El Cercano Advenimiento de Cristo Alexander Reese

The Approaching Advent Of Christ
By Alexander Reese
Originally published by: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1937
The Approaching Advent of Christ By Alexander Reese
Contents:
Preface........................................................................................................................................................................................................3
I. The Question Stated .......................................................................................................................................................................7
--Excursus On The Seventy Weeks Of Daniel...................................................................................................................17
II. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Old Testament .......................................................................................21
--Excursus To Chapter II...............................................................................................................................................................33
III. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Gospels .....................................................................................................36
IV. The Resurrection Of The Saints In St. Paul’s Epistles..........................................................................................42
--Excursus To Chapter IV: Dr. E.W. Bullinger’s Scheme Of The Saints’ Resurrection .............................49
V. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Apocalypse...............................................................................................51
VI. The Parable Of The Tares And The Wheat.................................................................................................................68
VII. The Great Missionary Commission And Its Fulfillment ...................................................................................78
VIII. The Church And The End In The Epistles................................................................................................................87
IX. The Church And The Glorious Appearing ...................................................................................................................90
X. The Unveiling Of The Son .......................................................................................................................................................98
XI. The Parousia Of The King ..................................................................................................................................................102
XII. Messiah’s Day ..........................................................................................................................................................................125
XIII. Sir Robert Anderson’s Theory Of A Series Of Comings ................................................................................138
XIV. The Saints’ Everlasting Rest..........................................................................................................................................149
XV. Some Objections Considered .........................................................................................................................................168
--Chart: The Second Coming Of Our Lord In The Gospels And Epistles .......................................................193
XVI. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................197
Appendix I. An Explanation .....................................................................................................................................................225
Appendix II. Millenarians And Non-Millenarians ......................................................................................................226
Appendix III. On Brethrenism ................................................................................................................................................231
Appendix IV. We Know In Part, And We Prophesy In Part ..................................................................................233
About the author:

Alexander Reese was an American Presbyterian Pastor and Missionary. His book The Approaching
Advent Of Christ (1937) is considered by some to be the best post-trib rapture defence ever written.
It is out of print but copies can sometimes be found on E-bay.com and Amazon.com.
Notes:
1. This edition formatted by Ed Sanders and posted on theologue.wordpress.com. The original was
provided by Dr. William R. Crews.
2. Some long footnotes carry over to the next page
Page: 2
Preface
This volume is not intended to add to those crying "Lo here," "Lo there," at every outbreak of war, of
famine, and of pestilence in our distracted world. Nor does it aim at expounding the doctrine of the
Second Advent according to its natural content and implications. It is simply an examination of prophetic
theories that have gained a large acceptance among Evangelical Anglicans, Fundamentalists in all the
Protestant Churches, Plymouth Brethren, Keswick and similar movements, freelance Bible-teachers and
evangelists and all whose leanings are toward a realistic program of the End, and a belief, sometimes
true, that Providence is with the small battalions and the Wee Frees 1 .
These views, which began to be propagated a little over one hundred years ago in the separatist
movements of Edward Irving and J. N. Darby, have spread to the remotest corners of the earth, and
enlisted supporters in most of the Reformed Churches in Christendom, including the Mission field. They
are held and spread with conviction and tenacity, and occasionally with overbearing confidence. They
have had the advantage of being outstanding tenets in all sections of a denomination, which has had the
satisfaction of seeing the peaceful penetration of other communions by their theories of the End.2 So
much so that an increasing number of pastors feel called upon to leave the ordered work of the pastorate,
to stir up interest in what is called the "imminent" or impending Coming of Christ. Some of these at a few
hours notice can fill the largest Churches with audiences anxious to hear of the latest signs of the times,
though it is a fundamental presupposition of the school that the Imminent Advent awaits the fulfillment
of no signs whatever. Some of this interest is wholesome; more of it would be if all of what is taught
were true.
These prophetic theories have often been examined, but usually in tracts and booklets of an adventitious
character, which have generally been ignored, or not taken seriously. It has been like bowling to
Bradman, or pitching to "Babe" Ruth, with a ping-pong ball, and against the wind. The time seems to
have come for a more congruous effort.
The reader’s attention is drawn to one or two features of the work. First, written for people who are
largely strangers to the great commentaries, it aims at illuminating the discussion of disputed texts by
drawing freely on those works. Writers on the prophetic future sometimes furthered the acceptance of
their views by strong denunciations of commentaries, introductions, and "traditional exegesis." People’s
minds were thus prepared for accepting peculiar views. I think on the contrary that ministers and
educated laymen ought to thank God devoutly for the Golden Age of exegesis that entered with the
publication of Winer’s Grammar of the Greek Testament in 1822, and continues in the issue of all kinds
1 The nickname “Wee Frees” refers to a small Free Church sect in Scotland (ed.)
2This is furthered by the worldwide circulation of The Scofield Reference Edition of the Bible (over a
million copies). There is much sound divinity, admirably collated, in it; but it is a pity that an alternative
edition is not available with the text of The 1911 Bible, which was about the best of all attempts made to
correct the Family Bible of the English-speaking world. It was done by a company of American scholars
and Dr. Scofield acted as secretary. It is a pity also that highly-debatable theories of the End were set
down alongside the sacred text as if they were assured results of modern knowledge. More use might also
have been made of the magnificent expository material in the works of great scholars like J. A. Alexander,
Delitzsch, Skinner, and Sir G. A. Smith
Page: 3
of learned helps to our own day. It is an extraordinary gain that commentators have abandoned
denominational and party exegesis, and in dry light aim at telling us what the text is saying: not what it
ought to say, on "the analogy of truth" and similar presuppositions, but what it says in the new light from
all departments of research.
When, therefore, someone has a freak interpretation to commend to us, I have drawn on the great
exegetes to give us their view of it, trusting that the average educated reader will see that a natural
interpretation, backed by scholars of the highest standing, is preferable to a freak one backed by
dogmatism and the requirements of a system.
These selections will indicate my debt to the writers mentioned; but I feel that no acknowledgement will
reveal the debt I owe to the writings of Dr. Theodore Zahn. Dr. Stalker once said that Conybeare and
Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul was a "gift from God" to the English people. And one reader of it
has felt like that about Zahn’s Introduction to The New Testament (E.T., 1909, 3 vols.), of which Dr.
Jacobus of Hartford Seminary (U.S.A.), the able scholar to whose initiative and interest we owe this gift
in an English dress, said that it is "an unexampled treasury." Of the criticism I am not competent to say
anything; but any pastor with a taste for such things might say of one feature of the work, What could be
more magnificent than the paraphrases and summaries of book after book of the N.T., beginning with
"The Circumstances of the Readers" of the Epistle of James, and "The Personality of James," continuing
through the earlier Epistles of Paul, reaching "The Contents, Plan, and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel" (a
wonderful chapter), and concluding with eighty pages on the Apocalypse that are worth their weight in
gold, for the appreciation and understanding of that difficult book.
This feature of Dr. Zahn’s work evoked praise from Dr. E. Nestle as an aid to the textual criticism of the
N.T. It merits the attention of very many pastors who have had their faith undermined by the too hasty
acceptance of a criticism that makes large part of the N.T. writings the work of "anonymous or fictitious
authors" (Ramsay), and this without their even knowing the great strength of the case for the N.T. of
tradition. It was Dr. P. T. Forsyth who wrote a generation ago, that "certain nimble popular journals live
on the delusion" that all the ability and knowledge are on the critical side. "They have not so much as
heard whether there be alongside of brilliants like Wernle or Schmiedel, giants like Kahler or Zahn. It
would not be too much to say that the latter two are among the most powerful minds of the world in the
region--one of theology, and one of scholarship. Yet in this country, and certainly to our preachers, they
are almost unknown" (Person and Place of Jesus Christ: preface).
I should add that in learned quotations I have often given the English for the Greek and Hebrew in
Scripture quotations. Sometimes I have translated Latin quotations. It should be said also that, unless
otherwise stated, italics are by the present writer, though there may be a slip or two here, owing to the
circumstances in which the quotations have been checked. It may be remarked that Meyer used italics a
great deal; so did A. T. Robertson, though in his case it was a typographical device.
If any reader thinks that I have dealt with the subject in too great detail, I may as well confess that my
own view is decidedly the same. It would be fortunate if Christians could reach agreement on a few
leading aspects of the Second Coming, instead of stirring up disunity by prophetic speculation on many
others that call for patience and tolerance. Nevertheless, I must decline to make any change in the form of
presentation. The only possible hope of reaching a decision in the debate is by paying Darbyists the
Page: 4
compliment of answering with thoroughness all their principal arguments. Their long reign has been due
to the fact that no one has ever attempted this before.
For another feature of my book I feel almost like apologizing to any scholarly reader who picks up this
volume. Provost Salmon said once that "it is always irksome to be offered proof of something that it has
never occurred to you to doubt." I have to confess that all through I have been conscious of that accusing
statement: I frequently labor to prove things--like the promise of immortality in Daniel 12:2, and Isaiah
26:19, that few or no cultivated readers ever doubted. My only plea is an anticipation that for a handful of
readers who never doubted such things, my book will have hundreds who do this because of a whole
system of interpretation that they have accepted and that has never been properly examined. Here again I
have had to decline to make any alteration in my approach to the subject, though I realize that some few
readers may have cause of complaint.
I have drawn freely on modern revisions of the N.T., from Darby to Dr. G. W. Wade. This is done simply
because they frequently light up texts that have been misunderstood, often from their very familiarity.
Friends have warned me that this feature will not go down with some of my readers; they are prejudiced
against Dr. Moffatt, because of his critical position on the N.T. He is called a "Modernist" and so on. Dr.
Moffatt, I judge, would prefer to be called a "Liberal," which is usually applied to one who, like him,
accepts the critical view of the Bible, together with the central truths of the Incarnation and Resurrection
of our Lord. I think it sufficient to say that I am not a Modernist, and critics should limit themselves to
seizing on any rationalism that I may introduce from any source whatever. My belief is that a student
who has not learned the value of Dr. Moffatt’s translation for unraveling the difficulties of an epistle like
2 Corinthians, or Galatians, or Hebrews, is shutting his eyes to the light, and losing much.
I have refrained from giving a bibliography; a long list of learned works is apt to convey the impression
that the author is a scholar or a theologian; as I am neither I have omitted it.
A few works will be found mentioned under a column of abbreviations; this was drawn up only to permit
the use of shortened titles in the text.
On a matter that may provoke criticism--the controversial spirit of the book--I may refer the reader to the
paragraph from Dr. Stalker, a revered teacher of the whole Church, on the title-sheet of this volume. I
may say also that I agree with Dr. H. L. Goudge in his excellent British-Israel Theory, that a writer is not
always under obligation to suppress his amusement at his opponent’s arguments. And the author of 1
Corinthians 13 did not feel that he was called upon to suppress all his irony and indignatio n when dealing
with grave matters in 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
In the present volume one with no such position as those of the writers just mentioned, is seeking to save
large tracts of the N.T. from extremely harmful principles of interpretation, very widely held, and
increasingly held. There is a medium, surely, between the crudities of controversy in Milton’s time, and a
meekness that, up till now, has only given the impression of a case so weak that it cannot command
vigor, and can safely be ignored.
Hazlitt is reported to have indicated "animated moderation" as the ideal in controversy. I hope that the
controversial method in the present volume is not far removed from that.
Page: 5
Perhaps I may add, to explain references in the text, that a second volume, all of which (except a few
pages) was written in the first months of the World War, is about ready. It aims at examining thoroughly
the pre-trib interpretation of Mark 13 and Matthew 24-25, and deals with the prophetic and dispensational
theories of Sir R. Anderson, E. W. Bullinger, J. N. Darby, A. C. Gaebelein, W. Kelly, D. M. Panton, and
C. I. Scofield.
It remains to express my deep obligations to three or four friends whose help has lightened greatly the
work of preparing this volume for the publisher. The late Miss Maude Herriott, M.A., formerly of the
Department of Biology at Canterbury University College, Christchurch, New Zealand, rendered
extremely valuable help of every kind when the MS. was first prepared in 1914. Only after this preface
was drafted did the news come that this gifted and cultured woman, so fully representative of all that is
best in Brethren saintliness, had passed to her rest in the Lord.
Criticisms by the Rev. G. H. Jupp, a life-long friend, and editor of "The Outlook," the official organ of
the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, were serviceable in ridding the 1914 MS. of many defects.
The Rev. Harold H. Cook, of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, did cheerfully a lot of work that would have been a
burden to the writer. He also made a special trip to England and North America to arrange publication,
correct the proof-sheets, and prepare the indexes.
My thanks are due also to my friend Mr. K. Howell Fountain of Christchurch, New Zealand, without
whose counsel, energy, and enthusiasm the volume would never have got into print. He has maintained
interest in the venture for over twenty years.
I cannot thank these four friends sufficiently for all the time and attention that they have bestowed on my
work.
It should be added that, whilst the counsel and criticism of these friends have improved the book, they are
not to be held responsible for defects that remain. Nor is it to be understood that they endorse all the
views put forward, or presupposed in the writing of it.
On a particular point in Appendix I, I am indebted for suggestions to Mr. Andrew R. Kirk, of

Christchurch, New Zealand, and to my brother, Mr. Daniel Reese, of the same city.
ALEXANDER REESE
American Presbyterian Mission,

