THE DUALISM OF ETERNAL LIFE*
A REVOLUTION IN ESCHATOLOGY
By
STEPHEN SPEERS CRAIG
[* NOTE: The
following, - (from CHAPTER TWO, pp.
39-67 of the
authors book) -
is a
foretaste of the complete writing, which I hope in the near future, to place on
this website, D.V.]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the
summer of 1892 a book was placed in my hand with a request that I read it. The title was Israel My Glory, by the
Rev. John Wilkinson, president of the Mildmay Mission to the Jews. The reading of that book marked an epoch in
my life. From that time
forward my outlook on the character and
destiny of the Church and the world began to be revolutionized, and the
process still continues its panoramic unfolding with ever deepening amazement
and ever increasing joy.
But when the new light dawned in 1892 and I began to see how fearfully I had been deceived and misled concerning
the character of the present age as portrayed by infallibly inspired prophets
and apostles, I was led to wonder if I had not been misinformed by Mother
Church on other equally important matters; and experience has taught me that
this suspicion had a wondrously solid basis in fact. As a consequence I began to see
that there was a faith nothing more than
an easy going Laodicean indifference, whose proper name was heathenish
credulity, and that on the other hand there
was a skepticism which was one of the most essential elements in the highest
order of Christian virtue. - From the Introduction.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 2: THE
DUALISM OF ETERNAL LIFE
It is the purpose of this chapter
to state, illustrate, enforce, and apply the truth of the Dualism of Eternal
Life as I find it in the word of God, especially in the New Testament.
By the above heading
I mean to convey the thought, the truth, that the phrase Eternal Life is used in a dual or twofold sense, in
the Scriptures. In the Former it designates the free gift of God to the soul that
believes on Jesus Christ as the only Saviour from sin. In the second sense it means, no longer the free gift, but the prize of which Paul speaks in Phil. 3: 7-14. This prize is the gracious privilege granted
to believers who like Joshua and Caleb, like John and Paul, wholly follow the
Lord, of sharing in the glory of the first resurrection and the unspeakable
blessedness of Christs Messianic-Theocratic-Millennial Kingdom in the age to
come (Matt. 19:
27-30).
The gift of Eternal Life
contains potentially the prize; but that potentiality may never
be developed in the present period of the [regenerate] believers
probation; and if such be the case he will miss the
Kingdom and its glory in the coming age.
Dualistic combinations run all
through the Bible. They take various
forms as to moral character. They may be
synthetic, or antithetic. In this chapter we emphasize the former. As examples we may take
Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca. In
the New Testament we have Christ and His Bride; the
Spirit and the word; Baptism and the Lords Supper. Examples of antithetic dualism are found in Abel and Cain, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and
Esau, the Church and the World, Grace and Law.
There is one special point,
under the head of synthetic dualism, where the leaders of the people both in
the Jewish and Christian dispensations have, at fearful cost,
failed God. This is the grand
synthesis of the two advents of Christ.
The Jewish outlook on the future saw but one advent of Messiah and that
in glory to establish His Kingdom and deliver the children of Abraham from
Gentile thraldom. They had no room for a
humble, suffering Messiah preparatory to the glory of His Messianic Rule. The Levitical offerings, as well as passages
like Isa. 53, ought to have saved them from this error. The Old Testament everywhere presents the
Messiah as reaching His throne through suffering (Psalms
22 and 89). So also the people
of God in this dispensation have no room for the thought of the same Christ
still suffering for the truths sake in the members of His mystical body. The loss to vital Christianity has been enormous, as carnal Christians
will discover to their sorrow when they stand before the judgment seat of
Christ. 2 Cor. 5: 10.
The Church admits the two
advents but so completely disassociates
them from their historical and prophetic settings as to rob them of their
synthetic beauty, power, and glory; and also of their spiritual and
eschatological significance.
Associated with this, and
growing out of it, comes the subject of the present volume, where it seems to
me the Christian Church has made the greatest mistake in her whole career. This is her
failure to recognize and emphasize the Dualism of
Eternal Life and its corollaries.
When the Church lost this truth, so central and vital to both
Testaments, I do not know. It is
doubtful, however, if the date is later than the third century A. D.
It is
perfectly clear to the mind of the writer that our exegesis of Luke 18: 18-30, as presented in Chapter
1, has established the fact that the Young Ruler is not a sinner
seeking [eternal]
salvation from the guilt of sin, and possession of the free gift of eternal
life; but a real son of Abraham seeking how he may be assured of a place in
Messiahs coming [millennial]
Kingdom. And
it is equally certain that Peters question and Christs reply (Matt. 19: 27-30) constitute
an extension and amplification of the subject introduced by the Ruler. In addition to this
Christs two replies indicate that eternal [Gk. aionios] life and
the
We will now examine closely the
two terms in the phrase eternal life. There are three Greek words in the New
Testament all translated in A.V. and R.V. by one English word, life. This is
confusing. The three words are bios, psyche
and zoe (with the o and
e long).
[The term] bios occurs eleven times in the New
Testament. It is especially associated
with mans day, and usually refers to the material or sensuous side of human
existence. Thus: He divided unto them his living (Luke 15: 12; so
2 Tim. 2:
4; 1 John 2: 16).
The word psycho occurs about one
hundred times and is translated life, or soul.
It expresses the idea of the natural life in man, and generally with the
suggestion of subjection to sin and death.
Thus: If any man will save
His life he shall lose it (see Matt.
16: 25; 10: 38; Mark 8: 37). This term is used to express the thought of
the natural life of Christ as laid down in His atoning death (Matt. 20: 28). The
adjective aionios
(usually translated eternal or everlasting) is never found
in association with bios or psycho. The reason is that the life expressed by
these words is subject to mood, time, and circumstance. And these are the
only life which man by nature can know.
The third term is zoe. It occurs in the N.T. about one hundred and
forty times. In its Divine original it is uncreated and indestructible. It is that eternal
life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us (1
John 1: 2; John
1: 4). This is the life imparted in the new
birth. But its latent potentiality can
only be developed by the crucifixion of the self-life (psyche), and by continual fellowship with
Christ as the despised and rejected One; and also as the Victor over sin and
death and hell.
This distinction between the soul and the Spirit, and between
the psyche and the zoe, both so fundamental to biblical
interpretation, is ignored and virtually
denied by modern theology; yes, indeed, and by historical and systematic
theology generally.
As a
matter of fact this distinction between psyche and zoe ought to be the primary
postulate of all science and philosophy. If it were so
science would keep absolutely to its own realm - the investigation of natural
phenomena, never daring for a moment to step over the line of demarcation, but
ever with bared and bowed head pausing at the boundary line to worship and
adore that sacred, awful, personal reality without which and whom the
phenomenal world could have no meaning, no purpose, and no existence. So far as Christian
Theology has any life in it, and wants to give a reasonable apology for its
claim to a hearing, it must contend for this distinction with all its might,
and in the full consciousness of its unrivalled dignity and supreme worth. To affirm that Christian Theology has a right to the first place,
at the head of every other branch of knowledge, not merely as a matter of
classification, but as of organic vitality, unity and worth, is only another
way of saying that Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is now dejure and
will soon be de facto, King of
Kings, and Lord of lords before whom every knee in Heaven and earth and hell,
will yet bow in absolute subjection.
