter, so with Paul so the calling is not to exemption from wrath, but to entering the [Messiah’s promised (Psa. 2: 8) coming] kingdom and sharing in its glory.

 

 

Thus the words of Christ as to being “accounted worthy of that [next] age” are adopted by Paul - “that God may count you worthyand he knew that this could only be on the ground of works done, and so his prayer proceeded that God “would fulfil every desire of goodness and every work of faith with power, in order that (hopos) the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you [now], and ye in Him [in His [messianic] day].” And that this can only be, yet can be, “according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” he knew well and taught clearly, as did Peter also (“the God of all grace [Page 34] Who called you ... shall Himself perfect ... you” (1 Pet. 5. 10). Yet both knew that while grace enables, it does never coerce, so that the utmost diligence on our part in godly living must be added in order that no man should “fall short of the grace of God” (Heb. 12. 15), and not obtain the whole of what grace made possible in Christ.

 

 

Finally, the Lord had attached this condition of attainment and worthiness to the specific matter of rising in the first resurrection, and so did Paul also. For to the Philippians (3. 11) he wrote of his own strenuous efforts in the service and fellowship of Christ that they were directed to the end “if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from among the dead which sentence is a repetition of the words of the Lord in Luke 20. 35, “they that are accounted worthy to attain to that age, and the resurrection from among the dead.”

 

 

(8) The Holy Spirit. It is not necessary to cite passages to show that Paul taught much concerning the gracious and indispensable ministry of the Spirit of God. It was a principal and constant theme, interpenetrating and vitalizing his whole ministry, even as he knew it must do all godly living and all attaining; for

 

“Every virtue we possess,

And every victory won,

And every thought of holiness

Are His alone

 

 

It thus appears that the essential elements in the ministries of John, the Lord, and Peter were the essential elements in the message of Paul.

 

 

V JOHN THE APOSTLE

 

 

Before stating the general conclusions to be drawn from this examination we will glance briefly at the message of John the apostle. Marked by characteristics all its own, the deeper elements of his message were those of his Master and his fellow apostles. What else should be expected of him who had leaned on Jesus’ breast, and most intimately of all men had known His love?

 

 

(1) The Kingdom. It is John who supplemented and illuminated the other histories of Christ by giving the narrative of [Page 35] the interview with Nicodemus, in which we hear the Lord teaching about the kingdom in the sense before observed (ch. 3).

 

 

(2) Repentance. In chapter 4 he shows Christ producing repentance by forcing, with kindly spiritual compulsion, the woman of Samaria to face her evil life and to see as God saw “all things that ever she didIn John’s writings pre-eminently Christ is the light discovering the evil the darkness covered, and he is careful to associate the ministries of Christ and John the Baptist in this respect by comparing each to light (ch. 1. 4; 5. 35). It is he who records the Saviour’s words that the Spirit of truth should convict the world of sin (ch. 16).

 

 

(3) Baptism. It is John who tells that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John the Baptist, adding that He did not Himself immerse any, but caused His disciples to do so (ch. 4. 1, 2).

 

 

(4) Faith. Every page of his gospel and epistle shows the place of and necessity for faith in Christ, with the blessed consequence thereof in the reception of eternal life, and the mighty privileges involved in this possession.

 

 

(5) Remission of Sins. It is in John’s Gospel that the Redeemer is shown dealing in the open court of the temple with the woman taken in the very act of adultery; the Lord by no means excusing the sin, but exempting her from its immediate penalty under the law. His words, “Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; henceforth sin no more” form a striking illustration of (a) the condemnation of the sin, yet (b) its non-imputation judicially to the sinner, and (c) the effect intended to be produced in the future by this act of clemency.

 

 

Then, in immediate context and contrast, John gives the Lord’s terrible warning to the self-righteous, “except ye believe that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” (ch. 8. 21, 24).

 

 

But to believers he gives the mighty assurance: “I write unto you for the very reason that your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake” (1 John 2. 12).

 

 

(6) Evidential Works. It is in John we read that “every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God” (ch. 3. 20, 21). And by him we are made to hear Christ say: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham ... Ye do the [Page 36] works of your father the devil ... If God were your father, ye would love Me” (ch. 8. 39-44). And his epistle presses strongly that it is a man’s walk that declares his relationship of fellowship with or hostility to God, the truth, the light; that “he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He [God] is righteous but “he that doeth sin is of the Devil” (1 John 3. 7, 8). He endorses in effect what Paul said, that love is the fulfilling of the law, but this love must be shown not by word only, but in deed and truth (1 John 3. 18).