Itabuna, Estado da Bahia, Brazil.
19th March 1937
Page: 6
I. The Question Stated
Until the second quarter of the nineteenth century general agreement existed among pre-millennial
advocates of our Lord’s Coming concerning the main outlines of the prophetic future: amidst differences
of opinion on the interpretation of the Apocalypse and other portions of Scripture, the following scheme
stood out as fairly representative of the school:
(1) The approaching Advent of Christ to this world will be visible, personal, and glorious.
(2) This Advent, though in itself a single crisis, will be accompanied and followed by a variety of
phenomena bearing upon the history of the Church, of Israel, and the world. Believers who survive till
the Advent will be transfigured and translated to meet the approaching Lord, together with the saints
raised and changed at the first resurrection. Immediately following this Antichrist and his allies will be
slain, and Israel, the covenant people, will repent and be saved, by looking upon Him whom they pierced.
(3) Thereupon the Messianic Kingdom of prophecy, which, as the Apocalypse informs us, will last for a
thousand years, will be established in power and great glory in a transfigured world. The nations will turn
to God, war and oppression cease, and righteousness and peace cover the earth.
(4) At the conclusion of the kingly rule of Christ and His saints, the rest of the dead will be raised, the
Last judgment ensue, and a new and eternal world be created.
(5) No distinction was made between the Coming of our Lord, and His Appearing, Revelation, and Day,
because these were all held to be synonymous, or at least related, terms, signifying always the one
Advent in glory at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom.
(6) Whilst the Coming of Christ, no matter how long the present dispensation may last, is the true and
proper hope of the Church in every generation, it is nevertheless conditioned by the prior fulfillment of
certain signs or events in the history of the Kingdom of God: the Gospel has first to be preached to all
nations; the Apostasy and the Man of Sin be revealed, and the Great Tribulation come to pass. Then shall
the Lord come.
(7) The Church of Christ will not be removed from the earth until the Advent of Christ at the very end of
the present Age the Rapture and the Appearing take place at the same crisis; hence Christians of that
generation will be exposed to the final affliction under Antichrist.
Such is a fair statement of the fundamentals of Premillennialism as it has obtained since the close of the
Apostolic Age. There have been differences of opinion on details and subsidiary points, but the main
outline is as I have given it.
These views were held in the main by Irenæus, the "grand-pupil" of the Apostle John, Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, and the primitive Christians generally until the rise of the Catholic, political Church in the
West, and of allegorical exegesis at Alexandria (Harnack). In later times they were also held and
propagated by Mede and Bengel, who did so much to revive the primitive hope of Christ’s Coming. And
since the beginning of the last century what a galaxy of preachers, theologians, and expositors have
appeared to maintain the ancient faith! In Britain and America the names of Alford, Andrews, David
Page: 7
Baron, Birks, Bonar, Ellicott, Erdman, Gordon, Guinness, Kellogg, Moorehead, Müller, Maitland, B. W.
Newton, Ryle, Saphir, Stifler, Tregelles, Trench, and West pass before us; whilst in Germany and the
Continent generally, we meet with an imposing list of exegetes and theologians such as Auberlen, Bleek,
Christlieb, Delitzsch, De Wette, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Ewald, Godet, Hofmann, Lange, Luthardt, Orelli,
Rothe, Stier, Van Oosterzee, Volck, and Zahn, who assented to, and expounded, the pre-millennial
doctrine set forth above.3
The fact that so many eminent men, after independent study of the Scriptures, reached similar
conclusions regarding the subject of Christ’s Coming and Kingdom, creates a strong presumption--on
pre-millennial presuppositions--that such views are scriptural, and that nothing plainly taught in
Scripture, and essential to the Church’s hope, was overlooked. About 1830, however, a new school arose
within the fold of Premillennialism that sought to overthrow what, since the Apostolic Age, have been
considered by all premillennialists as established results, and to institute in their place a series of
doctrines that had never been heard of before. The school I refer to is that of "The Brethren" or
"Plymouth Brethren," founded by J. N. Darby4 .
It will be convenient to give a summary of the new doctrines, with extracts from the writings of the four
pioneer writers who filled Evangelical Christendom with their teaching. I refer to Darby’s Lectures on the
Second Coming and Notes on the Apocalypse, Kelly’s Lectures on the Second Coming and Kingdom of
the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ’s Coming Again, and Lectures on the Book of Revelation, Trotter’s Plain
Papers on Prophetic Subjects, and C. H. M.’s (Charles Henry Mackintosh) Papers on the Lord’s
Coming.
3For the teaching of the Fathers I am indebted to C. D. Maitland’s Apostolic School of Prophetic
Interpretation, and J. H. Newman’s Sermons on Antichrist in Tracts for the Times; the views of continental
scholars (up to 1897) on the crucial passage of the millenarian controversy (Rev. 19-20) will be found in
Dr. Nathaniel West’s Thousand Years in Both Testaments, and in Pre-millennial Essays (Appendix), edited
by him.
It will be understood that I am not committing all the writers mentioned to uniformity in interpreting the
events under (6). Thus Bengel had a peculiar doctrine of a second millennium following that in verse 3 of
Rev. 20.
There is a learned summary of the controversy in Harnack’s article in the Encycl. Brit. (“Millennium “). See
also the article by Dr. C. A. Briggs in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
The names of Bp. Ellicott and Abp. Trench are included on the strength of the article Millennium in
Chambers’ Encyclopedia (revised ed.).
4Throughout the book I have used the term "Darbyist" and Mr. W. B. Neatby’s term, "Brethrenism."
Without some such terms one can make no progress, unless one used intolerable circumlocutions. I may
say that, although the term appeared in print some years ago, it was coined by me in 1914 so as to avoid
"Darbyite," which had offensive associations. I hope this will be sufficient to persuade Brethren that the
new term is not used churlishly. People are not offended at being called Calvinists or Arminians, and
people, in or out of the Churches, who accept J. N. Darby’s ideas on the Second Advent, should not take it
amiss if they are called "Darbyists". This word, I may explain, is the anglicized form of the Portuguese
"Darbystas."
Page: 8
In America the new teachings were spread abroad through W. E. Blackstone’s Jesus Is Coming, and
numerous writings of F. W. Grant, J. M. Gray, A. C. Gaebelein, F. C. Ottman and C. I Scofield, but all
these followed the lead of the British (or Irish) pioneers. Scofield’s Reference Bible represents a lifelong
study of the Scriptures, and is hailed in all the world by Brethren as setting forth their views on the
interpretation of Scripture, especially of prophecy and "dispensational truth." And naturally: Scofield was
for a generation an assiduous and admiring student of Darby’s writings. In A. C. Gaebelein’s many
writings the influence and spirit of William Kelly are everywhere evident. These things are not said
churlishly, but only to explain our confining the quotations, at this juncture, to primary authorities.
(a) The Second Coming of Christ is to take place in two distinct stages; the first, which concerns the
Church alone, occurs at the beginning of, or prior to, the last or apocalyptic Week of Daniel (See note at
the end of this chapter); the second, which concerns Israel and the world, takes place at the close of that
Week. Between Christ’s Coming in relation to the Church, and His Coming in relation to the world, there
thus intervenes a period of at least seven years--the period of the apocalyptic Week, during which
Antichrist is manifested. At the first stage of the Advent all the dead in Christ, together with the righteous
dead of the O.T., will be raised in the image and glory of Christ; these, together with those Christians
who live to see the Lord’s Coming, will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. This is the Coming of
the Lord, and is the true hope of the Church. At the second stage, seven or more years later, Antichrist
will be destroyed, Israel converted and renewed, and the millennial Kingdom set up. This is the Day,
Appearing, or Revelation of Christ, and is entirely distinct from the Coming, for it concerns the world and
Israel, whilst the Coming concerns the Church alone. The second stage of the Advent has this, and this
only, that concerns the Church, that it will be the time for the judgment and rewarding of the heavenly
saints for their service on earth. Some, however, refer the rewarding to the time of
the Coming, or Rapture, as the first stage is generally called.
C.H.M. says (Charles Henry Mackintosh):
Having, as we trust fully established the fact of the Lord’s coming, we have now to place before
the reader the double bearing of that fact--its bearing upon the Lord’s people, and its bearing upon
the world. The former is presented in the New Testament, as the coming of Christ to receive His
people to Himself; the latter is spoken of as "The Day of the Lord" --a term of frequent use also in
Old Testament Scriptures.
These things are never confounded in Scripture, as we shall see when we come to look at the
various passages. Christians do confound them and hence it is that we often find "that blessed
hope" overcast with heavy clouds, and associated in the mind with circumstances of terror, wrath,
and judgment, which have nothing whatever to do with the coming of Christ for His people, but
are intimately bound up with "The Day of the Lord" (Papers on the Lord’s Coming, p. 23).
Again, the same writer says:
The great object of the enemy is to drag down the Church of God to an earthly level--to set
Christians entirely astray as to their divinely appointed hope--to lead them to confound things
which God has made to differ, to occupy them with earthly things--to cause them to so mix up the
coming of Christ for His people with His appearing in judgment upon the world, that they may
Page: 9
not be able to cultivate those bridal affections and heavenly aspirations which become them as
members of the body of Christ (Papers on the Lord’s Coming, pp. 31-32).
Again,
Wherever we turn, in whatever way we look at the subject, we are more and more confirmed in
the truth of the clear distinction between our Lord’s coming, or "state of presence," and His
"appearing" or "day." The former is ever held up before the heart as the bright and blessed hope of
the believer, which may be realized at any moment. The latter is pressed upon the conscience in
deep solemnity, as bearing upon the entire practical career of those who are set in this world to
work and witness for an absent Lord. Scripture never confounds these things, however much we
may do it (Papers on the Lord’s Coming, p. 45),
Referring to the Church’s hope and the Day of the Lord, William Trotter says:
She looks for Him, however, in a previous stage of His return. She looks for Him not as the Son
of Man who comes to execute judgment on the ungodly, but as the Son of God, the Head and
Bridegroom of His Church, who comes to receive to nuptial joys and heavenly glory, the Church
which has known and confessed Him, in whatever weakness during His rejection by a proud and
unbelieving world. She knows that when He comes in judgment she shall be the companion of
His triumphs, and the sharer in His glories (Plain Papers on Prophetic Scriptures, p. 22).
Again:
The coming of Jesus and our gathering together to Him in the air, is the Church’s portion: the day
comes upon the world. He (the Apostle) beseeches them by the one not to be distracted about the
other. The day cannot burst with its terrors on the world till the saints have been gathered to the
Lord Jesus in the air. Then he further shows that "the day" cannot come till there come a falling
away first (literally, the apostasy), and that man of sin be revealed--that wicked whom the Lord
shall consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. It is
on the man of sin that the judgments of the day of Christ first fall. It is by the epiphany of His
coming, or presence, that the man of sin is destroyed. Clearly, then "the day" cannot come till the
man of sin has come. But the apostle does not say that CHRIST cannot come till then. He
distinguishes between "the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "the brightness
(epiphaneia) of his coming (parousia)." It is His parousia that gathers the saints in the air. It is
the epiphaneia of His parousia that destroys the man of sin. The day commences with
the epiphaneia of Christ’s coming--that is, with His appearing to the world. The day comes not till
the man of sin has come. But we have no warrant to say this of the parousia of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and our gathering together to Him. That may be any day, any hour. Nothing that has been
considered presents any obstacle to that (Plain Papers on Prophetic Scriptures , p. 288).
Here we have the quintessence of the new eschatology, the new exegesis, and the new reasoning: a single
phrase--"the manifestation of His coming" (2 Thess. 2:8), is interpreted as meaning that a secret coming
(parousia) takes place at the beginning of the Seventieth Week of Daniel (or perhaps even long before it),
and another public parousia or epiphany at the Day of Christ, when the millennium is established. Not all
is said; but what is not said is in the background, with the whole school approving. Soon all will be said.
Page: 10
Let us have another extract from the same primary source of the new teaching:
Certain events are indeed predicted as inevitably to occur before "the day of Christ" arrives; but
Scripture was seen most clearly to distinguish between the coming of Christ for His saints, and the
day of Christ which brings judgment on the world. All that must occur prior to the
day may transpire between the descent into the air and the return of Christ with all His saints to
execute judgment on the earth: and this latter event it is that brings "the day of Christ" (Plain
Papers on Prophetic Scriptures, p. 527, italics his).
The reader is asked to note the significance of this explanation of the phrase "Day of Christ," for it
represented the view of the whole school till about the end of the century. 5 It was Messiah’s glorious
Day, when He comes to set up His kingly rule, after routing His foes. Perfect clarity here will help us to
avoid misunderstanding all through our inquiry; so I give an extract on this point from C.H.M., and then a
brief one from Darby. The former writes:
We are plainly and expressly told the "day is at hand" (Rom. 13:12). What "day"? The day of the
Lord, most surely, which is always the term used in connection with our individual responsibility
in walk and service. This, we may remark in passing, is a point of much interest and practical
value. If the reader will take the trouble to examine the various passages in which "the day" is
spoken of, he will find that they have reference, more or less to the question of work, service or
responsibility. For instance, "That ye may be blameless (not at the coming, but) in the day of our
Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:8). Again, "Every man’s work shall be made manifest, for the day
shall declare it" (1 Cor. 3:13). "Without offence till the day of Christ" (Phil. 1:10). "Henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give
me at that day" (2 Tim. 4:8). From all these passages and many more which might be adduced, we
learn that "the day of the Lord" will be the grand time for reckoning with the workers; for the
appraisal of service; for the settling of all questions of personal responsibility; for the distribution
of rewards--the "ten cities" and the "five cities" (Papers on the Lord’s Coming, pp. 44-45; italics
and brackets his).
On "Christ’s day" in Philippians 2:16, Darby says in the same vein: "The apostle thus unites his work and
the reward in the day of Christ with the blessing of the assembly" (Synopsis of the Books of the Bible). So
Kelly, Revelation, p. 236.
The pith of which is that Christ’s Coming or Parousia brings the Rapture, and Christ’s Day the judgment,
the reward, and the Kingdom, several years later.
(b) The Coming of Christ "for the Church," the resurrection of the sleeping saints, and the translation of
the living, together with them, to meet the descending Lord, will take place secretly: none of the
unconverted will witness them. Not so, however, the Day of Christ, seven or more years later; for the
Lord will then come forth in visible glory, and every eye shall see Him. Referring to the Ascension in
Acts 1:10-11, C. H. M. says: --
5The application of the phrase to the Rapture (by Anderson, Gaebelein, and Scofield) is examined in the
chapter “Messiah’s Day
Page: 11
And here we may ask--though it be rather anticipating what may come before us in a future paper-
-Who saw the blessed Lord as He went up? Did the world? Nay; not one unconverted person ever
laid his eyes upon our precious Lord from the moment that He was laid in the tomb. The last sight
the world got of Jesus was as He hung on the cross, a spectacle to angels, men, and devils. The
next sight they will get He shall come forth to execute judgment, and tread, in terrible vengeance,
the winepress of the wrath of Almighty God...
Is it possible for testimony to be more distinct or satisfactory? Could proof be more clear or
conclusive? How can any counter-argument stand for a moment, or any objection be raised?
Either those two men in white apparel were false witnesses, or our Jesus shall come again in the
exact manner in which He went away. There is no middle ground between these two conclusions.
We read in Scripture that, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
established;" and therefore in the mouth of two heavenly messengers--two heralds from the region
of light and truth, we have the word established that our Lord Jesus Christ shall come again in
actual bodily form, to be seen by His own first of all, apart from all others, in the holy intimacy
and profound retirement which characterized His departure from this world. All this, blessed be
God, is wrapped up in the two little words "as" and "so" (Papers on the Lord’s Coming, pp. 17-
18).
In expounding 2 Thessalonians 4:16, (William) Kelly, the acknowledged theologian of the movement,
writes thus in his Second Coming:
It is mere and ignorant unbelief to press the fact that the Lord so shouts and then to conclude that
all the world must hear Him at that epoch. It is contrary to every analogy, that the world will be
witnesses of the Lord’s coming to take away the believers. It is easy to conceive that the Lord
could conceal it if He pleased. Of course the world may be alarmed and astonished for a while by
the fact of the disappearance of so many. That there will be a great effect produced in the world
by it I am not in the least disposed to deny; but I believe that the simple and natural interpretation
of the terms employed in this Scripture (1 Thess. 4) supposes a special connection between the
Lord and those for whom He comes, and that the choice of the expressions limits His action in
sight and sound too, as well as in effects of deeper moment, to those whom it all concerns. No
more at present would I deduce or assert (pp. 171-172).
On the same passage Darby writes in his Second Coming:
The only persons who hear it are "the dead in Christ," Christ being represented as in this way
gathering together His own troops...At the proper time the Lord comes--it is not said appears--and
calls us up to be for ever with the Lord, to take our place associated with Christ (pp. 44-5).
(c) Christ, having come secretly to the air and received His waiting or sleeping people to Himself, returns
with them to heaven, and there awaits the Day or Revelation. They remain in heaven for an undetermined
period, but it is almost universally recognized to be at least seven years, the period of the last of Daniel’s
Seventy Weeks. When the Day of the Lord arrives Christ will appear in glory from heaven, accompanied
by the previously-raptured saints. Every eye shall see them. This is called Christ’s Coming with His
saints, as distinguished from the earlier, secret Coming for his saints. The distinction is insisted upon as
most vital.
Page: 12
(d) The realization of the Coming of Christ for His saints is quite independent of the fulfillment of all or
any signs and predicted events; it awaits no progress in the evangelization of the world on the one hand;
no spread of apostasy in the professing Church on the other. It is independent of the return of the Jews to
their own land, of the emergence of the Concert of the Ten Kings, and of the rise and reign of the last
Antichrist--for all these events take place after the Secret Rapture, which is conditioned by nothing
except the conversion of the last member of Christ’s mystical Body.
When, therefore, we read in the Gospels or Epistles that certain events have to be fulfilled before the
Return of Christ, we are to understand at once that it is the second stage--
the Day, or Revelation, or Appearing of Christ, and not the secret Coming that is so conditioned. With his
usual lucidity Kelly says in his Second Coming:--
The Lord keeps His coming to receive His saints as a distinct hope of the heart, apart from earthly
events. When they are, at His coming, translated to heaven, then the earthly tide of events begins
to flow. Hence, a further stage of Christ’s coming is called "the appearing," the "revelation of
Christ," and the other terms which imply manifestation among the rest, "the day of the Lord" (p.
183).
Again:
I have no hesitation in affirming from these inspired statements that we have come to the second
act, so to speak in which the Lord manifests His presence. He appears from heaven, and the
saints, already risen and changed, already taken up to be with Him above, come along with Him
from heaven. It is between His coming for the saints and His coming with them from heaven, that
the earthly events transpire, with various signs and tokens never of His coming to receive the
saints, but of His coming to judge the world. In short there are no defined periods or visible
harbingers to intimate that He is coming to receive us, but there are manifold and manifest signs
before He comes with the saints in the execution of His judgment upon the world (p. 184).
(e) During the interval of seven years or more that will elapse between the Coming and the Day of Christ,
God will resume His purposes with the Jews. Whilst many will return in unbelief to Palestine, and yield
to the seduction of Antichrist, a small Remnant will remain faithful to the true God. Their relation to
Christianity will be unique; they may have some knowledge of Christ’s person, 6 but little or none of His
saving work; they may recognize Jesus as Messiah, yet because of the removal of the Holy Spirit from
the earth at the Rapture of the Church, they will be unable to appropriate the benefits of His redemption.
Hence they will have no real knowledge of salvation until Christ comes in His glory, when they will
repent and be saved. In a word, their state until then might be described as semi-Christian.
The spiritual experience of this Remnant is believed by pre-tribs to be mirrored to us in scores of the
Psalms; even the Imprecatory Psalms, with their cries for vengeance on the godly, are applied to the
future Jewish Remnant; so are several of the Beatitudes of our Lord.
6This is not admitted, however, by others; see E. Dennett, an interpreter of Darby: The Blessed Hope, pp. 55
and 81.
Page: 13
During the second half of Daniel’s apocalyptic Week this Remnant of Jews will take up the Great
Missionary Commission of Matthew 28, and go far and wide preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Extraordinary power and success will accompany their labors, for an immense number possibly the vast
majority--of the inhabitants of the world will be brought to God through their labors, prior to the Day of
the Lord. According to many teachers--including Darby, Anderson, and Gaebelein--this will be the true
intent and fulfillment of our Lord’s Missionary Commission in Matthew 28, but this is not urged by all.
Many other portions of our Lord’s discourses are also referred to this Jewish Remnant of the Last Days,
instead of to members of the Christian Church: the Lord’s Prayer, most of the Sermon on The Mount, and
the prophecy of the End in Matthew 24-25, are so applied.
For a convenient exposition of pre-trib teaching on the Jewish Remnant the reader is referred to the two
chapters, "The Spared Remnant" and "The Martyred Remnant," in Trotter’s work (Plain Papers on
Prophetic Subjects), and to Gaebelein’s volume, Hath God Cast Away His People?.
Darby’s Synopsis contains scattered references to this subject, which is handled systematically in
his Collected Writings, and in the two works just mentioned. Anderson’s view of Matthew 28:18-20 is
found in an appendix to his Buddha of Christendom and The Bible or The Church? Scofield treated of the
subject in his Bible Correspondence Course; there the position is taken up that the sealed of Israel are
"144,000 Pauls" sent into all the world to evangelize the nations after the removal of the Holy Spirit to
heaven,7 and during the 1,260 days of Antichrist’s triumph: a big order, yet they succeed in converting
"the overwhelming majority" of earth’s inhabitants to God. (Sect. 2, pp. 112-113).
(f) From the fact that the Church will be removed to heaven prior to the rise of Antichrist it follows that
no member of the Christian Church will suffer in the Great Tribulation, instigated by him (Matthew
24:21; Rev. 7:14; etc.). No single point in the new scheme is more earnestly contended for than this one,
and every year sees new tracts issuing from the Press in support of it. Anyone who denies the Church’s
immunity from the Antichristian persecution of the Last Days is looked upon as having departed
seriously from the faith once delivered to the saints, and is received coldly or not at all by pre-tribs.
Thrice welcome is he who has written a tract affirming it.
(g) The resurrection of the saints at the Coming of Christ prior to the Seventieth Week of Daniel will be
succeeded by another resurrection of saints at its close. This is the resurrection of the immense number of
martyrs who die, ex hypothesi, between the previous resurrection and rapture, and the Day of the Lord.
But these martyrs--converted by the preaching of the Remnant--have no connection with the Church of
God. It should be said also that the martyred portion of the semi-converted and semi-Christian Jewish
Remnant, which enters heaven, [sic] at death, is also raised at this time to share the image of the
heavenly. "A martyr’s death is for them the passage to heavenly glory, and to association with Christ
when He shall reign over the earth" (Trotter, Plain Papers on Prophetic Subjects, p. 402). It is contended
by pre-tribs that this second resurrection is really part of the first resurrection, which, ex hypothesi, takes
place some years or decades previously, at the Rapture.
7Darbyists interpret the difficult verses, 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, of the removal of the Holy Spirit at the
Rapture; evil then comes in like a flood. I deal with the point in the last chapter but one of this volume. Kelly
deals with the theory in Christ’s Coming Again, vol. 2, p. 99, etc.
Page: 14
It will be understood, of course, that the kingly rule of Christ and His saints, the resurrection and
judgment of the unrighteous dead, and the creation of a new world at the close of His reign, are firmly
held in the new school.
I have thus sought fairly and accurately to set forth the pre-trib scheme of the prophetic future. It must not
be supposed, however, that all among Brethren accepted the new views. On the contrary, some of their
weightiest members repudiated them as innovations. Not only accomplished scholars like S. P. Tregelles
and B. W. Newton, but also devout men like George Müller and James Wright of Bristol, Robert
Chapman, and Dan Crawford, resisted the new theories of Darby. The following extract from Müller’s
writings will show how the group I have mentioned adhered to the early pre-millennial views set forth
above. Asked, shortly before his death, whether Christians are to expect our Lord’s Return at any
moment, or whether certain events must be fulfilled before He comes again, Müller replied as follows:--
I know that on this subject there is great diversity of judgment, and I do not wish to force on other
persons the light I have myself. The subject however, is not new to me; for, having been a careful,
diligent student of the Bible for nearly fifty years, my mind has long been settled on this point,
and I have not the shadow of a doubt about it. The Scripture declares plainly that the Lord Jesus
will not come until the Apostasy shall have taken place, the Man of Sin, the "son of perdition" (or
personal Antichrist), shall have been revealed as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5. Many other
portions also of the Word of God distinctly teach that certain events are to be fulfilled before the
return of our Lord Jesus Christ. This does not, however, alter the fact that the Coming of Christ,
and not death, is the great Hope of the Church and, if in a right state of heart, we (as the
Thessalonian believers did) shall "serve the living and true God, and wait for His Son from
Heaven" (Cited by Frank H. White in The Saint’s Rest and Rapture).
Müller’s teaching, however, despite the enormous prestige of his name, is rejected, even among "Open
Brethren"--the movement that originated in his breach with Darby over ecclesiastical contamination at
Bristol and Plymouth. On Missions and Baptism, Müller’s influence prevailed; on prophecy and
prophetic speculation, Darby’s.
It must be kept clearly in view, moreover, that I have described only the original, parent scheme, as
formulated by Darby and his associates. This scheme is still in the ascendant today. Adaptations and
developments of Darby’s original scheme by J. A. Seiss, G. H. Pember, E.W. Bullinger, and Sir Robert
Anderson, will be duly noticed in the sequel. Suffice it to say here that Seiss and Pember, followed by
Hudson Taylor, D. M. Panton, and others, taught that only really faithful Christians will be raptured prior
to the Great Tribulation: all others will be left behind to be purified in that trial. Bullinger, among other
peculiarities, excluded the Pentecostal Church from the mystical Body of Christ, and limited the Lord’s
action at the first stage of the Advent to the Body alone: only members of the Body will be raised and
raptured; the holy dead of ancient times, and all Christians prior to Paul, will not be raised until the Day
of the Lord. Bullinger, moreover, found more than one rapture in the N.T. Anderson does not accept the
distinction between the Coming, Appearing, Revelation, and Day of Christ, but teaches a doctrine of
a series of comings or appearings at the End; this has found little acceptance. He also disclaims the idea
of secrecy at the Rapture; so also R. A. Torrey and a growing number of writers.
For these aberrations from Darby’s scheme the reader is referred to Hudson Taylor’s Union and
Communion, Seiss’ Apocalypse, Panton’s Rapture, Anderson’s Coming Prince, Forgotten
Page: 15
Truths, and Unfulfilled Prophecy (2nd ed.), and Bullinger’s Ten Sermons on The Second Advent, The
Apocalypse and The Mystery. Moreover, changes are still going on. In Touching the Coming, Messrs.
Hogg and Vine, two Brethren expositors of note today, repudiate the pioneers’ distinctions between
the Coming and the Appearing, Revelation and Day of Christ, which gave early Brethren songs in the
night, and which, C. H. M. told us above with such certitude, it was a design of Satan to confound and
mix up, and they find exegetical salvation in adopting everywhere the translation presence for the Greek
word Parousia; so that the period or age, ex hypothesi, between the Rapture and the Appearing, which
some think may be only three and a half years, others seven, others about seventy, but which Anderson
thinks may possibly be a thousand years, gives the true meaning of the Apostolic references to the
Coming of our Lord. He is then present. (Chart & app., 152-155.)
And now in the year of grace, 1932, which marks the centenary of the first Brethren assembly in
England, C.F. Hogg, one of the authors of the volume just referred to, proposes a further retreat from
dispensational orthodoxy, with no diminution of confidence and certainty. Writing officially, I take it, in
the Brethren publication, "The Witness," for June, 1932, he thinks that confusion is only avoided, and
adherence to truth promoted, by accepting his suggestion that the Rapture is not really the Lord’s
Coming, but "our going to be with Him" --the levitation of the scattered saints through space to the
Lord’s presence: "The second Advent, or Coming, of the Lord is His coming to the earth in power and
great glory for the overthrow of His enemies and the establishing of His Kingdom" (p. 135). And this, he
tells us elsewhere,8 is "the Blessed Hope" of the Church. The levitation of the saints to Christ secures for
them the blessed immunity from the Great Tribulation; but the Blessed Hope of Christ’s Second Coming
belongs to the Day of the Lord, after the time of tribulation.
It was as necessary as it was desirable to exhibit the new theories at a single view, because
misrepresentations and misconceptions of them abound, and some there are who may read this volume
who are little acquainted with Darby and his school of prophetic interpretation. Experience shows,
moreover, that some very intelligent people, although initiated into the new methods of exegesis, have
never grasped the new plan in all its bearings--such are its astonishing intricacies. As an example, I
mention that even well-taught ministers, who maintained the new views, have applied Matthew 24:40-41
and Luke 17:34-35 ("the one shall be taken and the other left"), to the Rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
Not so leaders like Darby, Kelly and Gaebelein, who, seeing the inconvenient proximity of the Glorious
Appearing at Matthew 24: and Luke 17:30, did not admit a rapture in the context; and naturally.
The question that now concerns us is whether the pre-trib theories are true and scriptural, and thus
entitled to supplant the former scheme outlined.
It matters not that they are new and novel, and have never been heard of in the whole history of the
Christian Church since the Apostolic Age. What men call heresy sometimes proves to be the truth of
God. It matters not that the great pre-millennial scholars and theologians--Alford, Bengel, Delitzsch,
8“The Morning Star,” August 1, 1912; Touching the Coming (pp. 141-142). In their commentary on
Thessalonians the authors say: “Where it is used prophetically, parousia refers to a period beginning with
the descent of the Lord from Heaven to the air, 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17, and ending with His revelation and
manifestation to the world” (p. 88). The extract from Mr. Hogg’s article is given at length in the last chapter
of this volume. Anderson’s view of the interval between the Rapture and the millennium is to be found in his
Coming Prince, p. 289, and is quoted later.
Page: 16
Zahn, and others--found no trace in the N.T. of the teachings raised by Darby, for they may be all wrong,
and he alone right. Reluctant as some may be to admit it, it is quite possible that the very men who fought
and won the battle of Premillennialism in the modern Church, may all have been--to borrow a phrase of
William Kelly--"antagonists of the truth," inasmuch as they missed the distinction between the Coming of
Christ, and the Revelation seven or more years later; and because they made the Day of Christ the day for
the realization of the Church’s hope.
Let us therefore be candid and open-minded for fear lest, in resisting the new theories, we resist the Spirit
of God Himself.
But there is another side to this: Darby and his followers may be wrong, and the hundred-and-one famous
advocates of the older premillennial school right; in which case the "brayings of ignorance" (Kelly), the
"hotch-potch system of exegesis" (Anderson), and other terms applied by some advocates of the new, to
those of the old, school, will prove rather inept, for, if the new theories are not true and scriptural, then
we must class them with the "noble errors" --to use a phrase of Gladstone’s--that devout men have
sometimes sincerely propagated.
To the examination of this issue the rest of the present volume will be devoted.
--Excursus On The Seventy Weeks Of Daniel
To its credit, historical criticism is now admitting that archaeology has strikingly vindicated historical
statements in the Book of Daniel that were formerly impugned with much confidence. In ICC
(International Critical Commentary) on Daniel, Dr. Montgomery makes acknowledgement of the brilliant
discoveries of Pinches, Dougherty, and Sidney Smith: "The Bible story is correct as to the rank of
kingship given to Belshassar" (See pp. 67, 72, and 109). The lessons of the new discoveries are driven
home effectively by Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel (1923), and R.D. Wilson, The Book of
Daniel (1917). Cf. C. H. H. Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies (1906).
More encouraging still is Dr. Montgomery’s finding that Daniel 1-6 originated in Babylon in the third
century B.C., and not in Palestine or Syria in the second. This warrants the conclusion that the author of
chapter 2 was a seer who foresaw the triumph of the Roman Empire as the fourth power in the Great
Image, and its division before the End.
Again, "The Expository Times" (Nov., 1929, pp. 61-62) reviewed favorably the work of the eminent
American archaeologist, Prof. Dougherty, of Yale, Nabonidus and Belshazzar (Milford), and concluded:
"It is of peculiar interest to hear so competent an investigator announce that ‘of all neo-Babylonian
records dealing with the situation at the close of the neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel
ranks next to the cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned.’ It begins to
look as if Biblical traditions deserve more credence than critics have sometimes been willing to concede
to them."
Many will think that a similar remark applies to the prophecies of Daniel. Undoubtedly our Lord and all
His Apostles viewed Daniel as a prophet. Ordinary Christians, unaffected by presuppositions against the
supernatural, will always think that they were right. In his commentary on Thessalonians in CGT, Dr. G.
G. Findlay concludes a valuable paragraph on our Lord’s use of Daniel: "The use made by Jesus Christ of
Page: 17
this obscure and suspected Book of Scripture has raised it to high honor in the esteem of the Church"(p.
219).
Worth noting is the position of Dr. Zahn; accepting (Introduction to the N.T., vol. 3, pp. 387-378) the
pseudepigraphical character of Daniel, and a late date for its composition, he yet treats its prophecies as
genuine products of divine inspiration, and has frequent references to them that are full of unusual
insight. His laying aside a plan to expound Daniel’s prophecies at length in his great commentary on
Revelation (in the Zahn-Kommentar) is to be deeply regretted.
As the eschatological character of the Seventieth Week is assumed throughout this volume a note should
be added on the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9:24-27). Daniel was informed that seventy weeks
(= 490 years) would intervene between the promulgation of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the
fulfillment of the divine purpose concerning the chosen city and the chosen people. This period is divided
into three parts, namely, seven weeks (49 years), sixty-two weeks (434 years), and one week (7
years), which elapse in the order named. After the sixty-two weeks (see R.V.)--that is, after sixty-nine,
weeks (483 years) in all, for the seven weeks (49 years) are first fulfilled--Messiah the Prince is cut off
and has nothing for Himself (see mg.). Thereupon the people of the Coming Prince (the Romans, not the
Prince himself) destroy the city and the Sanctuary (i.e., Jerusalem). An undetermined interval
follows, which is characterized by war and desolations; it is the present time. Then comes the last or
Seventieth Week, which begins with a covenant between the Coming Prince (Antichrist) and the
multitude of Daniel’s people, the Jews. In the middle of the week, that is, after three and a half years, the
Prince breaks the league or covenant, and causes sacrifice and oblation to cease. Then, as hinted here, and
clearly taught elsewhere, the Prince initiates a brief period (3 1/2 years) of persecution and blasphemy.
Thereupon wrath is poured out upon the desolator and, the Seventy Weeks being accomplished, Messiah
and His saints possess the sovereignty (Dan. 7:22).
To Dr. Tregelles (Daniel, pp. 93-127) and Sir Robert Anderson (The Coming Prince) we owe the best
interpretation of the prophecy; but this is said with due reserve, and with full recognition of the fact that
there are a hundred rival solutions; and that there is difficulty in determining with absolute certainty both
the terminus a quo (starting point), and the terminus ad quem (terminal point), of the prophecy.
Nevertheless Sir R. Anderson has shown in a volume of conspicuous ability and sanity that, from the
edict to rebuild Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:5-8), in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (14th March, 445 B.C.),
to the day of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem (6th April, A.D. 32), was exactly and to the very day sixty-
nine weeks (173,880 days or 483 prophetic years of 360 days). See chapter 10; and also his Daniel in the
Critic’s Den. Valuable popular expositions on the same lines will be found in W. Kelly’s Notes on
Daniel, Dr. Campbell Morgan’s God’s Methods With Man (pp. 47-65), and Dr. Robert Sinker’s notes on
Daniel in the Temple Bible series (pp. 192-193).
It is noteworthy that when Anderson wrote his Coming Prince (1881) his date for the Crucifixion (A.D.
32) seemed too late; tradition and scholarship placed it in 29 or 30. Today investigation is slowly coming
round to a later date, viz., 33. This is the date adopted in Bishop Headlam’s Life and Teaching of Jesus
Christ (p. 320), also in a recent learned article by Dr. Fotheringham, an eminent authority ("The Journal
of Theological Studies," April, 1934), and by the Pope for the nineteenth centenary of the Crucifixion
(April 3rd, 1933). This date, if correct, involves an error of one year in Anderson’s calculation. Dr.
Fotheringham, working on seventy astronomical observations made at Athens by Julius Schmidt, declares
Page: 18
that 32 is an impossible date for the Crucifixion, because the 14th Nisan fell on Sunday, April 13th, or
Monday the 14th, instead of the previous Thursday or Friday. Perhaps this is so, but the interested reader
may be reminded that Anderson (pp. 99-105) anticipated the objections to the 32 date on the ground of
the Paschal moon’s not falling on a Friday, and dealt vigorously with them. To one reader his reasoning
seems convincing; see p. 102 especially.
I may add that in "The Expository Times" for February, 1937, there is an interesting article by the Rev.
D. R. Fotheringham, M.A., brother of the late Dr. J. K. Fotheringham, on "Bible Chronology;" in it he
draws attention, justifiably, to the great value of his brother’s researches, and gives his principal
conclusions in reference to the date of the Nativity.
The date adopted by Bishop Headlam, Dr. Fotheringhan, and the Roman Church involves a Ministry
of five passovers, which is pretty well an innovation. The strength and simplicity of the 32 date is that, by
adding four passovers (the almost universally accepted length of the Ministry) to the one certain date
afforded us the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), i.e., August 19th, 28--we get 32 as the date
for the Crucifixion.
That the Seventieth Week is eschatological is a view as old as the primitive Fathers, and is rendered
certain by John in the Revelation, where Antichrist (the Prince of Dan. 9:26) persecutes the saints for
three and a half years (=42 months or 1260 days, or 31 times)--precisely the closing portion of Daniel’s
Seventieth Week of seven years. During the interval between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks Israel
is set aside, and God is gathering out of the Nations a people for His Name (Acts. 15:14; Rom. 11:25). It
is, broadly, the present Dispensation.
In his Thousand Years (1889), and in an appendix to Premillennial Essays, edited by him (1879), Dr.
Nathaniel West, who gave a great part of his life to the literature of the Last Things, cites numerous
exegetes on the Continent who treated the Seventieth Week or the last half of it as eschatological. Two
present-day outstanding names may be added: Zahn, in his INT. and comments on Matthew 24:15 and
Revelation 11-13 (Zahn-Kommentar), and Dr. Adolph Schlatter, of Tubingen in his well-known
Erldulerungen zum N.T. (1928), on the same passages. On the limits set to Jerusalem’s trial in Revelation
11:2, Schlatter says: "John had already read this in Daniel, whence he borrows the number that is
employed for the duration of the last conflict and its tribulation--42 months or, what is the same thing,
1260 days, that is, 3 1/2 Jewish years, the last half-week of Daniel’s vision."
West (Thousand Years, pp. 175 ff.) accepting the Cyrus date (536) as the a quo, and the birth of Christ as
the ad quem, finds an interval of fifty-seven years between the first three and the last four of the 7 sevens
in Daniel 9:5. But, as he himself admits, such an interval is "not even hinted at there" (p. 199); nor is it
anywhere; it is otherwise with the gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. Daniel 9:26a
furnishes good ground for making the Crucifixion approximately, and not the birth of Christ,
the ad quem of the sixty-ninth week. West’s handling of the seventieth week, however, is beyond praise;
see his Thousand Years, and Daniel’s Great Prophecy--two of the greatest works in English on the Last
Things, though one differs from the author on some points.
I think it was a true instinct that led Sir R. Anderson to choose our Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem
as the day on which the prophecy "unto Messiah the Prince" (Dan. 9:25; Luke 19:37-38) and the sixty-
nine weeks were fulfilled. In his Light From the Ancient East Dr. Adolph Deissmann writes: "We may
Page: 19
now say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope of the Parousia is the old Advent text,
Behold, thy King cometh unto thee" (p. 372. And see our discussion of "Parousia," chapter 11 Deissmann
always spells "Parousia" without the "o").
It is presupposed here and elsewhere in the volume that Antichrist is a person yet to arise in Roman
Europe or the Near East in the Last Days, at the head of an ancient kingdom; also that this person and his
kingdom are signified by the first Beast of Revelation 13, not the second; and that Antichrist is also
identical with the "Little Horn" of Daniel 7 and the "Man of Sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2. There is an
informing article on Antichrist by Canon Meyrick in Smith’s Bible Dictionary (4 vols. 2nd Eng. edition
1893). In Bousset’s Antichrist Legend (E.T.) there is valuable light on Antichrist and the periods of
prophecy, though written in unbelief. Newman’s sermons in Tracts for the Times (No. 83) give an
interesting presentation of the Fathers’ views on Antichrist; whilst with vast learning Dollinger, perhaps
the greatest of Catholic divines sets forth the history of the interpretation of the passage about the Man of
Sin in 2 Thessalonians (The First Century of Christianity and the Church, Appendix I, E.T.). Dr. Samuel
J. Andrews, author of an important Life of Christ, wrote Christianity and Antichristianity in Their Final
Conflict, wherein he expounds the relevant passages on Antichrist and analyses keenly the trends of
modern thought both within and without the Church. But it is in Dr. G.G. Findlay’s commentary on
Thessalonians in CGT (Appendix) that one meets the most satisfactory treatment of the subject in
English. In the face of modern research and unbelief, Dr. Findlay avowed his belief in the appearing of a
personal Antichrist in the Last Days, and expounded the Scripture doctrine in a way that leaves nothing to
be desired.
On the "Year-day" system, once popular, whereby the period of 1260 days in the Revelation of John was
interpreted in the sense of years, and applied to a part of the present period of Church history, the reader
is referred to a completely satisfactory refutation of it in Tregelles’ work on Daniel, and S.R.
Maitland’s First and Second Inquiries. It is to be noted that the new era of scientific exegesis has driven
the theory, and most of the Protestant anti Roman interpretation, out of consideration. See the
commentaries of Beckwith, Charles, Moffatt, Anderson Scott, and Simcox.
West (Thousand Years, p. 164), followed by F. W. Grant (Numerical Bible, Rev., p. 287), makes the
strong point that if the Year-day theory is applicable to the second half of the Seventieth Week (= the
1260 days), it is to be applied to the whole period of the Seventy Weeks; so that we get a period of
176,400 years to elapse before the arrival of the promised blessings on the chosen city and people!
Beyond question they are right. Further, without accepting the idea that all the "seals" of Revelation are
still future one may say that there is a crushing refutation of the extravagances of the Historical School
(on the sixth seal) in Sir R. Anderson’s Coming Prince pp. 291-304. Nothing better has been written in
small compass. On the Futurist side the present writer knows nothing to compare with Zahn’s section on
the Revelation in Volume 3 of his Introduction to the N.T. and parts 2-6 of West’s Thousand Years.
It is a pleasure to admit that the Historical School has produced one of the best of all books on the Lord’s
Second Coming--Ecce Venit, by a true American saint, Dr. A.J. Gordon of Boston. It has recently been
reprinted under the title Behold He Cometh (Thynne & Co., Ltd., 3s. 6d.). Dr. Gordon was formerly a
Futurist; the book is to be recommended though one differs from him in referring so much in Scripture to
the Roman Church, and in his acceptance of the Year-day theory, which is quite exploded.
Page: 20
People who are confident that they have identified the Apostate Church anywhere, except in their own--
would do well to bear in mind a remark of Adolph Saphir’s. He observed how beautiful it was in the
Apostles that, when the Lord announced that one of themselves would betray Him they all replied, "Lord,
is it I?" He makes the point that Churches would do well to imitate the humility of the Apostles, and
examine themselves, when they read of the Apostasy. There are distressing things in Rome, but it is the
same Saphir who says that things are now said in Protestant Churches about our Lord that the "older
Socinians would not have dared, nor even wished, to say."
II. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Old Testament
The fundamental point in our inquiry concerns the relation of the Rapture of the risen and transfigured
saints to the Day of the Lord: does the one precede the other by a period of several years? Now
concerning the Rapture there are only three undisputed texts in the Bible that deal with it, namely 1
Thessalonians 4:17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, and John 14:3; but there are many passages in both the Old and
New Testaments that speak of the resurrection of the holy dead, which, Darbyists assure us, takes place in
immediate connection with the Rapture. For the present, therefore, we may dismiss the Rapture from our
minds, and confine our attention to the first resurrection, for wheresoever the resurrection is, there will
the Rapture be also. All admit this except Bullinger and Miss. Habershon, whose view we shall examine
later.
But it is necessary to explain that, in going to the O.T., we do so with no misapprehension concerning the
nature and calling of the Church of the N.T. We shall not look for N.T. revelations there: we aim merely
at finding out when "the world’s grey fathers," and the rest of the holy dead of O.T. times, awake to life.
Pre-trib writers themselves assert that if we can fix the epoch of this resurrection, we can know the time
of the resurrection of the Church, since the two synchronize. Hence the relevancy of the inquiry.
We shall consider first a passage that, as A. B. Davidson has said in his Isaiah, contains "the first clear
statement of a resurrection" (p. 194).
(1) Isaiah 26:19 (R.V.).
Thy dead shall live; my dead bodies shall arise.

Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust;
For thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
And the earth shall cast forth the dead.
This beautiful verse occurs in one of the most remarkable of all Isaiah’s prophecies; the section that is
found in--Isaiah 24-27--is known as "the little Apocalypse of Isaiah." From end to end it shows, in the
words of Theodoret (cited by Kelly) "what shall be in the consummation of the present age." And Kelly
himself says, in his Isaiah: "The grand aim of the Spirit is to portray that mighty and universal
catastrophe which is succeeded by the times of refreshing for Israel and the earth, of which God has
spoken by His holy prophets since the world began" (p. 247).
In chapter 25 we hear the song of redemption, for the Redeemer has come to Zion, and Israel, looking to
Him alone, is saved. There follows from restored Israel a hymn of thanksgiving, mingled with a sense of
Page: 21
disappointment at the smallness of her numbers. "The answer to these disappointed hopes is the
resurrection, verse 19" (Skinner, Isaiah, p. 197).
Eloquent and beautiful are the words of Sir G. A. Smith:
The figures are bold, but bolder is the hope that breaks from them. Like as when the Trumpet
shall sound, (v. 19) peals forth the promise of the resurrection--peals the promise forth, in spite of
all experience, unsupported by any argument, and upon the strength of its own inherent
music. Thy dead shall live! my dead bodies shall arise! The change of the personal pronoun is
singularly dramatic. Returned Israel is the speaker, first speaking to herself; thy dead, as if upon
the depopulated land in face of all its homes in ruin, and only the sepulchres of ages standing grim
and steadfast, she addressed some despairing double of herself; and secondly she
speaks of herself: my dead bodies, as if all the inhabitants of these tombs, though dead, were still
her own, still part of her, the living Israel, and able to arise and bless with their numbers their
bereaved mother. These she now addresses: Awake and sing, ye dwellers in the dust, for a dew of
lights is Thy dew, and the land bringeth forth the dead (pp. 446-7). As, when the dawn comes, the
drooping flowers of yesterday are seen erect and lustrous with the dew, every spike a crown of
glory, so also shall be the resurrection of the dead (Isaiah, Exposition of the Bible, vol. 1. p. 449).
Now the question that concerns us is whether we have any indication in this section of Isaiah concerning
the time when this momentous event takes place? To an impartial mind there can be no doubt about the
answer; this resurrection is to take place at the Day of the Lord, when Jehovah shall come, and Israel
shall be reconciled to Him. The proofs of this are incontestable. The principal signs and events of the
whole prophecy move, to use figurative language, within the cycle of the sixth and seventh seals of the
Apocalypse. Here we have the Coming of the Lord, the conversion of Israel, the establishment of the
Messianic Kingdom, and the sidereal signs in heaven that immediate ly precede them. Living Israel is
restored, and the sleeping saints are brought to life, at the beginning of the Messianic Reign, not some
years or decades before, as the new theories require.
The reader may be interested to know what explanation pre-tribs give of this passage. Their answer is a
flat denial that a bodily resurrection is referred to. Kelly’s explanation may be taken as the best available.
In his Isaiah (p. 267), he deals with the matter; according to him the prophecy in chapter 26:19 has
nothing to do with a literal resurrection from the dead, but is merely a symbolical representation of the
restoration of the nation to Palestine. "It is no question of bodily death" he would have us believe, "but of
national revival." But there are insuperable objections to this interpretation.
(a) The ordinary reader feels that the language can bear only one interpretation, namely: that here we
have a resurrection of the dead in the ordinary meaning of the term. The wording of the promise indicates
unmistakably that this is so. Phrases are used, one after another, that preclude all possibility of
spiritualizing:
Dead men come to life
Dead bodies arise
Page: 22
Dwellers in the dust awake and sing
The earth casts forth the dead
If terms such as these do not signify a literal resurrection from the dead, what terms can? Throughout the
whole Bible we meet with no passage that gives, in the same compass, so unequivocal a testimony to the
doctrine of a bodily resurrection. Sir G. A. Smith remarks:
There is no shadow of a reason for limiting this promise to that which some other passages of
resurrection in the Old Testament have to be limited: a corporate restoration of the holy State or
Church. This is the resurrection of its individual members to a community which is already
restored; the recovery by Israel of her dead men and women from their separate graves, each with
his own freshness and beauty, in that glorious morning when the Sun of Righteousness shall arise,
with healing under his wings--Thy dear, O Jehovah!
In the same vein Cheyne comments on verse 19: "The descriptions in Hosea and Ezekiel are allegorical
(comp. Hosea 6:1, Ezek. 36:27, 37:11-14), whereas the whole context of our passage (especially v. 14)
shows that the language of the writer is to be taken literally." He then quotes Matthew Arnold:
"Sublimely recovering himself, the prophet cries that God’s saints, though they are dead, shall live," and
Cheyne himself concludes, "and shall share the duties and the privileges of regenerate Israel" (Isaiah, vol.
1., p. 156). Delitzsch says: "Compared with what is stated in the Apocalypse of the New Testament, it is
the ‘first resurrection’ which is here predicted" (Isaiah, vol. 1., p. 448). And Skinner remarks: "It is a
promise of life from the dead in the most literal sense, a resurrection of those members of the community
whom death had seemed to rob of their share in the hope of Israel" (Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges, p. 192).
These quotations from what are recognized to be the four best commentaries on Isaiah in the English
language, certainly give a more adequate interpretation than those who, like Kelly, explain away the
prophecy as "highly figurative language."
(b) If it is legitimate to spiritualize so clear a text as Isaiah 26:19 on the resurrection of the dead, then
those of us who insist upon the literal interpretation of the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4, are placed
in circumstances of peculiar difficulty when arguing with Post-millennialists. These, in opposing Pre-
millennialism, have explained the first resurrection of the Apocalypse in a figurative way; they would
have us believe that it signifies the revival of the martyr spirit in the Church, or the reign of the saints in
life at the present time. And if pre-tribs are at liberty to spiritualize the first resurrection in the O.T., then
it is clearly the hollowest inconsistency to cavil at those who explain away that resurrection in the New.
If the expressions under consideration mean only the gathering of the Jews to Palestine, then, to borrow
the forceful words of Dean Alford in regard to the post-millennialists’ treatment of Revelation 20:4,
"there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to
anything."
(c) It is observable also that the theory that the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19 merely signifies the national
revival of Israel is clearly inadmissible, because the resurrection in that passage, as we have seen, takes
Page: 23
place after the Great Tribulation, and consequent upon the Coming of Jehovah. But we know from all
Scripture that the national revival and restoration of the people precede it, for the Seventieth Week opens
with the nation of Israel already restored to the land, and in league with the Coming Prince (Dan. 9:24).
In other words, the national restoration predicted in Ezekiel 37:1-14 takes place years before the
fulfillment of the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19. As Salmond says in his Immortality: "The theme of this
great passage is a personal resurrection, not a corporate. The national resurrection is accomplished, and
this is the restoration of her dead members to revived Israel" (p. 212).
Kelly raises a further objection to the literal interpretation of verse 19 by urging that, if we so interpret
the resurrection there, we must likewise interpret verse 14 literally; but this, he maintains, leads to a
heterodox doctrine, namely: that the wicked dead will not rise at the resurrection of judgment. But this is
a wrong conclusion. We may certainly interpret verse 14 literally without committing Isaiah to the dogma
of annihilation. The objection urged springs from a failure to observe carefully the context, and from a
hasty appeal to the chance reading of our English version. The prophet is not dealing with the eternal
destiny of the wicked, but only with the security of Israel against her former oppressors. The following is
a more accurate translation and comment by Delitzsch, one of the greatest of Isaiah’s interpreters. (See
R.V., mg.)
Jehovah is the King of Israel. He seemed to have lost His dominion when the lords of the world
ruled Israel as they liked, but it is otherwise now, and it is only Jehovah through whom Israel can
again gratefully celebrate Jehovah’s name.
The tyrants who usurped authority over Israel have disappeared without leaving a trace behind. (v.
14): "Dead men live not again; shades rise not again; therefore hast Thou visited and destroyed
them, and annihilated every memorial to them." The meaning is not that they are dead for ever, as
if there were no resurrection at all after death; the prophet knows certainly there is such a thing, as
afterwards appears. When he speaks of "dead men" and "shades," he has in his mind those who
have hitherto been oppressors of Israel, who (like the king of Babylon, chap. 14) have been cast
down into the realm of the shades, so that we are not to think of a self-resuscitation, a rising up
again (p. 444; italics his).
It will be clear, therefore, to thoughtful readers, that what the prophet has in mind in verse 14 is not the
destiny of unbelievers, but the impossibility of Israel’s former lords’ coming back to life by any means of
self-resuscitation. They are locked up in Sheol and cannot come back to life. This was the very purpose
of God in sweeping them off the earth. Skinner says: "The long heathen domination is now a thing of the
past; the oppressors have gone to the realms of shades, and shall trouble the world no more" (Isaiah, p.
195).
The pre-trib suggestion of spiritualizing the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19, having been found untenable, we
conclude that the passage teaches a literal resurrection of the just, and, secondly, that this resurrection
will occur, not before the apocalyptic Week, but at its close. 9
9 Herewith I append additional comments by modern scholars and theologians:--

Franz Delitzsch: “Compared with what is stated in the Apocalypse of the New Testament, it is the ‘first
resurrection’ which is here predicted” (Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 448).
Page: 24
T. Newberry (Englishman’s Bible, p. 71) admits that the resurrection of Isaiah 26:19, is literal, but seeks
to save the pre-trib position by maintaining that the dead raised are only those of "the martyred
Remnant," who are raised, ex hypothesi, seven years after the holy dead of O.T. times. Without
anticipating questions to be discussed later, it is to be said that there is no warrant whatever for limiting
this resurrection to semi-converted Jews slain in the Great Tribulation. In the next place, it is the doctrine
of Scripture10 that the Jewish Remnant is converted only at the appearing of Messiah; if, therefore, any of
its members die before the Day of the Lord, they will rise, not in the first resurrection, but the last. But,
thirdly, to speak of a martyred "Remnant" is a ludicrous contradiction in terms. The Remnant of
prophecy consists of those who escape uninjured the desolations of the Last Days. They will not die. And
we do not usually speak of drowned "survivors" of a shipwreck. Just as incongruous is it to speak of a
martyred "Remnant." This is the first of several fictio ns.
(2) Isaiah 25:7-8 (R.V.).
And He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that is cast over all peoples, and the
veil that is spread over all nations. He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord God will
wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people shall He take away from off all
the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it.
Happily there is no controversy with our opponents on the import of this passage; they all admit, in view
of N.T. usage, that we are to understand a bodily resurrection in the most definite sense. "This, we know
from God Himself," says Kelly in his Isaiah, "will be realized in the literal resurrection of the body, when
the saints are raised" (p. 265). The only question, therefore, that concerns us, is the time of the
resurrection.
J. Skinner: “It is a promise of life from the dead in the most literal sense, a resurrection of those members of
the community whom death had seemed to rob of their share in the hope of Israel” (Cambridge Bible for
Schools and Colleges, Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 192).
H. C. Orelli: “This is definitely and clearly the sense of the prophecy of Isaiah...; here plainly enough the
reference is to the dwellers in the dust whom the earth has swallowed up, but must now restore” (O.T.
Prophecy, p. 303).
G. F. Oehler: “That the resurrection must not be regarded as typical (as though only the deliverance of the
people of God from their troubles were intended) is evident from the contrast in verse 12 and the whole
context” (O.T. Theology, vol. 2, p. 393, Clark’s ed.).
G. Rawlinson: “The prophet proceeds to cheer and encourage his disciples by a clear and positive
declaration of the resurrection.., but only of the just, perhaps only of the Israelites” (Pulpit Commentary,
Isaiah, 1., p. 416).
So also Pusey, Daniel, p. 506; Orr, The Christian View of God and the World (p. 209); P. Fairbairn, Typology,
vol. 1, p. 301; A. B. Davidson, O.T. Theology, pp. 450, 528.
The literal interpretation is also accepted by some leading Darbyist writers see The Scofield Reference Bible,
Newberry’s Englishman’s Bible, refs., W. Trotter, p. 439; E. W. Bullinger, Companion Bible, in loco.
10 Zechariah 12-13; Matthew 23:39; Romans 11:25-6.
Page: 25
According to the new theories the resurrection of Israel’s holy dead takes place years before the
conversion of living Israel, the Coming of Jehovah, and the inauguration of the Kingdom; but according
to Isaiah that resurrection is inseparably bound up with these momentous events. When living Israel turns
to Jehovah, sleeping Israel awakes from the dead. Chapter 25 relates the establishment in power of
Jehovah’s Kingdom (v. 6). We then have the resurrection of the dead (vv. 7-8); and in verse 9 we read,
"and it shall be said in that day--(the day of the Kingdom and resurrection) Lo, this is our God; we have
waited for Him, and He will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for Him, we, will be glad and
rejoice in His salvation." Here we have the Advent of Jehovah, and the new welcome He receives from
repentant Israel. But these take place on the day of resurrection, as the great Apostle conclusively shows
in 1 Corinthians 15:54.
Kelly, after making the damaging admission (Isaiah, p. 257), that "the resurrection synchronizes with the
deliverance of Israel," quietly proceeds to argue on the presupposition that it precedes it by a period of
several years! Darby and Trotter also, 11 when arguing against the post-millennalists, quote Isaiah 25:8, as
decisive proof that the resurrection of the saints is "indissolubly linked" with the commencement of the
reign of Christ; yet when defending their theories on the Rapture they calmly tell us that the resurrection
precedes the millennium by several years, and perhaps decades. But they cannot be allowed to blow hot
and cold over the prophecy if Isaiah 25:8 establishes the truth that the resurrection introduces the renewal
of Israel and the reign of Christ, it necessarily overthrows the fiction that the same resurrection is to be
followed by the rise and the reign of Antichrist, and the deepest degradation that the Nation has ever
known. Pre-tribs can have one or the other; they cannot have it both ways.
Here again, therefore, we have found the theories under review in hopeless contradiction with Scripture,
and this, not on some trivial point, but on the central position of the whole ingenious system.
(3) Daniel 12:1-3.
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of Thy
people: and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that
same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found written in
the book.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and
some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of
the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
Here is a passage that, until yesterday, was almost universally applied to the resurrection of the dead in
the ordinary sense. Alike among Jewish and Christian expositors, the belief has been general that here we
meet with the doctrine of a bodily resurrection. And the reason for this unanimity is not far to seek: the
plain sense of the language points clearly in that direction. We are told that many of them that "sleep in
the dust of the earth shall awake;" here are the ordinary idioms for bodily death and resurrection. And in
the words that follow we find exalted terms in reference to the resultant glory of the saints who rise. The
11 See chapter 4 on 1 Corinthians 15:54.
Page: 26
import of the passage is so clear that Orr, in The Christian View of God and the World, remarks--"this
needs no comment" (p. 210). And Salmond in his Immortality observes: "This is the most definite, the
most literal, the largest expression of the hope of a resurrection. It is the resurrection of the individual" (p.
213).
That, it is safe to say, is not only the judgment of modern Christian scholars of all schools, but the
impression of the general reader who approaches the passage without any preconceptions.
Nevertheless, we are challenged on our interpretation. Pre-tribs insist that we greatly err in referring this
passage to a bodily resurrection, for, they say, it relates to nothing more than the future restoration of
Israel to Palestine. Kelly in his Daniel says: "The passage has no direct reference to a bodily resurrection,
which simply furnishes a figure for the national revival of Israel, who are described as sleeping in the
dust, to express the greatness of their degradation" (p. 224).
The same view is maintained, as usual, with much energy and dogmatism by Gaebelein in
his Daniel (p. 200).
And these are the writers who contemn the spiritualizing of O.T. prophecies, and tell us how
unpardonable is the fault of those who explain away the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4! Yet they
themselves, when their theories require it, are free to adopt the mischievous canon that they condemn in
others. It is pitiable that whilst modern critical scholars are unanimous in insisting on the literal and
miraculous character of the resurrection in Daniel 12:2, the theorists join hands with Sadducees and
rationalists in reducing it to thin air. I say rationalists, though a stronger term might have been employed,
for it was the infidel Porphyry who first set the fashion in Christendom of "spiritualizing" the resurrection
in Daniel. Now beyond question pre-tribs, believe in resurrection, and their motive for explaining away
Daniel 12:1-3 is different from Porphyry’s, but the fact remains that their spiritualizing principle "belongs
to that mad Prophyry."12 However, let us now examine the pre-trib interpretation of the resurrection.
(a) I must again remind the reader that we are not looking for the resurrection of the Church in this
passage. We are concerned only with the question whether the text teaches the resurrection of the holy
dead of Daniel’s people, the Jews. This disposes of several pages of adroit reasoning by Kelly and his
American interpreter. It will be sufficient if we can prove that the righteous dead in Israel are raised, for it
is these writers who tell us that the Church will be raised at the same time.
(b) If the terms used in Daniel 12:2-3 do not describe a literal resurrection, with the heavenly glory that
follows, can our opponents tell us what terms can describe such a resurrection? We read of "sleepers" in
the "dust of the earth" "awaking" to "everlasting life," and then of their "shining" like the brightness of
the stars in the firmament. If these expressions do not mean literal resurrection from the dead, then literal
resurrection must be something different from the idea usually entertained.
In his Daniel Tregelles writes:
12This was the gloss made by Eudoxius concerning the comment of Polychronius--one of Porphyry’s
Christian admirers--in his exposition of Daniel 12. “This interpretation of thine, O Polychronius, belongs to
that mad Porphyry” (cited by C. D. Maitland, pp. 195-7).
Page: 27
"Sleepers in the dust" is a fitting designation of those who sleep the sleep of death, whose bodies
are returned to the dust of the ground. If such words were used to denote persons suffering from
oppression, and thoroughly degraded it could only be by a figure taken from the appearance and
condition of the dead. But if such a figure were supposed, what would be the import of the
"everlasting life" to which the sleepers awake? Could there be such a thing as earthly temporal
deliverance to everlasting life? This alone shows the impossibility of limiting the meaning of the
passage. But, besides this point, it may well be asked, if the language of this verse be not
declaratory of a resurrection of the dead, actual and literal, is there any passage of Scripture at all
which speaks of such a thing as a resurrection? (p. 168).
(c) That the idea of resurrection may be used in a figurative sense is not at all unreasonable. Indeed, we
shall see presently that it is used in the O.T. to signify, as these writers urge, the national gathering and
restoration of Israel to Palestine. There can be no logical objection, therefore, to considering the
application of this principle to the passage in Daniel. But let us beware of supposing that because the
figurative interpretation holds good in one case, therefore it may be applied indiscriminately to all. That
would be bad logic, and worse theology, for it would rob us of the hope of resurrection altogether. Every
passage must be considered on its merits.
Now if the theory of a figurative interpretation is to hold good, it must be able to give a good account of
itself. The figurative resurrection must not only free us from the difficulty that the literal interpretation is
supposed to involve us in, but must be consistent with itself, and in harmony with the general teaching of
the prophetic Scriptures. Can the pre-trib interpretation stand this test? It cannot. A single consideration
will prove this conclusively. The whole teaching of Scripture, and certainly of Daniel, is that Israel is
gathered to Palestine some considerable time before the beginning of the "time of trouble" mentioned in
verse 1. Indeed, that trial is within the period of Antichrist’s covenant with the mass of the Jews already
in the land (Dan. 9:27). That is Israel as a nation when the time of tribulation opens, is already raised and
gathered in the sense that the Darbyist interpretation of Daniel 12:2-3 presupposes. But according to
Daniel 12:2-3 the resurrection takes place at the conclusion of the Great Tribulation, for it synchronizes
with Israel’s deliverance from her last great struggle. The same insuperable difficulty that barred the way
to their allegorizing Isaiah 26:19, confronts pre-tribs here.
Referring to the resurrection of Daniel 12:2, Kelly in his Revelation says: "It is evidently before the time
of deliverance and blessing.... This resurrection, literal or figurative, is before the millennium, and after it
is a time of greater trouble than Israel ever knew" (p. 456).
But a blind man can see that the exact contrary is the truth. The resurrection follows the tribulation. The
angel tells Daniel that at that time Israel would be delivered--that is, delivered from the time of trouble
just mentioned. Then it is that the sleepers in the dust awake to inherit eternal life, and the glory of the
resurrection. The two events synchronize. And the veriest tyro of a prophetic student knows that Israel is
delivered at the Day of the Lord,13 --that is, at the close of Daniel’s apocalyptic Week, as Kelly himself
argues in the same volume (Revelation, p. 456). Only the exigencies of a fallacious system could have led
a devout teacher to go in the teeth of the plain wording of Scripture.
13 Zechariah 12-14; Matthew 23:39; Revelation 14:1-5; Romans 11:25-7.

Page: 28
In view, therefore, of the insurmountable difficulty in the way of allegorizing the interpretation of Daniel
12:2-3, we come back to the view that it refers to the resurrection of the body, more than ever convinced
that this is the only interpretation that can stand. And in adopting the literal interpretation of the passage
we not only have the support of almost every ancient and modern scholar of diverse schools, 14 but also of
some of the weightiest advocates of pre-trib theories. Newberry and Scofield in their editions of the Bible
take the resurrection literally, and Trotter defends the same view.
It may be objected by some who accept the literal interpretation in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3, that
the passages do not commit us to a strict sequence of events at the time of the End. No doubt it was on
this assumption that Scofield and others gave their support to the literal interpretation. But the plea will
not avail. The prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel associate the resurrection of the holy dead with the
deliverance of living Israel, the Appearing of Jehovah, and the Coming of the Kingdom. Most clearly is
this the case in Isaiah 25:8 and 26:19, which occur in the same vision of the "consummation of the Age."
And Daniel’s visions are a valuable aid in sorting out the leading events of the End-time. To be sure there
are questions on which we await light, and concerning which we must remain in suspense, but the time of
the resurrection is not one of them. It shines out like a beacon to guide us on our way.
The second half of Daniel 11 deals chiefly with the events of the second half of the apocalyptic Week.
The principal personage is the Antichrist of the Last Days. Just at what verse he is introduced is
uncertain, because of the well-known characteristic of prophecy to unite events on a near, and a distant
horizon. Verse 45 at any rate gives us the destruction of Antichrist, and this brings us to the close of the
Week. But the revealing angel, having shown Daniel the closing events of Antichrist’s career, now turns,
14 I append herewith brief additional comments of other scholars:

