A thought is current in the present day among those who believe in and look for the speedy coming of the Lord and Saviour, which I desire to consider a little in the light of Scripture. It is a point of no small importance to have the truth about, not only as tending to cloud or otherwise, the brightness of the prospect of the Lord’s coming, but even as influencing our views of the gospel itself, as in the sequel we may see.
The view I refer to is, that when the Lord calls up His saints to meet Him in the air, according to 1 Thessalonians 4, not all the saints will be caught up to meet Him, but only those among them who have a certain preparedness of heart, beside and beyond the common possession of faith and of the Spirit. To state this in the words of one of its zealous advocates, who regards the “foolish virgins” of Matthew 25 as illustrating this idea: ― “By these improvident virgins, therefore,” He says, “I can understand none other than real Christians, with no stain whatever upon the genuineness of their profession, but whose Christianity lacks that maturity of growth, depth of consecration, and perfection of development, which alone can entitle to the highest honors and joys of the kingdom. The Royalties and Priesthood of the world to come are not to be reached by the common orders of saintship... There must be a fullness of self-sacrifice for Christ, a completeness of obedience, a thoroughness of sanctification, an ampleness in all the graces of the indwelling Spirit, and a meekness and fidelity under the cross resembling that of Christ himself, or there will be no crowns, no thrones, no kingdoms.”
I quote this, not as believing that all who hold these views would go as far as the writer in the expression of them. Still, however expressed, the essential idea is the same, and it is perhaps well to have it before us in the full development of which it is capable. Dr. S.’s view (which is also that of very many others, or I should not bring it forward here) is that there is a “duality in the translation of the [living] saints, as also in the resurrection of them that sleep in Christ,” at His second coming. He believes that before the troubles which are predicted as attending the close of the present dispensation, the Lord will take up the faithful ones among His people, dead or living, to Himself; and that these only are the kings and priests of Rev. 5, the Bride of Matt. 25, or the “Church of the first-born ones” in Hebrews 12. The rest of the true saints are loft on earth, shut out from this privileged place, to endure the sufferings of the great tribulation, and to be only caught up to the Lord at His appearing.
Of this latter class not only the “foolish virgins” of Matt. 25., but the “evil servant” of chapter 24:48, and the “wicked and slothful servant” of chapter 25:26, are considered to be examples!
A consequence that necessarily follows, is that for those who cannot persuade themselves that they have attained this “completeness of obedience,” this “ampleness in all the graces of the indwelling Spirit,” the Lord’s coming must indeed be a dark and gloomy prospect rather than a “hope.” He must indeed be enjoying a very comfortable satisfaction with himself, who has no doubts at all that he will be found among the approved ones in that day. Would Dr. S. himself stand forward and say, “I am the man. I have no doubt, no question of the sort”? If he could, still we should have to ask, is there no possibility of self-deception in the matter? “Not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.” If on the other hand he could not affirm this for himself, what, I again ask, of the “blessed hope”?
He might perhaps urge, that the consideration of the possibility of falling short would stir men up to greater earnestness. Possibly that might be; for it is much easier to stir men (confessedly) by selfish motives than by divine ones. What does this sort of earnestness amount to? If Christ “died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again,” what would the fear of being shut out of the blessed presence of the Lord to a punishment which could be figured by being “cut asunder,” or by the “outer darkness, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” do to make me more devoted to Him who died for me? Is there “fear in love,” spite of the apostle’s assurance to the contrary? Does faith work by fear I or fear help one to love more?
Is “devotedness” for fear I should be shut out in outer darkness, really that? Is it living to Him who died for me, or really living in very religious devotedness to myself? There can be but one answer from those who know the true spring and power of Christian life and walk.