 

 

It is a most characteristic feature of John that he based his teaching on and developed it out of the sayings of his Lord, his doctrine being thus in strict continuity from that of Christ.

 

 

(7) A New Society. It resulted that John repeated and enforced that severe, ineffaceable separation between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, the receivers of the truth and the rejectors of it, the regenerate and the unregenerate, [the obedient and the disobedient] - those within the kingdom and those without it. He concentrated this distinction in the incisive statement: “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one” (1 John 5. 19).

 

 

He shows also the heavenly origin, character, and hope of the members of this company. Their life is that Life which before was “with the Father” in His realm, and then was “manifested to us” in this realm (1 John 1. 2). This life consists in heart knowledge of Him who “descended out of heaven” (John 3. 13), and told to men heavenly things (ver. 12), so that they might get to know - [in a more intimate way (see Phil. 3: 11; cf. Matt. 7: 21-23, R.V.)] - the Father and the Son (John 17. 3: 1 John 5. 20). Their walk here should correspond to His walk here, marked God-ward by obedience, manward by love (1 John 2). Their love must in no degree be set upon this world, - [i.e., upon this evil, and now apostate ‘age’] - but upon the Father in His world - [or during His promised messianic ‘age’] (1 John 2 [See also Ps. 2: 8; cf. Matt. 8: 11, 12, R.V.]), even as Paul had said that our mind should be set upon the things above, where Christ is, not on the things on earth, and for the same reason as John gives, that Christ is our life (Col. 3. 1-4); and even as Peter exhorted that we should set our hope perfectly on the revelation of Christ, and have our faith and hope set on God (1 Pet. 1. 13, 21). An essential quality of their new, heavenly life-principle of faith is that it combats and conquers this world (1 John 5. 4, 5), as the Lord who is our life had done when on earth (John 16. 33). The several local communities of these regenerate persons John calls by their [Page 37] regular name of churches (Rev. 2 and 3: 3 John 6, 10).

 

 

He taught also the heavenly [and blessed] future of the regenerate, for he records the Lord’s promise to come again and receive His followers unto Himself, that they may abide - [after the first rapture (Luke 21: 34-36; Rev. 3: 10)] - in that one of the many regions of the upper world to prepare which for their use He was leaving them awhile (John 14. 2, 3).

 

 

But John knew also how indispensable it is that the servant should walk, serve, suffer, and overcome (Rev. 2; 3), as the Master had done, if he would attain - [i.e., ‘gain by effort’] - to that heavenly portion. Wherefore, repeating Christ’s own strong and reiterated call to abide in His love, that is, in Himself, by obedience (John 15), John says: “And now, little children, abide in Him; that, if He shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed [not shrink with shame] from Him in His presence” (1 John 2. 28). For John, listening intently to the graphic parables of Christ, had seen in his mind’s eye the [regenerate and] faithful servant enter into the joy of his Lord at that Lord’s return, but had also marked the shrinking and shame, the disgrace and punishment* of the - [regenerate, but disobedient and apostate] - servant who had been unfaithful and unprofitable while his Lord had been absent (Luke 12; 19: Matt. 25).

 

[* See Heb. 10: 26-31; cf. Luke 12: 45-49; 13: 24-30; Col. 3: 25, R.V.).]

 

 

And what is the Revelation but a combining and completing of the whole of Scripture upon the coming of the King and the - [messianic, millennial and eternal] - kingdom? Here the Lamb takes over the government of heaven and earth; the angels come forth; the axe is used to cut down the proud, the fire burns up the chaff, the field is cleared, the firstfruits and the harvest of the living are garnered into the heavens at their respective times, the first resurrection ushers the worthy into [His messianic] glory. The Son of Man descends to the clouds first (14. 14; comp. 1 Thess. 4. 16, 17), and then, as the Word of God, comes down to the earth (ch. 19), and “the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah: and He shall reign for ever and ever” ([Rev.] 11. 15). And those members of the churches who had conquered in the battles of the kingdom shall reign with Him for ever and ever ([Rev.] 2. 26; 22. 5). Thus the bride, the wife of the Lamb, arrayed in the beauty of “the righteous acts of the saints wrought out on earth by them through the unrestrained inworking of the grace of God [and power of the Holy Spirit], is presented to the Lamb without blemish and unreprovable in His sight, “And the great church triumphant [becomes] the church at rest And finally, when this mediatorial kingdom shall have served its purpose [Page 38] and run its course, and after the final and destiny - announcing session of the judgment seat of Christ, the great white throne, the kingdom merges into the eternal ages, with new heavens and new earth wherein shall dwell only righteousness, the Son having restored the kingdom to the Father purified and perfected; and thus, as Paul says, “God shall be all in all” (1 Cor. 15. 24-28).