A. B. Davidson: “In Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12 the actual resurrection of individual members of Israel is
predicted (cf. Job. 14:13).” (CB, Ezekiel, p. 267; cf. his O.T. Theology, p. 528).
R. Sinker: “The plainest declaration in the O.T. of a future life, ‘according to each man’s works’” (Temple
Bible, Daniel, p. 194).
A. R. Faussett: “Not the general resurrection, but that of those who share in the first resurrection; the rest of
the dead being not to rise until the end of the thousand years” (Rev. 20:3, 5, 6; cf. 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:16)
(Daniel in loco).
S. R. Driver: “The faithful among God’s people are delivered; a resurrection of Israelites follows; and the age
of bliss then begins for the righteous” (Daniel, p. 200).
E. B. Pusey: “In chapter 12, after the prediction of the last troubles of Antichrist, the Resurrection is foretold”
(Daniel, p. 491).
Pulpit Commentary: “This is a distinct reference to the resurrection of the body,” in loco.
G. F. Oehler: “The resurrection of the dead is, however, decidedly taught in Daniel 12” (Theology of the 0.T.,
2, p. 395).
E. W. Bullinger: On the words “shall awake” he remarks: “This is bodily resurrection” (Companion Bible, p.
1205).
These testimonies could be greatly increased from the literature since 1914. A few are given at the end of
the Excursus to this chapter.
Page: 29
in keeping with a well-known law of prophecy, to deal with the issues of the apocalyptic Week as they
affect the people of God.
"And at that time," he says (i.e., the time of the career of the impious king)-- shall Michael stand up, the
great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as
never was since there was a nation even to that same time" (12:1).
That this occurs during the closing half of the Week no pre-trib disputes. Now the termination of the
week is characterized by two events, among others, --first, the destruction of Antichrist, and, secondly,
the deliverance of Daniel’s people. Antichrist is in the saddle; the Great Tribulation rages, and Daniel’s
people suffer. But the Adversary comes to his end with none to help him, and the People are delivered,
every one that is written in the Book of Life. Nothing can be surer than that here we are at the close of the
tribulation. What happens then? The resurrection of the saints: "many of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake" to everlasting life, and shine like the stars in the night expanse.
We may be sure that when writers like Scofield and Newberry adopted the literal interpretation of Isaiah
26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3, they did so because candor compelled them, and because the other
interpretation was strained and unnatural. They should have seen that the obvious interpretation is fatal to
their whole scheme of the prophetic future; for according to the prophet Daniel the resurrection of the
holy dead in Israel is accompanied by the overthrow of Antichrist, the deliverance and renewal of the
covenant People, and the inauguration of God’s kingly rule. But according to pre-tribs, the approaching
resurrection of the saints is to be followed by the rise, reign and triumph of Antichrist, and the darkest
night in Israel’s long history! "It is almost a miracle how people read Scripture without understanding it,"
remarked Darby on one occasion;15 but a more prosaic source of misunderstanding God’s word is the
being infatuated with some favorite theory, and reading into Scripture what pleases us. Then there is an
application of an alleged saying of Goethe’s: "We are never deceived: we deceive ourselves."
With reference to verse 2 of chapter 12, it remains to deal with a difficulty that exists in connection with
the current versions. These seem to teach that the resurrection is not limited to the just, but that certain of
the wicked dead are raised at the same time "to suffer shame and everlasting contempt." This is a genuine
difficulty to many in accepting the literal interpretation of the passage, for in all other Scriptures the first
resurrection is limited to the righteous. The apparent discrepancy is also seized upon to warrant the
spiritualizing of the resurrection. "If you interpret this resurrection literally," they insist, "you are shut up
to believing that unbelievers arise at the first resurrection--an idea that contradicts the rest of Scripture."
Well, we have found that Kelly’s figurative interpretation not only contradicts Scripture, but his own
scheme as well. The question is, can the literal interpretation be shown to harmonize with the general
teaching of Scripture on the first resurrection?
The answer is that it can. According to competent Hebraists the second verse of Daniel 12 is not happily
translated in the English versions. Tregelles, in his Daniel, remarks:
15 Second Coming, p. 132.
Page: 30
I do not doubt that the right translation of this verse is what has been given above: "And many
from among the sleepers of the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall be unto everlasting life;
but those (the rest of the sleepers, those who do not awake at this time) shall be unto shame and
everlasting contempt." The word which in our Authorized Version is twice rendered "some" is
never repeated in any other passage in the Hebrew Bible, in the sense of taking up distributively
any general class which had been previously mentioned; this is enough, I believe, to warrant our
applying its first occurrence here to the whole of the many who awake, and the second to the mass
of the sleepers, those who do not awake at this time. It is clearly not a general resurrection; it is
"many from among," and it is only by taking the words in this sense that we can gain any
information as to what becomes of those who continue to sleep in the dust of the earth.
This passage has been understood by the Jewish commentators in the sense that I have stated. Of
course these men with the veil on their hearts are no guides as to the use of the Old Testament; but
they are helps as to the grammatical and lexicographical value of sentences and words. Two of the
Rabbis who commented on this prophet were Saadiah Haggaon (in the tenth century of our era)
and Aben Ezra (in the twelfth); the latter of these was a writer of peculiar abilities and accuracy of
mind. He explains the verse in the following manner:
And many: The Gaon (i.e., R. Saadiah, whom he often quotes) says that its interpretation is, those
who shall be unto everlasting life, and those who shall not awake shall be unto shame and
everlasting contempt" (pp. 165-6).
Nathaniel West, another competent Hebrew scholar, says in his Thousand Years:
The true rendering of Daniel 12:2-3, in connection with the context, is "And (at that
time) Many (of thy people) Shall awake (or be separated) out from among the sleepers in the earth
dust. These (who awake) shall be unto life everlasting, but those (who do not awake at that time)
shall be unto shame and contempt everlasting." So the most renowned Hebrew Doctors render it,
and the best Christian exegetes; and it is one of the defects of the Revised Version that--for
reasons deemed prudent, doubtless, by the Old Testament Company--it has allowed the wrong
impression King James’ Version gives to remain. A false doctrine is thereby, through defective
rendering, given color from the Word of God, which repudiates it at every step (pp. 266-9).
And in a note West adds:
So Cocceius, the best Hebraist of his day: "No universal resurrection is taught here. These
who are unto eternal life are distinguished from those who are unto eternal shame and contempt.
The former awake at the time specified, 11:45, 12:1. To carry the verb ‘awake’ into the second
member of the verse is to add to Scripture, which I dare not do." So Saadiah, the prince of
Hebrew scholars, the two Kimchis, Abarbanel, Bechai and Maimonides.
Even Driver, who accepts the common rendering, admits that the limitation of the resurrection to the
righteous became the prevalent view among Jewish teachers. He says: "The idea that the resurrection was
to be limited to Israel appears also among the later Jews; indeed, it became the accepted doctrine that it
was to be limited to righteous Israelites" (Daniel, p. 93).
Page: 31
This is of first importance, for it ought to be allowed that Jews are the best judges of their own language.
In view, therefore, of the evidence produced, I think it is clear that Daniel 12:2, read literally and
correctly, is fully in harmony with the doctrine of Scripture upon the first resurrection. 16
(4) Daniel 12:13 (R.V.).
But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the
days.
One correction needs to be made in the ordinary versions, and that is the elimination of the words "thy
way;" they do not exist in the Hebrew text. Their presence in the English version assists the thought that
the end of Daniel’s life is meant. But this is not at all what is intended. The true sense is given by Driver
in his Daniel:
He is to await the "end" in the grave, from which, in the resurrection spoken of in verse 2 he will
arise to take his appointed place, beside the other saints. But thou, go thou to the end: i.e., depart
to await the end (as in verse 9, there is nothing in the Hebrew corresponding to "thy way"); and
thou shalt rest (in the grave, Isa. 57:2).
In agreement with this Moffatt renders: "Go and wait for the end; you shall rest in the grave and then rise
to enjoy your share at the end of the days."
Here, then, in the clearest manner, Daniel’s personal resurrection is associated with the End. What end?
The end to which the Book of Daniel makes such frequent reference: the end of the pre-Messianic age; of
the times of the Gentiles; of Israel’s great tribulation, and of her estrangement from God; the end of the
career of the Prince that shall come. The first certain occurrence of the phrase in an eschatological sense
is in Daniel 9:26: "and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined" (R.V.). This is the
description of the age that we now live in; the age that succeeds the cutting off of Messiah the Prince, and
the destruction of Daniel’s city by the Romans.
Now Daniel’s resurrection, as in 12:2-3, is distinctly connected with "the end." As Tregelles observes:
The "end" was a point of time to be waited for, both as to their blessing, and the fullness
of his personally. Daniel was to rest to lie in his grave amidst the other sleepers of the dust of the
earth; but in the end of the days he should stand in his lot, even that lot of which he had before
been instructed, in the heavenly glory of those who rise to eternal life (Daniel, p. 164).
It remains only to summarize the results arrived at in this chapter.
(a) In Isaiah 26:19 "we have the first clear statement of a resurrection;" and this occurs in immediate
association with the Coming of Jehovah, and the restoration and conversion of living Israel. In the most
definite manner it is located at the Day of the Lord (v. 1).
16Trotter, p. 440, defends the reasonableness of the literal interpretation of Daniel 12:2, and refutes the
objection that the text involves the resurrection of the wicked at the same time.
Page: 32
(b) In Isaiah 25:8, which occurs in the same vision, the resurrection of Israel’s righteous dead, and the
removal of the veil of death, again take place in immediate association with the Coming of Jehovah, the
conversion of Israel, and the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom.
(c) In Daniel 12:2-3, the resurrection of the saints follows the Great Tribulation, and is accompanied by
the destruction of Antichrist, and the deliverance of Daniel’s people at the Day of the Lord.
(d) In Daniel 12:13, Daniel’s personal resurrection is associated with the End of the days of which his
book speaks so much. When the End comes, Daniel’s rest will be finished, and he will rise and stand in
his lot.
(e) In Hosea 6:2 and Ezekiel 37:1-14, the familiar idea of bodily resurrection is used to set forth the
future national revival of Israel, and her restoration to the land of promise. They are manifestly to be
interpreted as figurative. See Excursus below.
These conclusions are fatal to the new theories of the Second Advent, because it is a fundamental point in
those theories that the sleeping saints of Israel will rise some years before the destruction of Antichrist,
the deliverance of Israel, and the Coming of Jehovah and His Kingdom.
--Excursus To Chapter II
The Resurrection in Ezekiel 37:1-14
Before closing our consideration of the resurrection of the just in the O.T. it is necessary to advert to one
other text relevant to the subject of resurrection. I refer to Ezekiel 37:1-14, where we have the
resurrection of a valley of dry bones.17 The almost universal, interpretation of this passage, alike among
Jewish and Christian commentators, is that it depicts the regathering of Israel to the land of Palestine and
the reconstitution of the national life. The Spirit of God makes use of the idea of resurrection to teach the
resuscitation of Israel from their "graves" among the nations. There can be no doubt that the regathering
of Israel to the land of Palestine is the significance of this passage. It is fitting to admit that here we have
the idea of resurrection used in a symbolical way.
Seizing hold of this case of a figurative resurrection in Ezekiel 37, Kelly and others seek to justify their
spiritualizing the resurrection in Isaiah 26:19, and Daniel 12:2-3. Again and again Kelly insists that the
three passages stand or fall together.18 He is most confident of this, and gravely informs us that, as the
Spirit of God has already decided the question, we can have no option in the matter. In his Isaiah he says:
"The explanation of the Holy Ghost is express and conclusive. Thus we can carry divine light back to
Isaiah 26, where the very same allusion is found" (p. 268).
Now I have already shown that the principle of spiritualizing Daniel 12:2-3 originated with "that mad
Porphyry;" and that even modern critics acknowledge that Daniel 12:2 contains a definite prophecy of the
17 The passage in Hosea 6:2 stands or falls with Ezekiel 37.

18 Isaiah, p. 267; Daniel, pp. 222 ff.; Revelation, pp. 455-6.
Page: 33
resurrection of the saints. It is worth noting also that Kelly’s dictum that Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2
must be spiritualized because the resurrection in Ezekiel 37 is to be so interpreted, is a reproduction of
the stock-in-trade of the Sadducean heretics of old. They too had unscriptural theories of the resurrection
to maintain; theories, too, that clashed with Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3. Their doctrine was that a
resurrection of the body was not taught in the O.T. How, therefore, could they explain these two texts that
the orthodox Pharisees pressed on them? Why, nothing was easier. They adopted the same tactics as
Kelly and Gaebelein, and pressed Ezekiel 37 to prove their theories.
In vain (says Edersheim) would the Pharisees appeal to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, or the Psalms. To
such an argument as from the words "this people shall rise up" the Sadducees would rightly reply,
that the context forbade the application to the Resurrection; to the quotation of Isaiah 26:19, they
would answer that that promise must be understood spiritually, like the vision of the dry bones in
Ezekiel (2, p. 398).
Now Darbyists undoubtedly believe in the resurrection, but if Ezekiel 37 is to be made the touchstone, as
they, like the Sadducees, insist, then we shall have no texts on the resurrection left to us.
The question of importance is, are there any considerations that warrant our interpreting Isaiah 26:19 and
Daniel 12:2-3 literally, and Ezekiel 37 in a figurative way? There are considerations of a cogent
character.
1. Kelly admits that "we know from God Himself" that Isaiah 25:8 refers to a literal resurrection. Now
Isaiah 26:19 occurs in the same vision, and the resurrection that it speaks of occurs at the same time (26:1
"in that day"). Is it reasonable that in the one verse we have a literal, and in the other a figurative,
resurrection, when we know that the one is certainly literal? Kelly’s own words describe the case exactly:
"We are not therefore at liberty to explain the vision according to our own thoughts. The explanation of
the Holy Ghost is express and conclusive. Thus we can carry divine light to Isaiah 26, where the very
same allusion is found."
2. Whilst there are one or two expressions in Ezekiel 37 that are thoroughly applicable to a literal
resurrection, the passage taken as a whole is inconsistent with the N.T. doctrine of the resurrection of the
body. Kelly says, "it is not at all the way in which the resurrection of the dead is presented." The Spirit of
God, in the N.T., in reply to a question concerning the manner of the resurrection, replied, "Thou foolish
one." Yet here in Ezekiel we have a literal description of bone coming to bone, sinew to sinew, flesh and
skin covering them all. As a figure all this is deeply instructive of the resuscitation of Israel; we are
seeing something of it in our own day. But as a description of the bodily resurrection of the righteous it is
incongruous.
In Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12, on the other hand, we have the strongest possible idioms used to describe
the dead and their resurrection; and yet there is nothing to offend the most advanced revelation of the
N.T.
3. The results that follow from the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3 and Ezekiel 37: are such as to indicate
that they are absolutely different. What is the result of the resurrection in Daniel? Many sleepers in the
dust awake to life everlasting; the wise shine forth as the brightness of the expanse, and soul-winners like
stars for ever and ever.
Page: 34
Scarcely anything in the N.T. descriptions of the resurrection exceeds the glory that is here revealed to be
the portion of those who rise in this resurrection. The glory is evidently of a heavenly character; they
awake in Jehovah’s likeness.
What is the result of the resurrection in Ezekiel? The placing of the nation in the land of
Palestine (vv. 12, 14 and 21). National revival is expressly asserted to be the meaning of the prophecy.
These considerations are sufficient to settle the whole matter. As Salmond says in his Immortality:--
It is a vision of a resurrection, but not the resurrection of the individual. It is the resurrection of a
dead people. It is a nation, once destroyed and dissolved, now raised from its grave and
reconstituted. "These bones are the whole house of Israel" (p. 211).
There is not so much as a syllable in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2-3 to correspond to this. The teaching
of these verses, as Skinner says, in his Commentary,
is quite different from such passages as Hosea 6:2, Ezekiel 37:1-14. There, rising from the dead,
is but a figurative clothing of the idea of national regeneration whereas there can be no doubt that
here a literal resurrection of individuals is foretold (Isaiah, p. 198).
4. The resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 and Isaiah 26:19 accompanies the deliverance of Israel and the
destruction of Antichrist at the inauguration of the Kingdom; but the resurrection of Ezekiel 37, inasmuch
as it portrays the introduction of Israel to Palestine, takes place years before the End. Indeed, it is taking
place in our own day. The resurrections in the respective passages are therefore distinct.
5. In Ezekiel 37:11 the people in the "graves," in a condition of "death," are represented as conversing
about their helpless condition; a fact that proves clearly the figurative character of the death and
resurrection. Nothing like this, however, is found in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2.
I think these considerations will suffice to convince thoughtful and impartial readers that the desire to
interpret these last two passages figuratively and not literally, on the analogy of Ezekiel 37, is to be
rejected as both rash and unwarranted.19
19In the monumental work of Dr. G. F. Moore, of Harvard, on Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian
Era (3 vols., 1932), will be found complete corroboration of the exegesis in this chapter on Isaiah 26:19,
Daniel 12:2-3, and Ezekiel 37. He reproduces a discussion between Rabban Gamaliel and the Sadducees that
confirms the quotation given from Edersheim; also he gives the views of those who found only a
resurrection of the righteous in Daniel 12:2.
The same exegesis will be found in Hengstenberg’s Christology, Ewald’s O.T. and N.T. Theology, Riehm’s
Messianic Prophecy, Charles’s Critical History of a Future Life, Davidson’s and Schultz’s works on O.T.
Theology, the works of C. H. H. Wright, Montgomery (ICC), West, and Auberlen on Daniel. So also in the
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, the Ency. Britannica, Hasting’s DB (“ Eschatology of the O.T.”), and Orr’s
International Bible Encyclopedia.
I have not found a single work of any importance that upholds the spiritualizing of Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel
12:2 by the Sadducees and Darbyists. The most that can be said is that Woods and Powell, in their important
Page: 35
III. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Gospels
IN our examination of the O.T. we found four passages in the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel that taught
clearly the resurrection of Israel’s righteous dead. Alternative theories were examined, but had to be
rejected, as straining the natural sense of the texts. In addition to this we were able to locate with relative
exactness the time of that resurrection. It is to take place at the Day of our Lord, when Antichrist is
destroyed, Israel converted, and the Messianic Age introduced by the Coming of the Lord. This
conclusion was reached, not by forcing the language of the texts, but by carefully noting the context, and
adopting the plain, literal sense of the language; for, as the old divines used to say, "if the literal sense
make good sense, seek no other sense."20
Now the conclusion we have reached concerning the resurrection of Israel’s holy dead has been seen to
be subversive of the new theories of the Advent. This being so, we should be warranted in claiming a
verdict on the main issue, for if, as Kelly observed in his controversy with the post-millennialists, "one
text is enough to hang heaven and earth upon," then four unambiguous texts are sufficient to sustain the
doctrine of the End that the new system was intended to supplant. Nevertheless it is desirable to examine
the teaching of the N.T. as well. And as the present work is intended for those who believe in a real
inspiration of the Bible, and the harmony of the word of prophecy, it is unnecessary to postulate an
agreement between the Last Things of the Old and New Testaments. It is a reasonable presupposition
that, given a clear revelation in the O.T. of the resurrection of Israel’s dead, nothing in the New will
contradict it. We may expect to find a further unfolding of the earlier revelation, but nothing less than
plain teaching to the contrary will avail to make us abandon the conclusion already reached from the O.T.
Does the N.T. contain any such teaching? In other words, does it indicate that the resurrection of the
saints is to occur several years or decades before the Day of the Lord, as Darbyists insist? To this inquiry
we now proceed.
(1) John 6:39-54; 11:24. The first passage, or rather expression, to be considered is the saying of our
Lord, "I will raise him up at the last day." It occurs in connection with the resurrection in five places of
John’s Gospel: 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24.21
It is worthy of note that in every case in the above texts the resurrection referred to is clearly that of the
faithful dead. It is the resurrection of "life" (John 5:29), inasmuch as Christ promises it to those who
believe and feed on Him. With Martha the resurrection of her brother is a matter of hope, for he had
waited for the consolation of Israel. In other words, these texts all speak of the "resurrection of the just"
(Luke 14:14). And we are told in every case that it takes place "at the last day." Here is a very definite
point of time; does it differ from that marked for the resurrection by Isaiah 26:19, 25:8; Daniel 12:1-3,
and 12:13? It does not; there is complete agreement between the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel, and the
words of the Lord Jesus. Our Lord, however, is more specific. Isaiah had associated the resurrection with
work The Hebrew Prophets (4 vols.) hesitate on Isaiah 26, but not on Daniel 12:2. Hastings’s Encyclopedia of
Religion and Ethics, and Dr. Oesterley’s The Last Things give the orthodox interpretation.
20Simcox (CGT on Revelation) cites a similar saying:” where the literal sense will stand, that furthest from
the letter is the worst.”
21The expression “last day” occurs again in John 12:48, but it is of significance that nothing is said of
resurrection. It refers to the generation of unbelievers who survive to the advent, which is viewed as near.
Page: 36
the conversion of Israel, the Coming of Jehovah, and the inauguration of the Messianic Age of
blessedness for all peoples. Daniel linked it with the overthrow of Antichrist, the close of the Great
Tribulation, and the deliverance of living Israel from the last great struggle. Our Lord associates it with
the Last Day of the pre-Messianic Age, which is the same thing. Well does Meyer say: "It is the first
resurrection that is meant (see on Luke 14:14, 20:34 Phil. 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:23), that to the everlasting life of
the Messianic Kingdom." (On John 6:39; italics his.)
The true sense of the phrase "the last day" is also given by Bullinger in his Apocalypse. "Martha
expressed her belief in the resurrection ‘at the last day’ (John 11:24); i.e., the last day, at the end of the
present age, and immediately before the introduction of the new age of the thousand years" (p. 621).
It is important to bear in mind, as Plummer in his Matthew has said, that "the Jews divided time into two
ages, the Messianic Age, and that which preceded it" (p. 180). This was a fundamental idea of Hebrew
eschatology; and it was adopted by our Lord and His Apostles. 22 Our Lord, for example, in speaking of
those who have left home, and relatives, and possessions for the sake of the Kingdom, observes that even
"in this present time" they receive much more than they lose, whilst "in the world (age) to come" they
shall receive life everlasting (Mark 10:30). Here, as frequently in the Gospels and Epistles, the pre-
Messianic Age is contrasted with the Age of the Kingdom.
Now our Lord teaches us in His discourse on the Bread of Life that the resurrection of His people--not
merely of the faithful in Israel, but of all who believe in His Name, and feed upon Him by faith-will take
place "at the last day." And having regard to His fundamental ideas on Eschatology there can be no doubt
that "the last day" is the closing day of the Age that precedes the Messianic Kingdom of glory. This is the
conception of the Prophets: Jehovah comes; Antichrist is slain; Israel repents; the sleeping saints rise; the
Kingdom comes in power. It is the last day of this present evil Age, the first of the Age to come. This is
also the doctrine of Christ, except that the resurrection now embraces those that the Father has given to
Him, and have life through His name.
22 In reference to the pre-Messianic period the following terms are used:

(a)The age; Matthew 13:22, 39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 4:19.
(b) This age; Matthew 12:32; Luke 16:8; 20:34; Rom. 12:2; 1: Cor. 1:20; 2:6-8; 3:18; 2 Cor. 4.4; Eph. 1:21.
(c) This time; Mark 10:30 Luke 18:30.
(d) The time that now is; Rom. 8:18; 11:5.
(e) The age that now is; 1 Tim. 6:17; 2 Tim. 4:10; Titus 2:12.
(f) This present age; Gal. 1:4.
In reference to the future Messianic Age the following are used:
(a) That age; Luke 20:35.
(b) The coming age; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30.
(c) The future age; Matthew 12:32; Heb. 6:5; Eph. 1:21. Cf. Heb. 2:5, “the habitable-world which is to
come.” See Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 147 ff.; Saphir, Hebrews 1, Lecture 5. In the former work a great
Talmudic scholar informs us; in the second a great Hebrew Christian.
Page: 37
It may be contended that the Lord was referring to the last day of the Dispensation or age of the Church,
which, ex hypothesi, ends some years before the end of "this present age." But this suggestion will not
bear examination. First, when the Lord delivered the discourse on the Bread of Life not a word had been
spoken by Him about the "Church." Indeed, it is pre-tribs who tell us that the revelation concerning the
"Dispensation of the Church" was held back for Paul to disclose. How, therefore, can Christ’s words
about "the last day" be applied to a dispensation that, as the theory itself presupposes, was only revealed
later? Secondly, the term "dispensation of the Church" is not a Scriptural expression, and, as used by the
objector, assumes the very thing to be proved; namely, that "the last day" of the Church’s existence upon
earth does not coincide with "the last day" of the pre-Messianic Age; whereas it is to be noted that even
after revealing in his Epistles the calling of the Church, the Apostle Paul, like Christ, continues to employ
the usual expressions of Hebrew eschatology--"this age" and "the age to come."23 In Ephesians
1:21,24 when dwelling on the exaltation of the Head of the Church, he says that the Name of Christ has
been exalted above every name that is named, "not only in this age, but also in that which is to come";
that is, as Meyer says, above every name "named in the present world-period, before the Parousia, and in
the future one, after the Parousia." Paul, no less than our Lord, knows nothing of an intermediate period
intervening between the resurrection of the saints and the Messianic Age.
In view, therefore, of the fact that our Lord speaks of only two dispensations in time --"this present age"
and "the age to come" --we are bound to conclude that "the last day" in His thought was the closing day
of this present evil Age, when Israel shall be saved, and the righteous dead raised, as the Prophets Daniel
and Isaiah had already taught.
Some may object that the expression "last day" refers not to a literal day, but to the last period of God’s
dealings with men in time; that is, to the age of the kingdom, which follows this present age, and will
extend to the Last judgment, when the rest of the dead are raised. Something might be said in favor of
this, for Peter has a saying that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years; and the Day of the Lord in
the 0ld and New Testaments sometimes refers, not only to the day when Messiah comes in glory, but also
to the period of His Reign.25 But even this admission does not help the objector, for on his theory the
resurrection belongs in time to "this present age," a decade or a generation before the Day of the Lord
begins.
The authors of a recent work26 assert that "the last day" is a prolonged period, "covering more than a
thousand years," which opens with the resurrection and rapture of believers, and closes with the
resurrection and judgment of those who have not accepted Christ and includes the Millennium which
intervenes. It is not "the end of the world," vulgarly so called, but the last day, or period, of man’s
accountability to God in his condition as a fallen being.
What proof is offered of these astonishing assertions? None except the requirements of their program of
the End. Their scheme requires it; therefore it is so. But two considerations will show how flimsy it is.
23 See References above.

