A Defense of Dispensationalism
Paul Wilson
Table of Contents
Dispensationalism: Preface
In several issues of our Christian Truth periodical we have had occasion to review the hope of the Lord's coming in its relevancy to current events. World problems are increasing, and there are forebodings of coming trouble. The Word of God has told us that men's hearts will fail them for fear. There will be distress among nations, with perplexities; but amid all the confusion there is a calm, a settled assurance for the child of God who is waiting and watching for the Lord. The end of all things is at hand, and we need to be sober and watch unto prayer.
When the Lord Jesus went up to heaven, the heavenly guests (Acts 1:10) said that the same Jesus will come again; and early Christians eagerly looked for His return. In those days the hope of the Lord's return was directly connected with knowledge of salvation—the turning to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for His Son from heaven.
The parable of the ten virgins explained that before long the Christian profession would relax and cease to anticipate His return. They all slumbered and slept—the wise and the foolish alike—and before long Christians settled down in the world so that the once-cherished hope was all but forgotten. One may search in vain through many centuries treated of in Church History to find even faint glimmers of hope through the long dark night. Christianity became an established system in the world, with worldly aspirations; and the word of the Lord, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world," was forgotten.
But the Lord who was faithful to His word sent forth that midnight cry to revive the hope of His coming: "And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps." Christendom had sunk down to one of its lowest ebbs when the cry was made. Those who had slumbered and slept, and many mere professors, began to trim their lamps. This brought on an awakening that shook the great profession and turned many from their careless ways; prayer meetings were frequented, and meetings were held for teaching of the coming of the Lord. It began to be a hope once more. Concurrent with the revival of the hope of His coming was the truth of the heavenly calling of the Church. This caused more separateness of walk, and the Lord was honored. This began less than 200 years ago; but, alas! many who once embraced the bright hope have since relapsed into earthly ways, and have ceased to watch. Did not the Lord say, "What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch"?
God in His grace revived the precious truth for us in these last days so that we may understand His ways with the Church, with Israel, with the nations, and His coming reign when He will rule from the river to the ends of the earth. All things will serve His might, and He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. All of God's purposes concerning the Son of man will be accomplished in minute detail. But we are living in days when the truth is being fast let go, and the love of many has grown cold. Many who once believed and taught the coming of the Lord as an imminent hope have given it up. And many have attacked the truth and belittled faithful servants of Christ. It is in this light that we send forth these papers as a defense of Dispensationalism. May the Lord keep the feet of His saints and strengthen the things which remain that are ready to die.
Paul Wilson
Dispensationalism: Part 1
For the last one hundred years or so it has been the privilege of Christians to have a better understanding of the Word of God in its proper application and scope than perhaps at any other time since the days of the apostles. God's purposes and ways concerning man in the various ages may be better apprehended today than then. It has pleased God to unfold His marvelous designs to us who live in the last days. We do not infer by this that there have not been devoted Christians in the Church of God at all times, and at times probably more devoted than those living today; but we speak only of the present privilege of having a clearer understanding of His purposes as revealed in His written Word.
The special aspect of the truth which brings an understanding of God's revealed mind to His own is what is generally called dispensational truth. This term as used in relation to the Scriptures may be a little difficult for some of our readers to understand without an explanation. It is not some special truth, as we might refer to the truth of justification by faith, or the resurrection of the dead. There is a time factor connected with it, for it enables us to discern the mind of God concerning His revelation in the various ages since men were upon the earth, and thus gives us in general a way of understanding all truth. It also enables us to see His ultimate purposes both for a heavenly and an earthly people; and again, to distinguish things that differ and to recognize those that are similar and coincidental.
Without such an understanding, the Bible is a book of confusion and disarray; whereas it is in reality a book of most exquisite beauty and design. And the more anyone understands the divine order of God's Word, the more he will marvel in wondering amazement. He will not wish any other confirmation of its divine authorship; he will not wish the external evidences which may be exhumed from the earth by the archeologist's spade, for its internal structure will carry a conviction far beyond that which may be had from any other source.
Dispensationalism has been a great boon to the saints of God in these last days. May we value that which we have received and hold it fast, for it is being given up and many would take it from us. But the question may be asked, If this is such an important line of teaching, why then is it not found in the writings of the early so-called Church fathers? nor does it appear in any archives of the dark ages. This should present no problem to anyone, for the inculcation of error and departure from the truth was already active in the days of the apostles. An examination of the writings of the so-called fathers will present much mixture of truth and error. Nothing can be proved or disproved by what the fathers wrote, except that the early Church soon departed from the truth. Paul spoke about what would come in after his departure, and committed the saints to God and the word of His grace—not to the fathers of the second, third, or any century. John exhorts the saints to continue in that which was from the beginning, not to what the fathers would bring in. Peter and Jude likewise speak of their not departing from the truth they had received, but of keeping it in remembrance and contending for it.
Moreover, we should not expect to find any clear understanding of truth in the dark ages, when nearly all truth was obscured; even "justification by faith" was lost. True, many suffering saints in those days misapplied the beast of Rev. 13 to the Pope, and took comfort from it too. They felt encouraged that he would be judged, although they had much confusion regarding the Scriptures.
In view of the fact that it took a long time to assemble the various writings of the New Testament, it is probable that most of the early Christians did not get a very clear view of the whole range of dispensational truth. They were converted from their idols and Jewish ritual to wait for God's Son to come back. This was the immediate result of their salvation, and God never intended that any thought of a long period before the Lord returned should cast a shadow over their hope. This was the hope of the Thessalonians at the beginning; and when Satan sought to dim the hope, two apostolic letters were written to instruct them.
In confirmation of this principle, we should note that nothing in the parables indicated this long lapse of time before the Lord returned. They were the same virgins who at first waited for the bridegroom, who were there when he returned. They were the same servants who received their lord's money, who were there to give an accounting when he came back. Even the addresses to the seven churches, in Rev. 2 and 3, which we now understand as a prophetic outlook of the Church as a responsible witness on earth, were given to seven actual assemblies then existing in the province of Asia. It had a direct and present application, but now that the end is here, we understand their deeper meaning, and should profit thereby.
The parable of the ten virgins tells how the Church would become drowsy and go to sleep, forgetting to watch for their Lord. The wise and the foolish all slept together until a cry went forth at midnight, "Behold the bridegroom." This parable does not indicate that they would all go to sleep again, but the departure from revealed dispensational truth is in a considerable measure putting many to sleep. If we allow anyone to put something before our souls, which must take place before our Lord can come, then the expectancy of hope is GONE. We are not then waiting and watching for the Lord.
But truth, no matter how precious, may become dull in the soul, and remain in a cold intellectual form. When this happens, the love of it is soon given up; and ultimately even the form of it is dropped. This is exactly what has happened and what is happening in Christendom today. Many who once possessed the hope of the Lord's coming for His saints, and day by day thrilled at the bright prospect, now merely hold the doctrine of His pretribulation coming. Thus there is no separating power in it, and the world is embraced rather than being treated as it was by the Apostle—a thing crucified (Gal. 6:14).
Now even the form of it is being dropped by many, and so-called fundamental and evangelical Christendom is going through what is considered as a re-appraisal of dispensational truth and of the Lord's coming. It is having to be re-worked by today's theologians, with the result that many in these circles who formerly embraced it have given it up, and many others take such a neutral stand that it is effectively lost.
Periodicals of evangelical circles have given considerable space to this debate during the last few years. They can clearly define the varying positions of the amillennialist, the premillennialist, and the postmillennialist; and the last named is today gaining favor that it once lost. For the sake of clarity, may we state: the amillennialist is one who does not believe in the coming kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to reign for 1000 years on earth, but envisages the coming of Christ at some time to make a new earth; the premillennialist is one who says that the Lord will come and set up His kingdom in Zion and govern this world in righteousness for 1000 years (but these are again divided into two classes, one of which expects Him momentarily before the seven years of trouble, including the final apostasy, come; and the other which says the Church must go through the tribulation). The postmillennialist says that a sort of moral kingdom will gain the ascendency, and the Lord will not come until after a thousand years of peace has been attained by some such means.
It is impossible to go into all the ramifications of these varying views in these pages, but let us state firmly and clearly the position which we take; and then as we proceed we shall seek to bring the light of the Scriptures to bear upon it. We definitely and without qualification or reservation believe that the moment of our Lord's return to take His people home is near at hand. We trust that we not only hold as a doctrine, but as a living hope, that the Lord Himself will soon descend into the clouds of heaven and call all the believers from the earth and from the tomb to be with Himself according to His unequivocal promise, "I will come again, and receive you unto Myself." John 14:3. We are not looking for the apostasy or for seven years of trouble, the latter half of which is called the great tribulation, but for the Lord from heaven, although we can clearly discern the times in which we live as indicated by those epistles which describe the last days. We also see the world being readied for events which will take place after we are gone, so the moment of our departure is NEAR.
When once we understand the importance of the dispensational outlook, we shall, when reading the holy Scriptures, seek to see who was being addressed, who was being spoken of, and what the Spirit of God would convey in that place. Of course all the Bible is for us, but it is not all about us; nor was it originally all spoken to us. Every scripture, when rightly understood, complements every other part; for it was all given by the one Spirit of God. A divine design and ultimate purpose pervades the whole Book from cover to cover. Even as it was written: "Knowing this first, that the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation, for prophecy was not ever uttered by the will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:20, 21; J.N.D. Trans. There is one design of the Holy Spirit in the Book, although it deals with the various ages since men have been on the earth until the day of the new heavens and a new earth. When we grasp the divine design, each part falls easily and naturally into its own place without having to be forced or twisted to make it fit.
The word dispensation as used in the Word of God signifies a certain ordered administration for a certain time. It may be called an economy, or the management of an organized system. God, in the beginning, placed the earth under the rule of Adam, and made him lord over it; but, alas, he sinned and pulled the whole creation down with him. God thereafter tried mankind in many and various ways to see if he were recoverable, only to see him fail in every test. Finally He sent His Son, and they cast Him out; then He sent a message of grace through that One whom they rejected. But it is the purpose of God that this world will be ruled by a man, and He will be the Man of His counsels and choice — "the second man," "the last Adam." At that time all His plans for man to rule will be made good; not only will that Man rule on earth, but in heaven. We read, "That in the dispensation [should be translated, administration] of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him." Eph. 1:10. He will then administer all for the glory of God in the culmination of the times.
The above verse has been confused by some opponents of the truth with a verse in Gal. 4 "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." v. 4. The most careless reader should observe that the "fullness of the time" and the "fullness of times" are not the same terms at all. The former refers to that time when man had been fully tried by every conceivable means and found to be totally wanting. When there was no hope for man in the flesh, God sent forth His Son to redeem men. To mix these two verses and confuse the Lord's coming in flesh the first time to put away sin, and His coming the second time to administer all for the glory of God, is to confound things that differ, which is just what the rejection of dispensational truth does.
We have spoken of the meaning of the word dispensation, but in a larger and more general sense it is used to describe any period of time wherein God operated toward man in a particular manner. In the broader sense we might consider: (a) He first placed man in an earthly paradise, but he was no sooner there than he sinned.
(b) After the sin in Eden came expulsion from Eden, and man was left to his own way. This in a strict sense could not be called a dispensation, for man was left to himself; but for our purpose we shall consider it as a special period. Here man became utterly lawless—so much so that God destroyed all except Noah and his family with a flood.
(c) After the flood, God put government into the hand of man, and decreed, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen. 9:6); but then men turned to idolatry. Read Rom. 1 for the manner in which they turned to the worship of that which their hands had made—images made like to man, to birds, to quadrupeds, to creeping things (or back to the serpent).
(d) Out of this prevalent condition of idolatry which came in when man gave up the traditional knowledge of God acquired through Noah's posterity, God called the man Abraham and made a covenant with him; but he soon denied his wife and had to be reproved by a heathen.
(e) After God's allowing Abraham's descendants to be enslaved in Egypt, He sent the man Moses to bring them forth; but ere long the children of Israel said, Up, make us gods to go before us, for as "for this Moses,... we wot not what has become of him."