Apart from this great fundamental
distinction, and its ethical and spiritual implications, theology ceases to be
Christian, becomes the handmaid of rationalistic philosophy and the plaything
of ecclesiastical opportunists.
Apostolic Christianity has taken
the word zoe out of its degraded
associations in the literature of heathen Greece, given it a new and heavenly fellowship,
infused into it divine energy and given it a central place in the galaxy of
Christian verities. For what is love and joy and peace and long suffering - but so many
attributes of the substance called life. This life could not be eternal if it were not
consubstantial with the Son of God; - nor
consubstantial with the Son of God if it were not eternal. But this is not to
affirm that matter is eternal.
What I want now to prove is that
the phrase, Eternal Life, is used in the Scriptures to convey two quite distinct conceptions. It is (1)
the free gift of God to every sinner who sincerely and
scripturally accepts Jesus Christ as the Saviour from the guilt of sin; and (2) It is used to designate the
blessedness of the Millennial Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We will take two passages from
the Epistle of Paul to the Romans to illustrate the difference. In Rom. 6: 23
it is expressly stated that The wages of sin is death
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord. This is so clear that it
needs no comment. In Rom. 5: 20, 21, we have
the following:
Moreover
the law entered that the offence might abound;
but where sin abounded, grace did much more
abound; that as sin has reigned unto death even
so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ
our Lord.
In the former case
it is a gift to be had by any sinner for the simple taking, regardless of his
past record. Rom. 6:
23 comprehends the simple fact that [eternal]
salvation is provided and freely offered. But Rom. 5: 21 carries
the thought farther. Sin did more
than come in. It abounded. Therefore God must meet this and provide a
means whereby the reign of grace will overtake and exceed the power of sin and
death in every individual who so desires.
At the Cross God damned (katakrino) sin in
the flesh; and thus Christ having spoiled principalities and powers made a show
of them openly, triumphing over them in it (the Cross; Rom.
8: 3; Col. 2: 15). How
did Christ win this victory? By grace? No, there
was no grace for Him. He was made sin for us.
He met the demands of the Law to the fullest extent
by a life of absolute surrender to God. Thus was grace made possible for sinners? Grace for pardon, and also
for deliverance. Grace must do in the
individual what sin has been doing, manifesting its power to control and direct
the energies of the person. As sin
reigned through an unholy life (psyche); so must grace reign through
a holy life, (zoe); and if it does [this is conditional] the reward is Eternal [aionios] Life in the coming Messianic Kingdom; but
not otherwise. Can a man live a holy life till
he is born again and is in possession of the free gift of eternal life? The gift
is the blade but the prize is the full corn in the ear. This is expressed in
Rom. 5: 17. For if by one mans
offence death reigned by one; much more they
which receive abundance of grace and of the
gift of righteousness shall reign in
(Millennial) life by one Jesus Christ.
Did grace reign in the Galatians? No.
The result then is exclusion from the
But God
commendeth His love toward us in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For
if, when we were sinners, we were reconciled to God by the death of His
son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Here in the most explicit terms
we have the doctrine of a twofold
salvation. The believer was saved from the guilt of
sin and justified the moment he believed in Christ. The verb, were reconciled, is in the aorist
tense, and indicates a past act definite
in time and place: (a)
judicially, when the reconciliation was effected by Christ on the Cross; and (b)
actually when the believer accepted Christ as his Saviour. This provides a solid basis on which grace may operate and abound
subjectively. I say, may for
there are conditions which the [regenerate] believer
must fulfil. These being met the process of sanctification begins,
and thus we are saved by His life. As to conditions, see Luke 9: 23; 11: 28; 14: 25-35. He that endureth to
the end shall be saved (Matt. 24: 13). This
is the path into eternal [aionios] life; that is, the Messianic Kingdom.
The above interpretation is further confirmed by the prepositions employed in Rom. 6: 23 and 5: 17-21. In the former passage the words, in Christ Jesus our Lord, the preposition is en ([
see Gk.]) with
dative of the place, or locality, where the
gift is found without any reference to the way in which it is procured, or
how it is to be developed. But in the latter the preposition is dia ([
see Gk.]) with the genitive: By Jesus Christ our
Lord indicating that it is not by the death of Christ
merely, that the second stage of salvation is to be effected; but by His
continual intercession for us at the right hand of God, and the continuous impartation of His resurrection life by the Holy
Spirit.
And these are conditioned by unswerving
faith [and obedience (Acts 5: 32)] in the believer.
In John
3: 16 we have the dualism expressed in
the unity of one outward form, and on the principal that the greater includes
the lesser. This verse is usually
understood to speak only of the free gift of life in
Christ. If God so loved the world that
He made provision in Christ for the pardon and justification of sinners only,
that would be wonderful; but He did far more than that. He made provision that grace might abound to,
and in, and through the believer, so that once saved he might not perish but have eternal life in the Messianic Kingdom.
Then believers may perish, you say. Of course they
may. But in
what sense? In the sense that
they are excluded from the [millennial
and Messianic] Kingdom and have no part in the
glory of the first resurrection, being still held by the power of death.* But
the [regenerate] believer does not thereby lose what he had in the first place - the gift of
eternal life. Grip this thought
firmly.
[* See 1 Peter 1: 9-12ff. Compare Isaiah 11:
9-10; Habakkuk 2: 14;
Revelation 20: 4-6: and Psa. 16: 10 with Acts 2:
27, 34;
and Genesis 15: 7;
Luke 16: 23;
Acts 7: 4b,
5 with 2 Tim.
2: 18, 19. R.V.]
It is here that the respective
theories of the Calvinist and the Armenian break down. They fail to explain and correlate the
facts. We will resume this phase of the
subject later.
But here
arises a new problem: If Eternal Life as the prize differs from Life as the gift; and
also, if Eternal Life as the prize is
synonymous with the coming Messianic Kingdom, and that Kingdom is limited to
1000 years, it follows logically that the adjective aionios does not mean - [in a number of scriptural texts and contexts] - what it says in English [translations]. In other words, that our
translations in both A.V. and R.V. are wrong. This
is what we claim and desire to prove.
As, day by day, I followed up the
clue given that December morning, 1913, I was convinced that those passages
where aionios could be translated eternal
were very few; and that fuller light would likely establish the conclusion
that, so far as its essential meaning is concerned, it
ought never to be so translated and interpreted. But as this is not
necessary in order to establish our main line of argument I have decided to
make no attempt to carry the discussion to its fullest limit. But inasmuch as the traditional eschatology
is built almost exclusively on the assumption that eternal
is the proper translation of aionios, it will follow that if this
can be proven false, and therefore unscriptural, the generally accepted views of the churches of Christendom concerning
the future state of both saved and unsaved will have to be abandoned. This is a very solemn matter and deserving of
the most serious and painstaking consideration.