24 R.V. mg., Moffatt, Weymouth.
25 See chapter 12, where the view of A. B. Davidson and others is quoted.
26 Touching the Coming, by Hogg and Vine (p. 159).
Page: 38
First, even on Darbyist presuppositions, the interval from the Rapture to the Last judgment is not one
period, but most certainly two: the first, from the Rapture to the Day of the Lord, is of unknown length;
some think that it will be a trifling epoch of three and a half years, others seven, still others seventy,
whilst Anderson asserts that the Scriptures will still harmonize if the period should last for a thousand
years; the second, the kingly rule of Messiah, which lasts for a millennium. And these two periods are
also two distinct Dispensations: the one, when the Holy Spirit is retired to heaven, 27 at the Rapture, to let
in a flood of lawlessness, issuing in the triumph of evil; the other, that of God’s sovereignty, when His
will shall be done on earth as it is done in heaven, the glorious Parousia of the Son of Man forming the
nexus of the two Dispensations. More astonishing still than this jumble is the attempt to fasten on our
Lord the belief that "the last day" comes, and with it the rise and triumph of Antichrist, terrible
persecution for His saints, and deeper distress than Israel has ever known. We may be sure that our Lord
never believed that. Everywhere in His thought this evil Age gives place to His Reign.
If we adhere to the simple terminology of our Lord and Paul about "the last day," "the present Age," and
"the coming Age," all will be plain, and we shall be saved at the very outset from the danger of getting
lost in a labyrinth of dispensational traditions, which lose nothing by comparison with the refinements of
the Rabbis.
(2) Luke 20:34-36.
Jesus said unto them, "The sons of this age marry, and are given in marriage: but they that are
accounted worthy to attain to that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are
given in marriage; for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels and are
sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (R.V. mg.).
Here again in the clearest manner "that age" --the age to come--is contrasted with "this age" --the Age
that now is. Here are the two great divisions of Hebrew eschatology: the present Age of Gentile
dominion, Jewish subjection, and civilization without God; and that Age, when the dead shall be raised
and the Kingdom introduced by the Messiah. It is these two ages that our Lord has in mind. In this
present Age mortal men marry and give in marriage. But they who are counted worthy of the future Age
marry not, for they become sexless as the angels, being sons of God and sons of the resurrection. It is
important to note the order of the words "they that are accounted worthy to attain to that age, and the
resurrection from the dead" --not "the resurrection from the dead, and that age;" but first, the Messianic
Age, then the resurrection. The resurrection of the just is the first result of the Messianic reign.
This passage is in exact accordance with the one last considered --"I will raise him up at the last day."
For, just as the last note of one octave is the first note of the next, so the last day of this present Age is the
first of the Messianic Age to follow.
Some theorists have sought to escape from this difficulty by assuming that the Lord was here speaking of
"a resurrection age." If they mean by this that the future Age of the Kingdom will be introduced by the
resurrection of the righteous dead they are enunciating a scriptural truth--a truth, moreover, that subverts
27These writers, it is fair to say, disbelieve in the removal of the Holy Spirit at the Rapture (Thessalonians,
pp. 258-9), but their position is a novelty in the school.
Page: 39
the new system, in that it links the resurrection of the saints with the Messianic Age, 28 whereas the
system separates them by several years, and interposes the frightful triumph of lawlessness and Antichrist
through the removal, ex hypothesi, of the Holy Spirit to heaven. But what they mean us to understand is
that "the resurrection-age," as they conceive of it, will begin with the resurrection of the sleeping saints of
Israel and the Church before the Seventieth Week, and include the later resurrection of the saints
martyred in the tribulation, subsequent to that prior resurrection. But this is fallacious. First, it sets Christ
in opposition to Isaiah and Daniel, who locate the resurrection of Israel’s faithful dead at the Day of the
Lord. Secondly, the suggestion proceeds upon a complete blunder regarding the meaning of the
expression "that age." As we have seen, it refers to the future Messianic Age, or, as we should say, to the
millennium. Our Lord speaks of those who are counted worthy to attain to, or have part in, the Messianic
Age and the resurrection from the dead. The "age" is not a period covering a supposed series of
resurrections, the first of which occurs within this present evil age, but the well-known Age of the
Kingdom, which follows the Great Tribulation. And the addition of the words "and the resurrection from
the dead" makes this doubly sure, by indicating that the resurrection is a result of the coming of the
Kingdom. When our Lord comes, then the Kingdom and the resurrection come too.
Plummer in ICC (International Critical Commentary) on Luke remarks that our Lord used the expression
"those accounted worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection," with a view to correcting "the
assumption that all the sons of this world will enter the Kingdom which begins with the resurrection;"
and he then adds: "The expression ‘that age’ in itself implies resurrection; but, inasmuch as this is the
doctrine in dispute, the resurrection is specially mentioned" (p. 469).
(3) Matthew 13:43.
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
These words are the conclusion to our Lord’s interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, which we shall
examine in all its bearings in a later chapter. It will suffice for the present to indicate its harmony with the
prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel, and the Lord Jesus, on the time of the resurrection.
It was a saying of one of the most devout of Darbyist teachers that when he found a text of the O.T. cited
or referred to in the N.T. he felt as if the Holy Spirit had put a lamp into his hand, wherewith to explore
afresh the earlier revelation; "and having learned all he could by that light, he often traveled back with his
lamp in his hand to the N.T. again, and re-read that which was written there, by the light he had gathered
from the Old."29 Now if we follow this excellent example in the case of Matthew 13:43, and Daniel 12:3,
we shall have no doubt that the Lord is expounding Daniel, and setting forth the transfiguration of the
risen saints at the resurrection; that He is "conveying the idea of a sublime display of majestic splendor,
of the glory of the righteous in the future Kingdom of the Messiah. Comp. Daniel 12:3" (Meyer, N.T.
Commentary).
28This is Trotter’s view: pp. 447-8, “Were this (Luke 20:34-6) the only passage on the subject, it seems to us
decisive... as to its being at the commencement of an age or era on which the character of resurrection is
stamped: as our Lord says, ‘that age.’” Admirable!
29 J. G. Bellett, cited by Bland, p. 138.
Page: 40
The passage contains another statement of the time of the resurrection. It is to take place at that time, that
is, at the time when notorious sinners and stumbling-blocks are rooted out of the Kingdom (vv. 41-42);
the transfiguration of the risen saints takes place simultaneously with the destruction of the ungodly at the
Advent.
We are not to suppose that the saints had been transfigured a generation before and concealed in heaven,
but, as Alexander McLaren beautifully says:30
Freed from association with evil, they are touched with a new splendor, caught from Him, and
blaze out like the sun; for so close is their association, that their myriad glories melt as into a
single great light. Now, amid gloom and cloud, they gleam like tiny tapers far apart; then,
gathered into one, they flame in the forehead of the morning sky, "a glorious church, not having
spot, nor wrinkle, nor any such thing."
(4) Luke 14:14-15.
A fourth-indeed the classic-passage on the resurrection of the just occurs in Luke 14:14, where the Lord,
just before relating the Parable of the Great Supper, remarks: "and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot
recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."
This passage in itself furnishes no information concerning the relative time of the resurrection; but, taken
in connection with what follows, it supplies a decisive consideration; for when Christ spoke of the first
resurrection, one of His hearers exclaimed: "Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God" (v.
15). This shows how unmistakably the resurrection of the holy dead in Israel was linked with the coming
of the Messianic Kingdom. As Meyer has it:
To the idea of the resurrection of the righteous is very naturally linked, in the case of this fellow-
guest, the thought of the future eating with the patriarchs of the nation (Matthew 13:2; Luke 13:28
ff.) in the (millennial) Messianic Kingdom to be set up. This transporting prospect, in which his
mistaken security is manifested, compels his exclamation. 31
Bullinger in his Ten Sermons says: "This man evidently connected the ‘resurrection of the just’ with the
entering into and the establishment of the Kingdom" (p. 153).
Anyone who has thought independently on this subject, and filled his mind with the conceptions of the
Prophets and our Lord on the Last Things, must be forced to the conclusion that there is something
fundamentally wrong with a program of the resurrection that, far from introducing the age of peace,
renewal, and righteousness for living Israel, will rather presage her entrance upon the times of Antichrist.
No Hebrew would sponsor such a view. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews settled this matter once
for all when he penned the words: "And when He again bringeth in the firstborn into the world, He saith,
Matthew 2 p. 243. Cf. Bengel: “They shall not burn as the ungodly, but they shine forth singly, and much
30
more, collectively. What can be sweeter, even to think of, than this?” (E.T.).
31 So Edersheim, (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah) vol. 2., p. 249; Godet, Luke, vol. 2, p. 135, and others.
Page: 41
And let all the angels of God worship Him."32 Westcott’s commentary on Hebrews gives the background
and the true meaning:
One main object of the Epistle is to meet a feeling of present disappointment. The first
introduction of the Son into the world, described in verse 2, had not issued in an open triumph and
satisfied men’s desires, so that there was good reason why the writer should point forward
specially to the Return in which Messiah’s work was to be consummated... For the present He has
been withdrawn from the "inhabited earth," the limited scene of man’s present labors; but at the
Return He will enter it once more with sovereign triumph; Acts 1:11.
And if we may say that the new program of the End is repugnant to Hebrew tradition and ideals, it is
noteworthy that, though the last hundred years have produced many eminent Hebrew Christians, not one
of them has embraced the scheme under examination. The works of Adolph Saphir are deservedly held in
high esteem by all well-read Darbyists; yet, though those writings reveal that Saphir was a close student
of Darby, and was open to his better influence, he rejected his view of the End. Here are two relevant
passages, which we cannot refrain from quoting:33 "At the coming of the Lord to establish His
Kingdom, the dead who are asleep in Jesus, as well as the saints who are then living, will be gathered to
receive from their Lord the recompense of the reward." Again:
Assurance, or fullness of hope (Cf. Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:5; Heb. 10:22), means a living, constant and firm
expectation of the coming of our Lord ‘Jesus, who will give rest and glory unto all who wait for Him. We
rejoice in hope of the glory of God. By hope we anticipate the future blessedness and thus live in the
power of heavenly realities, influenced by the promised reward. Thus the apostle, who so clearly teaches
us that we have been saved by grace through faith, also teaches that we are saved by hope; we wait for
the adoption, that is the redemption of the body. In this patient waiting we are the followers of the O.T.
saints. They also from Abraham, to whom God confirmed the promise by oath, looked unto the same
advent of Messiah which we are awaiting. The fathers, who pertained specially to the Hebrews (Rom.
9), cherished the same hope, which was more fully revealed by the gospel, and which, therefore, we
should hold fast with greater steadfastness and joy.
IV. The Resurrection Of The Saints In St. Paul’s Epistles
We now come to consider the testimony of Paul’s Epistles on the epoch of the resurrection of the saints.
So far we have found that the Prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ locate the resurrection at the
32 Darby, the author of a new program of the End--a secret, pre-tribulation Parousia, followed by the rise of
Antichrist, was bound to resist the reference to the approaching advent. See his notes to the New
Translation. But, grammar apart, the reference to Psalm 97, a Kingdom Psalm, is decisive for students of
prophecy that the Day of The Lord is in view in Hebrews 1:6. Saphir says the Psalm has no reference to the
first Advent, but to Jehovah’s coming to subdue His enemies and be the rejoicing of His people (vol. 1., p. 90).
Nairne (Cambridge Bible) says the usage of this Epistle favors “Whenever he brings again.” The idiomatic
translations of Conybeare and Howson, Isaacs (1933), Way (1926), Wade (1934) agree with Goodspeed and
the American and English revisers.
33The first quotation is from The Lord’s Prayer (pp. 187-8) the second from Hebrews, vol. 1, p. 330; two
golden works.
Page: 42
inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom, whereas pre-tribs bring it forward by a considerable period of
time. Are the Epistles in harmony with the earlier revelations? Let us see.
(a) Romans 11:15.
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them
be, but life from the dead?
In this chapter the Apostle demonstrates that the apostasy of Israel is neither total nor final. Many believe
in Jesus as Messiah; and Israel as a nation shall be finally saved. Here, in verse 15, Paul links the
conversion of Israel with the first resurrection.
It should be admitted that the other view--of an awakening among the Nations at the conversion of Israel-
-has something to commend it, but the present writer agrees with those who find in the text the idea
stressed by Darby, Kelly, and Trotter, that, when Israel repents, the saints are raised.
Eighty years ago two outstanding commentators in Germany were Meyer and Hofmann, who often
differed in their view of a difficult text, the former being severely grammatical, whilst the latter brought
to it a singularly original mind, and a comprehensive grasp of the Scriptures as a whole. Yet on Romans
11:15, they agreed that it referred to the resurrection. Godet objected to this, saying that these expositors
were to be most distrusted when they were in agreement! But the verdict has gone against Godet, the
graver commentaries in Germany and Britain34 increasingly following the lead of the two great rivals in
N.T. exposition, namely: that Paul is following Isaiah and Daniel in linking the renewal of Israel with the
Kingdom and the resurrection.
(b) 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth
corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall
all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible
must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall
have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to
pass the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory." (R.V.).
Here is the highest and most glorious revelation in Scripture concerning the resurrection and
transfiguration of the saints. It occurs as the climax of the long chapter on the resurrection of Christ and
the holy dead. Our only concern, however, is to know if we can find any clue to guide us in our inquiry
concerning the time of the resurrection. Other aspects of this chapter will come before us later; at present
this one suffices.
Is there any clue to guide us? Yes, a very decided one; and one that for open minds will settle the whole
controversy. Paul not only describes the resurrection and transfiguration of the saints: he emphatically
indicates the time for the fulfillment of these wonderful events. Here are his words: "So WHEN this
34 Zahn, Sanday and Headlam, and many others.

Page: 43
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, THEN shall be
brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory’" (v. 54).
Nothing could be clearer than the Apostle’s argument here. The resurrection and transfigurat ion of the
faithful dead will take place in fulfillment of an O.T. prophecy. This occurs in Isaiah 25:8, which we have
already considered. Now if, to use Bellett’s illustration, we go back to Isaiah, using the lamp that Paul has
furnished us with, what do we find? Why, that the resurrection of the saints, and the victory over
death, synchronize with the inauguration of the Theocratic Kingdom, the Coming of Jehovah, and the
conversion of living Israel. Following are Isaiah’s words (25:6-9 R.V.): "And in this mountain shall the
Lord of Hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of
marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." Here we have the inauguration of the Kingdom under the
figure of a banquet. "And He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that is cast over all
peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord
God will wipe away tears from off all faces." Here we have the resurrection, which, according to Paul,
includes the raising of Christians.
Beautifully does Dr. Wheeler Robinson say in his essay in The Study Bible: "We seem to see the great
King rising to greet the long procession of suffering and sorrowing humanity, which wears the veil of the
mourner. His royal hand removes the veil and wipes away the tears, and destroys their cause for ever" (p.
121). Again: "And the reproach of His people shall He take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath
spoken it" (Isa. 25:8).
This gives us the rehabilitation of Israel, long put to shame before the Gentiles by their age-long
dispersion, and apparent abandonment by Jehovah. Again: "And it shall be said in that day, ‘Lo, this is
our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for Him, we will
be glad and rejoice in His salvation’" (Isa. 25:9). Here we have the repentance and conversion of Israel at
the Coming of Jehovah.
It will be seen, therefore, that Paul, so far from detaching the resurrection from the Kingdom, and the
conversion of Israel, takes his stand with Isaiah, Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ, in linking them up
inseparably. In the very act of revealing new truth about the Christian hope he shows that the theory of
his holding to a special coming and resurrection "for the Church" is the veriest fiction: The Coming of
Jehovah Jesus is the hope of both Israel and the Church.
Further confirmation that Paul linked the resurrection with the Kingdom is furnished by the context of
our passage in 1 Corinthians. In verse 50 he says: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the Kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
That is, kingly rule in the Future Age is not for mere human nature, but for the new humanity in the Last
Adam, who is a quickening Spirit. Hence he proceeds to deal with the resurrection and transfiguration of
the saints: transfiguration essential for kingly rule--this is the secret truth now revealed.
The reader may ask what explanation pre-tribs give of this fundamental difficulty in 1 Corinthians 15:54,
and how they attempt to reconcile their theories with this Scripture. As a rule they have nothing to say
about it; they pay it the perpetual compliment of leaving it alone; or it is one of those "details" that it is
inexpedient to inquire about, though usually a craving for the least detail of the End-time characterizes
Page: 44
the school. Especially was this reluctance seen in dealing with pre-millennial colleagues like Tregelles
and B. W. Newton, who, with inconvenient persistence, pointed out the grave discrepancy between the
new scheme of the End, and the plain teaching of Isaiah 25:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:54. So far as I am
aware, no pre-trib writer has ever honestly faced the question. One is reminded of a story recorded by
Plutarch (quoted by Provost Salmon), that when Pericles was puzzling himself what account of his
expenditure he should give the Athenian people he got the advice from Alcibiades that it would be wiser
to study how he could avoid giving any account at all. When, however, the advocates of the new theories
were arguing, not with fellow pre-millennialists, but with postmillennialists like David Brown and Agar
Beet, they forgot themselves, and used arguments that were a complete negation of the position they
maintained against all orthodox pre-millennialists since earliest times. I have already cited the case of
Kelly, who, by stating that the resurrection in Isaiah 25 "synchronizes with the deliverance of Israel,"
gave away the whole case for the new theories of the Parousia. I wish now to cite the case of Darby. One
would scarcely have expected him to expound a crucial passage in a manner that subverted his entire
scheme of the prophetic future. Yet such is the case. It is not a little remarkable, and will astonish some.
In his Second Coming he writes as follows in seeking to prove that the Advent must be pre-millennial:
I wish to refer you to the connection of the passage in the 15th of 1st Corinthians with the 25th of
Isaiah, because the connection of these two things--the resurrection of the saints and the
restoration of Israel--will thereby be strongly brought out. The Apostle says that "when this
corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall
be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ If you turn to the
25th Isaiah, you will see that this takes place at this time which we call the millennium when, the
Jews being restored to their place on the earth there is that era of blessedness among the nations
which is commonly called the millennium. It is there said, Thou shalt bring down the noise of
strangers, as the heat in a dry place; even the heat with the shadow of a cloud: the branch of the
terrible ones shall be brought low. And in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all
people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees of fat things full of marrow, of wines on
the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all
people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory.’" That is
at the time the resurrection takes place; for it is said in Corinthians, "Then shall come to pass the
saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." And thus it appears that the time
when this resurrection takes place is the time when the Lord restores Israel, when He establishes
Israel’s place in Zion, and takes away the veil from off the face of all nations (p. 84).
Sound doctrine! Yet every word of it is a complete refutation of theories telling us that the resurrection
does not synchronize with the millennium and the conversion of Israel, but precedes them by a period of
from seven to seventy, if not hundreds of years--for there is not the slightest certainty or even knowledge
on the question--and that this period is characterized by increasing lawlessness, and Israel’s reception of
Antichrist.
Trotter also makes the same damaging admission. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:54 (Plain Papers on
Prophetic Subjects), he remarks on the word "then:" "Not ‘eita’ as in verse 24, but ‘tote,’ the literal and
uniform meaning of which is, at that time." He then continues:--
Page: 45
Now the only passage in which this saying is written is Isaiah 25:8 and there it is so interwoven
with unmistakable predictions of millennial blessedness, that for the Apostle to say, as he here
does, that it is to come to pass at the same time as the resurrection and glorification of the saints,
is equivalent to his declaring in plain terms that the Millennium is thus introduced (pp. 468-9).
On the same text, Kelly says in his Second Coming: "It appears on apostolic authority that the epoch of
the resurrection of the righteous is bound up with the return and deliverance of Israel, as well as with the
millennial blessing of all nations" (p. 57).
This is the very point that we are contending for!
We leave this passage in Corinthians, therefore, authorized by Darby, Kelly, and Trotter, to believe that
Paul, like Isaiah, Daniel, and the Lord Jesus Christ, locates the first resurrection at the Day of the Lord,
that is, at the close of the apocalyptic Week.
(c) 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (R.V.).
We now come to the passage that, more than any other, is relied upon by pre-tribs to prove that the saints
are raised some considerable time before the Day of the Lord. It reads as follows:
But I would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep that ye sorrow not,
even as the rest which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so
them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the
word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise
precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven, with a
shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise
first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds to
meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another
with these words.
Only one consideration will occupy us here: what evidence does it afford us in our search to find
the time of the first resurrection? The singular thing is that beyond the elementary fact of its occurring at
the Advent, the passage in itself furnishes no evidence whatever upon the point. Without anticipating
topics to be raised later, it may be said here that the passage under consideration does not pretend to be an
exhaustive description of the Parousia, even as it concerns the Church; for there is no mention of the
transfiguration of the living saints, nor even of the risen; no mention of the judgment-seat of Christ, and
the rewarding of the saints; none of the marriage-supper of the Lamb. Still less does the passage aim
at describing the Last Things in general. The Apostle is concerned with one, and only one aspect of the
Advent, and that is the relation of the sleeping to the surviving saints when the Lord comes. The
Thessalonians feared that the dead whom they mourned would be at a disadvantage at the Parousia. Paul
shows by the Spirit of God that, if anything, they will have the advantage, since the Lord will raise them
first at His Coming, and only then will the living believers be caught up with them to meet the Lord.
Admirably does Canon Faussett say in his commentary (Second Advent):--
Page: 46
His point being established that the dead in Christ shall be on terms of equal advantage with those
found alive at Christ’s coming, he leaves undefined here the other events foretold elsewhere (as
not being necessary to his discussion), Christ’s reign on earth with His saints (1 Cor. 6:2-3), the
final judgment and glorification of His saints in the new heaven and earth.
So far, therefore, as this passage in 1 Thessalonians is concerned, we are not told when the resurrection
will take place relative to the Seventieth Week of Daniel. If one thinks that the resurrection will take
place centuries before the apocalyptic Week sets in, there is nothing in the passage to contradict it. If, as
Newberry and others taught, one believes that the Lord will come at the beginning of that Week, or, with
others, in the middle of it, there is likewise nothing in this passage to discourage us. For a similar reason
there is nothing against the view that I am contending for, namely: that the first resurrection takes place
subsequent to the Week, namely: at the Day of the Lord. This section in 1 Thessalonians 4 simply does
not deal with the question; indeed, there is nothing in the text to show that the resurrection is even a
premillennial one; this must be learned from other Scriptures.
And even if we admit, for argument’s sake, that the "Coming" here referred to concerns the Church
alone, this does not prove that the resurrection must take place before the apocalyptic Week; for it might
take place subsequent to that week, and still concern the Church alone. Only by referring to other
Scriptures can the point be determined, for 1 Thessalonians 4 is silent upon it. Such suggestions will be
irksome to those who always find what they want in a text; others will recognize their reasonableness.
So much for negative reasoning based upon this isolated text. When, however, we turn to other
Scriptures--for, as Peter tells us, "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20), we
are not left in doubt upon the matter: Pre-tribs themselves furnish us with reasons that smash their central
position. They all admit, in the first place, that this resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4 includes the
resurrection of all the righteous dead since Abel; this is a fundamental point in the scheme. Very well
then, this means that 1 Thessalonians 4 synchronizes with the resurrection in Isaiah 25:8, 26:19, Daniel
12:1-3, 12-13, Matthew 13:43, Luke 14:14, 20:35, and John 6:39, 40, 44, 54. and 11:24-25. And we have
already proved that these passages clearly locate the resurrection of the saints in Israel at the
commencement of the Messianic Kingdom, when Antichrist is destroyed, and Israel is converted by the
appearing of Jehovah. The whole Darbyist case collapses, therefore, before their admission that 1
Thessalonians 4 includes the raising of the O.T. saints.
The theorists admit, in the second place, that this resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4 is identical with the
one in 1 Corinthians 15:50-57. This admission also destroys their whole position, for we have just seen--
with the concurrence of Darby, Kelly, and Trotter--that Paul, following Isaiah 25:8, locates the
resurrection of the saints at the beginning of the kingly rule of Christ, when Israel is converted.
What, therefore, but the exigencies of a mistaken system of prophetic interpretation could have led these
same writers, and a thousand-and-one followers, to enounce a set of theories that proceed upon the
presupposition that the first resurrection does not coincide with Israel’s conversion, but precedes it by
about a generation; does not synchronize with the establishment of Israel in Zion, but rather with the
beginning of their troubles under Antichrist; does not introduce the times of refreshing for all nations, but
the times of Antichrist, and the darkest night that Israel and the nations have ever seen?
(d) 1 Corinthians 15:21-26.

Page: 47
Still another passage in 1 Corinthians calls for comment in any examination of the new theories of the
Parousia. Anyone who has immersed himself in pre-trib prophetic literature knows that a vital part of
their scheme of the End is the program of the resurrection. It is as follows:--
(1) The resurrection of the redeemed at the Advent according to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17.
(2) The resurrection of an immense multitude of saints, converted and martyred after the resurrection and
Rapture, just mentioned. This takes place several years after the former one, namely: at the Day of the
Lord.
(3) The resurrection of the rest of the dead at the conclusion of the millennium.
Let us test this by the teaching of the Apostle Paul; we quote from Weymouth’s version, 35 not only for its
greater faithfulness to the Greek at one or two important points, but for its happy illuminat ion of some
difficult sayings. It undoubtedly represents the attitude of modern scientific exegesis toward this passage
of Scripture:
For seeing that death came through man, through man comes also the resurrection of the dead. For
just as through Adam all die, so also through Christ all will be made alive again. But this will
happen to each in the right order--Christ having been the first to rise, and afterwards Christ’s
people rising at His return. Later on, comes the End when He is to surrender the Kingship to God,
the Father, when He shall have overthrown all other government and all other authority and
power. For He must continue King until He shall have put all His enemies under His feet (Ps. 8:6;
110:1). The last enemy that is to be overthrown is Death; for He will have put all things in
subjection under His feet (1 Cor. 15:21-26).
Here is a passage where the great Apostle is dealing expressly with "the resurrection of the dead:" not
merely of the righteous, but of the totality of the human race. Through Adam death passed upon all men;
through Christ the whole human race shall be raised. And the Apostle even gives us the program of the
resurrection:
1. Christ the first-fruits.
2. The redeemed, at Christ’s Coming to establish His kingly rule.
3. The End, when the rest of the dead are raised, at the close of Christ’s kingdom and His delivering the
sovereignty to God the Father. Increasingly Lietzmann’s view is being followed that "End" means "Rest"
or "Remainder."
Allowing for differences on details the great commentators of Germany36 are finding "in the passage a
resurrection of the saints at the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, and another at its close, in substantial
35 Second edition.
So Lietzmann, J. Weiss, Bachmann, Bousset and Zahn. The interpretation goes back to Godet, Meyer and De
36
Wette. In England Canon Evans, Peake, Teignmouth Shore, and others accept it. W. F. Howard says, “There is
Page: 48
agreement with John in the Apocalypse, chapter 20. One cannot fail to see that the interpretation is
ruinous to Darby’s scheme; not a word is said about the resurrection of a special class of "tribulation"
saints, seven years or more after the Coming, when the redeemed are raised. If Paul entertained any such
notion, here was the appropriate place to say so, for he is distinguishing the classes in the resurrection of
the whole human race.
According to Scofield, in his Bible Correspondence Course, the visions of Revelation 7 warrant the
belief that, before the End, "the overwhelming majority" of the inhabitants of the earth will be converted
to God by the preaching of the 144,000 Israelites. And the vision of 7:9-17 makes it absolutely certain
that they are martyrs awaiting the resurrection of 20:4-6. Very well then, we are asked by pre-tribs to
believe that the Holy Spirit, in giving the precise classes, and the order of the resurrection, passed over
this immense company of martyrs, who, according to the theorists, rise several years or decades after 1
Thessalonians 4:13-17, and "those that are Christ’s" in 1 Corinthians 15:23. To uninfatuated readers the
suggestion is utterly incredible.
The only reason why Paul did not introduce another resurrection of saints after that of Christians was
because he knew of no such special and separate resurrection. He knew of only one "out"--resurrection,
only one harvest, that of Christ’s people at His Arrival. 37 And he further precludes the idea of a second
"first" resurrection by locating the resurrection of the Church itself at the beginning of the Messianic
Kingdom. Darby, Kelly, and Trotter, all bore witness to this, as we saw a moment ago.
We leave the consideration of Paul’s Epistles, 38 therefore, with the conviction that he, like Isaiah, Daniel,
and the Lord Jesus Christ, locates the resurrection of the saints at the Day of the Lord, when Israel is
converted, and the Kingdom is set up in power.
--Excursus To Chapter IV: Dr. E.W. Bullinger’s Scheme Of The Saints’