(f) At this time the Israelites had covenanted to obey all which God would speak, and put themselves under the conditional arrangement of keeping God's law. While Moses was away receiving the words of God for them, they made the golden calf.
(g) God raised up the priesthood for Israel, but, as soon as it was instituted, it failed; and two of Aaron's sons died the first day for offering strange fire. It was more or less set aside later in the days of aged Eli, for his sons had corrupted the people.
(h) Afterward, God raised up a king, David, "a man after His own heart." But for a long time he was hunted and his life endangered, and his son Solomon brought idolatry into his own family circle. After that, the kingdom was divided; and God had compassion on His people and sent messenger after messenger unto them, until the sins of Manasseh made judgment on them imperative.
(i) God brought a remnant back in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, but the prophet Malachi describes the sad condition into which that remnant sank.
(j) Finally, God sent His Son, saying, "They will reverence My Son," but Him they cast out and slew. This is a very brief outline of man's pathway of failure from Adam to Christ.
In this period in which we live, God has been dealing in great grace and beseeching men to be reconciled to Him (2 Cor. 5:20). The gospel first went forth from an ascended and glorified Christ to the Jews, or, as John Bunyan called them, "Jerusalem sinners." The message was to begin in the very place where the Lord was crucified. Then the book of The Acts outlines the carrying of the message from Jerusalem and Judea to Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Acts 1:8 is in substance a table of contents of The Acts of the Apostles.
After Stephen's death, the scenes began to change, for Israel had now rejected the gospel sent down from heaven in the power of the Holy Spirit. From place to place through The Acts, the Jews were given the gospel first ("to the Jew first"); but when they rejected it, it was then given to the Gentiles until, at length, in the last chapter, the sentence of judicial blindness, foretold by the prophet Isaiah, was placed upon them, and Paul said to them: "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Acts 28:28.
We are now living in the end of the period of God's special grace to the Gentiles; it is spoken of as "the fullness of the Gentiles" in Rom. 11:25. Their fullness will come in when the Lord calls His Church home to be with Himself. For this blessed moment we wait. God has been visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name (Acts 15:14), but they are a people destined for heaven. We should, however, keep in mind that in the Church of God there has always been a saved remnant of the Jews. At the first (Acts 2) only Jews or Jewish proselytes were brought into the Church; but as the nation rejected grace, the call went wider, and in Acts 10 a Gentile centurion and his family were saved and brought into the Church. Already a man had been saved (chap. 9) who was to be the Lord's special messenger to the Gentiles (see Acts 15).
Strictly speaking, the Church period is not a dispensation in the sense of an administration of God's way on earth, but a gathering out of a people for heaven; however, we shall consider it as a special period of God's ways while He makes known His purposes and plans not only for them, but for the earth. He has treated us in this age as His friends and made His mind known to us (John 15:14). Perhaps we should consider the Church period as merely a long parenthesis in God's ways and dispensations for the earth. When the Church has been translated to heaven, then God's ways (of which Israel will be the center) will again begin to unfold, and a time is to follow, called "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7). He (that is, a remnant of Israel) will be saved "out of it," like Noah was saved out of the flood, while the Church has been promised by the Lord that it will be kept out of the hour of it—altogether kept from the time of it (Rev. 3:10), as Enoch was taken away before the flood came. For the "time of Jacob's trouble" will also be "the great tribulation" which "shall come upon all the world.”
After the rapture of the Church, apostasy of both Christendom and Judaism will mount up to their peaks to receive the judgments decreed already. The spirit of apostasy has been at work as a mystery since the days of the Apostle, for he speaks of "the mystery of iniquity" (2 Thess. 2:7); and John wrote that there were already many antichrists (1 John 2:18). But the thing, although far advanced, will not be full blown until we are taken from the scene. Then there will be the attempted complete overthrow of all reverence for God, and even the mention of His name. It will be man in daring infidelity who will blaspheme God. Man will be deified, but overthrown in the end. Apostate Christendom and apostate Judaism will perish, while a remnant will be saved.
The increase in numbers and respectability of the false cults, and the shocking infidelity and daring resistance to God and His Word in many places of what was once orthodox Christendom point the way and the trend to the great apostasy. It has been on its way since the days of the apostles, but now has taken over large sections of so-called Christianity. Whenever the moment comes for the home call of the true believers, wickedness will ripen almost over night. There will be no restraining hand of the Spirit of God to hinder its open manifestation. After that, that is, after the great tribulation, and the coming of Christ as "King of kings and Lord of lords" to execute judgment, He will establish His throne on earth in righteousness, and reign for 1000 years. Then, according to Rev. 20, Satan will be loosed out of his prison to test the multitudes of Gentiles who were born during the Millennium. This will be the crowning proof that man, unless born again, is hopelessly bad, even after seeing the wonderful beneficence of God during the Millennium; for they will rise up against Him. At that time God will destroy the rebels, and the present earth and its heaven will be destroyed, and a new heaven and new earth will be formed. In this, righteousness will dwell forever in a state of eternal bliss. But the Church's portion will be to dwell with Christ in heavenly glory forever.
For Christians today to reject dispensationalism is to go (as it were) to sea without chart or compass, trusting only to their own feelings and intuitions. Such will not know whither they sail, nor have directions day by day how to live. During the past economies in God's ways on earth, His saints have needed directions for their path, and have required faith to discern His mind in each particular period. When Saul first reigned, for instance, obedience to the king was obedience to God; when David was rejected, faith identified itself with a king in hiding; when the time came to make David king, the ones who discerned what to do came to make him king in Hebron. Some, of whom we read, "had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do." 1 Chron. 12:32. 0 for Christians with true understanding of these times! Such will not belittle dispensational truth.
God's people have always needed a directed path for their feet since the expulsion from Eden. Multitudes of examples might be adduced, but let us mention a few: there was a time when Isaac was told, "Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of." Gen. 26:2. Later, Jacob was told, "Fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will make of thee a great nation." Gen. 46:3. And in the days of Jeremiah, when the people thought to go down into Egypt to escape trouble, God said, "0 ye remnant of Judah; Go ye not into Egypt." Jer. 42:19. At that time God had given Jerusalem into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar to destroy it; but, in the days of Ezra, to be in the current of His thoughts one would help to build the temple; and in the days of Nehemiah, discerning Jews would help rebuild the walls of the city. Then in the days when the epistle to the Hebrews was written, Christian discernment made them leave the temple and all its ritual, even as they were exhorted to go forth unto Christ outside of the camp of Judaism.
From these few examples it should be evident that a Christian cannot pick up his Bible and read just anywhere and find directions for his feet. If he does not read discerningly, he may think it is his duty to help rebuild a temple in Jerusalem today, or do any of thousands of things that would be totally inconsistent with his position as a Christian, whose life, commonwealth, and hopes are in heaven (Col. 3:1-3).
A lack of understanding of dispensational truth led the men who wrote the page headings in our King James Version Bibles to make huge mistakes. Take up the average Bible and run through the headings of the Old Testament and you will find the blessings promised to Israel ascribed to the Church. while the threats of judgment are generally applied to Israel. Is that consistent? Is it in any sense the truth?
Are we to consider that Israel and the Church are one and the same thing? This is exactly what the rejection of dispensational understanding leads to. This has been the bane of the Church from its formation at the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Judaizing teachers have ever sought to corrupt the Church and bring Judaistic principles into Christianity, and the Apostle Paul contended energetically against this all through his ministry. Today a new term is in common vogue—Judeo-Christianity." Let it be once and forever clear that the Church is not an adjunct of Judaism. Did not the Lord Himself say that one cannot put new wine into old bottles (or skins) lest the bottles burst and the wine be lost? But the lack of the clear-cut distinction between the two has caused Christendom to put many patches on the old bottles in an effort to contain the new within the old.
Dr. George E. Ladd, of the Fuller Seminary of Pasadena, California, has recently written a book entitled, "The Blessed Hope." Dr. Ladd takes a premillennial outlook, but his book is an attack on the doctrine of the Lord's coming for His Church before the tribulation. Hence the title of his book is misleading, for we have not a present hope of expecting our Lord if we have to wait and go through the great apostasy and the tribulation period, perhaps to suffer martyrdom. The immediacy of the hope being lost, it ceases to be the blessed hope. Certainly the apostasy and martyrdom are poor substitutes for the hope of seeing Him momentarily. The one who embraces these has lost the blessed expectancy which many Christians have rightly enjoyed.
It would take a lengthy tome to answer Dr. Ladd's book, but it is certainly answerable. It displays much of the confusion that goes with the denial of dispensationalism; at times it misrepresents the true position of those who zealously hold the pretribulation rapture of the saints of this age; for instance, it says that dispensationalists define His pretribulation coming "in terms of escape from suffering [in the tribulation] rather than union with Christ." This is not true for the great body of those who watch for their Lord.
Dr. Ladd's remarks on page 130 exhibit a sad lack of understanding of that notable prophecy of our Lord's on Olivet. In His discourse with His own after His public ministry was closed, He opens up the future and explains His coming back, in three parts: first (Matt. 24:1-44), He tells of His coming as regards the Jewish people; second (chap. 24:45 to chap. 25:30), as it will relate to the Christian profession; third (chap. 25:31 to end), with reference to the Gentile nations. Dr. Ladd, however, will have the Church treated of throughout. He sees no distinction between "the gospel of the kingdom" and "the gospel of the grace of God." Neither will he allow that it is the Jews who are to flee from Jerusalem when an idol (spoken of in Dan. 12, which Dr. Ladd confuses with the antichrist—pp. 72, 73) is set up in the holy place of their new temple; for he makes this fleeing to apply to Christians. Dr. Ladd says: "The people of God are seen in the Tribulation. They are to be put to flight by the Abomination of Desolation (Matt. 24:20). The Tribulation will bring martyrdom to the elect.... Who are the elect? Are they the Church, or Israel? Dispensationalism solves this problem by the application of its major premise," meaning Israel, of course. But will Dr. Ladd please explain, if his thesis is correct and it means the Church, why it is that Christians are to pray that their flight be not on the Sabbath day? His stand would please the Seventh-day Adventists, who would make Jews out of us. Did he never discover that in Luke 21, when the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in A.D. 70 was prophesied, the believers were not inhibited by Jewish rules of a Sabbath day? But when the Church has been translated to heaven, and the Jews become once more the center of God's ways, they will be bound by the Sabbath; therefore the Lord said (anticipating the Jewish remnant who will be in Jerusalem at that time), "Pray ye that your flight be not... on the sabbath day." v. 20.
Dr. Ladd's confusion over the "abomination of desolation" is an example of his inexactitude in dealing with subjects which have been ably set forth by spiritual men of profound learning. He speaks of, "The coming of antichrist who is called the Abomination of Desolation" (pp. 72, 73), and "the persecutions of the Great Tribulation which shall be inflicted upon the people of God by the Abomination of Desolation" (p. 86), and "In both Matthew and the Revelation where the Great Tribulation is prophesied, the people of God are seen in the Tribulation. They are put to flight by the Abomination of Desolation" (p. 130). He thus plainly identifies the "abomination of desolation" with what he terms the antichrist; by this he means "the beast" of the Roman Empire (the "antichrist" is more generally considered as the second beast of Rev. 13—the false Messiah in Jerusalem).
This word "abomination" in both Dan. 12:11 and Matt. 24:15, in both the Hebrew and the Greek, means "an idol" or "idolatry" and does not refer to a man. It is the same original word that is used in Dan. 9:27, "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate"; or better translated, because of idolatry "shall come one that maketh desolate" (A. R V.). It is plainly evident that the "abomination of desolation" is the image which the second beast of Rev. 13 makes of the first, beast of that chapter, whereupon worship of the image becomes mandatory. And the Lord Jesus in giving instructions for the Jewish remnant of the future day tells them to flee Jerusalem when this image is set up, or stands "in the holy place" of the temple. A man will not stand in the holy place, but an idol will.
Furthermore, the Lord's directions concerning the placement of this abomination of desolation in the temple instructed "them which be in Judea" to "flee to the mountains." To make this passage instruction for all the Church during the tribulation would of necessity place all the Church in Judea. Such an idea would be nonsense. Only confusion results from mixing instructions for the Church with those for a future Jewish remnant.