Now if we examine the texts which are supposed to teach this doctrine, it will not be hard to show that it is itself quite without any Scriptural basis. The statement of the apostle in 1 Thessalonians 4, is absolutely against it. It assures us that those who are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord, shall be caught up “together” with those raised from the dead, to moot the Lord in the air. As to the dead, the express purpose of the apostle is to assure the Thessalonian Christians that none of the living would go into glory before these, that the living saints of that time and the risen ones would form but one company. Not a hint is given of such a difference to be made among them as might dash to the ground any such hope as to many; for Dr. S. believes that this distinction will be made both among the living and the dead saints; and it is the only consistent view. For why should the mere fact of being alive or dead at the Lord’s coming make any difference as to the judgment of their spiritual state?
But the apostle here knows no distinction either as to the dead or the living. He masses the “dead in Christ” together, and those who “are alive and remain” together. He unites these in one glorious company to meet the Lord in the air. His doctrine is therefore a complete denial of Dr. S.’s and those who side with him. For if one Christian is “alive” at the coming of the Lord, he is necessarily one of those of whom the apostle speaks as to be caught up together with the dead in Christ to meet the Lord in the air.
It is quite true, indeed, that Scripture exhorts to “watch” for the Lord, and says “to them that look for Him shall He appear the second time unto salvation.” It is vain to make any distinction between wise and foolish virgins upon this ground, for in point of fact, “they all slumbered and slept.” (Matt. 25:55While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. (Matthew 25:5)). This then cannot be the distinction. And furthermore if the letter of the parable is to be pressed, the foolish virgins are in the end as much awake to the coming of the Bridegroom as the wise are. But they are not so “ready.”
Furthermore the words “to them that look for Him” are general enough to include all Christians, for they do “look for” Him, although sadly perplexed by erroneous teaching as to it, as well as often deficient in earnestness of desire.
Even did “looking for Him” imply more than this, the parable they contend for as favoring their views, would indicate, as we have just now seen, that all would be waked up to look. Short time would suffice with the Lord to accomplish this.
The instance of the “evil servant” in Matt. 24:48,48But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; (Matthew 24:48) is all against the views contended for. Dr. S. speaks of him as one “as really a servant as the first,” but deficient in fidelity and worldly in his temper, and whom his Lord when he comes severely punishes” (Last Times, p. 351). Now it is quite true that being “cut asunder” is a severe punishment; but is it fair or right to say as Dr. S. does say, that it does not imply his being lost? In the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:11-2711And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 17And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:11‑27)) he admits that the “slaying” of the citizens who “will not have this man to reign over them,” does imply that they are lost (see p. 253). Does he consider that cutting asunder is not slaying?
And then again, when it is said, “shall appoint him his portion with the hypocrites,” most people would suppose that that meant something more than merely “suffering the great tribulation,” as Dr. S. puts it. And surely his having his portion assigned him with the hypocrites means nothing less than that he himself is sentenced as a hypocrite.
But it is objected, that he is called a “servant” and therefore must be a converted man; and on the same principle the one in chapter 25:24, or Luke 19:20,20And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: (Luke 19:20) although never having really served, and “knowing” his master to be “a hard man.” It is difficult to understand the argument. That He had the spirit of service is plainly not the case. That he had the place and responsibility all will admit, but that is no more than is true of every professing Christian. And He is judged as being untrue to the profession.
Again, in the case of the “wicked servant” of Matthew 25, his portion is declared to be in the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Surely Dr. S. would not interpret this of “tribulation judgments.” To be consistent he must do so, for Luke 19:11-2711And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 17And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:11‑27) is strictly parallel, and so he interprets the sentence there. Yet it is the sentence passed upon the one who has not on the wedding garment in chapters 22, and the latter part of it is found in passages where there can be no question that the doom is an eternal one. (chapters 12:42-50).
Thus far, then, the doctrine sought to be based upon these passages is utterly without foundation. We shall now see if the parable of the ten virgins, Dr. S.’s stronghold apparently, as he has written a whole volume to enforce this view of it, will afford it any better one.