Resurrection
Into the wild dispensational theories of Dr. Bullinger it is not my intention to enter; one must draw the
line somewhere in investigating the labyrinth of prophetic fads and theories. Anyone who has read Ten
Sermons on the Second Advent (in many respects a valuable book), The Apocalypse or The Day of The
Lord, The Church Epistles, The Mystery, The Companion Bible, and the "Questions and Answers column
of his magazine "Things to Come" (London), knows that the most destructive critic of Bullinger’s
theories on prophecy, the Church, and N.T. literature was Bullinger himself. Today he would give out a
good reason to follow several recent commentators in taking 24a as meaning, ‘Then the rest, when He shall
deliver up the Kingdom to God.’” (Abingdon Commentary.)
37On the word “parousia,” and a recent rabbinical attempt to save the new program by making it mean
“presence,” the reader is referred to our chapter on the “coming.” There it is shown that the humblest
Christian in the first century knew that the word meant the triumphant arrival of Messiah to put down all
authority, and then reign. The petty kings and emperors had their Parousias and their Days, when on a visit
to a town; our Lord and Emperor, Jesus the Messiah has His Day and His Parousia when He comes forth to
vindicate God’s righteousness, plead the cause of His followers, and inaugurate the Age to come.
38 The passage in Philippians (3:2) furnishes nothing to guide us in finding the time of the resurrection.
Page: 49
set of novelties with the recommendation, "They are not mere sentiments or opinions. They are the
subjects of Divine revelation." Tomorrow (or the day after) the novelties would be forgotten, and another
worthless set given out in their place. And all was paraded with immense dogmatism as the offspring of a
new and superior enlightenment unattained by any of the great expositors of the Church. The author’s
method and spirit recall Franz Delitzsch’s characterization of Ewald, the famous O.T. scholar:
It is provoking to observe the self-sufficiency with which he ignores nearly all his predecessors,
the dictatorial confidence of his criticism the false and often nebulous pathos, and the complete
identification of his opinions with truth itself (p. 43).
Bullinger saw very clearly that the OT., and our Lord, had located the resurrection of the saints at the Day
of the Lord, not a generation before it. He also saw that that fact was fatal to the pre-tribs view of the
prophetic future. Instead of abandoning it as unscriptural, he would save it by a line of defense that had
hitherto passed the wit of man to devise. Here it is. When Paul gave the order of the resurrection in the
well-known words (1 Cor. 15:23), "Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.
Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God," there was more in what he
said than appears on the surface; but Bullinger claims that he can see far into the millstone, and this is
what he reads:--
"Christ the first-fruits;" this is not Christ the Lord, but Christ mystical, which includes all saints
converted since Saul of Tarsus, who was the beginning of the Church, the body of Christ. These will be
raised at the approaching advent of Christ, on Darbyist presuppositions.
"Afterward they that are Christ’s, at His Coming." These are O.T. saints, the Apostles, and others
converted before Paul, and the "tribulation" saints of Revelation 7:9-17; these will all be raised at the Day
of the Lord, a generation (more or less) after the mystical Body of Christ. It didn’t inconvenience
Bullinger one little bit that in his revised scheme the "coming" of 5:23 synchronized with the "day" of the
Lord; that was a trifling concession to the enemy.
What shall we say of this new-fangled scheme? Simply that it is so extremely singular that we should not
waste a moment of time on it except that so good a student as Miss Ada Habershon, an outstanding
teacher among pre-tribs toyed with it as a good defense of pre-trib views of the End. See Payables, p. 96:
and "The Morning Star," August 15th, 1914.
A moment’s consideration will show that the positron is utterly untenable;
1. Paul himself interprets for us the expression, "Christ the first-fruits." It is the Lord Jesus Christ and
none other. Here is what he says: "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of
them that slept." That occurs but two verses before the verse that Bullinger wrests to his own confusion.
Of course he passed it by as unworthy of notice.
2. The expression "they that are Christ’s," so far from being applicable merely to supposedly inferior
saints like the O.T. worthies, the Apostles, the saints of the "Pentecostal Dispensation," and the martyrs
of the End-time in Revelation 7:9-17, is applied again and again by the Apostle Paul to the saved of this
dispensation. "If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal.
Page: 50
3:29). "They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh" (Gal. 5:24). See also 1 Corinthians 3:22-23, 1:12,
15:23; 2 Corinthians 10:7; cf. Mark 9:41.
Bullinger, be it noted, staked his scheme on a single verse of scripture, which is always a risky thing to
do, for as sagacious old Benjamin Whichcote used to say, "If you have but one text in Scripture to
support you, you will soon have none at all." But Bullinger’s attitude realized for us the wish of the
ancient tyrant that all his enemies had but one neck, for with a single blow the whole contest would be
won. That is what happens here. On the housetops Bullinger proclaimed that in the O.T. the saints are
raised at the Day of the Lord that is the honest interpretation of Isaiah 25:8, 26:19; Daniel 12:2, 13. The
Lord in Luke 15:14-15, 20:34-36, and John 6:39-54, 11:24; Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:54; and John in
Revelation 11:15-18 and 20:4-6, confirmed the O.T. teaching. But Bullinger challenged us to a contest on
the single text, 1 Corinthians 15:23: with ruinous results to himself, for Paul is against him at every step;
ruinous also to the whole school.
Pre-trib writers as a rule think hardly of Bullinger. And naturally; by his damaging admissions he
exposed the perilous condition of a pillar that supported their new and pretentious edifice, and, without
laughing, offered to substitute a pillar of sand.
Some time ago a group of English-speaking people from England, America, and the overseas Dominions
of the Empire, met at a Britisher’s residence in a South American Republic. During dinner the
conversation turned to English politics, and a lively discussion ensued. As one of the speakers was
monopolizing most of the time, it was decided to set up a Mock Parliament with a Speaker, who, watch in
hand, would control the debate on Home Rule for Ireland. On ranging sides it was found that the leader
of a historic English party had no followers. Thereupon the hostess, a woman missionary with a versatile
turn of mind, and a keen sense of humor, changed sides so as to help the lonely leader in debate. But
when it came to her turn to address the "House" she contrived to make so many inconvenient and
damaging admissions that, before she was half-way through, the embarrassed leader was begging her to
cross to the other side.
And regular pre-trib advocates, who smooth over a thousand difficulties in their program of the prophetic
future by judiciously keeping silent on inconvenient texts, and hoping for the best, resent the perverse
candor, even bluntness, with which Bullinger proclaimed that in the Prophets, Gospels, and the
Apocalypse, as well as in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and 54, the resurrection of Israel’s holy dead, and of those
"that are Christ’s," takes place at the Day of the Lord. Better a thousand times if he had held his peace, or
crossed to the other side.
V. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Apocalypse
We now come to the closing book of the Canon in our inquiry concerning the time of the saints’
resurrection. Here we shall find a complete confirmation of the conclusions drawn from the Prophets,
Gospels, and the Epistles of Paul.
(1) Revelation 11:15-18 (R.V.).
Page: 51
The first passage39 to be considered is Revelation 11:15-18, which records the results of the blowing of
the seventh or last trumpet. It reads as follows:
And the seventh angel sounded; and there followed great voices in heaven, and they said, The
kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for
ever and ever.
And the four and twenty elders, which sit before God on their throne, fell upon their faces, and
worshipped God.
Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, which art and which wast; because thou
hast taken to thee thy great power, and didst reign.
And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath came and the time of the dead to be judged, and the
time to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy
name, the small and the great; and to destroy them that destroy the earth.
Here we have once again the resurrection of the saints and their judgment for the works done in the body;
and, as in the Prophets, Gospels, and Epistles, the resurrection is linked with the inauguration of the
Kingdom of God and the Coming of the Lord. It is not disputed that the events of the seventh trumpet
occur at the Day of the Lord. What is disputed by Darbyists is that they include the first resurrection. Let
us examine this.
(a) Paul tells us that the dead in Christ shall be raised incorruptible at the Last Trumpet (1 Cor. 15:52).
We have already seen that this trumpet sounds on the Day of the Lord, when Israel is converted and the
Kingdom introduced. And here in Revelation 11:15, we have these very events under the seventh or last
trumpet, which also blows at the Day of the Lord. The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that the Last
Trumpet of Paul, and the Last Trumpet of John are one and the same. We are right, therefore, in inferring
the resurrection from Revelation 11:15-18. It is no answer to object that Paul nowhere speaks of seven
trumpets; for the last trumpet may be the last of two. 40 It will be sufficient if, in reading of the Last
Trumpet in Paul we credit him with having in mind the trumpet to sound at the Day of the Lord, and one
or more that sounded previously. We must remember, moreover, that Paul was writing under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and He was quite capable of forestalling a matter revealed more fully later.
The point is well put by Bengel:
The full description of the trumpets is reserved for the Apocalypse; yet some things may be
gathered from Matthew 24:31 (and) 1 Thessalonians 4:16, concerning the last trumpet; and this
epithet is expressed here, as one that takes for granted the trumpets that have preceded it; either
because the Spirit has inspired Paul with an allusion, which anticipates the Apocalypse, or
39 On the 24 Elders see the section at the end of this chapter.
40 1 Corinthians 15:45, speaks of Christ as the last Adam, where there is only one previous-the first Adam.
Page: 52
because Scripture long before, teaches that some trumpets, though not definitely enumerated, are
before the last.
And if we deny that Paul was anticipating, even unconsciously, the last trumpet of the Apocalypse, it
makes things worse for the theorists. They want us to believe that Paul called the resurrection trumpet
(which is to sound, on their view, before the Seventieth Week) the last trumpet, when he must have
known from Isaiah 27:13 and the words of Christ in Matthew 24:31, that one, if not two, trumpets of
momentous consequence were to follow it; for it is obvious that those trumpets sound at the Day of the
Lord.
These difficulties and contradictions pass away, however, when we see that Paul’s last trumpet sounds on
the Day of the Lord, and is therefore identical with Isaiah’s, our Lord’s, and John’s, which do the same.
We are warranted, therefore, in inferring from Revelation 11:15, that the seventh or last trumpet points to
the resurrection from the dead.
It is objected again that this trumpet in Revelation 11 cannot be identical with that in Paul, because the
former is a woe-trumpet, and the latter a trumpet of grace. But the real truth is that, alike in Paul and
John, the Last Trumpet is both a trumpet of grace and a trumpet of woe. Towards the saved, it is a
trumpet of grace. Certainly this is so in the Apocalypse. Otherwise, how can we account for the outburst
of praise, joy and thanksgiving on the part of the Twenty-four Elders, who, pre-tribs tell us, represent the
raptured saints?
The Elders in heaven rejoice over the sounding of the seventh trumpet, because it is obviously a trumpet
of grace as well as woe. It finishes the mystery of God, and heralds the introduction of the Kingdom of
Christ and of God, the resurrection, judgment, and rewarding of the saints, and the Coming of the Lord. If
it is called a woe trumpet, it is only because of its effects upon the ungodly. In confirmation of this, I
need only quote the words of F. W. Grant, a leading pre-trib scholar:
The third woe is the coming of the Kingdom! Yes: that to greet which the earth breaks out in
gladness, the morning without clouds, the day which has no night, and the fulfillment of the first
promise which fell upon man’s ears when he stood a naked sinner before God to hear his doom,
the constant theme of prophecy--now swelling into song and now sighed out in prayer--that
kingdom is yet, to the "dwellers upon earth" the last and deepest woe.
To the mere "dwellers upon the earth" the last or seventh trumpet brings woe indeed; but to the saints of
God it brings that Coming and Kingdom which have been their hope and joy for ages past. Hence it is a
trumpet of incomparable grace; hence the rejoicing of the elders in heaven.
(b) The resurrection is unquestionably implied by the expression "the time of the dead to be judged:" that
is, the righteous dead only, for this book reveals that the unsaved dead are judged at the conclusion of the
Messianic Kingdom, not at its beginning (Rev. 20:5, 11-14). The whole context proves, moreover, that
only the prophets, saints and God-fearers, come within the scope of this judgment. The wicked dead are
not so much as mentioned. Nor may the expression "the dead" be used to prove the contrary; for Paul
himself uses the general expression "the dead" when he really means the righteous dead only. In the very
chapter where he describes the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:42), he says, "so also is the resurrection of the
dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption;" but the context proves that he there means only
Page: 53
the righteous dead, for the ungodly will not be raised "in incorruption." So also in verse 52: "In a moment
in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible;" here he certainly means only the righteous dead.
Just so is it in Revelation 11:18;41 we are told that it is "the time for the dead to be judged," yet the
immediate context proves that only the righteous dead are in view; for at once we read: "And the time to
give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, the small
and the great" --prophets, saints and godly: the whole company of the redeemed; these and no others are
raised from the dead at this time to be judged. 42
A consideration of Romans 14:10-12 (R.V.) and 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, will show that Christians are to
be judged, not in order to determine their salvation--for in this sense the believer cometh not into
judgment (John 5:24)--but to determine and allot the reward of each, according to his life and service.
And there can be no doubt that "the judgment of the dead" in Revelation 11:18, refers to the judgment of
the people of God that follows their resurrection.
(c) The resurrection of the just is further presupposed in Revelation 11:I5-I8, because it is at this time that
the reward is given to the prophets, the saints, and the godly. Theorists seek to evade this by telling us
that, though the saints are judged and rewarded at this time, they are raised some years previously, that is,
prior to the Seventieth Week of Daniel.43 But this is untenable. First, how could such a judgment--taking
place years and possibly generations after the resurrection--be called a judgment of "the dead?" If the
judgment and rewarding take place immediately after the resurrection, then there is some fitness in the
term. But a judgment of people who have been raised for an indefinite period--of at least seven years--
would not be called a judgment of" the dead."
Secondly, Kelly’s plea brings him into contradiction to his own scheme. In his Revelation he tells us that
the Twenty-four Elders of the Apocalypse represent the saints of the O.T. and the Church of the New,
raised, raptured, and glorified in heaven, before a single seal is opened or plague poured out; that is, they
are seen as already judged and rewarded; for they are said to be robed, crowned, and enthroned--ideas
that, if the Elders are human beings, or represent human beings, clearly betoken that they have already
been rewarded; and yet, to save his theory of the resurrection in the presence of Revelation 11:18, Kelly
tells us that the giving of rewards is to take place at the Revelation of Christ on the Day of the Lord. But
he cannot have it both ways. It is clear that the theory is not only at variance with Scripture, but also with
itself.
There is, however, a much more cruel exposure of the unscriptural character of the theory that the
rewarding of the saints is separated from their resurrection by a period of years. I refer to the words of
41It is important to note that, in his great commentary, Theodore Zahn, whom Dr. Stalker called “the Nestor
of N.T. criticism,” gives “the time of the nations to be judged” as the true reading (Offenbarung des Johannes,
vol. ii., p. 432): a deeply interesting suggestion. Unfortunately he does not develop the point.
42The words “and destroy them that destroy the earth” have no reference to resurrection. Revelation
19:20-21 gives the scene; it refers to the destruction of Antichrist and his hosts.
43 See Kelly’s Revelation Expounded, p. 133.
Page: 54
our Lord, "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just" (Luke 24:14). The new system is in
open opposition to the words of Christ. It separates the giving of rewards from the resurrection by a
period of years, whereas the Lord Jesus Christ joined them together.
Inasmuch, therefore, as Revelation 11:18 depicts the giving of rewards to the whole company of the
redeemed, we may be sure that this also is the time of the resurrection of the just.
It is relevant to point out here how fatal is the language of Revelation 11:18 to a new version of the pre-
trib scheme that has been issued in the last decade or so. Some theorists are now teaching--in contrast to
the early leaders--that the saints will be rewarded and judged at the Coming, and not the Glorious
Appearing of Christ.44 In other words, they mean to say that, when the Lord comes "for the Church" --
before the Seventieth Week of Daniel--the saved will be rewarded immediately. This certainly obviates
the difficulty of Luke 14:14. But whilst it is true that the saints are rewarded at the resurrection, it is
utterly opposed to the passage in Revelation 11:18 to assert that they will be rewarded years and possibly
generations before the Day of the Lord, as these writers assume. The words are clear, and it is impossible
to evade them. The Elders burst out into thanksgiving, because the time for the inauguration of the
Messianic Kingdom has come, and the time "to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the
saints, and them that fear thy name, the small and the great" (R.V.). According to the theory, the
prophets, saints, and God-fearers are rewarded years even before the first trumpet sounds; according to
Scripture, they are judged and rewarded at the time of the seventh trumpet. Could contradiction be more
hopeless? It will be objected that Revelation 11:18 refers only to the saints who, ex hypothesi, will arise
after the Church has been raptured. But such a suggestion is inadmissible; for it means to say that "the
prophets, the saints, and them that fear thy name" have no connection either with the Congregation of the
O.T. or with the Church of the New! Such a preposterous suggestion need not detain us long. To take
only one expression-- "thy servants the prophets." Can there be a doubt that the O.T. and N.T. prophets
are here included? In Revelation 10:7 the same expression is used, 45 and its meaning is not doubtful: "But
in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be
finished, as he hath declared (evangelized) to his servants the prophets."
Here the O.T. prophets are undoubtedly included, and possibly those of the New. And there can be no
doubt, if sound principles of exegesis are to guide us, that they are referred to in Revelation 11:18, which
occurs in the same vision. This being so, the scheme breaks down; for it presupposes that "all the saved
ones" --including the O.T. prophets and saints--will have been judged and rewarded years before the
seventh trumpet sounds; whereas it is the doctrine of our text that they are so judged at the Last Trumpet,
on the Day of the Lord.
44Cf. ex. gr. Miss A. R. Habershon: “The judgment-seat of Christ... will take place at His coming to the air for
His saints.... All the saved ones up to the time of His coming to the air will be judged according to their works,
in order that they may receive commendation.” Parables, pp. 93-4See also Anderson, Forgotten
Truths, Chapter 11, and Hogg-Vine, Thessalonians, pp. 85-8, and Touching the Coming, vi.
45In the Revelation alone the phrase “(the) prophets” occurs in the following passages: 10:7; 11:18; 16:6;
28:20, 24; 22:6, 9; cf, 11:10. The reader may judge whether all these instances mean prophets other than
those of Ancient Israel and the Christian Church.
Page: 55
The only interpretation of Revelation 11:18 that avoids the difficulties and contradictions examined is
that which combines the elements of truth in both schools of pre-trib advocates, to the exclusion of their
errors. With Darby, Kelly, Trotter, and C. H. M. (Charles Henry Mackintosh), we must find here the
giving of rewards to the whole company of the O.T. and N.T. saints; with Habershon and Anderson, we
must associate this--as Christ so emphatically said--with "the resurrection of the just." It is at the seventh
trumpet of Revelation 11:18 that the saints of Luke 14:14 are raised to life and rewarded. Paul says the
same in 1 Corinthians 15:52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
(d) The resurrection is presupposed in Revelation 11:15-18 because, in the fourth place, it is here that the
Coming of the Lord takes place. In verse 17 the Elders sing: "We give thee thanks, O Lord God, the
Almighty, which art and which wast" (R.V.). The words "and art to come" are an interpolation, and are
omitted by all modern editors and versions, including Darby’s. The omission is of profound significance;
for the expression ho erchomenos means "the Coming One," and its exclusion here, in contrast to
Revelation 1:4; 1:8; and 4:8, is because God in Christ has now come. Prior to this, He was "the Coming
One;" now He has actually come. The Last Trumpet brings us to the Coming of the Lord. The expression
"The Coming One" is a favorite title for our Lord among advocates of pre-trib theories. Let them
consider, therefore, when it is that the Coming One comes: it is not before, but after, the Seventieth Week
of Daniel. That the title "the Coming One" was applied to Christ is indubitable. It was a well-known
designation in Israel and the Church for the Messiah, our Lord. When John the Baptist sent his disciples
to Christ, his query was "Art thou the Coming One?"46 And more significant for our purpose is the
occurrence of the phrase in Hebrews 10:37: "There is still but a short time, and then The Coming One
will come, and will not delay."47 A study of Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38; Psalm 118:26; Daniel 7:73-
I4, etc., will show what is meant.
We need have no hesitation then in affirming that Revelation 11:17 indicates that "the Coming One"
comes at this point, and that, therefore, the resurrection of the saints takes place here.
Another proof that the Coming of the Lord Jesus takes place here--and not a generation earlier--is that the
Lord Himself says: "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give each one according as his
work shall be" (Rev. 22:12). The Lord’s reward for His saints is with Him; that is, at His Coming He will
reward the faithful.
(e) The resurrection of the saints is presupposed in Revelation 11:15-18, in the fifth place, because the
Last Trumpet brings the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom according to Isaiah 25:8; 16:19; Daniel
12:2-3, 13; John 6:39-54; Luke 14:14-15; 20:34; 1 Corinthians 15:50, 54.
I conclude our examination of the seventh trumpet in the words of one of the greatest living scholars, and
the most eminent advocate of Pre-millennialism:
At the seventh blast of the trumpet, which is closely connected with the fifth and sixth by 9:12,
11:14, in spite of their being separated by the episode in 10:1, 11:14, there is again as in the case
of the opening of the seventh seal, no description of what happens; but we have here expressed by
46 Matthew 11:3 Darby’s translation. So also Moffatt, Wade, and Weymouth.

47 Weymouth’s version; so Moffatt.
Page: 56
the songs of praise in heaven, just as in the former case by the silence, what takes place when the
seventh act is performed. God and Christ have begun their world rule (11:15). God is no longer
the One who is to come in the future (11:17; cf. per contra 1. 4 ho erchomenos) but the One who
has come to judgment in order to punish enemies and to reward the godly. It is, in fact, "the last
trump," of which Christian prophecy had already spoken elsewhere (1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:12).
As announced beforehand in 10:7, and as we saw it in 8:1, the end has again been reached; but it
is not described.48
So also Canon Faussett:49
The words "at the last trump the dead shall be raised" (1 Cor. 15:52) refer to the righteous only, as
the whole context proves. The trumpet is "last," not in the sense of sounding the earth’s death-
knell before its burning, but as last of the seven, which close our present age, and usher in, with
preliminary judgments on the Anti-Christian foes, Christ’s reign on the earth, as Revelation 11:5
proves: "The seventh angel sounded and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms
of this world are become the kingdom of the Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and
ever."50
(a) Revelation 10:4-6 (R.V.).
One more passage in the Revelation remains to be considered. It reads as follows:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the
souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and
such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their
forehead, and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest
48 Theodore Zahn: Int., iii., p. 398.