On page 131 of his book, he challenges the believers who enjoy the blessed hope by referring them to Rev. 17, where the corrupt woman—"BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" — is said to be "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Here he again asks, "Who are the saints who suffer martyrdom? Are they the Church or Israel?" He seems to feel he has executed a coup here, and says that dispensationalists apply their major premise to this; that is, they make the martyrs to be of Israel. The evidence of Scripture is that this woman is the last stage of the false church which has had the seven-hilled city of Rome for its headquarters. Would not Dr. Ladd admit that according to this scripture God is going to judge her for the blood she shed in her inquisitions, and her systematic destruction of those whom she called heretics? It is a review of her whole course, and not merely tribulation martyrdom' committed by her.
In an article of Dr. Ladd's published in Eternity magazine of May, 1957, wherein he attempts to answer Dr. John F. Walvoord's new book, The Rapture Question, he says: "In the Old Testament, Israel was the people of God; now, it is the church; and there is continuity rather than discontinuity between the two. There is one people of God, not two. This truth is clearly set forth in Rom. 11. There is one olive tree — the people of God. Natural branches have been broken off—unbelieving Israel. Wild branches have been grafted on—believing Gentiles." And this he makes out to be the ekklesia, or Church of God. This is a ready-made example of the confusion Christians get into by rejecting dispensational truth. How readily he mixes Israel and the Church. They never were one, or intended to be one. Israel will be God's earthly people of the future, but the Church will be the heavenly bride of Christ.
Let us notice Dr. Ladd's confusion regarding Rom. 11. He says the olive tree there represents the one people of God. This it does not. The olive tree there is the tree of privilege and blessing on the earth. Surely Israel had many advantages—"much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Rom. 3:2. They were cut off, but not until after they rejected the gospel sent down from a glorified Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Gentiles have been brought into the privileged place. They have the advantage today, for there is no veil over their hearts. But the branches which are grafted in are not believing Gentiles, but Gentiles as Gentiles. If this is not so, will Dr. Ladd say that believing Gentiles who have been brought into this "one people of God" are to be cut off? Will he allow believers to be utterly lost? Yet his statements make that a necessity. His arguments are bankrupt.
When the Apostle began to speak about the olive tree, he said, "For I speak to you Gentiles" (v. 13). Thus there is no excuse for the confusion of supposing he was speaking to believers among them. How could he say to a believer, "Thou shalt be cut off." Down in the 25th verse he began to explain truth to believers, and his form of address changed to, "I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery." But rejecters of dispensational truth have not learned what Paul sought to explain to his brethren in the remainder of the 11th chapter of Romans. It is a marvelous unfolding of God's wisdom in His dispensational dealings with Jew and Gentile which leads the Apostle into a grand doxology: "0 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" etc.
Characteristic of those who reject dispensational truth, Dr. Ladd rejects what to us seems quite patent; that is, the dispensational nature of Matthew's Gospel. Each of the four gospels has its own specialty, or distinctive mark; if this is not so, why then are there four? Matthew's Gospel clearly presents the Messiah to the Jews, and develops the consequences dispensationally, to a certain point, of their rejection of their Messiah.
In keeping with this design, the Lord Jesus is presented in Matthew as the son of David and Abraham, through whom the promised Messiah had to come. Consequently, more scriptures of the Old Testament are quoted in Matthew than in any other gospel. At the beginning, the gospel that the King was coming was announced. It was distinctly the gospel of a coming kingdom presented according to the prophecies. This was formally rejected by the mass of the Jews with their leaders, so that in the 12th chapter, they commit the unpardonable sin of attributing the power of the Holy Spirit, by whom the Lord wrought miracles, to the power of Satan. Thereupon, the Lord disclaims relationship with Israel and, in the 13th chapter, goes out to the seaside (which has a figurative bearing) where He gave the parable of the sower who introduces something new. New seed was sown which is the mystery of the kingdom of heaven—a time when the king who came to His own was rejected by them, while something new would grow in the world. A people would be on earth who claimed to honor an absent king. The kingdom of heaven in its mysterious form is Christendom of this age, or that which says, "In God we trust," and, "in the year of our Lord.”
Then further on in Matthew, the 16th chapter, Christ announced that He would build His Church; in the 17th chapter, the three apostles were given a preview of the coming millennial kingdom. Chapters 24 and 25 (as we have already noticed) give the prophecy of His coming back in its threefold form. And the Gospel closes with Him risen and present with His own on earth—figurative of a godly remnant of the Jews who will be waiting for Him when He comes to reign. In the first part of the book, He also gives the principles on which His kingdom will be established. While they refer to His earthly kingdom, yet a well-taught Christian is interested in those principles, and gathers profit from them. No such collection of principles is gathered together in any other gospel, and it should not be supposed that chapters 5 to 7 were all uttered at one time. We know they were not; but Matthew, writing by the Spirit, was led to bring these all together into a group for dispensational reasons. To reject the most evident arrangement of the Gospel of Matthew is to shut out the light and prefer darkness.
Dr. Ladd's statement that "Nowhere are we told to watch for the coming of Christ" (italics his) requires some examination. That may be literally correct and yet be basically wrong. Is there no implied need of watching for Him, whom our souls love, in those memorable words sent down from heaven, in which we are exhorted to remember Him in death? And it is given in a touching fashion when it says that "the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed" made such a request. In this message from the ascended and glorified Lord, He said, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." Here we are reminded of His death for us and of His coming again for us. Shall not we watch? Were not the Thessalonians watching for God's Son from heaven? And were they not commended for it? What is the proper response to His promised "I will come again, and receive you unto Myself"? Is it not an upturned eye, eagerly expecting Him? Should we be finding ways to "prove" something must first take place, hence we need not watch? Far be the thought! Furthermore, we dislike the phrase watching for His coming; it should be rather watching for Himself—a person, not something about Him.
Dr. Ladd reasons away the word in Rev. 3:3, "If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief." He makes use of other translations which say "wake up" or "be wide awake" to offset the force of watching; but the R.V., A.R.V., Confraternity, J.N.D., and W.K. versions stand by the word "watch" there. After all it is the same word in the Greek that is translated "watch" in Mark 13:33-37 and 14:34-38, where "be wide awake" would scarcely do. And if it is "wake up," wake up to what? Remember the sleeping virgins! And what about the last chapter of Revelation? After the prophecy is fully told, the Lord tells the Church that He is coming—He Himself, not another—and finally a hearty response is awakened, so that "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." 22:17. Maybe we are not commanded to watch for Him, but it is the only proper response of hearts which have heard His accents of promised coming. We greatly fear that dedication to an opposing view is parent to the thought advanced by anti-dispensationalists.
Furthermore, in regard to Rev. 3:3, attention should be called to the fact that failure to watch will bring down the same judgment that will overtake the world. This is borne out in another portion: "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they [the world] shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them,... and they shall not escape." If the professing Church lives with and like the world, it will reap the world's judgment—unbelievers, of course. (1 Thess. 5:1-8.) And a thief never comes for good.
Notice too that it is the "day of the Lord" which so comes, not the coming of the Lord for His own, or the day of Christ which has a heavenly aspect. But the book which we have reviewed more or less confuses the "day of the Lord" and the "day of Christ." They are not the same and never approximate each other. Even men do not confuse differing terms; is God less accurate than men?
Did not all of the ten virgins—the profession of Christianity—go forth to meet the Bridegroom? Was not that their mission? And did they not sin when they went to sleep and failed to watch? And anti-dispensationalists would put the Church back to sleep again. A play on Greek words will not avail in connection with the ten virgins, but of course the obvious can be rejected. Did not the evil servant sin for saying "in his heart,”
My lord delays his coming? He merely said to himself, "Oh, He will not come yet." It is no longer only said "in the heart," but taught openly.
Dr. Ladd asks, "Is not the Blessed Hope the hope of deliverance from tribulation?" If that is so, then a poor suffering saint might just as well say that death would be the blessed hope. "He [Himself] is our hope." Do we only desire Him to fulfill His word and take us to be with Himself when we suffer tribulation? We trust not!
We have not selected just the points in Dr. Ladd's book that are easy for rebuttal, but have merely picked out things at random. The whole work indicates a lack of spiritual perception of the dispensational line of truth; hence reasoning against it becomes easy for him. And when the whole is read, we say, "They have taken away the hope that we may see Him today, and given us no substitute"—what a loss! And the effect can be disastrous in the tone of Christian life.
Dr. Ladd would have all of us who have tenaciously held and happily enjoyed the prospect of seeing our Lord at any moment to re-examine and re-think the whole matter, and gives us his deductions and conclusions from which to think. This would lead to confusion and a giving up of a well-charted course in exchange for speculation, although Dr. Ladd assures us that our blessed hope is an unjustified inference. The burden of proof is his.
He has not discovered the beauty of Peter's reference to Joel's prophecy in Acts 2. When Peter defended the Christians, who were speaking the gospel in various tongues, from the charge of intoxication, he merely said, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." It was not the fulfillment of Joel 2, but merely a part of what Joel prophesied for the future. Peter, like his Lord before him, knew where to close the book (Luke 4:16-20), for he did not read the rest of what Joel said. What took place there was not intoxication, but merely evidence of the power of the Spirit; and Joel is only used to that end. The prophecy of Joel will yet be fulfilled in the day of Israel's restoration.
Dr. Ladd's claim that "the new covenant, promised in Jer. 31, was made by our Lord with the Church, and is now in effect," is gratuitous to say the least. There is no scriptural support for this statement. It is to be made with the houses of Israel and Judah, and with none else. Paul did not infer in Hebrews that it was made with the Church; he merely brought in the subject to prove to the converted Jews that it was folly to cling to the old covenant, for it was to be superseded. Paul drops the subject as soon as his point is made. Even the Lord Himself said, "This is My blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:28. It is the blood on which the new covenant will be established with the houses of Israel; and, through it, we who believe now, get the blessing of having our sins forgiven. Even dispensationalists may mistakenly say that we are under the new covenant, but a search will prove we are not.
On pages 89 and 90 of Dr. Ladd's book, he quarrels with the differentiation between the Lord's coming for and coming with His saints. But that should certainly present no problem, for the Old Testament foretold His coming with His saints; for instance, "The LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee"; and Enoch prophesied that the Lord would come with His saints. It was no unrevealed mystery that Christ would come with His saints, but that He should come for them was not revealed until Paul received it from the Lord (see 1 Thess. 4:15-17).
Dr. Ladd uses Titus 2:13 for the title to his book; and quite characteristically he sees only one thing in it, while there are in reality two things. This verse is fully capable, without distention or abuse, of bringing before us both Christ's coming for and with His saints. Let us notice it: "Looking for that blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." A.R.V. We will quote the words of a staunch defender of the faith, William Kelly: “We need... to look for 'the blessed hope and appearing of the glory.' These are two parts which comprise the revealed object God would have before our souls.
“The one article given to the two objects brackets them together, not at all as if they were identical, but as here expressly associated to convey the complex and combined outlook. `The blessed hope' is that which alone can satisfy the heart; it is to be in the presence of Christ on high, changed at His coming into His likeness and with Him forever. 'The appearing of the' divine 'glory' is bound up with it, and follows in due time, as that display or the divine manifestation in power, which our renewed souls cannot but desire to the utter exclusion of moral and physical evil and of Satan's guileful energy." Thus Titus 2:13 is not what Dr. Ladd avers, a "proof-text.”
Dr. Ladd makes a considerable play on the Greek words for the Lord's coming, revelation, and manifestation; but those who hold the opposite view use the same words to disprove what he seeks to prove by them. God has used each word in perfect wisdom, and there is nothing in their use that will disprove the Lord's pretribulation coming for His saints. It rests on the matter of the correct understanding of the truth, and not on some quick turn of Greek words. Christ's coming for and with His saints are surely both His coming, but at separate times and under different circumstances.