I am quite well aware that here
we are on keenly contested ground; and, also, just as
certain that in this very matter the last word has not been spoken. Right here Canon Farrar failed at his strongest point, that is, as a
linguist. And
as in the past, so now and in the days to come, we can count on the great enemy
of truth and righteousness to still work through his favourite weapons,
prejudice, custom, and gratuitous assumption, to keep out the light of Gods
word on this great subject. Permit just one sobering interrogation before coming to our task:
Is there any room for doubt, so far as reason and observation can go, that if
the traditional theory be true the Devil is going to reap a tremendously great
harvest of lost souls; and Jesus Christ, notwithstanding His awful sufferings
in which He tasted death for every man, is going to be compelled to be contented
with a few crumbs from under the table of the Worlds Despotic Master and
Ruler. But
in the true light of the actual facts of the incarnation, life, death and
resurrection of the Son of God, is this the best that God can do? Surely not! in such case can the Christ ever see of the travail of His
soul and be satisfied? But let us pass
from the realm of probabilities and conjectures, however
plausible, to that of irrefutable facts.
And we may here remark that what will most
offend orthodox readers in this study is not what is said concerning the future
state of the unsaved, but of the saved. Thus we have to meet
the force of the orthodox view in two opposite directions.
What is the meaning of the Greek
adjective aionios? As most
religious people depend largely, even chiefly, on human authority rather than
on what the word of God says, it may be well to note a few points in this
connection by way of preliminary remark and evidence. Note the following data:
1.
2. Trench in his work on Greek Synonyms
admits that aionios sometimes has a limited significance.
3. Dr. Vincent in his Word Studies in the
New Testament is most emphatic in his assertion that aionios never
means eternal as English readers use the word.
See his valuable note on 2 Thess. 1: 9. Thus it becomes
evident that in our contention for a more exact rendering of this Greek
adjective we are not without the support of scholarship. But we have more
conclusive evidence than this.
SOME POSITIVE FACTS
1. It is a fact that when the A.
V. was made the Latin language was far better known, and more extensively used,
than the Greek; and therefore the translators were greatly influenced both by
the extensive use of Latin and by the Latin Versions then in use. Bezas
translation and the Vulgate both translate aionios by aetemus,
the cognate noun being aeternitas, whence come our English eternal
and eternity.
This looks very suspicious. From
the above it is as clear as the light of noon-day that
the King James Translators instead of going back to the original Greek and
translating the Greek aionios went to the Latin Vulgate
and translated the Latin aeternus. If they had gone to the Greek, and acted as
becomes scholars, they would have given us the same translation as
2. It is equally a fact that the theology of the
West was not that of the Greek Church, but that of Roman Catholicism. It was Latin theology.
And just as
it is beyond doubt that the revisers, translators, and lexicographers, were
chiefly influenced by the Latin language and Latin translations; so is it
equally beyond doubt that the theologians of the Reformation were far more
influenced by Latin Theology than Latin theology than by the word of God. It is admitted that
the theology of Calvin was derived from
Let us for a moment examine the
condition of Latin Theology at the time when the traditional eschatology was
fully established. I will quote from Milmans Latin Christianity. Let it also be remembered
that the first four great Church Councils refused to formulate any creedal
statement on eschatological lines.
Nevertheless it is to Augustine,
especially, that we must trace the roots and the foundation of the system of eschatology which has prevailed in the Protestant Churches
since the reformation. In this connection Milman says:
Augustinianism
was not merely the expression of the universal Christianity of the age as
administering to, as being in itself the more full,
fervent, continuous excitement of the religious sentiment, it was closely
allied with the two great characteristic tendencies of Latin Christianity.
Latin
Christianity, in its strong sacerdotal system, in its rigid and exclusive
theory of the church, at once admitted and mitigated the more repulsive parts
of the Augustinian theology. Predestinarianism
itself, to those at least within the pale, lost most of its awful terrors. The Church was the predestined assemblage of
those to whom and to whom alone, salvation was possible; the Church scrupled
not to surrender the rest of mankind to that inexorable damnation entailed upon
the human race by the sin of their first parents. As the Church, by the jealous exclusion of
all heretics, drew around itself a narrower circle;
this startling limitation of the divine mercies was compensated by the great extension
of its borders, which now comprehended all other baptized Christians. The only point in this theory at which human
nature uttered a feeble remonstrance was the abandonment of infants, who never
knew the distinction between good and evil, to eternal fires. The heart of Augustine wrung from his
reluctant reason, which trembled at its own inconsistency, a milder damnation
in their favour. But some of his more
remorseless disciples disclaimed the illogical softness of their master.
Through
the Church alone, and so through the hierarchy alone, man could be secure of
that direct agency of God upon his soul, after which it yearned with
irrepressible solicitude. The will of
man surrendered itself to the clergy, for on them depends its slavery or its emancipation,
as far as it was capable of emancipation.
In the clergy, divine grace, the patrimony of the Church, was vested,
and through them distributed to mankind. Baptism,
usually administered by them alone, washed away original sin; the other rites and
sacraments of which they were the exclusive ministers, were still conveying,
and alone conveying, the influences of the Holy Ghost to the more or less
passive soul. This
objective and visible form as it were, which was assumed for the inward
workings of God upon the mind and heart, by the certitude and security which it
seemed to bestow, was so unspeakably consolatory, and relieved, especially the
less reflective mind, from so much doubt and anxiety, that mankind was disposed
to hail with gladness rather than examine with jealous suspicion these claims
of the hierarchy. Thus the
Augustinian theology coincided with the tendencies of the age towards the
growth of the strong sacerdotal system; and the sacerdotal system reconciled
Christendom with the Augustinian theology.
- Milmans Works.
Vol. 1, page 171.
No student of ecclesiastical
history will doubt the accuracy and the literal truthfulness of the above description
by Milman of the condition of Christendom in the
middle Ages. And the
ability of the clergy to keep the people in abject submission to their
authority depended more than anything else on their boasted power
over the souls of men [in Gk. Hades =
Heb. Sheol] after they had left the body.* For
this purpose it was essentially necessary to formulate and boldly enunciate a
system of eschatology which would, if the clergy so willed fix irrevocably the
future destiny of the soul [from the time
of Death until its Resurrection]. And
not only so, but it was necessary to so manipulate those portions of Scripture
which threatened future judgment [in that place (Heb.
9: 27)] on the believer, in case of disobedience
and unbelief, as to make them apply not to [regenerate] Christians but to [unregenerate]
sinners. And the same
necessity exists today as we shall see later.
[* See Luke 16: 22, 23, R.V. cf.
Acts 2: 34; Rev. 6: 9-11 and 2 Tim. 2: 18,
etc. See also Mr. G. H. Langs Firstfruits and Harvest.]
But while
Latin Christianity wielded mighty power for many centuries, it did so because
the human mind during those centuries was sleeping the sleep of death; hence
the arbitrary power of the clergy and at the same time their gross
immorality. Falsehood and superstition
can only flourish in an atmosphere of intellectual lethargy and moral
paralysis. Consequently, as soon as
there came, in the good providence of God, the dawn of the Renaissance in the
14th century, Latin Theology could not face the light of even a
morally barren intellectual awakening.
From that time Latin Christianity began to
wane. Then the process of illumination
received a mighty impetus from the Reformation under Luther, Calvin, Zwingli
and Knox.
3.
Blessed, however, as was this work of God and man, it went neither deep enough,
nor far enough, with the result that many of the most pernicious features of
Augustinian theology and Latin Christianity survived the Reformation, and continue to this day to darken the
heavens and benumb the moral and spiritual sensibilities of Gods [redeemed] people; and thereby prove an inseparable barrier in the way of the
progress of vital Christianity.