49 The Second Advent, pp. 131-2, “British Weekly” extra, 1887.
50 The contents of the Seventh Trumpet may be summarized as follows:
(a) Upon the World.
1. Jehovah assumes the Sovereignty.
2. The Messianic Kingdom is established.
(b) Upon the Ungodly.
1. The wrath of the Nations (Ps. 2) gives place to the wrath of the Lamb (cf. 6th seal).
2. The destroyers of the earth (Antichrist and his hosts) are destroyed (cf. 19:19 ff.).
(c) Upon the people of God.
1. The Coming One comes.
2. The holy dead are raised and judged.
3. The prophets, saints and godly are rewarded.
Page: 57
of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; over these the second death hath no
power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Into the millennarian controversy that long raged over this passage, it is unnecessary now to enter. The
present volume presupposes that both resurrections--between which lies the thousand years’ reign of
Christ--are literal, and that any other interpretation is a violation of sound exegesis.
What concerns us at present, however, is merely to ascertain the time of this resurrection, relative to the
Day of the Lord.
What conclusion can we draw from the vision in Revelation 20:1-6? Just this, that here we have the
clearest refutation possible of the pre-trib system; for, according to those theories, the first resurrection is
to take place at least seven years before the Day of the Lord and the millennium: some time even before
the rise of Antichrist: according to this vision of the Apocalypse, the first resurrection takes place in
immediate association with the destruction of Antichrist, and the establishment of the Messianic
Kingdom. Thus we have exactly the same teaching as in all the earlier Scriptures.
The theorists plead that the O.T. saints, and the Church of the New, have already been raised prior to the
Day of the Lord and this vision of the Apocalypse. The reply to this is simple. Not a word is said by John
in the whole of the Revelation of any such resurrection. Nothing can be found of an earlier one, either
here or in any other part of the Word of God. If such a prior resurrection was known to John--as the
theory presupposes--then how is it conceivable that he would call this resurrection the first? John ought
to have written: "this is the second resurrection; blessed and holy is he that hath part in
the second resurrection." But that he wrote first resurrection will be proof to all candid readers that he
knew of none before it.
It is contended by pre-trib writers that the first resurrection extends over a long period. It began with and
includes the resurrection of those raised during our Lord’s ministry; of Christ Himself; then--in the
future--of the O.T. saints and N.T. Church at the "Coming;" and finally, of the "tribulation" saints at the
beginning of the millennium. This is all very interesting; but may we not have some Scripture proof for
it? Where do they read that the resurrection of Lazarus and others raised at the time of Christ began the
first resurrection? For one thing, as Meyer and others have pointed out, we have no reason to suppose that
the people so raised did not die again. Indeed, this is necessitated by the emphatic declaration of the
Apostles that Christ--not Lazarus--was "the first-born from the dead."51 Moreover, those then raised,
were still in the image of the earthly. It will be otherwise at the first resurrection.
On Revelation 1:5, Abp. Trench remarks:52
Christ is indeed "the first begotten of the dead," notwithstanding that such risings from the grave
as that of the widow’s son, and Jairus’ daughter, and Lazarus, and his who revived at the touch of
51 Colossians 1:18; cf. Revelation 1:5, and especially Acts 26:23. See A.V., Goodspeed, Moffatt, and Wade.
52Seven Churches of Asia, p. ii. Edersheim remarks that the above cases were instances of “resuscitation”
rather than of resurrection, ii., p. 397. So even W. Trotter, p. 454.
Page: 58
Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:27), went before. "None of them could be truly said to be ‘Begotten
from the dead,’ but rather begotten to die again; for to be born and begotten from the dead
includes an everlasting freedom from the power and approach of death" (Jackson). But there was
for them no repeal of the sentence of death, but a respite only; not to say that even during their
period of respite they carried about with them a body of death.
Trench then quotes the apt remark of Alcuin: "He is therefore named the ‘First-begotten’ because all who
rose before Him were about to die again."
We may therefore eliminate these cases of Lazarus and others raised in the past, for the simple reason
that they are yet to rise in the first resurrection at the Last Day.
"But," our objector will insist, "you must admit in view of 1 Corinthians 15:20 and 23, that Christ’s
resurrection is connected with that of His people." Certainly it is a pledge or guarantee of the future
resurrection of His people, but how does this prove that there are going to be two "first" resurrections in
the future, separated by a generation?
If the resurrection of the saints is to take place at the Millennium, how can there be another "first"
resurrection years after it, yet still at the beginning of the Millennium?
Having thus disposed of the sophistry that seeks to find a resurrection prior to the "first," let us consider
further the words of the vision (Rev. 20:4-5).There are three distinct classes mentioned in the passage.
(a) First, there are those of whom John says: "I saw thrones and they sat upon them, and judgment was
given unto them" (4a).
Who are these? The whole body of saints who live to see the Parousia at this time; they are transferred
from earth to occupy thrones in the kingly rule of Christ; it is the Rapture of the survivors in 1
Thessalonians 4:17. It is not said that this class was raised from the dead; but simply that they took the
thrones prepared for them. We have seen them suffering and enduring throughout the book; now they are
seen as over-comers who inherit the sovereignty in the kingdom. It is here that they receive the Morning
Star.
A decisive conclusion follows from the enthronement of the living saints at 20:4a; it is that Darbyist
theories are excluded. These presuppose53 that the heavenly redeemed, including those who survive to the
Parousia, occupy their thrones and are glorified several years before the Millennium. We are to see all
this in the Twenty-four Elders crowned and seated in chapter 4. But our passage locates the sitting upon
thrones at the beginning of the Millennium. The language is clear and decisive on the point. John says: "I
saw thrones;" obviously they were empty. Then he adds: "and they sat upon them;" that is, he sees a
company in the very act of sitting down on their thrones. It is now, not a generation earlier, that the living
saints are rewarded and ascend their thrones. Matthew 19:28, says the same thing of the Apostles,
locating their enthronement at this very time.
53See the commentaries of Kelly, F. W. Grant, Ottman, Darby, and, in fact, of all their expositors, except
Thomas Newberry and Dr. Bullinger, on the Twenty-four Elders in Rev. 4-5.
Page: 59
(b) John mentions a second class that is honored at this time: "I saw the souls of them that had been
beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God" (R.V.).
(c) Thirdly, he speaks of "such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark
upon their forehead and upon their hand."
Of these two classes we read that "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
It is contended by theorists that these two classes consist only of saints who are to be converted and
martyred after the Church is removed to heaven;54 they are those who die during, or just before, the Great
Tribulation, and have no connection with the Church in Christ Jesus. There is some truth, but more error
in these views. It is true that the third class consists of those who fall in the last Great Tribulation.
Whether they have any connection with the Church, I leave for the present. But it is thoroughly wrong to
limit the second class--those "that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God" --
to latter-day saints, martyred, as Grant says, "in the time of the seals." It is wrong to assert that this class
includes no Christians, but is restricted to half-enlightened Jews and Gentiles raised a generation after the
Church. The proof of this is simple the Church herself is not raised until this very time. Such is the
doctrine of Christ, Paul, and of John in this very book (Rev. 11:15-18). Secondly, without raising
questions to be fully discussed later, it is to be insisted, and strongly insisted upon, that "beheaded for the
testimony of Jesus and for the word of God" is a description, and a glorious description, of the
martyrdom of a Christian. Unnumbered multitudes throughout the Church’s history, including Peter and
Paul, have been slain "for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God." It is here they rise.
As if to shut out once for all the theories that have been based upon this passage, John himself has
interpreted it for us. In chapter 1:9, we read: "I John, your brother, and partaker with you in the
tribulation and kingdom and patience, which are in Jesus, was in the isle called Patmos, for the word of
God and the testimony of Jesus" (R.V.).
Here is the same expression, and it is applied by John the Apostle to himself. In his valuable work on The
Seven Churches, Abp. Trench says:
The unprejudiced reader will hardly be persuaded that St. John sets himself forth here as any other
than such a constrained dweller in Patmos, one dwelling there not by his own choice, but who had
been banished thither "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (p. 21).
Some have taught that "for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus" in verse 9 means that John went
to Patmos to receive the Revelation. Bullinger is characteristically dogmatic upon the point. But the idea
is negated by the use elsewhere of the phrase dia ton logon (Rev. 6:9, 20:4; Matthew 13:21; Mark 4:17;
Cf. 1 Peter 3:14; Col. 4:3; 2 Tim. 1:12). It can only mean "because of the word of God;" that is, his
activity as a preacher was the cause of his banishment. Bullinger’s bold denial of this banishment, in the
interests of his wild theory that the Seven Churches of Asia were not yet in existence when John wrote
the Revelation, and would only arise after the Rapture, need not detain us. When his exposition of the
Apocalypse came out month by month in his magazine "Things to Come" (London), he was answered
54See Kelly, Revelation, p. 417; Grant, in loco; Ottman, p. 430; Darby, Apocalypse, p. 135,
and Synopsis; Newberry, p. 118; Trotter, pp. 477-8.
Page: 60
verse by verse on Revelation 2-3 by a giant among American prophetic students, Nathaniel West, and the
refutation in "Watchword and Truth," month by month, was complete and crushing.
We may still be sure that "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" explained the reason of John’s
tribulation in A.D. 96, and the death of martyrs at that time. They were slain, in a word, because they
were Christians, that is, they adhered to Christ’s teaching and God’s word, even at the cost of their lives.
Equally certain is it, therefore, that the same expression in Revelation 20:4, must denote the same class of
people.55 To tell us that it means Christians in Revelation 1:9 and non or semi-Christians in Revelation
20:4 is to put an enormous strain on our credulity. No reasonable doubt can exist that when John says that
he saw "the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God"
come to life, he is meaning to depict the resurrection of all who, since the time of Christ, have been slain
because of their Christian service and belief. Not one syllable requires us to restrict it to those slain in the
time of the Seventieth Week. In contrast to those of the next class--who fall under Antichrist--this one
contains the resurrection of all the martyrs slain throughout the history of the Church. And it is to be
noted that it takes place at the beginning of the millennium, not several years or decades before it.
Under the Last Trumpet (Rev. 11:15-18) the government of the world had passed to our Lord, so that He
should exercise it in His kingly reign. His first acts were to raise and reward the prophets the saints and
the God-fearers--the whole company of the redeemed of both Old and New Testaments, and to destroy
the destroyers of mankind. Nothing particular had been said of the Antichrist and the Prince of this
world--the origo et foes--of the world’s sorrow. The visions of Revelation 19:11-20:1-6 describe
Antichrist’s overthrow, and the binding of Satan, and the joy that comes to the world. Nothing also had
been said in the earlier vision of the over-comers; nothing of those who had been faithful unto death. The
vision of Revelation 20:1-6 does this. The blessedness of both is more particularly described; the
survivors of the Great Tribulation sit upon thrones; it is what pre-tribs call" the Rapture." And the martyrs
of all ages rise and become kings with Christ during His kingly rule.
Sir Robert Anderson is absolutely right when he says: "The facts and events brought before us in chapter
20:4 are but an episode within the far wider prophecy of chapter 21:15" ("Things to Come," vi., p. 101).
If it is borne in mind that the Last Trumpet, like the last seal (Rev. 8:1), and the last plague (Rev. 16:27),
brings us up to the Day of the Lord (Rev. 19:7-11 ff.), and the inauguration of the Messianic reign (Rev.
20:1-6), and no farther, no doubt upon this point will remain. The first resurrection had already been
described under the seventh or Last Trumpet; it embraced the whole of the redeemed that sleep, as well
as the recompense of those who do not die before the Parousia.
It was an essential part of the Apostolic hope that all the saints would share the kingly rule of Christ at
His Appearing and Kingdom. In 1 Corinthians 6:2, we read: "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge
the world?" And the meaning has been well given by Plummer in the ICC on 1 Corinthians:
55 The expression is examined at greater length in the last chapter of this volume. A. T. Robertson says: “The
reason for (dia and the accusative) John’s presence in Patmos naturally as a result of persecution already
alluded to, not for the purpose of preaching there or of receiving the visions. See verse 2 for the phrase” (iv.,
p. 290).
Page: 61
It is in the Messianic Kingdom that the saints will share in Christ’s Reign over the created
universe. "Judge" here does not here mean "condemn," and "the world" does not mean "the evil
world."... It is not clear that krinousin here means "will pronounce judgment upon;" it is perhaps
used in the Hebraic sense of "ruling." So also in Matthew 29:28.... The saints are to share in the
final perfection of the Messianic Reign of Christ. They themselves are to appear before the judge
(Rom. 14:10; 2 Tim. 4:) and are then to share His glory (2 Tim. 4:8; Rom. 8:17; Dan. 7:22; Rev.
2:26-27; 3:21; 20:4) (p. 111).
This is exactly the doctrine of Revelation. At the Last Trumpet (Rev. 11:18) the saints "appear before the
judge" (Cf. 12:12): at 20:4a--which is immediately subsequent--they themselves sit on thrones and "share
His glory."
In the light of Daniel 7:9, 13-14, 22, 27, 1 Corinthians 6:2, 4:8, 15:22-23, 2 Timothy 2:11-12, Luke
12:32, there can be no doubt that it is the whole company of the heavenly redeemed--the prophets, saints,
and godly of Revelation 11:18--who are here raised or changed at the Parousia, to share the kingly rule of
our Lord.
It is wrong, therefore, to assert, as some advocates56 1 and most critics of Pre-millennialism assert, that
the first resurrection is limited to martyrs. Such an idea is foreign to all Scripture, and is not required by
our passage. In Luke 14:14, it is "the just" who are raised; in John 6:39, 44, it is "the Elect" (Cf. Matthew
24:31), in John 6:40, "believers;" in 6:54, those who feed on the Son of Man; in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,
"the dead in Christ;" in 1 Corinthians 15:23, "they that are Christ’s;" whilst John teaches in Revelation
11:18 that the whole company of the redeemed will rise and be rewarded; and Revelation 20:4a
presupposes it; we have only to interpret the latter Scripture in the larger context of the Apocalypse, and
the whole N.T.
In confirmation of our general view of Revelation 20:4, I append the words of two writers with large
claims on the attention of students of prophecy. In the first extract Canon Faussett extends the denotation
of those in the first class, and, in the last resort, he is right; but, me judice (in my opinion), Zahn is the
more accurate. In the "British Weekly" debate of 1887 Faussett wrote: "Three classes are designated to
live and reign with Christ as ‘priests of God and of Christ, a thousand years;’ first, the saints caught up to
meet and return with the Lord: ‘they sat upon thrones;’ secondly, the martyrs beheaded for the witness of
Jesus; thirdly, ‘such as worshipped not the beast’ (world-power)." Zahn interprets in his INT (vol. 3, p.
400).
With this the seventh vision (19:11-21:8) is introduced. Here is at last represented the event which
was by intimation anticipated as far back as 8:1, and again in 11:15-18 and 19:7, announced as
being in the immediate future. Jesus Himself comes upon the scene of action in order that after
overcoming Antichrist and binding Satan, He may enter upon His kingly rule of a thousand years
upon earth--a reign in which there shall participate not only the congregation who live to witness
His coming, but also those who remained true till death, and who on that day are to be brought to
life. Not till the millennium has expired do the general judgment, the destruction of death, and the
creation of a new world take place.
56 Cf. de Burgh on the Apocalypse; Van Oosterzee, N. T. Theology and The Person and Work of the Redeemer.
Page: 62
Before leaving the Book of Revelation and its doctrine of the saints’ resurrection, it is necessary to
examine an argument that is confidently put forward by pre-tribs to prove their theory of a resurrection of
the holy dead, some years before the coming of Antichrist. It is drawn from the vision of heaven recorded
in chapters 4-5 of the Apocalypse. Darby and other expositors contended that the Twenty-four Elders
crowned and seated on thrones, represent the saints of Israel and the Church, who are raised, transfigured,
and raptured at the Second Coming. As the Elders are seen in heaven before the opening of the seals, the
blowing of the trumpets, and the outpouring of the vials, we are therefore to conclude that the Church
will be raptured to heaven before the trials of the End-time.57
If the Twenty-four Elders represent the raptured saints in heaven before the Seventieth Week, why do we
not see the saints themselves instead of twenty-four symbols? All pre-tribs admit that John was
transported in spirit to the time that immediately precedes the Day of the Lord; to the time, moreover,
when the Church, ex hypothesi, is already in heaven. Well, where is the Church? We do not see her, but
simply twenty-four heavenly beings. It will not do to say that the Apocalypse is a symbolical book,
because in every other case where John sees the saints in heaven he sees the saints themselves, and not
merely symbols or representatives. In chapter 6:9-11 we see the souls of the martyrs slain before the End-
time; in 7:9-17 the innumerable multitude of martyrs who fall in the last tribulation under Antichrist, and
stand before the throne; in 15:2-3 those who had gained the victory over the beast and his image. Since,
therefore, John in vision saw heaven when the Church, ex hypothesi, was already there, why did he not
say," I saw the saints of the Rapture and the first resurrection?" Why is it that he sees only twenty-four
individuals?
Even if we admit that the Twenty-four Elders symbolize redeemed beings, we can have no certainty
whom they represent. Indeed, on this hypothesis, there are about as many interpretations as there are
Elders. Some take them as symbolical of the Christian ministry; others of the Patriarchs and Apostles; yet
others of the O.T. believers; others again of the disembodied spirits in heaven. How are we going to
decide among the rival theories? John has nowhere expressed his preference for any of them; so that any
symbolical interpretation must be guesswork. Even pre-tribs writers cannot agree among themselves.
Newberry adopts the view that the Elders do not signify the Church at all, but are "symbolic
representatives of the saints of the former dispensation from Adam and Abel to Pentecost" (p. 40). The
Church which is Christ’s Body this writer finds in the "four living creatures."
In view of all this uncertainty I venture to think that to build an imposing superstructure on the
identification of the Twenty-four Elders is extremely precarious.
If the Twenty-four Elders represent the saints previously raised and raptured to heaven before the Great
Tribulation begins, why is it that no mention is made of these events in the verses preceding the vision of
the Elders? Is it reasonable to believe that the most momentous event in the whole history of the race--
the Second Coming of Christ, followed by the resurrection of the sleeping saints, and their rapture,
together with that of the surviving believers, should take place, and yet not a single syllable be recorded
of it?
See the pre-trib commentaries generally. I do not give extracts here, because the view is already
57
well-known, and needs only to be stated.

Page: 63
If the reader can persuade himself, as C.H.M. (p. 47) does, that "no one can understand the book of the
Apocalypse who does not see this" --the unrecorded coming--we cannot; for it compels us to believe that
a volume that, as Burgh has said, is, "the book of the second advent," does not treat of the Second Advent
at all, but of the third or fourth. The Secret Coming is so very secret, that John passes it over in silence.
The Church is on earth in Revelation 2-3; the Twenty-four Elders are in heaven at chapter 4; therefore,
argues the theorist, the Advent of Christ took place between the two!
It is amusing to read the explanations that pre-tribs give of the failure of John to record the Secret
Coming and Rapture. One and all tell us that the Apocalypse is a "book of judgment," and, moreover,
being "symbolical," does not lend itself to a plain declaration on the subject. "The judicial character of
the Revelation," says Kelly in The Revelation Expounded, "excludes that wondrous act" (p. 84). Indeed,
one gets the idea that if the Rapture had been recorded in Revelation our friends would have felt
constrained to refer it to the Jewish Remnant, or some other company in their dispensational system. For
to expect a clear statement of the Rapture of the Church in a book of prophecy and judgment, is not at all
an appropriate thing. So it is gravely argued! Yet it is these same writers who clutch, like drowning men
at a straw, at the mere change of John’s viewpoint in Revelation 4:1 as a type of rapture, and with
eagerness deduce a pre-tribulation rapture from the ascension of the Man-child (12:5), nineteen hundred
years ago! At one time a rapture in Revelation is quite unsuitable; at another it is an absolute necessity!
"But," our friends insist, "if you do not admit a rapture at Revelation 4:1, then you must confess that a
rapture cannot be found at all in the Apocalypse. It is not mentioned at 1:7; 11:17-18; 19:6-20; 20:1-6."
Well, if no mention is made in the Apocalypse of the Rapture, surely it is the part of a careful student to
enquire whether the Christian hope is not portrayed under different imagery and expressions. And I reply
that it is. If John does not describe the Rapture it is because his heart is indicting a far better matter; he is
setting forth the real Christian hope, which is association with the King in His glory. To quote a pre-trib
writer:
The Rapture is an incident of the Coming, spoken of, directly, once and only once; and then given
as a new revelation to meet the sorrows of the Lord’s bereaved. It is never repeated. This in itself
has its value and beauty, as I have dwelt on elsewhere; but it may well be that, in our joy at the
recovery of this truth, we have given it a prominence and place not quite in accord with the
prominence and place given it in the Scriptures. Personally, I have long so thought. 58
Such is the admission of a friendly writer; and if such a damaging concession is made from within the
camp, what must be the sober truth from without? It is not merely that these writers have given the
Rapture "a prominence and place that is not quite in accord with the prominence and place given it in the
Scriptures," but that they have made a fetish of what is merely "an incident in the Coming;" of an
incident, moreover, that has no prominence whatever in Scripture, since on this writer’s own admission
the Rapture is spoken of directly "once, and only once."
Christendom is like unto a man that was invited to go up a high tower that soared to heaven, five hundred
cubits and ten, and from the pinnacle to see an expanse of fields wherein did move sheep, and oxen, and
horses, and other beasts of the plain; and there was a pageant of waving grain, of trees and streams and
58 F. C. Jennings: The Time of The End, p. 13.

Page: 64
landscapes, to make glad the heart of man; and behind was a chain of mountains over which the sun
would rise on the morrow. Now that man, when he was told that the kingdom of nature was to be seen
after a journey to the top, and that the going was thrilling, being a dull man, did lie awake at night,
saying," Oh, the elevator!"
It is curious that pre-tribs, have not seen that, if the Rapture is our hope, as they insist, then we are forced
to believe that Paul dealt with the Christian hope only in an odd verse or two in one Epistle, and the other
Apostles in their writings never dealt with it at all. The glorious fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, where
the highest glory of the redeemed is described, must henceforth be considered as not setting forth the
Christian hope--as Bullinger latterly advocated--since it contains no reference to the Rapture. It is time
that Bible students rid themselves of this obsession, and came to distinguish between the Christian hope
and a "mere incident of the coming."
Here then is our reply to those who tell us that we ought to see a rapture of the Church at Revelation 4:1,
since otherwise the Apocalypse does not refer to our hope: the Rapture is not our hope, but a mere
"incident of the coming;" our hope is Christ the Lord (1 Tim. 1:1), and the heavenly glory that follows for
His redeemed at the first resurrection. And these are so clear in the Apocalypse that he who runs may
read.
At chapter 20:4-6, we read: "I saw thrones and they sat upon them." Who are these? Beyond all question
the saints to whom the sovereignty has been promised. And foremost among them, as Zahn says, 59 will be
"the congregation who live to witness His coming." It is "the saints transfigured at Christ’s coming, who
‘sit upon thrones.’"60 No doubt this class will include the large number of believers who shall have died a
peaceful death, but it is composed primarily of "those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the
Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17). Here is the greatest misfortune of the whole system; the first resurrection is the
grave of all the new theories of the Advent. The Apostle has condemned the new program by linking the
first resurrection with the millennium; and for most people at least there can be no resurrection before
"the first."
It is at Revelation 20:4, not 4:1, that the resurrection, rapture, and enthronement of the saints take place.
An incidental point in support of this, and worth noticing, is that in Revelation 4:4, John, when he
ascended to heaven, saw the Elders already in a sitting position on the thrones. There is no suggestion
that the Elders had just sat down on them when John had the vision. From the language used they may
have been there since the creation; whereas the theory requires that they should have taken their thrones
simultaneously with John’s arrival in heaven; for the Apostle’s rapture, according to the theory,
symbolized the Rapture of the saints whom the Twenty-four Elders are supposed to represent. In chapter
20:4, however, the Seer saw the redeemed transferred from their places here below to the thrones that
God had prepared for them.
59 INT, iii., p. 400.

60 Faussett, The Second Advent “British Weekly,” p. 132.
Page: 65
That the opinion should arise that the Twenty-four Elders represent the saints risen and raptured, is
natural enough in view of the ancient readings of Revelation 5:9-10. For there we read the following song
of the elders:
Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and halt
redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and tongue, and people, and nation; and
hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Certainly these words seem conclusive that here we have the redeemed. All this, however, is changed
now. Both the R.V. and American R.V., and every independent translation that has since appeared, have
radically altered the reading and translation. The R.V. bids us read the song of the elders thus:
They sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for
thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and
people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign
upon the earth.
It is pleasing as well as just to record Darby’s absolute fairness in rejecting the old reading.
It is scarcely necessary to point out how the new translation has swept away completely whatever basis
existed for making these Twenty-four Elders symbols of the heavenly redeemed; for not only do they not
associate themselves with saved beings, but they hold themselves detached; they celebrate, not their own
redemption, but that of men, and of men, moreover, gathered out of every nation and tribe and tongue and
people, including Israel; in other words, they celebrate the salvation of the Ecclesia of God, for neither
Scripture nor the new tradition knows of any other election saved out of all peoples, prior to the
Seventieth Week of Daniel. The natural inference from these considerations is that the Twenty-four
Elders do not belong to the Church, and do not symbolize the Church of God. "The true reading," says
Bullinger in his Apocalypse, "separates the singers from the Redeemed, and makes them heavenly beings
who need no redemption, but who sing of the redemption wrought for others" (p. 243).
This brings us to a further point, that there is absolutely no evidence that these Twenty-four Elders are
human beings at all, or have any connection with the redeemed. A careful consideration of all the
passages61 where they are mentioned will warrant the following conclusions:-
(i) They are glorious heavenly beings taking the lead in the praise and worship of God.
(ii) They celebrate with joy each crisis in the onward march of events to the consummation of the
Kingdom.
(iii) They seem never to have known the experience of conflict, sin, pardon and victory; yet they rejoice
over the blessedness of those who have, and give glory to God for His grace in the victory of those who
overcome.
61 Revelation 4:4, 10; 5:5,6,8,11,14; 7:11,13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4.

Page: 66
(iv) They distinctly disassociate themselves from the prophets, saints, and godly of ages past who rise in
the resurrection at the Last Trumpet, and are rewarded. This passage indicates that they have not known
death or service on earth.
(v) Acting as assessors prior to the great consummation, they disappear from the scene when the new
assessors--the great multitude of the heavenly redeemed--sit down on thrones and exercise judgment with
the Lord Jesus at His coming. See Revelation 10:4; 1 Corinthians 4:2; 4:8; Matthew 19:28.
In view of these considerations we are warranted in concluding that these Twenty-four Elders are not
redeemed beings. The following words from the commentary of Dr. Anderson Scott in The Century
Bible give, in our view, the true interpretation:
The difficulty of finding any satisfactory explanation of these figures as representative human
beings, suggests the question whether they belong to this order at all.... And since the other
figures in this scene, the "living creatures," belong undoubtedly to the order of heavenly beings,
antecedent probability lies with those who, like Spitta and Gunkel, maintain that the elders belong
to this order--that they are angels. From Isaiah 24:23 we learn that the name of "elders" (R. V.
"ancients") was given to certain angelic beings, who seem to have been conceived of as a kind of
Divine consistory assembled in the presence of God (p. 163).
In a war-time article ("British Weekly," September 28th, 1916), the late Sir W. Robertson Nicoll
paraphrased the view of that great expositor, A. B. Davidson, on the Sealed Book and the Twenty-four
Elders:
These spectators are inspired by admiration and not by gratitude. The sacrificial work of Christ
may have removed their perplexities and satisfied their longing. They may have felt the wave of
stillness and peace that passed over the universe when the Lamb of God was slain and took away
the sin of the world, but it is in the main a judgment from the outside that they form. Their praise
of Christ is that He has redeemed men of every tribe and made them kings, and His work, in their
estimation is the central moral deed of the universe, qualifying Him to unveil the book of the
Divine purposes.
We are not left to the Elders of Isaiah 24:23 for help in identifying the four and twenty Elders on thrones.
Paul makes reference62 in two of his Epistles to angelic Lords or Rulers, who exercise authority in the
heavenlies. In Ephesians he tells us that Christ has been exalted "in the heavenly sphere, above all the
angelic Rulers, Authorities, Powers, and Lords;" and in Colossians the Apostle informs us that all things,
"including Thrones, angelic Lords, celestial Powers and Rulers, have been created by Him and for Him."
Now whilst it may be true that the Apostle in Colossians shows a "spirit of impatience with this elaborate
angelology," as Lightfoot puts it in his Colossians (p. 150), his references to them in Ephesians "show
that he regarded them as actually existent and intelligent forces."63 Why, therefore, when John came to
describe the vision he had of heaven, should we be surprised to find twenty-four "thrones," occupied by
62 Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16, Moffatt’s translation.

63 Dean Armitage Robinson, Ephesians, p. 157.
Page: 67
angelic lords, who are yet in subjection to Christ? Indeed, we should rather be surprised, in view of other
Scriptures, if he failed to mention them.
Bullinger, also, I believe, gives the true interpretation of the Elders in the following words, taken from his
commentary on the Apocalyspe:
These four and twenty elders are the princely leaders, rulers, and governors of Heaven’s worship.
They are kings and priests. They were not and cannot be, the Church of God. They are seen
already crowned when the throne is first set up. They are crowned now. They were not and are not
redeemed, for they distinguish between themselves and those who are redeemed. See their song
below (chap. 5:9-10 and R.V.). They speak of the time of "giving the reward to thy servants"
(10:18), not to us servants. They are heavenly, unfallen beings, and therefore they are arrayed in
white robes (p. 219).
This same view of the Twenty-four Elders is being taken by most of the great exegetes in Germany,
Britain and United States: Zahn, Charles, Peake, Moffatt, H. T. Andrews, and Beckwith; these, and, in
fact, pretty well all recent commentators outside pre-tribs interpret the Elders as leaders in the praise and
worship of heaven. The old interpretation is abandoned, except by those who need it as a prop to an
edifice reared on insecure foundations.
VI. The Parable Of The Tares And The Wheat
Up till now we have been examining the Scriptures on the resurrection of the saints. And we found that
these all located that event at the Day of the Lord, when Messiah inaugurates His kingly rule. It is
necessary now to examine some Scriptures in the N.T. that deal with the Church’s position in the world at
the End-time. The first to occupy our attention is one that our Lord spoke for the express purpose of
enlightening us about the course and consummation of this present Age. Here again, as formerly, we
confine ourselves to texts that pre-tribs themselves allow us to apply without loss of mental coherence, or
dispensational rectitude.
Matthew 13:24-30. This Scripture relates the Parable of the Tares, which is interpreted by our Lord in
verses 36-43 of the same chapter.
As to the general significance of this parable, little doubt obtains amongst prophetic students. Like other
parables in Matthew 13, it describes the state of things following everywhere from the preaching of the
word of God throughout the Gospel dispensation. It will save time to state the purpose of the seven
parables of Matthew 13 in the words of some of our leading opponents.
Kelly in his Matthew says:
The Holy Ghost is conveying fully God’s mind about the new testimony, commonly called
Christianity, and even Christendom . . . . We have seven parables here, for the purpose of giving a
complete account of the new order of things about to begin-Christendom and Christianity, the true
as well as the spurious (pp. 263, 265).
Page: 68
Anderson remarks in his Coming Prince:64
The thirteenth chapter is prophetic of the state of things which was to intervene between the time
of His rejection and His return in glory to claim the place which in His humiliation was denied
Him. Instead of the proclamation of the Kingdom, He taught them the mysteries of the Kingdom
(p. 162).
In the same vein Scofield remarks:
The seven parables of Matthew 13, called by the Lord "mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven" (v.
11), taken together, describe the result of the presence of the Gospel in the world during the
present age, that is, the time of seed-sowing, which began with our Lord’s personal ministry, and
ends with the "harvest" (vv. 40-43). Briefly, that result is the mingled tares and wheat, good fish
and bad, in the sphere of Christian profession. It is Christendom.65
We are therefore warranted in asserting that the "wheat" in the parable represents the whole company of
Christians won by the Gospel, and that the "tares" represent the mass of mere professors in Christendom.
The former class is the sons of God (Matthew 13:38, 43); the latter, the sons of the evil One.
The vital question now arises whether the parable affords us any information when the wheat will be
removed: when the saints will be separated from the ungodly. In the parable itself we read:
Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers,
Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into
my barn (v. 30).
So far, therefore, from the saints’ being raptured to heaven some years before the judgment of professors,
it is here indicated in the clearest manner that the rooting out of professors and the gathering of Christians
take place at the same crisis. But even this is not all; not only do we read that tares and wheat are to
"grow together until the harvest," but our Lord in His interpretation states definitely that "the harvest is
the consummation of the age" (v. 39, R.V. mg.).
In view of this plain statement it is impossible on candid principles to maintain the theory of a rapture
some years prior to the End of the Age. Nevertheless, pre-tribs are hardy enough to attempt the task.
Here is the scheme as held by Darby, Kelly, Scofield, and others: the phrase "‘time of the harvest’
implies a certain Period occupied with the various processes of ingathering."66 At the beginning of this
period the angels are sent forth in a purely providential way, immediately before the Lord’s Coming "for
the Church." In some mysterious way, secret and providential, the angels gather professors into
64 Cf. The Bible and Modern Criticism, pp. 204-6.