The book of Revelation is a hopeless muddle in Dr. Ladd's book. By putting the Church in the world to go through the tribulation period, we have a book applied to Christians where their proper relationship with God as their Father is unknown. The fact that, the Old Testament names by which God revealed Himself to the fathers and to the people of Israel should be used in Revelation is enough to settle the problem he creates. God was in old time revealed as Lord, God, Almighty; and these names are again seen in Revelation—not Father. Furthermore, there are cries for vengeance from the saints in Revelation, but such cries never belong to Christians. We are followers of One "Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not." Not once in the New Testament is there a reference to a Christian's taking vengeance, or even of his desiring it. Paul's reference to Alexander the coppersmith may seem like an exception, but a better translation will prove otherwise. Paul merely expressed his knowledge that God would reward him according to his works, not that he (Paul) desired it. See 2 Tim. 4:14.
Dr. Ladd says on page 80, "The doctrine of the resurrection had been long taught (cf. Dan. 12:2)." Let us examine this verse which he says taught the resurrection: "And many of them [Daniel's people, the Jews of verse 1] that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." We are bold to say that this verse says nothing about the resurrection, but of the bringing back Jews that have been sleeping among the nations. This will take place at Messiah's coming. (Isa. 26:19-21 and Ezek. 37 deal with the same subject.) But suppose we try to make this a resurrection. Confusion is the only result, for it would be only a partial resurrection of both just and unjust. It plainly says that "many," not "all," shall awake; and these fall into two classes.
Another statement of this book is, "The Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation is an assumption; it is not taught in the Olivet Discourse.".p. 73. Why did the writer look for the pretribulation rapture of the saints in Matt. 24 and 25? The first intimation of such a coming was in John 14 (which was spoken on the night of His agony in Gethsemane) where the Lord said, "I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." v. 3. This was an unequivocal promise of His personal coming for His saints. The truth of this is later detailed in 1 Thess. 4:15-18. At that time those who had been converted from idols to "wait" for God's Son to come back (let some say that we are not called to watch for Him—these people knew the reality of watching and waiting) became discouraged when some of their number fell asleep. To correct their misapprehension, the Apostle wrote instructions which he received from the Lord. They feared that those who died would miss out on His coming, but the Apostle says that when He comes back to reign He will bring them with Him (v. 14). Then in a parenthesis of verses 15 through 18 he explains a special revelation of how the sleeping saints would get to be with Him in order to come back with Him. In the beginning of chapter 5, the Apostle reverts to the subject of His appearing with His saints. The Christians of this age do not belong to the night, but to the coming day. We shall be off the scene before the awful tribulation breaks.
But Dr. Ladd continues: "The only verse in this discourse [Matt. 24 and 25] which can possibly be construed to refer to the Rapture is verse 31 [of Matthew 24], 'And He shall send forth His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other!'
“There are elements of striking similarity between this verse and Paul's teaching about the Rapture of the Church. `For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God' (1 Thess. 4:16).”
Need we call our reader's attention to the fact that there is much contrast and little or no similarity between the passages in Matthew and 1 Thess. 4? In the former, the Lord tells of His coming back as regards the Jewish people. In that case, He will use the instrumentality of angels to gather the elect Jews. For the Church, He will come and shout the shout that assembles them. This He will do personally. Of what use would angels be to gather the Church when He Himself will assemble the believers from the earth and the grave in such a short time that the transformation will take place "in the twinkling of an eye"? No, He will not send angels to gather the Church, but will do that Himself.
Of course there is the mention of the trumpet in both instances, but will not the trumpet be used to gather the elect of Israel? Verily, it will be the fulfillment of the feast of trumpets (Lev. 23:24); and then "the great trumpet shall be blown," and the dispersed Jews will come from Assyria and Egypt, and "shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem." Isa. 27:13. Can we by any stretch of imagination apply this trumpet blowing to the rapture of the Church, and assume that it will then assemble at Jerusalem to worship the Lord?
Dr. Ladd further states that the presence of angels is found in both the passage in Matt. 24:31 and in 1 Thess. 4, but this is very inaccurate; for in Matt. 24 He will send angels to gather elect Jews, but angels are not mentioned in the epistle, except that He will come with the "voice of the archangel"—where are angels spoken of? To mix these two unrelated verses is to compound confusion.
The author works hard to put the Church in the tribulation period, and applies the sealed 144,000 in Revelation to "the true Israel," as though that meant the Church. Let it be clearly stated that the Church is never called Israel in any sense. The one verse that is often quoted from Galatians (6:16), to prove this contention, is grossly misunderstood. It says: "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, AND UPON THE ISRAEL OF GOD." Those who walked according to the rule were saved Gentiles, and "the Israel of God" were saved Jews, and nothing more or less.
Utter confusion is indicated in Dr. Ladd's book when the subject of the "first resurrection" is mentioned. Its author will not allow that there are different parts to the first resurrection, that the first resurrection is one of character rather than of a single instance of time. But to begin with, the whole point of Christ's resurrection as the firstfruits is overlooked—"Christ the firstfruits." Did He not rise first, and then did not a sample of the saints come forth out of their graves as visible evidence of the power of His resurrection? This is entirely overlooked. Did not this also have to do with the first resurrection? Then the resurrection of the believers at His call from the air, according to 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess. 4, is surely the major portion of the first resurrection; but this is summarily rejected. In its place, Rev. 20:4-6 is brought forward as the one and only installment of the first resurrection. But let us examine this portion: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them." Who are these? Not those about to be raised! To understand who they are, we need to go back into the previous chapter; the ones mentioned there are the armies that follow the Son of man out of heaven. These are now seen occupying thrones. In Dan. 7:9, the prophet saw the thrones placed, but not yet occupied. Here, the Apostle sees them occupied, and we know that the Lord will be the supreme center and will be the One to act in judgment; but when that time comes, the resurrected saints of all ages and the changed and translated saints of this age will reign with Him. The saints previously seen in heaven will have come forth with Him to judge.
But let us look at the next statement of the verse: "and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God." Now mark it clearly, John did not say he saw the souls that were beheaded, for that might mean that he saw the persons in their bodies; but he plainly states he saw "the souls of them that were beheaded." These are souls separate from the bodies. Compare this group with those mentioned in Rev. 6:9: "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held." Here is the same group. Their bodies were in the graves, and their souls were in heaven; they had been martyred during the tribulation because of their testimony. These were most likely martyred by the false and oppressing church during the first 31/2 years —they were Jews, in all probability. They had the testimony of the book of Revelation—"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Now John also sees the souls of another martyr group those who had "not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark." When John saw the souls under the altar, in chapter 6, they were told that they would have to wait a little season until their fellow servants and brethren should be killed. Now the second group of martyrs is revealed; their souls too are in heaven. The careful distinction between the two groups is lost in the King James Version, but the A.R.V. and J.N.D. translations, besides many others, make the matter plain by adding after the first group of martyrs are seen in the disembodied state, "and such as worshipped not the beast," etc. They are the ones mentioned in chapter 13:15, those who were put to death during the 31/2 years of the great tribulation for refusal to do homage to the image of the beast. Now the two groups of those martyred after the rapture are complete, and they are raised from the dead, and share in the reigning with Christ along with those who were already seated on judgment thrones, and to whom judgment was committed. Of these two martyr groups it is said, "And they lived," which might be translated, "and they were raised to life." They had not lost out on heavenly glory and reigning with Christ because their testimony during the fateful 7 years had been cut short by martyrdom; they will be raised and complement those raised at the rapture. Thus these very verses which Dr. Ladd uses to prove there is only one part to the first resurrection, destroy his whole plan when carefully considered and understood.
Even in the types, the distinction is maintained. In Lev. 23, the next thing after the feast of Pentecost (which prefigures the formation of the Church on earth) is the harvest, for which no time was specified— the ingathering of saints into the heavenly barn—then there follows an allowance for resurrected tribulation saints, as the grain left in the corners of the field for "the poor and the stranger." And this precedes the feast of trumpets which prefigures the calling back of Israel. But this notable chapter can only be understood in the light of dispensational truth.
The Old Testament closes with the earthly saints looking for Christ to rise as the sun shining in its strength, while the New Testament closes with the Church called to look for Him as the morning star. Why should we ignore this definite distinction? Is the morning star the same as the sun? Do they appear at the same instant? Of course not! Neither will the Lord come for the Church at the same time He appears with all the effulgence as the ruler of the day for the world. But anti-dispensationalism is maintained by its adherents at any cost. May God preserve many to hold fast His faithful promise, "Surely I come quickly," without any intervening event mentioned, so that we may in heart reply, "Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Nothing will compensate for the loss of expecting that we may see HIM today.
Dr. Ladd has missed the point of Rev. 3:10 altogether. The verse reads: "Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." It is a promise to the overcomer (in general, to all the Christians) to be kept out of the great tribulation which is coming. Dr. Ladd dwells on the Greek for the word "out" and connects it with the Lord's prayer in John 17:15, desiring that the Christians be kept out of evil. He then reasons that it does not involve a removal from the scene, but being kept from evil and the tribulation while in it. But his basic error is in not seeing that the Lord's promise is that of being kept from "the hour" of tribulation; that is, altogether from the time of it not being preserved from danger during the time, but delivered from the time in which it will take place. The Greek word for hour is hora and means an hour, a period, or a season. It is from the entire period of the tribulation that the Christians are to be delivered by the coming of the Lord to take them to Himself first—not by some special preservation in it.
Time and space will not permit an exhaustive review of all the errors of the book entitled, "The Blessed Hope"; but we feel there is at least one more point that should be mentioned. Dr. Ladd takes up the old cry that "the gospel of the kingdom," which according to Matt. 24:14 must be preached "in all the world" before the end, is the same as the gospel of the grace of God. But as we have before noted, this statement in Matt. 24 is connected with the Jews, Judea, and an idol in the holy place of the temple, and a sabbath day's journey, etc. Now how does it happen that he can bring this age and the gospel of the grace of God into such a Jewish setting? He says: "Christ is tarrying until the Church has completed its task. When Matt. 24:14 has been fulfilled, then Christ will come." p. 148. The Apostle Paul did not believe this, for he taught the saints to expect the Lord in his day.
Dr. Ladd further says: "The world is nearly evangelized; any generation which is really dedicated to the task can complete the mission. The Lord can come in our own generation, in our life-time—if we stir ourselves and finish our task." (Italics his.) Our hearts would utterly sink if we believed this statement, for the fact is that there are more unevangelized people on earth today than there were last year, ten years ago, or further back. Christianity is losing the race with the explosive population growth, and with the spread of communistic ideology, and plain infidelity. Furthermore, a large percentage of the so-called missionaries in the world are not preaching either the gospel of the grace of God, or the gospel of the kingdom which John the Baptist preached. Dr. Ladd himself refers to the frightful anti-Christian heresy of a prominent missionary, Albert Schweitzer, to whom "Jesus... is an offense, not a Savior." No, there is, and there can be, only one explanation of Matt. 24:14; it is a gospel that the King is coming back, which was first preached by John the Baptist, and will be resumed by a Jewish remnant whose hearts God will touch after the Church age has closed. To assume Dr. Ladd's premise would be to put off the Lord's coming ad infinitum.
This review of Dr. Ladd's book has not been undertaken out of any personal animus, but for the reason that he has placed himself out in the forefront of the challengers of dispensationalism and of the pretribulation coming of the Lord for His own. Furthermore, he is now in the position of leading others along the same course he has followed, which we consider will lead the saints of God to settle down and sleep like the wise virgins among the foolish. He has used the names of opponents of these truths with considerable skill, and used their arguments to bolster his position. He speaks of many who have given up the dispensational teaching, and of others who, while they have remained silent on the issue, simply do not believe it. But none of these things move us, nor do they prove anything more than the position of these individuals—not that they were right or wrong. We would also warn Christians who hold these truths dear not to relax and be unmindful of the attacks that are being made on them, lest we lose them by default. Let us "hold fast" the precious deposit that has been committed to us.