 

 

(8) The Baptism in the Spirit. It is John who records the full teaching concerning the coming of the [Holy] Spirit as given by the Lord the night before He suffered (chs. 14-16), and which he utilizes in his epistle for the comfort and assurance of men of faith, as encouragement to endure, to conquer, to inherit, through the Spirit's all‑sufficient grace.

 

 

Thus does John the Apostle, while emphasizing the aspects of Christ specially given to him, and expressing them in his own distinctive manner, embody and expand the very same message which John the Baptist had commenced, and Christ, Peter, and Paul had continued.

 

 

VI RESULTS

 

 

Important results follow from these facts.

 

 

1. There is but one Gospel Message*. It is “gospel for it is the “good spell,” i.e., good news. It is “the gospel of the kingdom for it announces the overthrow of the authority of Satan, sin, and sorrow, and the establishment of the kingdom of God, holiness, and happiness. It is “the gospel of God for He is its originator; of “the kingdom of God for He is the sovereign of the kingdom; of the “kingdom of the heavens for there is its present locality, and its permanent centre. It is the “gospel of the grace of God for it offers to rebels pardon on the principle of grace, based on the merits and death of Another, imputed to faith apart from works by the believer. It is the “gospel of the glory of the blessed God for it reveals His glory in manifold aspects. But while each of these and other terms conveys its own thought, they describe but one and the same message.

 

[* Note the context to Mr. Lang’s heading.  To say that the good news of salvation by “grace” (Eph. 2: 8,) is synonymous with the good news of the “word of the kingdom” (Matt. 13: 19, R.V.), and that both are the same thing! would be a wresting the Scripture out of context!]

 

 

Paul calls it “my gospel” (Rom. 2. 16), on which has been built up the notion that he had a gospel peculiarly his own. This is unwarranted logically. If an Englishman says “my country he does not mean that his country is not the one that other Englishmen so call. It is unwarranted exegetically, for [Page 39] Paul is there dealing with matters demonstrably common to all his predecessors and contemporaries, namely, “the righteous judgment of God” (v. 5), on the ground of works (ver. 6); with eternal life (ver. 7) or wrath (ver. 8) “in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ” (ver. 16). That the secrets of men would be judged had been announced long before, as by Solomon (Eccles. 12. 14); that Christ would be the judge He Himself had declared (John 5. 27-29; etc.). Paul’s thought might be conveyed by the extended phrase “the gospel which I preach in no wise implying “peculiar to me

 

 

In the Galatian letter Paul’s express subject is the true nature of the gospel; that it is by free promise of God, not by contract between Him and men (ch. 3), God acting alone in giving the promise (3. 20); that it is of grace, not of law; by faith, not works. And so far is Paul from implying that his gospel was peculiar to himself, as contrasted with other or earlier gospels, he bases his whole argument upon exactly the opposite position that “the gospel was preached beforehand unto Abrahamfor the precise reason that it was divinely foreseen that Gentiles were included in its scope. As we have seen, this was a feature in the message of John the Baptist, Christ, Peter, and John, as well as Paul.

 

 

The law of Moses under which Israel was placed, was a temporary interposition until the “Seed [Christ] should come unto whom the promise hath been made” (Gal. 3. 19), whereupon the dealings of God could be resumed with all men upon the exact lines of His dealing with the Gentile Abram prior to the law or even to the rite of circumcision (Rom. 4. 9, ff.). It is to be noted that the law was to last only until the promised Seed should have come, not until He should have come and gone, let alone until several years later still when Paul should be a prisoner at Rome. This is precisely what Christ himself, the Seed, said, that “the law and the prophets were until John His forerunner, Himself being at that time already come and standing among men, though as yet unrecognized (John 1. 26).