Nevertheless, God is getting out of the world His seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal. By the grace of God
we want to help on the good work. The
conclusion we draw from the above is simply this:
It was absolutely essential to
Augustinian theology with its blighting emphasis on the doctrine of
predestinarianism to mistranslate the Greek adjective aionios, and put on it a meaning which the Greek will not for a
moment allow in its respective applications to salvation and judgment.
And that which was essential to Augustinian theology
was equally essential to Latin Christianity from the days of Augustine to those
of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli. And the same necessity exists in the Reformed
Theology from then till the present.
To say nothing of other words, the Calvinist simply cannot,
dare not, face an honest and truthful interpretation of the two frequently
occurring words with which we are now dealing, namely, eternal life.
Perhaps the reader will say Amen! before he gets to the end of the book.
4. It is a fact that aionios is derived from the noun aion. By means of this latter word and its compounds the Greeks expressed their conceptions of time,
past, present and future. No language
can get along without some such word, or words.
F. W. Grant in his Facts and Theories as to a Future State says
aion is sometimes used for a limited time, and
sometimes for unlimited time, namely, eternity.
QUERRY: How is
it possible to derive an adjective expressive of unlimited time, or duration, from a noun which always conveys the thought of limited
time?
Sometime after this thought had
occurred to me I met it in Wilsons Diaglott.
5. Wy did the Revisers of the A.V.
insert, or rather, retain the word world in Matt. 28: 20? They
make Christ say: lo, I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world. But what He did say
was: Lo, I am with you
always, unto the end of the age. In reply to Peters question, He promised to those of His
followers who were faithful to Him during His absence, He would give great reward in the age
(not world) to
come; plainly implying that
those who were unfaithful would not share in the rewards, and, as He
indicates in other passages, will not even share the blessedness of the
coming age and Kingdom. I repeat the question: Why did the Revisers
translate aion by world, instead of age? Because
the Postmillennial* theory of interpretation stands completely
condemned before the correct rendering; and with its fall the traditional
eschatology must also fall.
[* NOTE: The Postmillennial theory of interpretation, teaches that this present evil
age, (by the preaching of salvation by Gods grace (Eph. 2: 8, 9), and the free gift of God is eternal
life (Rom. 6:
23, R.V.), will introduce the millennium before
the return of our Lord Jesus: and the Anti-Millennial theology, (the apostates
teaching so popular within the Church of God today), is an open denial of our
Lords inheritance, during the age to come (Ps. 2: 8; Heb. 6: 5, R.V.)! (See
also Psalms 78.; 96.;
110. cf. Lk. 24: 21-26 and 44, etc.]
6. The idea is almost universal, and
especially among scholars, that the primary and essential significance of aionios
is that of time, whereas it is quality.
The thought of time is not absent but it is secondary. In such expressions as the eternal world. the eternal
Spirit, the eternal God, this is the
significance. In these cases aionios
conveys the thought of existence, or being, which is above the limitations of
time and the accident of circumstance, but says nothing about eternity past or
future. Besides this, if the main idea
of aionios was that of time the adjective would be superfluous, because
eternity is one of Gods attributes; and is therefore always latent and implied
in the names of the Deity. It is
singular that the lexicons should have been so confused in reference to the
real meaning of this word. The above six
lines of evidence demonstrate conclusively that the Greek aionios cannot be translated
by the English eternal; and to do so is to give ourselves up to the darkness
and delusion of the Middle Ages.
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF EXEGETICAL NECESSITY
7. We believe that the evidence
already given is unanswerable, but that which we are now about to give is even
more forceful. The word aionios
occurs some seventy times in the New Testament.
Wherever it is found in association with the names of Deity
it makes good sense to render it by eternal,
but as already noted that is not its proper meaning. We will now examine this term where it is applied otherwise than to the names of Deity.
Therefore
leaving the principles of the doctrines of Christ, let us go on unto spiritual maturity; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead
works, and of faith toward God; of the doctrines of baptisms and of laying on of hands, and resurrection of the
dead, and
of eternal judgment (Heb. 6: 1, 2).
And
being made perfect He became the author of eternal
salvation unto all them that obey Him (Heb. 5: 9).
Here we have the antithetical
terms Eternal Judgment and Eternal Salvation.
Turn up what orthodox commentary you may, practical or critical, or
listen to whatever orthodox preacher you may, and they will all give their
united testimony that the former has reference to the eternal damnation of the
unsaved, and the latter to the eternal bliss of believers.
Will the reader please pardon me
if I seem presumptuous when I affirm that this is all wrong and utterly
contrary to the principles of sound exegesis; and at
the same time subversive of truth and righteousness. What we are about to prove is that both
statements have reference to [regenerate] believers only, and are to be
realized in the age to come; that is, within the limits of one thousand years. They have no reference to eternity except by
implication. And
surely it is manifest that [regenerate and not nominal] believers
cannot he eternally damned and eternally saved.
The two ideas are mutually exclusive.
And it
is manifest that if this position can be established as scriptural the
traditional eschatology, as to both the saved and the unsaved, will be
undermined and must fall in irreparable ruin.
Fact is the
ruthless enemy of fiction.
Gods great instrument in religion is truth;
whereas the Devils is fiction, that is, imitation of truth. Truth is, and was, and shall be, because God
is, and was, and shall be. Fiction is
something manufactured for the occasion and is successful only so far as it has the appearance of reality. The traditional eschatology has a little
truth and a great mass of fiction.
FIVE FACTS
1. The Bible divides all men into two classes - the saved and the
unsaved.
2. It subdivides the saved into two
classes - the carnal who live according to the flesh; and the spiritual who live
according to the spirit (Rom. 8: 13-14).
3. It presents the
4. The Bible explicitly affirms that all believers are in the Kingdom in its present phase; but carnal believers will not be able to
enter the Kingdom in glory in the age to come (Gal. 5:
19-21; Matt. 5: 20).
5. The state in which believers die is that in which they
will come before Christ to be judged. This judicial process may issue either in eternal (age-lasting) salvation, or eternal
(age-lasting) judgment, according to Heb. 5: 9; and 6: 2. Let the reader note that we are here using
the word eternal, not in its English sense,
but as a translation of aionios, that is, age-lasting,
or lasting while the age lasts.
Before coming directly to our
examination of aionios, permit another remark: We have seen the teaching of
the Westminster Standards and of Protestantism generally as to the future state
of believers. They say that at death the
believer passes immediately into the presence of God and never can know any future judgment or sorrow. This
is another of these flesh-pleasing fictions of the Middle
Ages devised by priestcraft.
We may affirm, as a general and
universal principal, that God, as a moral necessity inheriting in his holiness,
cannot bestow any gift, either external or internal, on man without holding him
strictly accountable for the use he makes of it. Why should the free gift
of eternal life be an exception? But as a matter of fact it is universally assumed to be
so. This is a great mistake. We will take an example. Dr. Schofields notes, in his Reference Bible, are, on the whole, excellent; but occasionally he makes a serious
slip as in his note on 2 Cor.