We have wondered why the growing tendency to discard that which has been such a hope and cheer to the saints of God. Perhaps the answer lies in a reported interview of Christian Life magazine with Dr. E. Schuyler English, who is himself a dispensationalist and pretribulationist. He was asked: "You have already said that in your opinion many do not accept the dispensational interpretation of Scripture because they do not understand what dispensational means. Are there other reasons?" Dr. English replied: "There are several principal reasons, in my judgment, for the critical attitude that some evangelicals show toward dispensationalism. One of them is that it is not considered scholarly to follow the dispensational method of interpreting the Scriptures since modern dispensationalism stems, in part at least, from the writings of the so-called Plymouth Brethren.”
Perhaps this is the underlying cause, for Dr. English states that "most theologians credit J. N. Darby... with first systematizing dispensational theology in the middle of the 19th century.”
And Dr. Ladd mentions Mr. J. N. Darby and "Darbyism" time and time again, as the root cause of this teaching, although in one place he says that "Darbyism in fact restored something precious-which had long been lost." He indicated that in spite of what he considers errors of "Darbyism," it was helpful in awakening Christians to the reality of the Lord's coming (p. 43). How strange that what he calls error should be so beneficial spiritually! May spiritual perception be the guiding power in searching the Scriptures, rather than some assumption to superior scholarship.
We feel we must now notice a few remarks of Dr. Donald G. Barnhouse in his Eternity magazine. In the September, 1957, issue we read: "Before I go further, let me affirm that I believe firmly in the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, that He will overthrow the antichrist, and will establish His rule on earth. Premillennarian? yes; dispensationalist? no." But then he expresses the difference between one who says the Lord will come before the Millennium but after the tribulation, and one who is a dispensationalist and looks for the Lord at any moment before the tribulation. Thus: the premillennialist believes "that the Lord might not come for another century or another thousand years. The dispensationalist is forced into the awkward position (which is not biblical) of believing that we are now in the end of the end times" (italics his). He then misrepresents the truth held by most dispensationalists by saying that we are looking for the apostasy more than for the Lord. This is a sad misstatement of purpose and intent of those who hold the pre-tribulation coming of the Lord. This may be true in a few instances, but it is basically false. We are not acquainted with believers who are looking for the apostasy or the antichrist, rather than looking for Him whom our souls love. Perhaps spiritual lethargy has dimmed the hope in some Christians, but that is not the fault of dispensationalism. Many Christians have lost the joy of their salvation through worldly entanglements, but is salvation false because of that?
Dr. Barnhouse further states that the dispensationalist's hope causes him to turn away from "social service." Just what does he mean by this? Would he take what is left of true Christianity down the slippery road of the "social gospel" that ruined much of Christendom some years ago? We fear he would, for this can be a natural result of the giving up the hope of our Lord's imminent return. It was the loss of this hope that carried the early church down. The giving up of "the blessed hope" is helping to prepare the way for the ecumenicalist's dream of one world and one church—in other words, "BABYLON THE GREAT." But the drowsy Christian will be of no more help to this world than Lot was to Sodom. The only way for a Christian to be a help in the world is to live for Christ, in the constant expectation of His return, and witnessing for Him as God may give opportunity. He will have to walk in separation from its schemes, its aims, its hopes, its all. Abraham walking with God was of more value to Sodom than Lot who was probably seeking to do social service in it. Abraham's intercessions would have availed if the wicked city had not passed the point where immediate judgment was inevitable.
But social service, ecumenicalism, and worldly principles would be the natural product of putting off the Lord's coming for perhaps "another century or another thousand years." Is not this the principle of the unfaithful servant who said in his heart, "My lord delays his coming"? We were saddened to read such comments from the editor of Eternity, although we should not have been surprised; for he wrote in his May, 1950 issue, "I shall hope to publish a paper on why I am not a dispensationalist and never have been." In the same issue he added, "Those who know my preaching well know that I seldom speak about the second coming of Christ." In this he differs from that venerable servant of the Lord, the Apostle Paul, for he connected his gospel preaching with telling his hearers of the Lord's coming back. He preached it to the unsaved, and did not hold it back from the youngest converts.
We earnestly hope that the Lord's soon return will prevent a wholesale departure from this separating and encouraging hope. While we are not looking for the apostasy or any world developments, we see them shaping very fast for the days to come after we are ushered home. Christians who cannot discern the character of these days must be spiritually blind.
A word of explanation and warning should be appended regarding what is sometimes called "hyper-dispensationalism.”
This is an erroneous view, and some people who hold it have very serious error connected with it. Extreme dispensationalism is of comparatively recent origin, and has for its main tenet that the Church was not formed on the day of Pentecost. Those who hold this view insist that what took place then was only a transitional thing composed of Jews exclusively, and that the Church proper was not formed until later; in fact, until Paul was in Rome. In this way they take away from Christians the Acts of the Apostles and all the epistles Paul wrote before his imprisonment in Rome. A special dispensation for Jews is thus set forth.
It is true that only Jews or Jewish proselytes were in the, Church at the beginning, but it was the Church of God formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit at that time. They were all baptized into one body. Later, Samaritans and, subsequently, Gentiles were brought in; the one in Acts 8, and the other in Acts 10. Eph. 2 makes it quite plain that Jews and Gentiles are all in that one body. That which took place in Jerusalem in Acts 2 was not fully understood—not until Paul wrote the epistle to the Ephesians— nevertheless, it was the Church. One would look and search in vain for any formation of a Gentile Church at a subsequent time.
One of the disastrous results of this error is to take away from Christians both baptism and the Lord's Supper. These misguided people insist that these two things were only for the Jews of the transitional church; this is not so. Hyper-dispensationalists' rejection of all but the prison epistles of Paul has brought them into some strange incongruities. This may be best explained by an incident that was told to us. One of the preachers of this strange doctrine was speaking one day on Col. 2, which according to their theory is for the Church. When he came to the 12th verse, he read, "Buried with Him in baptism," etc. He then stopped and said, "I do not know why baptism is in Colossians; it should not be there." It did not set with his strange view that Colossians is for the Church, but not baptism.
On another occasion we came in contact with one who had imbibed these extreme views, and he contended that the Lord's supper was not for Gentile Christians. We carefully sought to explain to him the difference between Luke 22, where the Lord instituted the remembrance of Himself in death, and 1 Cor. 11, where the Apostle received the instructions on this memorial from the Lord in glory. In Luke 22, only men partook of the loaf and cup; in Corinthians, men and women. In Luke it is connected with remarks about the coming kingdom, while in Corinthians it is associated with His coming for His saints. At that time, the instructions were. to do it until He comes back for us.
This poor brother was so influenced by the error he had been taught, that he pressed the point that 1 Corinthians was written only to Jews; whereupon we asked him to read a verse down in the 12th chapter: "Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led." v. 2. He refused to see it, even though it could not be plainer; these Corinthians had been Gentile idolaters before their conversion. For him, that epistle might just as well not be in his Bible, for he rejected what it said.
But apart from the folly of their erroneous teaching, what can be the state of soul of a true believer who can either refuse to be publicly identified in this world with Him whom it cast out, or be satisfied to not break bread in remembrance of Him who gave Himself for us? The Lord made only one request of us —"This do in remembrance of Me." Shall we carelessly fail to do so, or find some false principle that nullifies it? Far be the thought! He asked one thing of us; shall we fail to respond in that one thing?
Hyper-dispensationalism should not be confused with true dispensationalism which properly evaluates the Lord's promise of returning to take us before the world's judgment falls. May the Lord keep His saints out of the pitfalls on either side, and may the hope of His coming burn more brightly in our souls. "Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
“Lord Jesus, Come!
Thine absence here we mourn;
No joy we know apart from Thee,
No sorrow in Thy presence see.
Come, Jesus, Come.
“Lord Jesus, Come!
And claim us as Thine own;
With longing hearts the path we tread,
Which Thee on high to glory led.
Come, Savior, Come.
“Lord Jesus, Come!
And take Thy people home;
That all Thy flock, so scattered here,
With Thee in glory may, appear.
Lord Jesus, Come!”
Dispensationalism: Preface to Second Part
These articles, A DEFENSE OF DISPENSATIONALISM, were written at different times and under different circumstances so that they pretend to no uniformity of style. The underlying thought of the author was to refute charges that were leveled against the truth and against eminent servants of Christ. The Lord will answer these attacks in His own time and way, and the judgment seat of Christ will bring all to light. We praise God for giving us sound ministry, which brought to light His mind, and which we consider a veritable treasure house. In spite of the aspersions cast on men more worthy than themselves, we would hold fast the precious deposit of truth.
It may be well to comment on the expression, "Historic Faith," which others have quoted with some approbation. Just how much or how little of precious truth was known in early days by so-called Church Fathers may be gathered from statements made by the noted Catholic priest, C. Chiniquy. When he was discussing some problems with his bishop, he was referred to the "Holy Fathers" as the place where he could find the answers to all his questions and difficulties. When the bishop could not furnish him with a copy of the writings of the Fathers, he secured a used copy by Migne from a Montreal book dealer by the name of Mr. Fabre. When the earnest and inquiring priest searched these old writings, which covered six centuries, he pronounced his pursuit as a most desolate work. He said that he did not take a step in the labyrinth of the fathers' discussions and controversies "without seeing the dreams of his theological studies and religious views disappear as the thick morning mist when the sun rises above the horizon." Thus is demonstrated how soon the truth of God became obscured, and, for a soul's enjoyment and blessing, it was lost. It is useless to go back to the early Church Fathers either for soul food or for confirmation of the truth. To offer statements about the "Historic Faith" as evidence against the early acceptance of the blessed hope of the Lord's coming for His Church is beyond cavil a monstrous notion. The truth was found in the writings of the apostles, but soon it was given up and lost.
Dispensationalism: Part 2
In some issues of Christian Truth during 1958 we dealt with the subject of dispensational truth which was then under attack from men who had been more or less connected with so-called fundamentalist circles where dispensationalism was valued and taught. We now feel obliged to refer to the same subject because the attacks continue, and departure from this precious God-given heritage is accelerating. We have no expectation of helping those men who have for various reasons given up this truth, but we write for those who may be misled by them.
A recent publication against the precious expectancy of the coming of the Lord to take His blood-bought, heavenly people home to he with Himself is a book entitled Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, which was written by Clarence B. Bass. He has degrees in theology, and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Edinburgh. He is one of that class who was originally brought up in dispensational truth, but who has departed from it.
Dr. Bass has not brought forth anything new as an answer to dispensational truth, nor are his arguments more convincing than those which have previously been advanced by others. There seems to be the same underlying will to reject that which for some reason seems to cut across a predetermined course. People often reject that which they are unwilling to accept, things which would he quite obvious to those with an open mind, or, in the case of God's Word, to those seeking to know the mind of God.
One of the most frequently recurring' phrases in Dr. Bass's hook is "historic faith." He seems to feel that because there is no record of the hope of the Lord's coming, to call His redeemed ones to Himself, to be found in the writings of the so-called church fathers, it cannot he true. But this is illogical on the face of it; for a search of the writings of the church fathers will not prove anything, but that they were almost without exception in error. Some of them were not even sound on the deity of Christ, and it is vain to rely on the church fathers for any truth. Departure and declension were coming in rapidly before the apostles left the scene. How good it is for us that God aid not cast us on them, or on any pretended successors to the apostles, for the truth of God. In view of his departure Paul committed the saints to God and to the Word of His grace (Acts 20), and cast Timothy on the truth he had taught him, and on the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14-17). John, in view of the apostasy, took the saints back to that "which was from the beginning," not to church fathers. Peter likewise did not refer to successors, but sought to have the saints keep in remembrance that which they had received.
And if we go back to Scripture and refer to the parable of the ten virgins in Matt. 25, we find that from the beginning these professors (some real and some false) took their lamps (symbols of profession) and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Here, in unmistakable clarity, these professors at the beginning started out expecting the immediate coming of the bridegroom. That this was true in early Christianity is abundantly clear from many scriptures. The Thessalonians turned to God from idols "to wait" for His Son from heaven. There was no disposition to reject the imminence of the Lord's coming in those days. But we read of an "evil servant" who said in his heart, "My lord delayeth his coming" (Matt. 24:48). The basic fault was "in his heart"; he preferred to put it off because he did not desire to meet him. Perhaps this same evil is at work today.