 

 

2. There is but one Book of the Kingdom. To gain accurately the mind of God the whole New Testament must be construed together as dealing with one message. Upon this matter the reader should by all means ponder Bernard’s weighty and [Page 40] helpful treatise, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament. In chapter 2 he says: “We have to observe how the Gospel collection [the four Gospels] is fitted to its place and fulfils its function as the commencement of the Christian doctrine of the New Testament” (p. 34). In chapter 3 it is shown “that every doctrine expanded in the Epistles roots itself in some pregnant saying in the Gospels, and the first intimation of every truth revealed to the Apostles by the Spirit came first from the lips of the Son of Man. In each case the later revelation may enlarge the earlier, may show its meaning and define its application, but the earlier revelation stands behind it still, and we owe our first knowledge of every part of the new covenant to those personal communications in which the salvation ‘began to be spoken by the Lord’ ... There was nothing, then, on the lips of the preachers of the Gospel but what had been ‘begun to be spoken’ by its former preacher, and in following to their utmost the words of the Apostles we are still within the compass of the words of the Lord Jesus” (60, 61).

 

 

Bernard illustrates this as follows: “The whole argument on justification in the epistle to the Romans is involved in the assertion that ‘the Son of Man’ was ‘lifted up,’ that ‘whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life’; the exposition of the Christian standing in the epistle to the Galatians is comprehended in the words, ‘The servant abideth not in the house for ever: the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free ye shall be free indeed’; the sacrificial doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews is implied in all its parts by the words, ‘This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins’” (60).

 

 

Personally I cannot be too thankful to the God of truth that some fifty-five years ago I heard this noble work recommended by that eminent Bible teacher, Dr. A. T. Pierson. The passages quoted started in my mind an examination of the theories of the “Jewish” character of the Gospels, the “postponed kingdom,” the “interim dispensation,” and of the assumptions and distinctions demanded to give to these even a semblance of standing in the New Testament. I had been reared in these opinions, but I saw that if Bernard was right these theories must be wrong; and critical study of his proposition [Page 41] very quickly justified it. The many years of further examination and reflection have confirmed this. The line of study set forth in these pages supports it.

 

 

It is plain that the doctrine of there being a first resurrection to precede the coming age roots itself in the words of the Lord, “they that are accounted worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection which is from among the dead” (Luke 20. 35), and is amplified by Paul (Phil. 3. 10-12) and John (Rev. 20. 4-6). The prospect of some being transferred from man’s normal region of the universe, the earth, to the upper region of heaven is introduced by Christ’s promise, “I come again and will receive you unto Myself” (John 14. 3), and is elaborated in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, with Revelation 14. 14-16. The circumstances of the Parousia are set out in the Lord’s forecast on Olivet (Matt. 24; 25: Mark 13: Luke 21), which first illuminates the Old Testament as to the end days and then itself opens out into the Epistles and the Revelation. Any line of exposition which cannot be so conducted is erroneous, being inharmonious with this uniform fact and principle of the New Testament. It is no more justifiable to disunite the Epistles from the Gospels than the New Testament from the Old.

 

 

Eminent scholars and teachers beside Bernard have recognized this feature. By common consent Mr. David Baron was one of the greatest expositors of the Old Testament of our times. Being asked in Cairo by a holder of the interim dispensation theory what he thought about it, I heard with keen interest his answer, “It has been my endeavour to unify the Bible, not to divide it”.

 

 

3. The Change of Dispensation. The revelation of and the fulfilment of the plans of God advanced, and still advance, by stages. The call of Abram was one such stage, and of the greatest moment. The bringing of Israel out of Egypt, and the placing them under law toward God and to one another, with a typical, ritualistic religion, was a temporary measure to educate them for the coming of the promised Redeemer (Gal. 3: Heb. 7; 8). The arrival of that Redeemer ended that temporary period, and resumed the sequence of the call of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with the view to “all the families of the earth” being brought into blessing. This extension of favour to the Gentile peoples synchronized with Israel as a [Page 42] people refusing to be justified on the principle of faith, and determining to continue the vain attempt to establish a righteousness of their own by works done under the old system of the law. This, not the rejection of an offer of the visible kingdom, is the divine explanation of them being temporarily set aside by God as a people (Rom. 9-11). The Lo-ammi period is consequent upon their rejection of Messiah as the Lamb.

 

 

Meanwhile that heavenly company, who embrace the calling to the heavens as Abraham did, are forming a spiritual family of his children, composed of such of his natural seed as believe in Christ and of Gentiles who do so. This “people for God’s name” (Acts 15. 14) upon completion will be transferred to the heavenly world to reign over the universe with Christ, superseding the angelic government which now rules under God, for “not unto angels did God subject the inhabited earth to come” (Heb. 2. 5), but “know ye not that the saints shall judge the world ... [and] angels (1 Cor. 6. 2, 3).