And, first, it is contended that “the kingdom of heaven,” of which the parable in Matthew 25. is a similitude, is made up of “subjects born from on high,” of “purged souls, hoping, looking, and waiting for the coming of their Lord to complete their bliss.” (Ten Virgins, p. 11). That this is not so, a large part of the parables which speak of it bear witness. The tares are in the kingdom as well as the wheat; and in the end of this age, the Son of man shall send. His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire. (Matt. 13:4141The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; (Matthew 13:41)). Were these not in the kingdom before they were cast outs So similarly in the 49th verse of the same chapter, “wicked” as well as “just” are there. In chapter 22. “bad and good” are again found as guests for the wedding, and the man that has not on the wedding garment is cast out.
These are plain and sufficient instances to show that the “kingdom of heaven” represents the whole Christian profession, and therefore in the present parable of it we may in like manner expect to find the false as well as the true, the bad as well as the good.
But further, Dr. S. contends that foolish and wise here are alike “virgins”: “that is,” he says, the company “is made up of a community of people who are chaste and pure, beautiful and loving,—of people with a pure faith, beautified with grace, and knowing nothing of the unclean loves of idolatry and wickedness.” Yet he strangely adds, “if they are not wholly cleansed in fact, they certainly are by profession” (p. 15), a damaging admission for his cause, one would think. “Virgins in fact or by profession,” would suit the people whose views he is contending against well enough. They are taken for what they profess to be. The event makes manifest what they are.
Yet he has to admit as much, because oven he cannot find absolute virgin purity in all these “virgins.” Nor are the “foolish” those who have declined from it: they are foolish at the beginning as at the end; “five of them were wise and five foolish,” is said of them from the very first: If then, they are not all absolutely “virgins,” save by profession, the line can no where be drawn so as to exclude even the whole mass of unconverted but professing Christians.
But, says Dr. S., “these virgins are all betrothed—under engagements to one who will presently come to claim them as His Bride” (p. 15). This is simply a mistake. The parable does not represent it so at all. For plainly in the “Oriental wedding-scene” which it is admitted furnishes the framework of the parable, the troop of attendant virgins are not “espoused” at all, but quite separate from the “bride,” nor is it hinted here that they are the same. Who is the bride in this parable can only be conjectured. She does not come upon the scene. For myself I believe it is the Jewish earthly bride of Jehovah, according to the common figure of the prophets, and that it is while the Lord is on His way to take up Israel once more, and bring them into relation with Himself, that Christians are caught up to meet Him, and come back with him to the marriage. So at least it surely will be, and it is in complete accordance with the whole prophecy of these chapters, which speak throughout of the Lord’s coming in that way, and not of the reception to the Father’s house above, the heavenly portion of Christians. This, however, is fatal to Dr. S.’s whole argument, for in that case, the foolish virgins are shut out, not from the heavenly marriage, but from the earthly one, and would not be even attendants upon the Lord when He appears in the clouds of heaven to judge and to bless the earth. But to be shut out then must needs be final.
I do not press this, however, although quite believing it, because it is only an indirect argument, and may be difficult for some to follow. It is enough for my purpose that the parable before us never hints at any identity between the troop of virgins and the bride, and that the whole analogy is quite against it.
I need say nothing about their lamps, as even Dr, S. speaks of the “lamp of public profession” (p. 21). A point of more importance is that the lamps of the foolish are represented as having been lighted, for when the cry comes at midnight, they say “our lamps are going out.” Another thing which I would class along with this, is, that it is said of them all, “They went forth to meet the Bridegroom.” Dr. S. insists very much upon these two points, and no wonder, though his remarks are founded upon a misconception merely. There is much in the language of parable everywhere of a similar character, language not to be taken as literally true, but true only from a certain point of view, which may be the hearer’s and not the speaker’s. Thus in the 15th of Luke, the Lord (it is told us) is speaking in answer to the murmuring of the Pharisees at His receiving sinners (verse 1-3). He asks them, hoes not the shepherd find peculiar joy in the recovery of a lost sheep? “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that renteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.” The Pharisees were these latter. Had they no need of repentance? In their own eyes they had none; and the words of the parable hold up thus the mirror before their eyes, that they may recognize themselves in it, and learn that they had never caused such joy in heaven, as these sinners were causing then.