The ten virgins were not at fault in this way, but they ALL went to sleep; that is, they forgot to wait and watch for their coming bridegroom. They at first wearied and became drowsy and then lost the hope of the Lord's return. They settled down in the world to live with and as the world. This continued for a long time, for they required an arousing call "at midnight" to awaken them. In view of our Lord's own parable to describe things after He left them, is it surprising that religious writers for century after century made no mention of the hope of the Lord's coming to claim His redeemed ones? The lack of such statements from the church fathers, and from all theological writers until the early part of the 19th century, is merely proof of the accuracy of our Lord's parable. It was necessary that the hope be lost and then finally revived to fulfill the scriptures. Thus, the evidence cited by Dr. Bass and others to prove that the Lord's coming cannot be truth because it was so long not mentioned, is but proof of its truth and verity.
Thank God that the parable does not say that they ever all went to sleep again; therefore His coming MUST be close at hand, for it is being given up on every side. It is coming under attack and would soon be lost, but before that can happen He will shout that shout and call us home. He will even take those real Christians who are rejecting it and opposing it—not to their disappointment at that moment, however; but how will they feel when they see His face and learn that they were really fighting against His truth?
Dr. Bass's search for supporters of his rejection of the truth of the Lord's coming for His Church leads him into some strange territory, for he makes common cause with a foremost Seventh-day Adventist writer. He not only quotes from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by LeRoy Froom, but lauds his work; he writes thus: "LeRoy Froom's masterful survey of the history of eschatology clearly demonstrates that until the nineteenth century the church viewed Israel as having a place in the millennium, but not as a separate entity, a different kingdom, as dispensational literalism contends. Rather, Israel was viewed as a part of the continual reign of Christ instituted in the church." p. 24. Could he expect soundness of doctrine from a Seventh-day Adventist source? How could such a writer distinguish between Israel and the Church when their whole scheme is a conglomeration of Judaism with some Christianity added? And how about Dr. Bass's respect for anything an Adventist could say about the Millennium when to them it will not be a time of blessing under the beneficent and righteous rule of Christ, but the earth will be a burned out cinder, with the devil the only inhabitant?
Could it be that the late Dr. Barnhouse was actuated by a similar motive when he sought to foist the Seventh-day Adventists on faithful Christians? For he also disclaimed dispensationalism, and said that he never preached on the Lord's coming.
As most of our readers are aware, dispensationalism is the understanding of the truth of the Word of God as it relates to mankind at different times. God has dealt in various ways with men and revealed Himself as He chose in each dispensation. He revealed Himself as the Almighty to Abraham when He was making promises to him—the One who promised was fully able to perform all that He promised. When He made a covenant with Israel, He revealed Himself as Jehovah—the unchanging One who would be faithful to all His covenant. After the death and resurrection of Christ, He was revealed to believers as their Father—the Son said in resurrection, "My Father, and your Father; My God, and your God." To mix such titles all up together is monstrous. To see no difference between Israel and the Church, between God's purposes and plans for them in their respective places, is to compound confusion. In such a case the language of the Psalms, crying for vengeance on enemies, would be put into the mouths of Christians—how utterly unbecoming! And while Christians have benefited from the Psalms, they are not the language of Christians; nor is God as Father known in them. This is only one small sample of the confusion which results from being unacquainted with dispensational truth. No one will ever understand the Bible apart from seeing that God has one purpose concerning Israel and the earth, and another concerning the Church and a heavenly people.
Dr. Bass frequently attacks what he calls "the dichotomy of the church-Israel relation." He sets himself in bold opposition to a distinction between the two. In one place he says, "This summary reflects again the dichotomy of the system—that there is a different hope for the church and for Israel. The hope of the church is that it will share in Christ's glory, both earthly and heavenly. The hope for Israel is the kingdom on earth with Christ seated on the throne of David." p. 132. Will Dr. Bass dare to say that Christ will not yet gather together "all things in... [Himself], both which are in heaven, and which are on earth"? And does not the next verse say to the church at Ephesus (and so to the Church at large) in whom we also have obtained an inheritance? We, the Church, are His coheirs. Our calling, our hope, and our citizenship are all heavenly. This elevated position was never true of Israel, nor is it promised to them in the future. On the basis of obedience, they were promised blessing in "basket and store"; we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places.
Dr. Bass's battle is with Mr. J. N. Darby all through, whom he prefers to see as an adamant leader who acted independently of the scholarship of the past (we ask, If this scholarship was in error on the truth of the Lord's coming and the heavenly calling of the Church, why should he give heed to it?). He claims that "the basic elements, and hermeneutical pattern, of Darby's eschatology persist unchanged in contemporary dispensationalism." p. 128. On another page Dr. Bass says, "Darby's eschatology grows out of two basic principles: his doctrine of the church, which is itself rooted in his dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the church; and a hermeneutical application of rigid literalism, particularly to prophetic Scripture." p. 129. This rouses Dr. Bass's ire. He wants to merge Israel and the Church. But let him aver that Israel was ever called to heaven, or with a heavenly calling. And if the Church is merely a prolongation of Israel, why does he not keep the Sabbath and offer sacrifices? Israel was under the law, under a schoolmaster; are we?
The doctor's charge of "rigid literalism" is made because Mr. Darby and all Spirit-taught dispensationalists make the word "Israel" apply to Israel. And why not? Dr. Bass also attacks the late A. C. Gaebelein, saying, "Adhering to its rigid literalism and unconditional covenant, dispensationalism, however, insists that the church in no wise assumes any of Israel's relation to God; there can be no 'spiritual Israel'; and that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are still inviolate." Then he quotes from A. C. Gaebelein in his charges, and says, "Gaebelein apparently overlooked 1 Peter 2:9 where the church is called a 'holy nation'." Here the ignorance of a proponent of the so-called historic faith becomes evident. Did this gentleman never read Peter's address in the first verse of the first chapter? Peter wrote to believing Jews of the dispersion. They had lost everything for the time by identifying themselves with a rejected Christ, and he merely quotes from Ex. 19:6 where God had promised Israel certain blessings on the basis of obedience (which they forfeited by disobedience), and now says to the suffering and believing Jews, You have come into blessing before the nation will. They came into these blessings in a higher and better way, far in advance of the nation. What a cheer this must have been to these oppressed Christians who had been Jews. But Dr. Bass, as all of his group, eagerly grasps at any straw to "prove" that the Christian is only an Israelite after all. Let us say firmly, that the name Israel in the New Testament never means the Church. There is no such thing as a spiritual Israel in this day. When the nation of Israel is finally blessed when Christ sets up His earthly kingdom, and Jerusalem becomes the center of God's government for the earth, Israel will be born again (see Ezek. 36); and they will all know God from the least to the greatest (Jer. 31:34).
Dr. Bass rejects the truth that God will yet fulfill His promises made to Abraham to establish Israel on the earth. Let us paraphrase a question Paul asked of King Agrippa, Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should keep His promises? Is it not presumption to question God's faithfulness to His pledged word? How then does this opponent get around the difficulty he creates? Here is his answer: "The historic faith has held that the kingdom was not postponed, but fulfilled in the church, and will come to its consummation in the millennial reign." p. 33. This statement is absurd on the face of it. God had promised to send Elijah to recall Israel to their God preceding the coming kingdom (see the close of Malachi), and then John the Baptist came in that very manner; but they rejected him. The Lord Himself said, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." Matt. 11:14. The Messiah's forerunner was rejected and so was the Messiah. The kingdom promised was offered by John and the Lord, but summarily rejected by the Jews. In Matt. 12, the Lord disclaimed relationship with Israel; and in chapter 13, He went out to the seaside and spoke of sowing something new. In this chapter the mysteries of the kingdom are mentioned, for the kingdom of heaven in this form is a sphere on earth where an absent and rejected king is supposedly owned; it is Christendom. If Christendom is the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, then God's work is a failure, speaking reverently. Dr. Bass's whole plan belittles God's purpose and promise, and lowers the Church from its heavenly calling to a mere earthly adjunct to Judaism.
This leads him to denounce the distinction between law and grace. On page 35, Dr. Bass says, "dispensationalism has constructed a system in which law and grace work against each other, not conjointly." Will he prove his point that grace and law are adjuncts? "The law... was added because of transgression.”
Gal. 3:19. It came in by the way. It NEVER gave life to anyone. Paul says that it slew him (Rom. 7:11). "The law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Rom. 5:20. There was sin before the law was given, but the giving of the law made it worse, for it then became an offense. God did not give the law that sin might abound—far be the thought—but that it would take on its awful character by one's breaking the law. But where sin abounded, grace overabounded, not merely where there was the offense, for then grace would have been limited to Israelitish law breakers—Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law. Is it not therefore clear that Dr. Bass and those of his school mutilate both law and grace? They are mutually opposed to each other. If you mix them, "grace is no more grace," and "work is no more work.”
Dr. Bass asserts that, "the presupposition of the difference between law and grace, between Israel and the church, between the different relations of God to men in the different dispensations, when carried to its logical conclusion will inevitably result in a multiple form of salvation—that men are not saved the same in all ages." p. 34. Here he goes into the bog. Let him first state his premise, and prove it by Scripture, that men are saved by law now, or that those before the death and resurrection of Christ were saved by the proclamation of salvation through His finished work on Calvary. Obviously the gospel of God concerning His Son was reserved until after His death and resurrection. God could then say, "Come; for all things are now ready." Luke 14:17. Could that message have gone out earlier? No! And was any Jew (under the law) ever saved by the law? Never. If there is one principle on which all men are saved, it is faith. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice." He may only have seen vaguely and indistinctly; but he had faith in God, and by his offering acknowledged that he could only be accepted by God on the basis of an acceptable sacrifice. All through the Old Testament times, God looked for faith that acknowledged Him. Some people have said that men were saved in those days by the efficacy of a sacrifice, but it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take sins away (Heb. 10:4). David, after his heinous sin, desired God to cleanse him; but he added, "Thou desiredst not sacrifice; else I would give it." Psa. 51:16.
Now lest any misunderstand our point, we say, everyone who is saved owes all to the death of Christ; but before it was accomplished such a proclamation could not have been made. God looked at a man's faith, and did not raise the question of soul salvation at the time. There is one verse in Rom. 3 which solves the riddle of God's forbearance with men of faith who lived before the death of Christ: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past." v. 25. God did not raise the issue with the poor bankrupt sinner, but passed by the sins of those who had faith; for He waited until the death of Christ, which would fully glorify Him in the matter of sins, would vindicate Himself in such passing over the sins that had taken place before. The atoning death of Christ is the basis of every blessing for the sinner, and also that which has glorified God. Some dispensationalists may have been faulty in answering the charges of the non-dispensational school about our having a multiple basis of salvation. But it is the anti-dispensationalists who err and create confusion. When once the dispensational dealings of God with men are overlooked, or rejected, the whole of the Bible is thrown into confusion for those who do so.
Another note from the book we have reviewed is the author's rejection of the period of the great tribulation. He says, "Historic premillenialism knows nothing of the Great Tribulation, which according to dispensationalism has a special purpose relating to the Jewish kingdom." p. 41. And yet the Lord spoke clearly about that time of trouble which is to come which will be unparalleled in the world's history. This period will be seven years in duration, divided into two equal parts—the latter half being more strictly the great tribulation. At this point Dr. Bass also assails Dr. John Walvoord and the Scofield Bible for following Mr. Darby's dispensationalism.
Dr. Bass says: "The basis for teaching such a tribulation is the over-all system of dispensationalism, rooted in the ever present distinction between Israel and the church. The pre-tribulation rapture [of the church] grows out of this concept, since the church must be removed before the remnant of Israel is gathered. The dichotomy between law and grace as multiple ways of divine dealing with man also lies behind this concept." p. 42. Therefore, we reply, if that writer is wrong ( as we know that he is) by trying to blend Israel and the church, and law and grace, then his whole attack on the tribulation and our being first gathered to be with Christ is extreme folly. If his premise is wrong, all his deductions are likewise wrong.