 

 

When the formation of this governing body shall have been completed, the way will be clear for the continuance of the divine plans and promises as to the natural descendants of Abraham in connection with Palestine and the earth. The ten times repeated covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with its ten times repeated guarantee that Canaan shall belong to them permanently, must be fulfilled, as also must the guarantee to David that a Descendant of his shall rule Israel and the world in perpetuity, and that Israel shall not again be removed out of their land (2 Sam. 7: 1 Chron. 17).

 

 

The length of this period during which the kingdom spiritual is to be preached cannot be known, but its commencement and its end are indicated in Scripture. It will end with that resurrection from among the dead mentioned, for so the Lord showed by His words, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from among the dead neither marry, nor ... etc.” (Luke 20. 34, 35). “That age to follow “this age cannot be eternity, for the latter is not one age, but “ages of ages” in ceaseless continuance. It is the millennial age; and the dividing epoch where this age ends and that age begins is the descent of the Lord to the air and the events to accompany and to follow it. This is to be at the [Page 43] close of the great tribulation, the point where all Scripture places that descent. That tribulation will be the climax of “man’s day” (1 Cor. 4. 3), its every feature being but the intensifying of the features that have obtained throughout this age; for, as Paul taught (2 Thess. 2), the mystery of lawlessness has been at work all along and will reach its crisis and doom in the presence and work of the Lawless One. It is therefore quite in accord with the generally painful experiences of the church throughout this age that it should end those experiences only when the age ends and the “day of God” begins. And thus Paul from the first taught that the rest of the afflicted saints would come at that revelation of the Lord Jesus which will bring vengeance upon [the unregenerate], and the godless - [regenerate, - i.e., “them that obey not the gospel of the Lord Jesus*] - (2 Thess. 1. 7, 8).

 

[* NOTE the ‘and” in verse 8 can be used as a disjunction separating two clauses. (1) “…to them that know not God” - i.e., the unregenerate and nominal Christians; from (2) a disjunction - “and” to them that obey not the gospel…” - the regenerate but disobedient Christians! See also Col. 3: 25; Heb. 10: 26-30, R.V.).  Divine ‘vengeance’ must fall on both parties! Ezek. ch. 3. & 33.; Num. 14: 28ff. Malachi 3: 6; cf. Gal. 5: 21ff.; 1 Cor. 10: 5, 6, 11. R.V.]

 

 

The point of commencement of the age is indicated by the facts adduced in this paper. The message of all the preachers considered being one and the same shows where the one age passed into the other; and this the Lord most distinctly intimated by saying with the utmost definiteness that “The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the good tidings of the kingdom of God is preached” (Luke 16. 16: Matt. 11. 13). John therefore both closed the former period and ushered in the new era, and so his brief ministry, not Calvary, not Pentecost, is its defined commencement. In Matthew 11. 11 and Luke 7. 28 the Lord describes John as the greatest man down to his time, because of his office as forerunner of Himself, but adds that any one of even the humbler members of the kingdom of God is greater than John. This must not be read to say that John will not himself have place in the kingdom of God, for elsewhere Christ asserts that “all the prophets” will be in the kingdom (Luke 13. 28): it means that the glory of sharing in the kingdom and reign of Messiah will so vastly transcend that former age which closed with John that the lower positions therein will be nobler than the highest place in the former age. To introduce Messiah in humiliation was the greatest dignity that any man had known down to that time, but to be the humblest sharer with Messiah in His glory will be something greater; and of a share [or an ‘inheritance’] in that glory John will be accounted worthy, for he is one of those who have been “beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God” (Rev. 20. 4), and who will live and reign with Christ.

 

[Page 44]

Those who regard the Cross as the dividing hour of the two ages place too great stress upon but one of the many salient factors, namely, upon the fulfilling of the typical sacrificial ritual as ending the one age and introducing the next. Those who insist on Pentecost, tend to be over-occupied with the place and future of the church of God, and frequently have a contracted view of the kingdom as a whole. They who assert Paul’s rejection by the rabbis at Rome as the proper division build unduly upon the figure of the “body” of Christ. Nor do any of these give adequate weight to Christ’s own direct statement that the law and the prophets were until John, and that with him the new message began, the message which He and all His apostles continued to proclaim and to expand.