Further on in the same chapter these Pharisees find their representative in that elder brother, who murmurs, as they were doing, at the grace which received prodigals. That steady worker in his father’s fields, no wanderer, but terribly severe upon the evil in his brother, who can say to his father in all the consciousness of uprightness, “Lo, these many years do I servo thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment,”— how easy to understand who was intended there! and then how that would wing home the conviction, what hard service he found it! no kid even to make merry with his friends! little did he know of joy and music in his father’s house, who when he heard the music and dancing there, must needs ask what it all meant!
Yet had he “never transgressed?” His conscience took no note of his having done so; he was “touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless,” as to that. That explains the language of the parable, and only that can explain it. This is the sort of speech, however, which perplexes Dr. S., as well as a good many more. Many and many a professing Christian (and not a conscious hypocrite at all, but a very good and pious Pharisee) has in his own thought a brightly burning lamp which perhaps, alas, only the breath of the midnight air will extinguish, as he wakes up at the sudden cry, Behold, the bridegroom cometh. These are the men who are called to look into this mirror and recognize themselves there. They would not recognize themselves at all in the picture of men with no lights; but to think of lights that may go out!
This may show the mistake that Dr. S. falls into in supposing that the foolish virgins, as well as the wise, took oil with them (p. 21). The word says, they “took no oil,” but this he supposes to mean “no oil additional to what their lamps contained.” But this is only argued from a lamp being useless without oil, by their going forth at midnight to meet the Bridegroom, and especially by their words, “Our lamps are going out.” Useless, however, as a lamp is without oil, it is not more so than profession without reality, and might well picture that. And many a man may have a lamp burning bright enough to go forth to meet the Bridegroom, when there is none to meet, whose light will rapidly go out at the true coming. All this is simple and intelligible enough, if we remember that style of parabolic language which I have but just now illustrated.
There is no ground whatever for the assertion in entire opposition to Scripture, that the foolish virgins took oil with them. They took none: and that was just their folly. But, as Dr. S. truly remarks, “oil is the fixed symbol of the Holy Ghost.” Their being without this, then, is their fatal characteristic. “They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them.” That was just their folly, and it marks them in the fullest way as unconverted professors.
In the exposition of the latter verses of the parable Dr. S.’s assumptions become multiplied. He assumes, that because in verse 11, the foolish virgins are simply called “the other virgins,” that therefore they are now delivered from their folly. He assumes that “they also procure the requisite supplies of oil” (p. 107). All this needs no reply, for it is simply apart from the Word altogether.
But it is graver, and brings us to the point of the whole matter when He remarks that the words, “I know you not” are “uttered, not as a judge passing final sentence, but as a Bridegroom explaining why he could acknowledge no further applicants to be his Bride, no matter how well qualified they might be for such position” (pp. 108, 109). This is in the first place disproved by the simple fact that the parable is totally against the identification of the troop of virgins with the bride. They are attendants only, from the point of view taken in the chapter here.
And as to the privileges of the Bride of the Lamb being the reward of a certain class among real Christians only, it is a dream as baseless as all the rest. “The bride, the Lamb’s wife,” is pictured for us in Rev. 21, 22, as the “great city, the holy Jerusalem;” and we are told, “there shall in nowise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” All true Christians are surely in the book of life. Again it is added, “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are”— what? a second and inferior class of Christians? No, but— “dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whatsoever loveth or maketh a lie.”
These simple texts are decisive against Dr. S.’s view. We have seen that the parable in question gives no support to it. Any one that can read Ephesians 5:23-3223For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:23‑32) may see how little foothold for it there is there.
Dr. S. believes that he finds in “the Church of the first-born ones” (Heb. 12:2323To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, (Hebrews 12:23)), the same select company of advanced Christians. He will find, if he looks further, perhaps, that the only body of saints in heaven put in contradistinction to these, is the Old Testament saints, who are evidently, as a body, “the spirits of just men made perfect.” The “Church of the first-born ones” embraces thus all the saints of the present time.