3: 10,
where Paul says:
Ye
(Christians) must all appear before the judgment seat (bema) of Christ that every one
may receive for the things done in his body, according
to that he has done, whether it be good or bad.
On this passage
Dr. Scofield comments as follows:
The
judgment of the believers works, not sins, is in question here. These (his sins) have been atoned for and are
remembered no more forever. Heb. 10: 17; but every work must
come into judgment (Matt. 10: 12; Rom. 14: 10; Gal. 6: 7; Eph. 6: 8; Col. 3: 24, 25). The result is reward or loss (of reward), but he
himself shall be saved (1 Cor. 3: 11-15).
An examination of this paragraph
reveals the following. Heb. 10: 17: And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. A mere glance at the context shows that the Holy Spirit is not here
speaking of Christians, nor of this dispensation, but to the saved remnant of
The third proof text used by the
Doctor is Matt. 10:
12 and it
has no bearing on the subject whatever.
Eph. 6:
8 has reference to the Christians good deeds,
but says nothing of the evil; and the
other three passages affirm the very opposite of the Doctors contention. How very emphatic is Col.
3: 25: But He that doeth wrong (assuming that he has not made
it right) shall
receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons.
Surely that is plain enough. Those who hold the theory in question say it
is the believers works and not his person that is to be
judged. Is it conceivable that an
evil work, apart from the person who does it, can be judged,
the sentence executed and justice satisfied thereby? How would the theory work in civil
jurisprudence? Suppose society should
say, We will let the murderer go free, but we will
judge and punish the deed. But says one of the advocates of orthodox eschatology: the believers sins were all judged at
Was God purpose in the
atonement to put a premium on sinning; or was it that Christians might not sin
(1 John 2: 1)? The theory is essentially antinomian. Paul met it in his day as when he said, Shall we sin then because we are not under the law but under
grace?, and meets the thought with an emphatic God forbid. Christ bore the believers sin and sins on the cross
judicially. But this will not save the believer from sinning; nor from reaping as he sows. Christ not only bore the sins of the believer
at the cross, but of the whole world, but
this does not secure the [aionian] salvation
of any man apart from repentance and faith.
God took
[* See Num. 14: 23; 16: 26-30. cf. Matt.
5: 20; 7: 21; 12: 36 with Lk. 16: 23-25; Rev. 6: 9-11 and 2 Tim. 2: 18, R.V.]
Therefore
we ought to give the more earnest heed
to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip;
for if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompense of reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?
Thus we see
that salvation is dual, or two-fold, first from the guilt of sin, and second from the power of sin; and these agree with and condition eternal life as the
gift and as the prize. it is salvation
in this second [age-lasting] sense that the Holy Spirit is speaking of in Heb. 1: 1-4; 2: 3; and 5: 9; and it is
this that Christ has in view in Matt. 7: 13, 14; 24: 13; and Luke 13:
24. The
two classes of believers are described as to character
in Matt. 7:
24-27. Very few believers really hear Christs words
and do them, and thus they build on sand, while true [Spirit-taught] believers
dig deep and build on the rock. Luke 6: 46, 49.
In Romans
11: 14-24
the Holy Spirit warns Gentile believers that if they abide not in Christ they
too shall be cut off. And this has been the
actual state of the Church as an organization since the fourth century.
And what is
it for members of the Church to be cut off? I am assuming the Church to be
made up of people who are saved in the first degree. It is (a) to be put
out of fellowship with Christ and the Divine Trinity here and now; and (b) to be excluded from the Messianic Kingdom for one thousand years. The Holy
Spirit enumerates the works of the flesh, deadly personal sins, sins which have characterized the Church
from the days of the Apostles to the present time, and then declares most solemnly that they which do such things shall
not inherit the Kingdom of God (Gal. 5: 19-21).
I have actually seen these words quoted by an orthodox writer as a proof
text for the eternal damnation of the wicked. As has been said, The
Church delights to steal
As the
truth of justification is prominent in the Epistle to the Romans; so that of
sanctification is prominent in Hebrews. And, moreover, as
justification paves the way to practical sanctification, so the latter
qualifies for the
The Epistle to the Hebrews not
only emphasizes the importance of the doctrine of practical sanctification, but
also reveals Gods will for it. Christ
not only died for his people, but He rose and ever liveth to make intercession
for them. Christ is greater than the angels; greater than Moses; and greater than Aaron (Heb. chaps. 1, 2). But there is real danger that such riches of
grace will be abused; and if so God's displeasure will surely follow as in the
case of
Search the accepted Creeds and
Confessions of Christendom and you will find that the Church knows nothing, of
such a hope. And yet without this hope, and the type of character which it develops, there
is nothing but exclusion for [regenerate] believers. But, you
say, Does not the expression, There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God (Heb. 4: 9) include
all believers whether sanctified or carnal? Pardon me if I shock you by saying, No, it
does not. There is a difference between
the redemption of purchase and the redemption of appropriation. God can even now say of the twelve tribes of
Then they that feared Jehovah (the covenant keeping God)
spake often one to another; and Jehovah hearkened and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared Jehovah and that thought upon His name; and they shall be mine saith Jehovah of hosts, in that day when I
make up my jewels; and I will spare them as a man spares his own son that serveth him (Malachi 3: 16, 17; Matt. 5: 1-14; Luke 6: 48; Eph. 3: 17, 19; Lev. 17: 23).
Were the ten spies and those
murmurers in the wilderness among the Lords jewels? Were the Corinthians, the Galatians, and the Laodiceans?
But in every
age God has a few jewels like Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel,
David and others. It is of these that
Christ Says, Fear not little flock for it is your Fathers
good pleasure to give you the (Millennial) Kingdom.
This is the hope, and this is the
prize. Phil 3: 7-14. There are many portions of the word of God which belong especially to
this little company and which carnal believers cannot appropriate (see Heb. 11; Rom. 8; Matthew 5-7,
and the Epistle to the Ephesians).
In Hebrews
chapter five, the Holy Spirit points out the fact that notwithstanding Gods
rich provision (4: 14-16), the people addressed were falling back and
were only able to take in the simplest Gospel truth, the milk of the word (Heb. 5: 12-14). In chapter 6 he exhorts them to go on to perfection, that is,
Christian maturity (Heb. 6: 1-3). In 6: 4-8 he warns them of the consequences
of falling back, that is, of failing into a state where repentance becomes
subjectively impossible, and in that case exclusion is inevitable. Then in 6: 9-20 the writer
expresses a hope of better things; and things that accompany (Millennial) salvation; and again speaks
of Gods rich provision for an overcoming Christian life. He speaks of Gods promises and Gods oath,
and cites Abraham as an example of successful perseverance who after he had patiently endured obtained the promise
of a son (Isaac is the type of Christ), and
therein assurance of the Millennial inheritance (Heb.
6: 15).
Let the reader turn up any
orthodox commentary and it will tell you, as does Doctor Scofield, that Hebrews 6: 4-8 has no reference to believers, but to mere
professors and legalists who know nothing of the new birth. Here are the Doctors words:
Hebrews
6: 4-8 presents the case of a Jewish professed believer who turns
back after advancing to the very threshold of salvation, Even going along with
the Holy Spirit in His work of enlightenment and conviction (John 16: 8, 10). It is not said that
he had faith. This supposed person is
like the spies at Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. 1: 19-26) who saw the land and had the very fruit of it in their
hand, and yet turned back.