Anti-dispensationalists refuse to see that in 1 Thess. 4 we have the Apostle giving assurance to those dear saints that those of their number who died will not lose out by not being present when He comes in His glory, for He will bring all His saints with Him. (This was foretold in the Old Testament.) Then in chapter 4:15-18 we are given a parenthesis which tells how the saints get to be with Him in order to come back with Him. He is coming for us Himself. This is in perfect accord with the Lord's own promise: "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." John 14:2, 3. Dr. Bass rejects the word in 1 Thess. 4 without apology, but merely says it does not mean what dispensationalists take it to mean, or to be more exact, it does not mean what it says. Regarding John 14, let us ask, What does it mean? Are we to wait here for Him to come and join Israel and the Church, and to give them an earthly glory? No, definitely no; for He says plainly, I will come for you so you can be with Me where I am. Is He not to head up all things in heaven and on earth? Emphatically so! And to reject His own word that He is coming for us, is to be devoid of a suited response to His promise. The Bible closes with the assurance to His Church that He Himself is coming for her, and the Spirit and the bride respond with a call for Him to come.
Dr. Bass's frequently recurring phrase, "the historic faith," as though anything that broke with the vagaries and mistakes of the so-called church fathers, and their legion of successors, would be bound to be wrong, brings to mind the great revolution which was wrought in Martin Luther, and which by God's grace was wrought in the professing church. He was vainly following the course of the ages, and the follies and superstitions of men, until God brought him back suddenly to the truth of the Word of God which had long lain dormant in the church.
On three different occasions he was struck with that verse: "The just shall live by faith." On the third occasion, Luther was ascending "what is called Pilate's staircase" on his knees in penitential folly, when the Lord spoke loudly to his soul by that one verse. J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, the great historian of the Reformation, wrote: "It was by means of that word that God then said: 'Let there be light, and there was light'." p. 171 of the 15th edition. The great historian adds: "It was thus that Luther discovered what hitherto even the most illustrious teachers and reformers had overlooked. It was in Rome that God gave him this clear view of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. He had come to seek in that city of the Pontiffs, the solution of some difficulties concerning a monastic order; he brought back in his heart, that which was to emancipate the Church." p. 173.
Surely this upset tradition and entrenched church dictums, but was it not the truth of God which was shown to Martin Luther? And when God later brought forth the "midnight" cry to arouse the saints of God to the long-forgotten and equally neglected truth of the Lord's coming, and the heavenly calling of the Church, Dr. Bass cries in substance, Heresy, because it had been so long lost. Is there not a parallel?
Twenty-eight pages of Dr. Bass's book are devoted to Darby's Doctrine of the Church. This, needless to say, he challenged; for he believes that Mr. Darby's dispensational doctrine has its roots in his doctrine of the Church. The truth of the heavenly calling and character of the Church do not seem to be agreeable to the opponent. But a worldly church which meddles in the affairs of the world has ever been the bane of the Church, and is the devil's artifice. Men want a church that is relevant to the world's space age problems; they want a socially conscious church which aims to improve the world. They look with disgust on what they call "other-worldly" attitude, and regard the imminence of the hope of the Lord's coming—that blessed hope—as merely a retreat into a storm cellar. Dr. Bass says: "The world awaits Christ's community, the church. It awaits with its frustrations, fears, complexities, and doubts. The church exists to stand in prophetic judgment against the injustice, disharmony, arrogance, greed pride, unbrotherliness, and sin of the world. Any theological system which causes a part of the church to withdraw from the larger fellowship in Christ and, by isolationism and separatism, to default its role, is wrong.”
In other words, Dr. Bass wants the whole church to be active in improving the world. Did not Christ say, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"? But the whole system of anti-dispensationalism lowers the Church to the level of the world, both as to its character, its aims, its hopes, and it allegiance. This may be denied, but a check will prove our statement to be correct. May we also add, we believe that this attitude is what is causing many to attack dispensationalism, and many to give it up. But the world is heading for divine judgment, and well meaning attempts will not avail any more than Lot's did to clean up Sodom before its doom.
This book also attacks Mr. Darby's statement that the "church is in ruins." But any Christian willing to face the facts will have to admit that this is true. Look where you will, and apostasy is rampant. Many are becoming blind leaders of the blind in saying, "I do not believe that the church is in ruins." This is but to deceive. But those who are willing to go along with the great ecumenical drive must reject the truth. God has plainly told us what the last days would be. Reader, the only hope for the true believer is the coming of the Lord. Conditions in the world and in the professing church are bad, and are getting worse. Our only way out is up to be with Christ before the judgments fall.
Another secret of these attacks against the present hope of the coming of the Lord is to be found in Dr. Bass's book. He accuses Mr. Darby of promoting a doctrine divisive in character, and says that those who still hold this truth are practicing the spirit of division. But did not the Lord Himself say that He had come to bring division? (Luke 12:51). Are we to go on with the evil which abounds in Christendom and call it charity? Mr. Darby is attacked for saying that separation from evil is God's principle of unity. But does not God call on those who would be faithful to come out from among the unclean and be separate?
We will quote a few more lines from Dr. Bass to reinforce our statement and judgment: "The 'heavenly church' idea in dispensationalism comes from several sources. These include an exegesis of passages concerning the church, particularly the Ephesian references, which contrast the church with the earthly Israel; Darby's church-in-ruins concept, which led him to teach that Christendom is apostate; and a strong emphasis on the doctrine that the church is in the world, but not of the world." p. 144. He is evidently ready to reject the fact that the Church is heavenly, and not of the world. Then speaking against the statement that the church is in ruin, this man says: "Almost every scholar of repute would not only deny the charge, but vigorously contend that the church is militant, though at times showing evidence of the influence of worldliness, and is proceeding in the plan of God, earnestly awaiting the completion of His purposes in her.... The separatist spirit and exclusivist attitude toward truth is one of the tragic aspects of the development of Darby's doctrine of the church.... What ever evaluation history may make of this movement [how about God's evaluation?], it will attest that dispensationalism is rooted in Darby's concept of the church—a concept that sharply distinguishes the church from Israel,... gives the church a heavenly title and futuristic character,... and maintains unity through separation from evil." p. 127.
The jacket on Dr. Bass's book says, "At all times he [Dr. Bass] makes an effort to deal fairly and objectively with the ideas and events that come into view." Our judgment is that his effort often signally failed, and his personal animus appeared. He is a special pleader for his cause.
Dr. Bass's willingness to quote unsavory remarks against Mr. J. N. Darby's translation of the Bible brings him into an awkward position, to say the least. Of this excellent translation he quotes from The Sword and Trowel: "Suffice it to say, that some renderings are good, and some of the notes are good; but, taken as a whole, with a great display of learning, the ignorance of the results of modern criticism is almost incredible. And fatal upsetting of vital doctrines condemns the work altogether as more calculated to promote skepticism than true religion—the most sacred subjects being handled with irreverent familiarity." Also, "Endless blunders, errors, mistranslations, confounding of moods, tenses and preposition—do not surprise us." p. 59.
After quoting this crude and untrue criticism, he admits that "such criticism is extremely harsh, and it is certain that the author is as passionately prejudiced against Darby as Turner [one who wrote approvingly of the translation] is for him." pp. 59, 60. But if Dr. Bass had not wanted to bring the J. N. D. translation into disrepute and disfavor, he would not have quoted such extreme vituperative slurs. But let us check another facet of Dr. Bass's one-sidedness.
In his introduction he says: "I wish to express my appreciation to Professor F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, University of Manchester... for very valuable aid in obtaining primary materials." p. 10. Now let us quote from a book by Professor F. F. Bruce on The English Bible: "Another private version which embodies the results of the new textual knowledge available in the second half of the nineteenth century is John Nelson Darby's New Translation (New Testament, second and revised edition, 1871; Old Testament, 1890). Darby, one of the leaders of the Brethren movement, translated the Bible into German (the Elberfeld version) and French (the Pau version) before his English version appeared; indeed, his English version was left incomplete when he died in 1882 and was completed on the basis of his German and French versions. In the New Testament especially it is based on a sound critical appraisal of the evidence, and was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised New Testament of 1881. The version was equipped with a full critical apparatus at the foot of each column of the New Testament which set forth in detail the evidence on which particular readings and renderings were adopted. This version, however, falls short in regard to English style—which would surprise no one acquainted with Darby's voluminous prose writings." (italics ours)—The English Bible, pp. 131, 132.
Perhaps Dr. Bass forgot to discuss this translation with Professor Bruce. Many dear Christians scattered throughout Christendom have been helped by the J.N.D. New Translation, but its true defense will have to await the judgment seat of Christ, where its opponents (if Christians) will also appear.
Richard Francis Weymouth, M.A. D.Lit., whose work produced one of the earliest modern English versions, The New Testament in Modern Speech, said in his preface (1906 edition) that if one is bent on getting a literal translation of the original texts, he could find such "in the Revised Version, or (often a better one) in Darby's New Testament" (italics ours). P. XI. What a different attitude toward Mr. Darby's translation than that expressed by Dr. Bass! And surely Dr. Weymouth had no ax to grind that caused him to write favorably of the J.N.D. Translation, even to the extent of favoring it above the Revised Version; for Dr. Weymouth was not a dispensationalist, as his expository notes plainly indicate. Mr. Darby's translation preceded the Revised Version, and according to Professor F. F. Bruce it was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised Version.
Another one who paid respectful reference to Mr. Darby's New Translation was F. H. Scrivener, M.A., L. L. D.—1813-1891. He was Rector of St. Gerrans, Cornwall, England. He was a conservative member of the New Testament Revision Committee of 1870. He gave six lectures, on the text of the New Testament, which were compiled in book form in 1875. This noted man said that he gave thirty years of happy devotion to these studies. In one of his lectures he made the following reference to Mr. Darby and his translation: “Nor am I much encouraged by the representations of a pious and learned person, who has recently labored, not quite unsuccessfully, over a new version of the inspired writings, and who frankly uses the following language in describing his own impressions respecting this kind of work: 'In the translation I could feel delight—it gave me the word and mind of God more accurately; in the critical details there is much labor and little food'." [This is found in the preface to the J. N. D. New Testament.]
Dr. Scrivener continues: "Much labor and little fruit is no cheering prospect for anyone, and I should utterly despair of gaining the attention of my hearers after so plain an intimation of what they have to expect, unless the experience of a lifetime had assured me that this good man's opinion is the very reverse of the truth." It seems to us that Dr. Scrivener misunderstood Mr. Darby's remarks and mistook his not finding food for his soul in the critical work for his not finding fruit for his technical labors. There is a difference; one can nourish the soul while the other leaves it comparatively barren.
As for Dr. Bass's question of whether Mr. Darby's dispensational teaching came first, or the New Translation preceded it, we can answer that. The doctrine came from a spiritual insight into the Holy Scriptures, and the translations into German, French, and English came later, as the need for better translations became more apparent.
Dr. Bass summarizes and paraphrases the teachings of the early brethren, but in doing so he discloses his lack of understanding of the points covered. We have neither the time nor the space to take up the many instances of this, perhaps unintentional, misrepresentation. It is well-nigh impossible for one to grasp another's meaning well enough to paraphrase it and convey the thought accurately, especially when the one doing it is thoroughly predisposed against the thoughts presented.
Here is one example of Dr. Bass's carelessness in presenting what he claims is Mr. Darby's teaching; this is about the church: "The church is heavenly, not earthly: the individual believer is not baptized into a church here on earth, but into a heavenly relation with Christ." p. 46. Now note what Mr. Darby did write and teach concerning baptism and the individual's entrance into something: "Baptism presents the doctrine that I, a living sinner, die to sin, and arise again to be accepted in Christ's name, as alive unto God in the power of His resurrection.... Hence by it we are received into the assembly on earth [italics, Mr. Darby's]—the house builded on earth for a habitation of God—not into the body. In this [the body] we are looked at in scripture as seated in heavenly places in Him the Head.... Baptism receives into the house.... We enter into the outward visible body by that ordinance, which signifies our dying and rising again.... Baptism has, even as a sign, nothing to do with the unity of the body. 'By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body'—not by water."—Letters of J.N.D. (Stow-Hill), pp. 277-282. Could Dr. Bass's charge be further from the truth? Mr. Darby unequivocally states that baptism brings into the house on earth, not into the body; and that in the body aspect we are looked at as in Christ in heavenly places. This seems like a plain case of irresponsible reporting.