I have quoted already words which phew us that Dr. S. makes the becoming “kings and priests to God” also conditional upon the possession of piety “beyond the ordinary run of Christian attainment” (p. 68). He has forgotten the apostle’s words to all believers, “ye also, as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood;” and once again, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:55Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:5)). If this were conditional, it was only upon their being “living stones,” which all the converted are; and the apostle says to them, “Ye are... a royal priesthood,” not “ye may attain to it if ye run well.”
Thus in none of these senses could the Lord say to His people, “I know you not.” He could not say so to any one saint of His, for He Himself says, “I know my sheep.” No loss of reward on their part could ever make Him deny this. No one can ever bring forward one word of Scripture to chew that the words in question, which are the denial of His knowledge of these people personally, — of any acquaintance with them, — can possibly be modified into the affirming that they had lost reward. Take it in whatever character you will, “the Lord KNOWETH them that are His;” and if His, He will own them, whatever their works may be.
I would not wish to speak otherwise than strongly of a view which introduces a dark cloud of legality over the brightest hopes of the Christian, falsifying the Lord’s sweet assurance, “I will come and receive you to myself,” with the dark foreboding, “Perhaps He will not receive me,” while the self-confident and self-complacent are those encouraged. The character of Christian life and service is perverted by it. Things are held out as the rewards of service, which are the simple fruits of Christ’s work for every believer. And reward itself being given as a motive for exertion instead of Christ’s love constraining, those who accept such teaching are in the fair way to lose it. Self-seeking is more dangerous to the saint in the garb of devoutness, than in the open undisguised of worldliness and indulgence.
I have taken up Dr. S.’s book, because one may fairly take it as a sort of standard of views largely obtaining now among a certain class; and because it is well to take up plainly what is very openly put forth as needed admonition to the Church at large. The Lord give His dear ones to hear His voice who says, “I know my sheep,” says it to and of the poorest, humblest, most unworthy of His people. I do not in this advocate laxity, God forbid. But I am sure “we love Him because He first loved us,” and that what makes one holy is just what makes one happy in undoubting assurance of this love. “He that hath this hope in Him purifieth himself even as He is pure.” He does not purify himself to have the hope, but because he has it.
Work as hard as you please to escape the tribulation, brethren, you are working for yourselves and not for Christ. Just so far as this motive has power over you, it necessarily displaces the true Christian principle of “living not unto ourselves but unto Him who died for us and rose again.”
There are rewards. Not a cup of cold water given to a disciple in the name of a disciple, because the Master is dear to you, shall lose its reward. But once make the reward the object, and you miss it, for you are not doing it for the love of Christ, but for the reward. It is hired service. God needs none such. It is wretched legality. We are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
The way in which Scripture connects the judgment of works for the saint, and the apportionment of rewards, with the Lord’s coming, is exceedingly beautiful, while it is in itself a complete answer to the theories we have been examining. With the Lord’s coming for His saints is associated no thought of judgment; no question of one’s works at all. Simply He conies to receive us to Himself, into the many mansions of the Father’s house, that where He is there we may be also (John 14). He comes Himself in the joy of His love to give us the greeting and the welcome. We get the fruit, not of what we have done, but what He has done. No sentry is at the door of the Father’s house; no challenge awaits us there.
Raised or changed, and having put on the image of the heavenly, the dead in Christ, and those alive and remaining to the coming of the lord are caught up without exception to meet the Lord in the air and he ever with Him. There is no cloud upon this prospect. To be shut out is impossible for any Christian. He must be among the dead in Christ who are changed, or among the living who are caught up with them.
It is in connection with His “appearing” or “revelation” only, that the question of reward comes in. It, has nothing to do with the family-place or with membership of the body of Christ; nor even with priesthood, kingship, or the privileges of the Bride. These things are ours by His grace simply, the result of His work for us, and the gift of His love to us. What is all the highest reward of our own work, which will distinguish us from one another, compared with that reward of His, which we shall enjoy in common?
But when He comes with His saints, those apportionments over ten cities or over five, that giving of distinctive crowns, &c., will take place. David’s mighty men will be unfolded, and each will receive according as his work shall be. Concerning the result of that, it does become us indeed to be humble, but it touches naught of what we have in Christ together.