We will endeavour to prove that
this is bad exegesis. The Doctor errs in
interpretation and in application. Will
the reader note the following considerations in opposition to the traditional
view?
1. The Epistle as we have seen is addressed
to believers.
2. Its theme is holiness (hagiasmos, Heb. 12:
14) as the condition of entering the
Messianic Kingdom where God is fully revealed.
3. Up to Hebrews
chapter 6, the sinner does not come once within the horizon of the
writer, for he is writing exclusively to believers.
4. In Hebrews
6: 1-3,
and 9-20,
the exhortation is very definitely to believers, containing the most solemn
warnings and
great encouragements, and so to the end of the Epistle.
5. Is it exegetically possible
that the writer could pass from the case of the unfaithful believer to that of
the sinner between verses 3
and 4 and give not the slightest hint of
such an abrupt transition in the unfolding of his thought? And then, again, assuming
that he does, is it possible that he could jump back to the case of the believer
at verse 9 without the slightest indication of
any change of subject matter and without any particle of transition? Besides, if we grant that he is addressing sinners
in verses 4-8,
what relevancy would that have to the subject in hand (the sanctification of believers
as a preparation for in the age to come)? None whatever, for he is speaking of believers going on to
maturity as the condition of avoiding exclusion from the Messianic Kingdom.
6. In Hebrews
6: 9, 10,
he says:
But
beloved, we are persuaded better things of You, and things that
accompany salvation though we thus speak; for
God is not unrighteous to forget your
work and labour of love.
Thus we see
the perfect continuity of the theme. The
very ones who were in danger of failing away beyond possibility of renewal are
the beloved of whom he is persuaded better things and things that accompany (Millennial) salvation. In
other words, two possibilities lay before the people addressed: on the lower As
that of failing back so as to come under the sentence of eternal (age-enduring)
judgment; and on the upper side that of going on like true sons of Abraham to eternal
(age lasting) salvation. Or, to state the case more forcefully, the believer of this
age has the choice of spending the age to come (the thousand years)
in Hadean shame and darkness, or in celestial glory and light. The reader will admit that this is a tremendously
serious matter. But to make still more sure of our
ground let us examine verses 4 to 8 internally:
(1) They had been once enlightened.
(2)
They had tasted the heavenly gift.
(3) They had been partakers of the Holy
Ghost.
(4)
They had tasted the good word of God.
(5) They have tasted the powers of the
age to come.
(6) They have had a taste of the coming
glory.
Now I ask the reader, did ever
any unregenerate man have such an experience as that? Is it not perfect and blessed as far as it
goes. It is safe to say that ninety per
cent of believers on the earth today can not testify to anything better than
that; and the majority of them cannot come up to it. And yet orthodox
writers would fain have us believe that the people addressed (in these verses)
were un-regenerated sinners. Nothing but
the dire necessities of a false theory of interpretation handed down from the darkness
of the Middle-Ages could induce any man to so pervert
the word of God in the interest of carnal expediency. No doubt the Doctor
is sincere, and is not to be classed with post-millenarian interpreters; but
like many others was unable to fully extricate himself from the traditions of
men. Indeed no man has been able to do
this except in the degree that he is under the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
(7) If they
shall fall away. He does not say
they will. If, however, they do fall
away, to which we are all liable, the penalty is exclusion from the Messianic
Kingdom; and this involves the believer in the age-lasting judgment of chapter 6: 2.
If on the other hand they walk
in the steps of Abraham, the Father of the faithful, they will
through faith and patience inherit the promise. Hebrews 6: 15. Can it
be said of a mere professor, an unregenerate sinner, that if he keeps on in the
path before him it will be well with his soul in the end? Surely not! And if so, then the
writer is not talking to sinners but to [regenerate] Christians.
And was not the peril of
apostasy among the Hebrews also the peril of the
Corinthians and the Galatians in Pauls day; and of the Ephesians in Johns
day? And is it
not the peril of [born again] believers
all through this dispensation? Thus
Dr. Scofield cites the case of
the ten spies (Deut. 1: 19-26) as though they were lost sinners. On the contrary they
are a type of the great mass of official believers who are yet full of unbelief
in reference to the truths of prophecy and the Millennial Reign of Jesus
Christ. So with
the children of
Now these
were our ensamples (warnings) to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as
they also lusted (1 Cor.
10: 1-10).
How could they be examples to us
if they do not belong to the same class and if we are not in danger of the same
judgment?
Let me here state an awfully
solemn fact: From such passages of Scripture as Matt. 13: 1-49; 16: 21-27; 24: 32-51; 25: 1-30; 1 Cor. 10: 1-10; Rom. 11: 14-44; and Rev. chaps. 2 and 3; as well as from an honest study of the history
of Christendom, we are obligated to
conclude that very few of the saved in this dispensation will be able to share
in the glory of the first resurrection and the Messianic Kingdom; so that
exclusion with its disciplinary and penal consequences is their sure
inheritance. Truly it is a fearful thing (for a worldly Christian) to fall into
the hands of the living God (Heb. 10: 31; 12: 29). Personally,
I confess that except as I follow Christ
in the way of the Cross with its rejection by the world, especially the
religious world, I have no hope of a place with Him in His Millennial Reign
(Luke 9: 23;
14: 25-35).
Let no man say that the teaching
of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not for Gentile Christians in these respects. The children of Israel held three positions and they are all
typical: (1) In Egypt under the
blood of the Passover Lamb - the type of Christ; (2) in the wilderness on their way to Canaan - type of the believers
utter dependence upon God as he journeys through this spiritually barren world;
and also the natural dislike of the flesh in the believer for such a position;
(3) and then in the land of promise.
Let me put it thus:
Romans 6 gives
the believers standing and immeasurable objective
riches in Christ; and also the path by which these riches are to be made
subjectively real (6: 3-5). But the believer has
yet to learn how to walk in this path so that Christ may get His rights in him.
Romans 7
represents the believer beginning to recognizes of his inheritance in Christ
and reaching out after them only to find himself under the dominion of the
self-life, because he does not understand the place and work of the Holy Spirit
as the only one who can bring him through death to self into Canaan. He seeks to reach the goal in his own strength,
though unconsciously, and fails. The
flesh is stronger than the spirit.
Romans 8. Here the believer has
given up his fleshly struggle, sells his all for the pearl of great price and puts on the whole armour of God and is able to say, The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death, Here he stands by faith. This, spiritually, is an earnest of the land
of promise.
To suppose, with Arminian
Theology, that Rom. 8
is the experience of one seeking salvation by works is as contrary to sound
exegesis as it is to Christian experience and observation.
Thus on grounds of exegetical
necessity we have demonstrated that the adjective aionios in Heb. 6: 2 and 5: 9 cannot be rendered eternal or everlasting, but age-lasting; that is, lasting throughout the age referred
to. At the end of that age the judgment will be lifted after that the carnal
believer has got right with God, and he will then enter the Kingdom in its
really eternal state. This throws some
light on at least one phase of the truth of Acts 3:
21. In
our study of the narrative concerning the Rich Young Ruler
we were obliged, on grounds of exegetical necessity, to come to the same
conclusion concerning the meaning of the word aionios.