On page 112 of Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, confusion is everywhere. Think of Mr. Darby's being made to say of a Christian, "he is the body of Christ" (italics, Dr. Bass's). Does Scripture so speak? Would Mr. Darby use such an obviously wrong statement? We have searched for any such slip and have not found it. We do find where Mr. Darby uses, "Ye [plural] are the body of Christ." He adds, "The assembly at Corinth represented at Corinth that one and only unity, that of all individuals united to Christ in one body by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Everything had a connection with the one body, composed of all the members of Christ. There was no action which did not relate to the whole body." In this article, What is the Unity of the Church?, found in Mr. Darby's Collected Writings, vol. 20 (Stow-Hill), pp. 296-306, Mr. Darby was answering a Mr. F. Olivier, a Frenchman, who was attacking the principles of those gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus. A reviewer of such an article should recognize that in this type of writing one may refer to something the other man has said, without any approval whatsoever. And so on page 113, Dr. Bass says: "Darby does not refer to the assembly as a formal organization." (Compare this with quotation of J.N.D. earlier in this paragraph.) Such statements are misleading, but are found abundantly in Dr. Bass's book. It is confusion heaped on confusion. But it would be impossible to pin down all of the inconsistencies, because one would have to search all of Mr. Darby's 34 volumes of Collected Writings, 3 volumes of Letters, 5 volumes of Synopsis of the Bible, and much more to prove that he did not make little statements attributed to him. But we challenge Dr. Bass's book for inaccuracy of reporting and for bias and prejudice in the conclusions reached. He seems determined to destroy, if he can, the image of the man J. N. Darby in an effort to bring ridicule on his able expository works, defining the heavenly character of the true Church of God—by that we mean of all believers according to God's plan—for the purpose of making the professing church earthly-minded, not looking for her Lord, but trying to improve the world just as doom is about to overtake her and the world which she loves all too well.
Dr. Bass's unsubstantiated charges that "John Darby was subjected to the temptations common to all religious innovators—that of continually advancing new 'revelations' of 'spiritual' truths to attract and maintain his following" (p. 98) is absolutely without foundation, and not one shred of evidence can be adduced to support it. It is as vicious as it is untrue. The burden of proof falls upon the man who makes the charge, but on one who is ill-prepared to understand, much less to delineate, the position of those who are rooted and grounded in the truth of dispensationalism.
The uncharitable doctor seizes on every controversy among brethren to discredit the whole movement, and he advances many arguments which were set forth by opponents. He would whitewash the gross error of a B. W. Newton, and in the end advocate a going on with just about anything. He flings the charge of "separatist" at Christians who, seeking to do the will of God, withdraw from iniquity. Separation, it appears, is an anathema to him.
We would mention that Dr. Bass assails brethren as though "new birth, the historicity of the resurrection, the validity of the virgin birth, or any other cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith" were disregarded (p. 99), while points of ecclesiastical doctrine became the test. Mr. Darby wrote one large volume against F. W. Newman's Phases of Faith, or more correctly, Phases of Infidelity. Mr. Darby did a great work for the Church of God by his careful analysis of Newman's infidelity, entitled, The Irrationalism of Infidelity. His counter attack covers 598 pages (Morrish edition) of volume 6 of his writings. Newman had attacked the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. Specifically, Newman attacked 21 Old Testament and 15 New Testament books. He had imbibed German "Higher Criticism"; he ridiculed the miracles, and held the virgin birth up to scorn. Will Dr. Bass dare to assume that such vital truths were sidetracked? Were they not maintained with vigor? Where will he find in all Christendom more able and energetic defense of truth against error than in the writings of J.N. Darby, William Kelly, and others of their persuasion?
In spite of Mr. Newman's infidelity which caused his old friend J. N. Darby to attack his writings, Dr. Bass felt free to use the following criticism by Mr. Newman: "Over the general results of his action I have long deeply mourned, as blunting his natural tenderness and sacrificing his wisdom to the Letter, dwarfing men's understandings, contracting their hearts, crushing their moral sensibilities, and setting those at variance who ought to love: yet oh! how specious it was in the beginning! he only wanted men 'to submit their understanding to God,' that is to the Bible, that is, to his interpretation" (italics by Dr. Bass). p. 58. Now we ask, in all fairness, Would such a man, who turned away from God and His Word and sought to make infidels out of people, be a credible character witness against a man of God who withstood him and his infidelity? Evidently, Dr. Bass thinks so, and he is willing to emphasize his charges against Mr. Darby (because it suits his purpose) even to the point of adding emphasis to what Mr. Newman wrote. We believe that Dr. Bass displays himself in his hook, not to his credit, but to the opening of the eyes of the unbiased.
In contrast to all the unsavory things that Dr. Bass collected against Mr. J. N. Darby, we recently found a book published by Pickering and Inglis of England and Scotland, which, while giving a biography of Alfred H. Burton, B.A., M.D., happens to throw a little light on Mr. Darby. Dr. Burton edited the Advent Witness until 1934, and was chairman of the Prophecy Investigation Society. The book is authored by F. W. Pitt, a close friend and colleague of Dr. Burton's.
Mr. Pitt said, "I know that Mr. Darby is regarded by many as a sort of religious dictator, but Dr. Burton and others who knew him well have told me that he was the most courteous and humble of men, gracious and sympathizing, counting the fame and riches of the world as naught.... J. N. Darby died in 1882 holding Dr. Burton's hand." pp. 27, 28.
We are well aware that Mr. Darby would not wish us to attempt any defense of himself or his ways, for he would much prefer to leave it until the judgment seat of Christ, when all will be manifested in the light of Him who is "the righteous judge." But inasmuch as Dr. Bass chose to make an issue of the character, traits, and teachings of the venerable servant of Christ, in a hold attempt to bring the whole character of the Church of God down to the level of the world, and to undermine the blessed truth of the Lord's coming for His people before the tribulation, it seems incumbent on us to call our reader's attention to the basic plan of attack taken by this opponent of dispensational truth. The Apostle Paul loathed having to defend himself to the Corinthian saints in his second letter to them; But it became necessary, for an attack on him was an attack on what he taught. We recognize this fact, of course, that Paul was an apostle and spoke authoritatively. Mr. Darby was not and did not. There is this similarity, however, that Dr. Bass thought to bring the whole truth of the heavenly calling and hope of the Church into disfavor by attacking the man who was mightily used of God to recover lost truth. Instead of letting doctrine stand or fall on its own merit or demerit, and of judging all truths by the revealed Word of Truth, Dr. Bass's charges, aspersions, and at times almost ridicule, are used to becloud the issues and cast dust, into the air—air already cloudy enough with false doctrines of men "speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.”
Dr. Bass has gone to great pains to whitewash B. W. Newton; but that could be expected, since Mr. Newton was a confused man on the subject of prophecy, and held many things in common with Dr. Bass.
And now, reader, we have much more to say regarding Dr. Bass's book, but we close this section in order to avoid wearying you as it has wearied us. But, in closing, we will quote Dr. Bass's scheme and hope for the Church, a plan which we abhor and utterly reject as totally false. We quote: “Dispensationalists, who insist that the purpose of the church is to call out the 'heavenly body' from the world, and that this body will be ultimately raptured away from tribulation, have forgotten that the church was placed in the world so that through it Christ's message might come to the world." p. 148. This in itself misrepresents things, for it is God's purpose, not the Church's, to call out a heavenly people. Dr. Bass continues: “The church does have a responsibility to the culture in which it finds itself. This responsibility involves communicating the teachings of Jesus so that they will have an impact upon the moral and social problems of society. [Any rank modernist could concur in this.] The church is in the world for more than merely calling out a heavenly body: it has a mission to the world itself." Dr. Bass continues: “The mission of the church to the world is to reflect the ethics and ideals of Jesus, through personal salvation into the culture of society so that that culture may be changed [let this man produce one verse in its proper context that affirms this]. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount must be translated by the church into practical principles of Christian living. This is not to suggest that the church will ever ameliorate the sinful world to the extent that it becomes a perfect society, but it is to emphasize that the church cannot escape its mission by repeating that it is 'not of the world and not for the world.' Dispensationalism would withdraw the church from its impact on the world, contending, as does the Scofield Bible that... 'the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church,' because it is a part of the gospel of the kingdom" (italics ours). Dr. Bass calls Mr. Darby "a tortured and confused man" (p. 98), but we would like to reverse the charge, and let it fall on the head of him who made it. He further continues his statement of what he believes concerning the earthly character of the Church: “Has not the evangelical church all too long defaulted the proclamation of the gospel to the 'world'? Does not God yearn for His church, which has the true gospel, to carry the message of this gospel to the problems of the culture in which it lives? Has not dispensationalism contributed largely to this default of the church's mission, and made it a detached, withdrawn, inclusively introverted group, waiting to be raptured away from this evil world?" Is the "true gospel" the "ethics and ideals" of Jesus? NO! That kind of gospel never saved anyone. It is as sterile as the sayings of Confucius.
“Is it too much to ask the evangelical church of today to stand in its world and let Christ minister through it to the world? The church needs to throw off the mantle of ‘in but not of’ detachment and apply itself vigorously to the spiritual and. social problems of its world." pp. 148, 149. Christ ministers to His Church, but nowhere is it suggested that He ministers to the world.
We make bold to say, that everything which Dr. Bass says on these two sorry pages could be said by an unconverted religious man. Not that we say he is not saved, but he surely puts himself in dubious company. Think of talking of the church's world! and of throwing off the "in but not of" the world. To do this would necessitate discarding John 17, where we have that memorable prayer of the Lord to His Father, as He was about to leave the world and His own in it. He said, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." Was that true or false?
The Lord said that He did not pray for the world, but for His own who were still in it. Reader, we prefer to believe Christ's words.
Think of being told to cease our worldly detachment and make an impact on the world. If every Christian lived the separated life that was seen in the early Christians, there would be an impact on the world. Christianity proper did not begin until the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); but where oh where do you find the Church being told to apply itself to the problems of the wicked world of the old pagan Roman Empire! We do read, however, that the early Christians turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). This they did, not by social contacts and a patronizing subservience to the world but by walking apart and far off from its customs and ways. They turned to God from idols and waited for the Lord to come back, and it got the whole world talking. 0 for Christians of that stamp today! Did Paul, John, or any apostle, or the Lord Himself, attempt to remove the plague of slavery? Did not Paul send a runaway slave back to his owner and offer to pay for any default by the slave? (See Philemon.) Did any apostle declaim the great moral depravity of the world, and so try to raise its moral standards, and improve society? Never once! But they did tell true believers in the Lord Jesus that those things belonged to their past, and that they were to live in holiness. The God to whom they had turned was holy; therefore, they were to be holy.
Dr. Bass's proposals on these pages of his book offer nothing but the same old "social gospel" that dragged down the whole professing church at the beginning of this century. Now he wants all Christians to give up their separation, and mingle and meddle with the world. May God keep the feet of His saints from such a slippery and wrong path. Titus 2 outlines practical Christianity and tells Christians how to live in this world-"soberly, righteously, and godly"—first, with ourselves; second, toward the world about; and third, toward God and before God. Then it is added "in this present world," while looking out of it for "that blessed hope" which is the coming of the Lord. The glorious appearing is another thing and will follow when He comes back with His saints.
We forthwith reject and despise such attempts as Dr. Bass's to pull the Church down to the level of the world. It is the same thing which took place in the days of Pergamos—Rev. 2—where the Church fell down to the level of the world, as did Eutychus in Acts 20, when he wearied and went to sleep while Paul was preaching. He fell three stories, to the level of the earth. And when the teaching given us by God, through Paul, of the heavenly calling, portion, and hope of the Church is given up, the Church will fall, or rather has fallen, to the level of the world, down from the third heaven, in principle, to the corrupt and corrupting world.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.