 

 

The general situation may be illustrated thus. When a great commercial concern is to be merged into another undertaking, a day is fixed from which the transfer begins, legally and actually. But the task of merging the old business into the new, until the new completely holds the field, will take time, longer or shorter according to the nature of the two concerns.

 

 

Thus it took time for the educating of the apostles for the vast work of propagating the gospel of the kingdom of God, for the superseding of types by realities, the inculcating of grace in place of law as the ground of acceptance by God, the reaching out beyond Israel to the whole world, the building up of the house of God, the church. Calvary was indispensable for affording the ground of grace consistently with the divine law against sin; Pentecost was necessary for supplying the moral energy for the mighty advance; but these both, however indispensable, are to be regarded as steps only to the carrying onward of the purposes of God to the goal of the coming of the kingdom to the earth.

 

 

As we look back through nineteen centuries, we may well see nothing less than a mighty example of the illimitable power of God in the fact that the superseding of so venerable and revered an institution as the law and the prophets was accomplished in so short a space as one generation of disciples. And to gain this most valuable perspective it is needful to accept our Lord’s plain assertion that the present age began with the witness of, John the Baptist.

 

 

4. The Age of the Law was parenthetical. A further matter [Page 45] upon which clarity is of signal importance is as follows. It has been a dominant element of the usual dispensational scheme that the present Christian age is parenthetical, an inserted period during the time of Israel being set on one side, in which period God is completing a purpose before unannounced in the outgathering of the church. This having been accomplished He will pick up the threads of Israel’s history and complete that part also of His programme. Here is a mixture of truth and error. We take the true teaching of Scripture to be as follows:

 

 

The covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15) is the continuous basis of all God’s ways with men in salvation. Believers of this present age are “blessed with the faithful Abraham and thus upon Gentiles also comes “the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3. 9, 14). The Abrahamic covenant has two planes of operation; the heavenly seed of Abraham and his earthly seed. The full programme to which that covenant is directed on the earthly level is the blessing of all the families of the earth (Gen. 12. 1-3). The fulfilment on the heavenly plane is the gathering out from Jews and Gentiles that special company known as the ekklesia, the church, to be transferred to the heavenly regions at the coming of the Lord. This prospect of a sphere in the heavens was opened to Abraham, and embraced by him (Heb. 11. 9, 10, 13-16). The whole and permanent fulfilment, earthly and heavenly, depended upon the coming of that foretold Seed of Abraham, even Christ the Son of God become man.

 

 

It is the descendants of Abraham through whom the purposes of God are to be accomplished, but the earlier of these became ignorant and degraded in Egypt. It was impossible that they could be used by God in this moral state. Therefore through Moses God gave to them His law, so that by means of commands which man was unable to keep he might discover his exceeding sinfulness and inability (Rom. 7. 13), and be made to feel entirely dependent upon the gracious help of God through the promised Messiah. This help could be gained only by faith, not self-effort. Thus “the law hath been our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith The law directed faith forward to Christ (Gal. 3. 23, 24).

 

 

Therefore it is the age of the Sinaitic law that is the interim [Page 46] dispensation, inserted for necessary purposes into the out-working of the covenant with Abraham. It is thus that Scripture distinctly describes the law. Rom. 5. 20: “the law came in beside where pareiserchomai shows that the law was something additional, superadded for a special purpose. This word comes again only at Gal. 2. 4, where certain persons are said to have got secretly into a company to which they did not properly belong so as to work for their special ends. In the same verse there is an allied word pareisaktos, used here only, which is derived from pareisago found only at 2 Pet. 2. 1, both having the same force of something inserted. Therefore in Gal. 3. 19 it is said: “What then is the law? It was added it was something additional; the reason for the addition of law to the gospel, as preached beforehand unto Abraham (Gal. 3. 8), being given as in Romans 5. 20, even that transgressions demanded its authoritative, restrictive, educative influence (Gal. 3. 19). As far as law does its intended service, and by it the humbled, repentant heart is brought to faith in Christ, that person ceases in that degree to be under law and passes into the realm of faith and freedom. And when finally this blessed work shall have been served perfectly in all the saved, heavenly and earthly, there will be no need or room for law, save only the perfect all-inclusive law of love.