We believe that we have now established
a principle which we may formulate thus: Wherever we
find the adjective aionios associated with nouns other than those which are
descriptive of God, or His attributes, we are to interpret it as confined to
the age to come, and as falling entirely within the limits of the
After having come to this
conclusion, I began to search in order to find if any other writer had been
lead in this path. I found that Samuel Minton
in The Glory of Christ had caught the clue
for a moment and then lost it.
We will now examine several
other passages where aionios occurs. Let us postulate three facts: First, the
personal ministry of Christ was exclusive to the Jews. He said, I am not
sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Matt. 19: 16, 21; Mark 17: 30; Luke 10: 25; 18: 18-30; John 3: 15, 36; John 14: 36; 5: 24, 39; 6: 27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10: 28; 12: 25, 50; 17: 2, 3; Acts 13: 46, 48; Rom. 2: 7; 5: 21; 6: 22; Gal. 6: 8; 1 Tim. 1: 16; 6: 12, 19; Titus 1: 2; 3: 7; 1 John 2: 25; 5: 11, 13, 20; Jude 21.
Sometimes, as in John 3: 16, the
free gift of eternal life by implication lies behind the prize and is taken for
granted; but the main idea looks forward
to the full realization of Israels most glorious hope in the Millennial
Kingdom. The following expressions
refer to the same period, eternal judgment (Heb. 6: 2); eternal redemption
(Heb. 9: 12); eternal inheritance
(Heb. 9: 15); eternal glory
(1 Peter 5: 10); The everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
In all the above cases aionios should be translated age-lasting. The reader will be ready to admit that if
what we have just said is true, the sub-title of the book - A Revolution in Eschatology - is quite appropriate.
We will enlarge briefly on a few
of the above passages. Take 1 Tim. 1: 16: Howbeit for this
cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus
Christ might show forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them (Christians) who should hereafter
believe on him to life everlasting. It is evident that Paul is not here referring
to the gift of eternal life but to the prize; and he indicates that it
can only be won by living the kind of a life he lived.
This agrees with Matt. 7: 13, 14; Luke 13: 24;
Paul says to Timothy; Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and has confessed a good profession before many witnesses
(1 Tim. 6: 12). Timothy
had been converted many years before this, and was therefore in possession of
the free gift of eternal life. Paul could not exhort him to contend for something
he already possessed. On the other hand,
eternal life in this passage cannot refer to the eternal state
beyond the Millennium, for the reason that absolutely all
believers are sure of that. The problem
is, shall we spend the one thousand years with Christ
in glory, or in the darkness of the Hadean world? Peter urges believers thus:
And besides this, giving all
diligence add to your faith virtue; and to
virtue knowledge; and to knowledge self-control;
and to self-control patience; and to patience godliness;
and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to
brotherly kindness charity; for if these things be in you and abound, they make you that you shall be neither barren or unfruitful
in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he (the
believer) that lacketh these things (and most [regenerate] Christians do lack them) is blind,
and cannot see afar off (to the Messianic
Kingdom), and hath forgotten that he was purged from
his old sins (sins committed before conversion).
Wherefore the rather,
brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election (to a place in the Messianic Kingdom) sure; for if ye
do these things ye shall never fall (implying
that if they do not do them they will fall); for so an entrance shall be
ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting (age-lasting)
Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
We feel sure that every honest
reader now sees clearly the distinction between the free gift
and the prize; and also the different methods by which each is secured; the one
by faith without works, and the other by faith expressed through works. Let us listen to the Saviours
talk with the woman at the well: Jesus answered and
said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever
shall drink of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the
water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into
everlasting life (John 4: 13, 14).
Let us now translate the fourteenth verse correctly: But
whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall not thirst for,
or in, the age (to come); but the water that I shall give him shall become (not eimi but ginomai) in him a
fountain of water springing up into age-lasting life (in the Messianic
Kingdom).
The majority of believers does
not understand nothing of the ever flowing fountain
within coming into expression in thought, word, and act because of the presence
and effective operation of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the crucified but
now glorified Christ. They know an inner
fountain, but one of an altogether different kind (Matt. 15: 18, 19, 20; Gal. 5: 19-21). We all know this only too
well. God alone can displace it with the
fountain of life (zoe).
On another occasion
Christ made use of the following expression:
Verily,
verily, I say unto you,
If a man keep my saying he shall not see death for,
or in, the age (to come) (John 8: 51).
Now this cannot mean physical
death, for it is appointed unto men once to die, from
which even the Apostles were not exempt. The meaning then is that
those who really hear and keep the word of Christ in their hearts will be in a
state of real life and fellowship with God in glorified bodies during the Millennial
period; but those who do not hear and obey the word will continue in a state of death and partial alienation from God, and consequent
exclusion from His presence during the same period. Christ said to the Jews:
Search
the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal (Millennial) life; and they are they which
testify of me (John 5: 39; 6: 68, 69).
I would again remind the reader
that the prophetic outlook of patriarchs, historians and prophets of the Old
Testament, WAS NOT ON ETERNITY, but on the Messianic Kingdom. The New Testament also begins and ends with
this same thought in the foreground; and rarely passes the dividing line
between time and eternity. The
recognition of this fact is vital to scriptural exegesis.
I wish now to call the readers
attention, in the light of the above facts, to a new interpretation of a
particular portion of scripture, and request that he put more than usual energy
into his powers of volition and discrimination. It is this:
And to you who are troubled (there were many believers
in that day who were not troubled, as now, because they avoided the offence of
the cross (John 12: 42-43; 9: 22; 16: 2; Gal. 5: 37; Matt. 10: 37-39; 1 Tim. 6: 13), rest with us
(who are kept by the power of God through faith (1
Peter 1: 3-5)
when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
His mighty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
and that obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord
and from the glory of His power, when He shall
come to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all them that believe,
because our testimony was believed among you, in that day (2 Thess. 1: 7-10).
The universal interpretation of
this passage, as to the judgment foretold, has applied it to [unregenerate] sinners
and to them only. But,
astonishing as it may appear at first sight, I am convinced that its reference is
to carnal believers. It was one of the
fatal errors of the Jews to imagine that because they were the children of
Abraham they could never by any possibility become the
objects of Gods displeasure; or that their beautiful City and magnificent
Let us look for a moment at 2
Thess. 1: 7-10. Note the
following points:
(a) Very
few Christians have suffered for the Kingdoms sake.
(b) Only a very small proportion of them
believe in the pre-millennial coming.
(c) Very
few of them know God (1 John 2: 3-6).
(d) Very few of them obey the gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ. In this they are
like
(1
Sam.15: 22;
Jer. 7: 23; 2 Thess. 3: 14; Heb. 5: 9).
There is something more serious
than age-lasting destruction for sinners.
His
saints in verse 10 does not here
include all believers, but those that have really lived holy lives (Heb. 12: 14 in contrast with 1 Cor. 3: 1-15 and Gal. 5: 19-21).