 

 

Therefore we should dismiss from our minds the notion that the Christian age is a parenthesis in the ways of God, and regard it as the continuation of the primary, pre-Mosaic covenant with Abraham in which the heavenly aspect of that covenant is being carried forward. Upon the completion of this part of His purpose the Lord, at His return to the earth, will develop the earthly purpose of the covenant with Abraham in the blessing of Israel and all the families of the earth. It is the Mosaic age that is the parenthesis, in which law prepares the heart for grace. The law and the prophets lasted until John had introduced the promised Seed and had turned the humble to Him. In a broad sense the age of law then lapsed, though in individual moral experience each man is still under the law until it has wrought in him conviction of sin and so has cast him on Christ for deliverance. This is true in measure of the believer on Christ. For the purpose of his standing before God as justified he is no longer in any sense or degree under law; but for the purpose of his lingering sins and failures being [Page 47] exposed and rebuked the law still speaks to his conscience, so as to produce repentance and amendment and cast him further on Christ for forgiveness and sanctification.

 

 

5. There is but one Kingdom. The final result of our study to be noticed is that there is but one kingdom of God, of the heavens. The Creator of all must be and must remain the Ruler of all. It is a right of which He cannot divest Himself. These two things are true of necessity: “Jehovah hath established His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over allit is strictly universal (Psalm 103. 19); and, “Thy kingdom is an everlasting* kingdom, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations” (Psalm 145. 13).

 

[* Greek: “a kingdom of all ages,” (Septuagint, LXX translation.]

 

 

There may be many regions, many races of beings (Eph. 3. 15, R.V.), many ranks; there can be only one empire of Jehovah, and nothing can be external to its authority. The - [promised (Psa. 2: 8), messianic and millennial] - kingdom asserts itself on [this restored (Rom. 8: 19-22)] earth in two chief stages: the present, a spiritual, in Christ obtaining His lordship in the hearts of men by their free and saving consent; the other future, when - [after His Second Advent] - He shall come in power and great glory*: but it is one kingdom.

 

[* Compare Psalms 72 & 110 with Luke 24: 25-27, R.V.]

 

 

The church, as the bride, the wife of the Lamb, herself His queen, will be still part of His kingdom, though occupying, indeed, the most noble position in it after Himself. The angel hosts of all ranks are His subjects. On - [this restored earth (see Rom. 8: 19-22, cf. Gen. 3: 17, 18, R.V.)] - earth Israel will be the pre-eminent people in the earthly section of the kingdom. “The nations of them that are saved” will be part of His inheritance, blessed under His perfect rule. Yea, the very rebels confined in His dungeons remain under His dominion, part of His kingdom.

 

 

And in its due time that wondrous moment will be reached when “every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them [will be] heard saying:

 

 

“Unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen! And the elders fell down and worshipped” (Rev. 5. 14).

 

 

Let us say, Amen

 

[Page 48]

 

 

“Oh, that with yonder sacred throng

We at His feet may fall,

Join in the everlasting song

And crown Him Lord of all  Amen and Amen!

 

 

II CONCLUSION

 

 

During the first two centuries after the apostles the dominant expectation of Christians was that this Christian age will close with the rise and rule of a personal Antichrist. He will be overthrown by Christ at His personal return to the earth, Who will thereupon establish His visible kingdom and rule for one thousand years. So Barnabas, Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Cyprian, Victorinus, Lactantius. Justin Martyr set this forth as the general belief of orthodox Christians (Dialogue with Trypho: about A.D. 150).

 

 

In the latter part of the second century there set in at Alexandria the pernicious practice of virtually eliminating the literal sense of Scripture and “spiritualizing” its statements. Clement, the principal teacher in the church there, was saturated with pagan philosophical thought and modes of reasoning.

 

 

This process greatly prepared for that abandonment of the hope of the personal return of Christ, and the events to flow from it which became the general outlook when Christianity was made the State religion. Augustine mightily furthered this changed outlook. The Papacy presents the notion that the church has the task in this age to subdue all mankind to itself and so establish on earth the authority of God. Even where this political aspect is not held there is too commonly the idea that the gospel is to convert the race, and that only thereupon will Christ intervene and wind up affairs by a general judgment.

 

 

Much basic truth was recovered by the Reformers but not that of the Biblical expectation of the rise of a personal Anti christ, the visible return of Christ, and the [subsequent] millennial kingdom. Their horizon was filled by their near and giant enemy, the Roman Catholic Church, which to them was a corporate Antichrist, the Papacy being both antichrist, Beast, and Scarlet Woman.