To be admired
in all them that believe. Here again not all [regenerate] believers
are included but only those who believe
the full gospel, and by the grace of God live it out in their lives. This interpretation agrees perfectly with Matt. 7: 13, 14; Luke 13: 24; 1 Cor. 10: 1-10; Rom. 11: 14-24; Gal. 6: 7-8; Rom. 2: 1-11; and Rev. 3: 14-20. Paul affirms that the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who
hold the truth in unrighteousness. One has only to examine the history of
Christianity ever so superficially to see the prevalence of these sins in the
Church ever since the days of the Apostles.
I feel free to say with absolute assurance that I am speaking the truth,
that he who accepts the Post-Millenarian
[and Anti-Millennial]
interpretation of the Scriptures
is holding the truth in unrighteousness. In 2 Thess. 1: 9 we have
the expression everlasting destruction.
Now it is certain that no man
who has in him Gods free gift of eternal life can
ever suffer eternal destruction from the
presence of the Lord; but he may suffer age-lasting destruction. This is clear from Matt.
10: 37-39 and John 8: 51. Gods
ancient people, with few exceptions, are even now undergoing this kind of
destruction. It has been assumed that neither olethros
nor apoleia
(both translated destruction) are ever applied to the believer in the
scriptures; but this is a wholly gratuitous assumption which
is in perfect keeping with many other unscriptural factors in the traditional
eschatology. We cannot enlarge on this
point at the present time. It is a sobering thought to think that of the
six hundred thousand men who came out of
We should remember that the sin
of Moses was not like that of the people. He was not guilty of murmuring. Yet in the
face of these most solemn warnings orthodox teachers
tell us that the believer is, at the moment of his death, made perfect in
glory, and this in the face of the other fact that the Holy Spirit through Paul
says:
For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompense or reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation,
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord and
was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him (Heb. 2: 1-3; 5: 9; 1: 14; Matt. 24: 13).
In reference to 2
Thess. 1: 7-10, the
orthodox interpreter faces a dilemma: The reference is either to believers or
sinners. If to believers, then there is
surely age-lasting judgment for those who disbelieve and disobey the gospel of
Jesus Christ. (Heb. 6:
2). On
the other hand, if it belongs to sinners, then he must write himself down a restitutionist, for in this case the wicked will not suffer
eternally, but only one thousand years, for we have proven that aionios
in all references [to Christians good works after their regeneration
and] to the future is limited to the
Millennial Period. Let the reader decide
where he stands.
There are, as already remarked,
two great motives to holy living. They
are love and fear, and in the nature of things they
are complimentary for the reason that God is to be loved and feared. He is to be loved for what He is, and what He
does for His creatures both in creation and redemption;
and He is to be feared because of His holiness, His hatred of sin, and the
certainty that He will punish it. In the
very nature of things the man who loves God most will
fear Him most. The Scriptures say, The secret of the Lord is
with them that fear Him and He will show them (and them only) His covenant.
Yes, even of the Lord of glory it is
said, He was heard in that He feared (Heb. 5: 7). How blessed it would have been for the children
of Israel if at Kadesh-Barnea they had feared the unbelief and disobedience of
their own hearts rather than the giants and walled cities of Canaan. Compare Numbers 13 and 14
with Hebrews 3 and 4.
Before closing this chapter we
will turn our attention briefly to a few of the orthodox strongholds of this
plausible but delusive theory which we have been seeking to bring into the
limelight of Gods infallible truth; namely, that there is no judgment for
believers. The first of these strongholds which we will examine is Romans 8: 1: There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in
Christ Jesus, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
We will take the verse just as
it reads in the A.V. Examining the
passage on purely grammatical grounds we see that it is composed of one
independent and three dependent propositions. Thus:
There
is no condemnation (to certain persons). There are three dependent propositions all of
which qualify and limit the pronoun them:
(1)
who are in Christ Jesus (this excludes all unsaved
sinners).
(2) who walk
not after the flesh (this excludes all believers who walk after the flesh).
There are few who do not.
(3) but who
walk after the Spirit (this limits the no condemnation
to the very small number who walk in the Spirit. Thus Paul and the Master are in perfect accord
(Luke 13: 24).
The plain implication is that
for believers who walk after the flesh there will be condemnation; and in Gal. 5: 19-21 Paul
positively affirms that there will.
But someone
will reply, The R.V. omits the last two dependent
propositions, and reads, there is therefore now
no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,
and with this correction our fortress still stands, and stands firmly.
We think the R.V. is correct in the omission. This being granted, we have a new
problem on hand, for how are we then to reconcile Rom.
8: 1 and
such passages as Gal. 5: 19-21; Rom. 1: 17-18; and scores of others Scriptures? We lay it down as an axiomatic principle that
the word of God is one and harmonious in all its parts. Therefore
the first thing to do is to open our Greek testament and see if the translation
of
There are in the Greek Testament
four words to be examined in this connection, all
nouns. They are krima, krisis, katakrima, and katakrisis. The
last two are formed by prefixing the intensive
preposition kata to the first two. Now the
strongest of the four, that is, the one expressive of the severest punishment,
is katakrima, and it is never
applied to believers, while the other three are, though not exclusively.
Katakrima occurs only three times. Thus: Judgment was by one
(Adam) to damnation (Rom.
5: 16). Therefore by the offence of one judgment
came upon all men to damnation (Rom.
5: 18). There
is therefore now no damnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (
We may add that katakrima
in its verbal form, katakrino, occurs
nineteen times, but it is not necessary for our present purpose to discuss
these. That there is judgment for the
believer we have seen in Heb. 6: 1-8; 10: 26-31. To
these we may add Matt. 7: 2; 1
Cor. 11: 29-34; James 3: 1. And this judgment may
issue in krima but not in katakrima. Krima is used
in the following passages: Matt. 7: 2; 23: 14; Mark 12: 40; Luke 20: 47; 23: 40; 24: 20; John 9: 39; Acts 24:
25; Rom. 2: 2; 1 Cor. 11: 29, 34; Gal. 5: 10; 1 Tim. 5: 12; Heb. 6: 2; 1 Pet. 4: 17, 18, and
several others. We remark here in
reference to 1 Pet. 4: 17, 18, which
the interpretation is the same as that given in 2 Thess. 1: 7-10. The righteous of verse
18 only includes the really sanctified. Compare Matt.
13: 49.
Another stronghold of the
traditional eschatology is John 5: 24:
Verily,
verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth My word and
believeth on Him that sent Me hath everlasting life and shall not come into
condemnation (krisin, accusative singular of krisis);
but is passed from death unto life.
It really looks as though the
traditionalists had a secure hiding place here. But if so, the
question comes up again, How shall we reconcile the
verse with scores of other passages which affirm positively that the believer
will be judged (Col. 3: 24-25)? I wrestled
with this verse for some time before I found the secret and saw its harmony
with other parts of the word. The
inductive Method of Bible study demands that we examine every available fact,
and establish as far as possible its congruity with the whole body of facts so
far as already known. The key to John 5: 24 is in the clause, and believeth on
Him that sent Me. We get light
from Heb. 7:
25. Our great High-Priest
is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto
God by Him. Here we see again
how that the dependent proposition qualifies and limits them. It is
possible to come to Jesus for pardon and the New Birth, and yet not go through
Him to the Father. The congregation of
* *
*
To be
continued. D.V.