 

 

Thus the common Protestant outlook did not envisage at the end of this [evil and apostate] age a restoration of Israel, or their prior persecution by Antichrist, or the personal return of Christ, followed [Page 50] by the millennial kingdom. Though this programme is the subject of innumerable passages of [unfulfilled Prophetic] Scripture it is simply blotted out by the non-millenarian view that things will go on as now until at some indefinitely remote time the great white throne judgment will close earth’s history. This outlook has no room whatever for two resurrections with the thousand years between, though this is declared categorically in Rev. 20. One disastrous result of this indefiniteness is that the people of God are deprived of all anticipation of and preparation for events that Scripture says are to come upon the earth as this [evil and apostate] age ends. They have to meet grievous and perilous days, charged with Satanic subtlety and terror. In view of these perils the Lord gave to us - [His disciples (see the context in verses 5-19)] - the solemn and urgent warning found in Luke 21. 34-36:

 

 

“But take heed to yourselves, lest haply your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you suddenly as a snare: for so shall it come upon all them that dwell on the face of all the earth. But watch ye at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man

 

 

This is but one of very many such warnings, and it is a truly serious responsibility which they accept who nullify the whole forecast of the end days, and cause those who are misled by them to risk the deadly peril of which Christ spoke so definitely and solemnly; Nor do they leave ground upon which to warn the worldly of the fatal dangers before them when that period shall dawn.

 

 

In century seventeen Biblical students in Europe began to re-discover Biblical prophetic truth. In the next century this was furthered by J. A. Bengel and others, which advance continued in century nineteen. (See E. Sauer, From Eternity to Eternity, 141, 142) This recovery received powerful impetus through the ripe scholars who pioneered the Brethren movement from 1828 and onward. Among these J. N. Darby and William Kelly pursued the subject with vigour and developed the dispensational scheme which held the field for a century. Much as they helped these studies they unfortunately clogged and embarrassed the theme with such ideas as the postponed kingdom theory, the “Jewish” character of the Synoptic [Page 50] Gospels, the view that Christ must certainly come for the church before the rise of Antichrist, that this coming will be secret, that Old Testament saints cannot share in the heavenly church, and that there are different gospels for different periods and different classes of believers.

 

 

It is natural and healthful that a reaction has come against these mistaken assertions. It is to the good that such features as these of the Notes of the Scofield Bible should be challenged. But it is to be regretted that many critics have failed to see that these details are not essential to the millennial hope as set forth in Scripture and can be dismissed without loss. These opponents have too often thrown over the broad purposes of God while rejecting the accretions of men. For example: the rise and doings of Antichrist do not depend on whether the church is to be removed before or after his reign. The plain statement of Scripture that there are to be two resurrections, one before the millennium and one after, is not jeopardized by whether Old Testament saints will share in the first or only in the second resurrection.

 

 

Certain consequences plainly flow from the beliefs of Christian teachers who directly followed the apostles.

 

 

First. The deferring of Daniel’s seventieth week to the close of this Christian age; including that a personal Antichrist will then arise; that he will be destroyed by the descent of Christ from heaven; that the Lord will then reign visibly at Jerusalem for a thousand years - these are still four most prominent features of the Futurist interpretation of prophetic scripture.

 

 

Second. Therefore the allegation that this scheme was first suggested by the Jesuit Ribera in century sixteen is utterly unfounded, and must have been the result of ignorance or controversial malice. Ribera’s purpose, as to these matters, was to counter the assertion of the Reformers that the Papacy was the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning Antichrist. For this purpose he revived the primitive belief that the Antichrist will be a person not a system, and therefore could not be the Papacy. In this he was right. The common Protestant belief is clearly contrary to primitive belief, and with it falls the laborious attempt of the “historical” school to identify the events of the Christian era with the visions of the Apocalypse.

 

 

Third. It is equally plain that in the sub-apostolic period the majority of Christian teachers known to us did not hold the non-millenarian view; and it may well be asked how those who directly followed the New Testament days could have held almost unitedly the futurist outlook had it been the case that the apostles had taught quite the contrary.

 

 

In this present discussion attempt has been made to remove some of the confusing additions mentioned, while retaining firmly the general divine programme on the main issues. If other teachers of Christian doctrine are helped to see this distinction and to preserve a balanced judgment, the kingdom of God will be strengthened in the lives of His subjects.

 

 

“When ye pray say … THY KINGDOM COME

 

 

 

 

THE END