65Reference Bible, p. 1014. Cf. Ottman; “the wheat-field mingled with tares is plainly enough a parable of the
present Christian dispensation,” p. 351. See also Darby, Synopsis, in loco; Bland, p. 83.
66See Kelly, Matthew, p. 278; cf. Ottman, pp. 351-2; Darby, Synopsis, in loco; Scofield, Reference Bible, p.
1016.
Page: 69
bundles in readiness for judgment. But no judgment whatever really takes place yet. The Lord then
comes for the true Church, symbolized by the wheat, and gathers it to Himself. The ungodly professors,
however, who had previously been bundled by the angels, are still left in the world for a number of years,
until the Lord comes forth in judgment. The "consummation of the age," according to this scheme, is a
period of at least seven years, but it may run to seventy or a thousand.
Such is a fair statement of the position adopted. Can it be maintained? I think it can be shown that a lamer
justification could not be offered; the reasoning coolly assumes as proved the very thing they require to
prove; not only that, it involves a glaring contradiction, alike of itself and the Scriptures.
Where is the proof that "the end of the age" is a period of years beginning with the Rapture and ending
with the Day of the Lord? Not a line is offered beyond the requirements of their prophetic program.
Further proof of this is seen when we ask our opponents how long the "consummation" is going to last;
no certain reply is forthcoming. Some assert it will be but seven years, others that it will be about thirty-
five years, and Anderson informs us that a thousand years may elapse between the removal of the Church
and the Lord’s descent to earth! In any case, "the consummation of the age," in their view, is really a new
age altogether; an age, moreover, that itself will have a consummation. Two "second" comings, two
"first" resurrections, two "last" trumpets, and two "ends" of the age--this is the program.
This, however, is not what our Lord taught. The age He had in mind was the present evil one, during
which Israel is in unbelief, Jerusalem trodden under foot, Gentile dominion holds sway, and the saints of
God suffer for His name. But this evil age will have a consummation: ‘Messiah appears in His glory;
Israel repents; the sleeping saints rise; Antichrist is given to the burning flame, and the Kingdom is
established. This is everywhere the "consummation of the age." Proof of this is found in Matthew 24:3,
where we read that the disciples came to our Lord and asked, "when shall these things be? and what shall
be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?" (RX. mg.). Here the Lord’s Coming in
glory is linked with the End of the Age. 67 Now what put the idea into the disciples’ minds that Christ’s
Coming in glory would take place at the End of the Age? Undoubtedly the closing verses of Matthew 23.
Edersheim in commenting on them says:
To His prediction [of the ruin of the City and the utter desolation of the Temple] had been added
these words: "Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the
Name of the Lord." In their view, this could refer only to His second coming, and to the end of the
world as connected with it. This explains the twofold question which the four now addressed to
Christ: "Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the
consummation of the age?" (ii., p. 432).
67In Zahn-Komm. on Matthew (in loco), Zahn quotes important evidence from MSS. and versions for
“consummation” without the article in verse 3. And the Greek texts of Westcott and Hort, Weymouth,
Tregelles, and Nestle (1930) actually give this as the true text. Zahn points out that, if this is so, then the
Apostles asked of the Lord “a single sign for both”--the Parousia and End of the World-period. Darby
brackets the article before “Consummation” and points the same lesson. In other words, the best text favors
the view of the text above, that the Parousia coincides with the End of the Age.
Page: 70
Now this excellent passage defines for us the phrase "the consummation of the age." When Messiah
appears in His glory, and Israel looks believingly, penitently upon Him, then the consummation of the
Age will have come. "‘The end’ to which He pointed is that of the age which will be brought to a close
by His coming as Son of Man" (p. 126). Thus Anderson remarks in his Forgotten Truths concerning "the
End" in Matthew 24:14.
Returning now to Matthew 13:39, it is certain that, when our Lord says "the harvest is the consummation
of the age," He means that the wheat will be gathered and the tares burned at the time of His Coming in
glory. This obvious truth, however, overthrows the theory that the saints will be gathered seven or more
years before the End of the Age.
But if anything was lacking to refute pre-tribs explanation of the parable, it is found in their treatment of
the burning of the tares. The wording of the parable, "Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in
bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn" (v. 30), and the words of the Lord’s
interpretation (vv. 41-43), that professors are gathered for judgment at the same crisis as the
transfiguration of the righteous, naturally caused great embarrassment to men who separated them by
several years; for it is a favorite feature of the system that the Rapture will be secret, and that mere
professors will be ignorant of the Lord’s Coming. How, therefore, could the hard fact of the bundling of
the tares at the crisis of the gathering of the wheat be explained to suit the theorists’ system? Nothing was
easier; in his Matthew (p. 278), Kelly explained it away altogether. He gravely proposes that the bundling
of the tares infers to a mere providential work on the part of the angels, among the ungodly; these will be
gathered into "worldly association" some time prior to the Rapture!
I would observe that Kelly does not display much enthusiasm or confidence in defending the suggestion.
He himself seems to feel that the ice that he stands on is extremely thin, and cannot bear the strain of a
vigorous combat with opponents on the vantage ground of solid rock. We read nothing now about "the
brayings of ignorance" and "antagonists of the truth" in reference to those from whom he differs. "I do
not pretend to say how it will be," he humbly confesses in regard to his theory of a providential bundling
of the tares, and their being left in the world unharmed and untouched for a generation before the
judgment falls, and after the wheat is gathered. And certainly if he cannot enlighten us on so important a
point he must not be surprised if plain people repudiate the system that requires so clear a departure from
the parable, and its interpretation by the Lord. For our Lord, be it noted, interprets the bundling of the
tares for us. He shows us that not some secret, providential affair is meant, but the supreme crisis of the
ungodly during this present age. Here are His words:-
As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the consummation of
the age. The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all
things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity; and shall cast them into the furnace of fire;
there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth (13:40-2; R.V. Mg.).
If our Lord had had the new theory in His mind He could scarcely have given a more crushing refutation
of it; for every line of His words is a condemnation of a secret, providential gathering of the tares into
"worldly association."
Another consideration that is fatal to Kelly’s contention has been forcibly stated by B. W. Newton in
his Second Coming:
Page: 71
If we were to adopt the doctrines of this strange theory, we should be obliged to say that
Antichrist, whose history constitutes the leading feature in the last days of this present age, is not
revealed until after the age is terminated. For if (as is asserted) the saints are to be removed from
earth before Antichrist is revealed, and if (as we know from Scripture) they will not be taken till
the end of the age (Matthew 13) when "wheat and tares" are both removed, and Christendom
ceases to exist, it is obvious that if we adopt the supposition referred to, we must say that
Antichrist is to be revealed after Christendom has ceased to exist, and after the age of evil in
which he is to act is ended. Will anyone, on reflection, affirm this?
It is very evident that if Antichrist is not to be revealed until after the wheat and tares have been
removed, he never will be revealed at all for the greater part of the Ten Kingdoms of the Roman
World which will form the very basis and strength of his power, are at present a part of the wheat
and tare field; at present they form a part of Christendom and so will continue until they are by
him seduced from their professed allegiance to Christ (pp. 15-16).
In a footnote Newton remarks:
Some have endeavored to avoid the force of this argument by suggesting that the words "end of
age" may mean an indefinitely lengthened period. But no period can be more definitely marked:
"the harvest" is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As, therefore, the tares are
gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of the age. The Son of Man shall send
forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which
do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Is Antichrist to arise after this?
To this awkward question no reply has been given, for none is possible.
Lastly, the pre-trib theory of a rapture some years before the End of the Age is refuted by the closing
verse of our Lord’s interpretation: "Then (tote, at that time) shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in
the kingdom of their Father" (v. 43).
Here, as we have already seen, we find that at the very time that the ungodly are rooted out of Christ’s
Kingdom and judged, the resurrection and glorification of the righteous take place; for the shining forth
of the saints has no reference to a previous concealment of the saints in heaven, but to their
transfiguration at the resurrection of the just. Matthew 13:43 is a clear reference to Daniel 12:2-3, which
speaks of resurrection.
In view of the hopeless breakdown of Darby’s and Kelly’s interpretation of the Parable of the Tares, it is
not to be wondered at that some advocates of the new theories of the Advent should have come to see the
need of a new apologetic in reference to it. The exegesis that prevailed for seventy years amongst all the
greatest of pre-trib teachers, as well as the rank and file, was seen to be not danger-proof. In particular, it
was felt among the new theorists that, if the gathering of the wheat in the parable signified the Rapture of
the saints, then the new theories on the Second Coming could not be true; this point was at last clearly
seen and admitted. What was to be done, therefore, to save the new doctrine? for the idea of giving up the
theories as erroneous seems never to be entertained, such is the obloquy (humiliation) the alternative
view inspires. The new plan is simple. It denies that the Parable of the Tares has reference to
Page: 72
Christendom; denies that the gathering of the wheat refers to the Rapture of the saints. The parable will
have its fulfillment only after the Church has been raptured, when, ex hypothesi, the Jewish Remnant
takes up the work of evangelizing the world. Bullinger, with praiseworthy consistency, rules all the
parables of Matthew 13 out of court, so far as the Church is concerned. The fact that they were found in
one of the Four Gospels precluded any reference to the Church. Had they been written in one of Paul’s
Epistles to the Body of Christ the case would have been different.
Other teachers, however, like Gaebelein, in his Matthew, hand over to the Jewish Remnant only such of
the parables of Matthew 13 as do not square with their novel theories. The Parables of the Tares and the
Drag Net, which are specially inconvenient, are referred to the period, ex hypothesi, between the Rapture
and the millennium.
It would take us too far afield to go into these Remnant theories now, and as the whole Remnant
hypothesis will come before us on another occasion, the fiction of their supposed preaching had better be
deferred as well. One or two remarks for the present will suffice. First, not a word of evidence is
produced to support the assertion that the Parable of the Tares belongs to the Remnant. Such a body is not
so much as hinted at in the whole course of Matthew 13. The real reason why this Remnant theory is
produced at this juncture is clear to all candid minds. Read naturally the Parable of the Tares spells
midnight to the new theories on the Second Coming, and so it is denied that the Parable has reference to
the Church.
That the parable has reference to the present dispensation is clear from the fact that the Lord says "the
harvest is the end of the age," that is, of the age that we now live in; for the idea of another evil age
succeeding this one is a mere figment of Gaebelein’s imagination; the age, according to Scripture, that
succeeds this present Age, is the millennium.
But a simpler method of dealing with the wild vagaries of this dispensational sect is to point to the clear
testimony of the real leaders of the school. In addition to those already given, I may cite some words
from Kelly:68
The Lord evidently speaks of the vast field of Christian profession, and of the sad fact that evil
was to be introduced from the very beginning; and, once brought in, it would never be turned out
till the Lord Himself returns to judgment, and by His angels gathers the tares in bundles to burn
them, while the wheat is gathered into the barn.
Such testimonies could be multiplied.
One other consideration refutes the application of the Parable of the Tares to an imaginary interval after
the Rapture: under our very eyes the parable has already been fulfilled in a remarkable manner. J. G.
68 Matthew, p. 279. As for Gaebelein’s groundless fancy that the Parable of the Tares speaks of an inferior or
more elementary gospel than the one we are saved by, some other words of Kelly’s may be cited: “The
harvest is the consummation of the age, that is, of the present gospel dispensation--the time while the Lord
is absent, and the gospel is being proclaimed over the earth. Grace is actively going forth now” (p. 287).
Page: 73
Bellett, after remarking that the Lord, in Matthew 13, "traces in a series of parables, the history of the
gospel in the world, or during the present Gentile age," proceeds:
And may I not say, that this is graphic, to the very life of what has come to pass, and which with
our own eyes, we see at this very hour? There is before us a field of mingled seed, the work of the
Lord and the work of the enemy, with the prevalency of that which is of the enemy, and the
obscurity of that which is precious and of God. What an anticipation of what we see, and cannot
but see, all around us! (Evangelists, p. 29.)
In view of Gaebelein’s failure to get rid of the Parable of the Tares, still another attempt has recently been
made to overcome the difficulty that "the harvest is the end of the age." I refer to the position taken by
Miss Habershon in her Parables. She rightly repudiates the vagary that the Parable of the Tares "refers
only to the time after the Church has been taken up." She states that "the early part of the parable exactly
describes the condition of things now, wheat and darnel growing together" (p. 127).
Yet is Miss Habershon unwilling to admit that the parable locates the Rapture of true believers at the End
of the Age; this, in spite of the Lord’s words that "the harvest is the end of the age." She writes:
We may be quite sure that there is nothing in the parable which is contradictory to the teaching
given to Paul about the Lord’s return. It was among the things which the Lord could not reveal to
His disciples while He was with them, because they were not able to bear it; but the parable must
be read with the epistles, for the epistles are sequels to them. If we see this fact we shall not be so
much in danger of accepting wrong theories about the Lord’s coming. Many such have been
founded on the parable through want of studying together these two portions of New Testament
revelation (p. 79).
When Miss Habershon pleads for the recognition of harmony between the teaching of Paul and that of the
Lord Jesus Christ on the Second Coming, all believing students will agree with her; but have we not an
equal right to postulate that we may be quite sure that there is nothing in the Epistles that is contradictory
to the teaching given by the Lord of Glory about His Return? I think that as Christians we have a right to
demand that; yet the plain fact is that it is Miss Habershon and her school who make Paul and Christ
contradictory witnesses about His Return; for, they would have us believe, the Lord taught that He would
return after the Great Tribulation; whilst Paul taught that He would return before it. To be sure, pre-tribs
will protest that they aim at making Paul and Christ agree, but that does not alter the fact that they make
them differ. And it is not a little amusing to observe how pre-tribs "harmonize" Paul and Christ. The
former spoke of the "second" Coming--that "for the Church" the latter spoke of the "third" Coming--that
for the world. But for my part I think that this is precisely one of the "wrong theories" about the Lord’s
Coming that many are "in danger of accepting."
Miss Habershon argues that the teaching given to Paul about the Lord’s Coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-
18 could not be revealed to the Lord’s disciples by our Lord Himself: "they were not able to bear it."
Where is the evidence for this? The words of the Lord in John 14:3--"I will come again and receive you
unto Myself" --are a refutation of the theory maintained by Miss Habershon; for nothing more advanced
than this was taught by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4, unless the single fact that, at the Advent, living
believers will have no precedence over the holy dead. Moreover, the resurrection of the sleeping saints,
and the heavenly glory that shall follow, are far higher truths than the Rapture, and yet not merely the
Page: 74
Lord’s disciples, but the saints of the Old Covenant "were able to bear" the revelation of those glorious
and comforting truths.69
And to suggest that the disciples "were not able to bear" a revelation that the Church would be exempt
from the Great Tribulation--which is what Miss Habershon is driving at--is a mistake. To judge by the
effect of such a "revelation" in the ‘thirties of the nineteenth century, we may conclude that the disciples
would have reveled in it, and written three hundred and sixty-five tracts a year to defend it as precious
and indispensable truth.
The main presupposition that Miss Habershon’s reasoning proceeds upon is fallacious. It is a mere fiction
that Paul revealed a new coming in 1 Thessalonians 4; the only "revelation" that he made there was
concerning the relation of surviving to sleeping saints at the Advent; this and nothing else.
But if anything was lacking in our refutation of Miss Habershon’s apologetic, it is supplied by her own
treatment of the gathering of the wheat at the harvest. On this point she says:
The Church alone cannot be meant, for the parable takes us right on to the time of the Lord’s
coming in power to set up His kingdom and for the same reason the harvest cannot mean only the
taking up of the Church, though this may be included as a preliminary (p. 127).
Here Miss Habershon admits, with priceless naivety, that the real reason preventing her from accepting
outright the gathering of the wheat as signifying the Rapture of the saints, is that the rapture of the
parable "takes us right on to the time of the Lord’s coming in power to set up His Kingdom." Of course it
does; why propound, therefore, a set of novelties based on the denial of it?
That the harvest signifies that gathering of the saints is surely too plain to need much demonstration. It
was so interpreted by Darby, Scofield, and Newberry, and not even a censor like Dr. Gaebelein will
charge these writers with ignorance of dispensational teaching, and inability to divide the word of truth
rightly.
Kelly in his Matthew says of the gathering of the wheat into the barn: "Thus the heavenly saints are to be
gathered into the Lord’s barn, to be taken out of the earth to heaven" (p. 278).
And Darby in his Synopsis observes: "The wheat (that is, the Church) is in the barn, and the tares in
bundles on the earth" (p. 96).
Again:
During the absence of Jesus the result of His sowing will be marred, as a whole down here, by the
work of the enemy. At the close he will bind all the enemy’s work in bundles; that is, He will
prepare them in this world for judgment. He will then take away the Church. It is evident that this
terminates the scene below which goes on during His absence (p. 93).
69 Daniel 12:2-3; Isaiah 25:8, 26:19; Matthew 13:43; Luke 14:14-15, 20:35; John 6:39-54.
Page: 75
Finally, Scofield in his Reference Bible says: "At the end of the age (v. 40) the tares are set apart for
burning, but first the wheat is gathered into the barn (John 14:3; 1 Thess. 4:14-17)" (p. 1016).
Miss Habershon’s final solution of the gathering of the wheat is to fall back upon Bullinger’s theory of
the "first- fruit" resurrection. She says:
A harvest was never all gathered in one day. In Israel the first ripe ears that were cut were waved
before the Lord as the sheaf of the firs-fruits, and thus represents Christ and His Church.
"Christ the first-fruits (or, as some read it, ‘the Christ’), afterward they that are Christ’s at His
coming." The real harvest "at His coming," is the time specially described in the parable (p. 127).
Now I want the reader to mark the extraordinary claims and admissions made here. Miss Habershon
admits that the gathering of the wheat refers to a rapture at the End of the Age, but not properly that of
the Church. She wants us to believe that, though the body of the Parable of the Tares "exactly describes
the condition of things now, wheat and darnel growing together," yet our Lord passed over the gathering
of Christians in silence. She wants us to believe that though the wheat "exactly describes" the condition
of Christendom now, yet the gathering of the wheat cannot represent the gathering of Christians at
Christ’s approaching Advent, but must be referred to a nebulous company that will arise after the Church
has been taken up, and be raptured at the very End of the Age! Moreover, her scheme leads straight to the
doctrine of two raptures;70 first, we have the rapture--unrecorded--of the Church; then we have the rapture
recorded in the parable, some years later. So that as the new theories require us to believe in two "first"
resurrections, two "second" comings, two "last" days, two "ends" of the age, two "last" trumpets, so now
we are to accept the theory of two "raptures" of saints, two harvests! And Miss Habershon’s effort to
unite these two raptures by calling them parts of the same "harvest" would only avail if the two reapings
were separated by a question of days; but to ask us to believe that the reaping of the "wheat" of the whole
Church dispensation, followed by another reaping several years or decades after, is but one harvest, is a
sheer travesty of exposition.
Dr. Ottman seeks to turn this criticism by calling "the removal of the Church the barley harvest, while
that which remains to be gathered in at the end of the seven years may be regarded as the wheat harvest"
(p. 352). Think of the extraordinary hold that error has on some when the gathering of wheat--for Dr.
Ottman admits that the wheat of the parable represents the Church--can be called a barley harvest!71
As for Miss Habershon’s "first-fruit" argument, we have seen72 this to be worthless, because the "first-
fruit" refers, not to Christ and the Church, but to the Lord Jesus Christ alone (1 Cor. 15:20). The reaping
of the first-fruits took place, therefore, nineteen hundred years ago.
70Bullinger boldly advocated this: “There is more than one resurrection; why not more than one Rapture?”
“Things to Come,” vii., p. 33. So also Mr. D. M. Panton, Rapture.
71Ottman says elsewhere: “But this harvest is seven years before our Lord’s coming to establish the
Kingdom,” pp. 351-2. But this is rather different from what our Lord said.
72 See Excursus to Chapter 4.
Page: 76
And Miss Habershon’s admission that "the real harvest" they that are Christ’s at His coming--"is the time
specially described in the parable" gives her whole case away completely; for whilst it was a fiction of
Bullinger’s that "they that are Christ’s" were inferior saints, it is the doctrine of Scripture that they are
Christians and members of the Church of this dispensation. Half a dozen texts are at hand to substantiate
this statement, namely: 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22-23; 15:23; 2 Corinthians 10:7; and Galatians 3:29; 5:24.
Most welcome, therefore, is Miss Habershon’s confession that the real harvest of the parable is the
gathering of "those that are Christ’s;" welcome also is her contention that the reaping takes place at "the
time of the Lord’s coming in power to set up His kingdom." Her whole case has collapsed because it was
vital for her to prove that the gathering of Christians does not take place at the End of the Age, but
several years before it.
It is no wonder that the advocates of pre-trib theories of the Advent do not feel happy before the Parable
of the Tares; no wonder they are in complete disarray amongst themselves in trying to make the words of
the Lord, "let both grow together until the harvest," and, "the harvest is the end of the age," square with
the theory that the tares and wheat do not so grow together, and that the harvest is not the End of the Age,
but some years before it. Hence the fact that the most unnatural expedients are resorted to avoid the
natural sense of Christ’s gracious words. To put the Four Gospels from us, to invent another secret
harvest; to bring in the Jewish Remnant and rob us of precious promises; to reduce to thin air the binding
of the tares; to make Antichrist rise after the End of the Age; to make the End of the Age a new age
altogether--these are held as proof of a special enlightenment, and of "rightly dividing the word of truth."
But to teach the obvious truth that the Parable of the Tares locates the gathering of Christians at the End
of the Age, when false professors are judged--this is viewed as confusion, and the work of the Enemy.
Many people will entertain the following conclusion about the Parable of the Tares: when writers like
Darby, Kelly, Newberry and Scofield insist that the gathering of the wheat signifies the muster of the
saints at Christ’s Coming they do so because the natural reading of the words compels them so to
interpret it. And when writers like Bullinger, Gaebelein and Miss Habershon insist that the wheat is so
gathered at the very End of the Age, when Christ appears in His glory, they do so because that is the
natural force of the Lord’s words, "the harvest is the end of the age." Now both sets of writers are right in
what they affirm: Darby, Kelly, Newberry, and Scofield in that the gathering of the wheat signifies the
Rapture of the Church: Bullinger, Gaebelein and Miss Habershon in that the gathering of the wheat is
located by the Lord Jesus at the End of the Age, when He comes forth in His power and majesty, and
establishes His Kingdom. Matthew 13:47-50 (R. V. mg.).
Another parable of Christendom reads as follows:
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good
into vessels, but the bad they cast away. So shall it be in the consummation of the age the angels
shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into the
furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
There is no need to deal with this parable at length, because it obviously stands or falls with that of the
Tares. It is fitting to note, however, that here again the separation of believers and professors takes place
"at the consummation of the age." As in the Parable of the Tares wheat and tares "grow together until the
Page: 77
harvest," so here, good and bad fish--representing the true and the false in Christendom--remain together
until the separation at the consummation of the Age. When that time comes the faithful will be rewarded
with the glory of Christ and His Kingdom; the false will be cast out into unquenchable fire. This, be it
noted, at the same crisis.
Now whilst it may be true that the Apostle in Colossians shows a "spirit of impatience with this elaborate
angelology," as Lightfoot puts it in his Colossians (p. 150), his references to them in Ephesians "show
that he regarded them as actually existent and intelligent forces."73 Why, therefore, when John came to
describe the vision he had in heaven, should we be surprised to find twenty-four "thrones," occupied by
angelic lords, who are yet in subjection to Christ? Indeed, we should rather be surprised, in view of
Scriptures, if he failed to mention them.
Bullinger, also, I believe, gives the true interpretation of the Elders in the following words, taken from his
commentary on the Apocalypse:
These four and twenty elders are the princely leaders, rulers, and governors of Heaven’s worship.
They are kings and priests. They were not and cannot be, the Church of God. They are seen
already crowned when the throne is first set up. They are crowned now. They were not and are not
redeemed, for they distinguish between themselves and those who are redeemed. See their song
below (chap. 5:9-10 and R.V.). They speak of the time of "giving the reward to thy servants"
(11:18), not to us servants. They are heavenly, unfallen beings, and therefore they are arrayed in
white robes (p. 219).
This same view of the Twenty-four Elders is being taken by most of the great exegetes in Germany,
Britain and United States; Zann, Charles, Peake, Moffatt, H.T. Andrews and Beckwith; these, and, in
fact, pretty well all recent commentators outside pre-tribs interpret the Elders as leaders in the praise and
worship in heaven. The old interpretation is abandoned, except by those who need it as a prop to an
edifice reared on insecure foundations.
VII. The Great Missionary Commission And Its Fulfillment
MATTHEW 28:19-20 (R.V. mg.).
Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven
and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the consummation of the
age.
These were among the last words spoken by the Lord to His Apostles before He left them. Naturally they
have a peculiar interest to all His people today, because it is through the obedience of the Apostles and
early witnesses to this command, that we ourselves have come to know the faith of the Gospel. What
73 Dean Armitage Robinson, Ephesians, p. 157.
Page: 78
concerns us now, however, is the light that these words of our Lord throw upon our inquiry when the
Church’s career upon earth will close. It affords us very clear guidance, for the Lord promised to the
founders of His Church His own presence by the Spirit, "unto the consummatio n of the age." Plain it is,
therefore, that the Church will exist on earth until that time. Such is the natural inference of the promise;
for if the Lord had believed that He was to come and receive His believing people to Himself several
years before the End of the Age arrived, He could not have used the language that we are now examining.
He would have said, "I am with you all the days until the last trial, when I will receive you to Myself."
But the fact that He said, "I am with you alway even unto the consummation of the age," is proof that our
Lord presupposed that His Church would not be removed from earth to heaven, several years or decades
before the End.
Some have sought to obviate this criticism by assuming that the End of the Age is a period lasting from
the Rapture till the millennium; but I have already shown that the suggestion is untenable, because the
proposed interval, so far from being a consummation to "this present evil Age," is a new age altogether.
But according to Scripture the age that follows the present one is that of the kingly rule of Messiah.
Moreover, Matthew 24:3 shows that the consummation of the Age is Christ’s Advent in glory and power
to establish that Kingdom.
Other pre-trib advocates, who saw clearly the truth of this, cast about to find a less vulnerable mode of
saving their theories, because to leave the Church on earth until the End of the Age was a heresy that the
new scheme of the prophetic future was intended to save us from. These theorists admit that Christ’s
words presuppose the existence on earth until the very End of this Age of the people whom the Apostles
represented. And they admit that if their theories had to stand the test of the obvious meaning of Christ’s
promise they would necessarily collapse. "But," they triumphantly claim, "the surface meaning of the
Great Commission is not the true meaning at all; our Lord was not addressing the Apostles as
representatives of His Church during the Gospel dispensation, but of a Jewish Remnant that is to arise in
the future, after the Church is taken to heaven. True, this is not the common view, and none of the great
commentators has ever taught it, but Darby discovered it some years ago through seeing that Matthew is
the Jewish gospel."
Such is the theory entertained by many teachers in England and America. 74
As this theory of the Jewish Remnant will come before us at length in another volume, I do not enter
fully upon it now. Suffice it to offer a few general criticisms on its use at Matthew 28, and I am confident
that these will avail to show that the supposed "discovery" is merely an invention.
First, it is fair to state that we are not alone in repudiating this new vagary of exegesis. Most of those who
maintain the new prophetic scheme, and even believe in the missionary labors of the future Jewish
Remnant, treat with scorn and indignation the new interpretation of Matthew 28:19-20. This is the
attitude of Open Brethren as a whole. They, who have a noble missionary work in all parts of the world,
energetically resist the latest theory of the new cult. Year by year conferences are held amongst the
Christians I have mentioned to urge the claims of the Lord’s last Commission upon the Church, and stir
up greater interest in the missionary crusade. It is therefore not open to Gaebelein and his school to urge
74See Gaebelein: Matthew, in loco, where Darby is quoted. Cf. Anderson The Buddha of Christendom, p. 271;
The Bible or the Church? p. 232.
Page: 79
that opposition to their interpretation springs from "dispensational" ignorance, because many men on his
own side, who are not his inferiors in perception of prophetic truth, reject the dispensational
interpretation of Matthew 28.
But without going into the Remnant theory it is possible to show conclusively that the application of
Matthew 28 to Jews of the Last Days is wrong. Indeed, such an application is inconsistent with the theory
of the Remnant elsewhere. When, for instance, Christians open Matthew 24 for instruction on the Lord’s
Coming, Darbyists say to us: "How can the Apostles in Matthew 24:3 have represented the Christian
Church? They knew nothing of redemption by blood, nothing of the new creation headed up in the risen
Christ, nothing of the new life through the indwelling Spirit, nothing of union with Christ the Lord in His
death and resurrection. They were but companions of a rejected Christ, and, as such, were typical of a
Remnant in Israel that will have a hazy notion of Christ’s person and work, yet will be witnesses for
Him." Such is the gist of the arguments used to prove that the Coming of Matthew 24:29-37, and the
preceding events, cannot have reference to any part of the Church of God of this Dispensation. 75 And it is
accompanied by the tacit admission that, if the Apostles, when receiving the instruction of those chapters,
had not been such a poor turnout spiritually, if they had been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, made
part of the new creation in Christ Jesus, endowed with the life-giving Spirit, and united to Christ in His
death and resurrection, then the only choice would be to accept the teaching about the Parousia in
Matthew 24 as spoken to representatives of the Christian Church.
But the theorists’ attitude to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20, gives the lie to their pleading at 24:3; for,
when the Apostles sat at Christ’s feet in Matthew 28, not only the greatest crisis in the history of the
world, but also the greatest in the spiritual experience of the Apostles, had taken place, namely: the death
and resurrection of the Son of God. The men who for three years had been disciples at the Savior’s feet,
were now redeemed by the precious blood of the Lamb; were clean through the word that He had spoken;
were a new creation in Christ Jesus;76 they had received the regenerating Spirit, and been begotten again
unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Pet. 1:3); in a few days they
were to receive the Spirit of power in all His fullness, for the accomplishment of the task that the Lord
was now committing to them, (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 1:8; Luke 24:47-49). And yet, in spite of this
revolution in the Apostles’ standing and experience, our dispensationalist friends have the coolness to
link them to the semi-Christian, semi-converted Jewish Remnant of uncertain standing in the Last Days!
If, however, the dispensational status of the Apostles depended from time to time upon their spiritual
attainment or standing at the time the Lord addressed them: if, for example, as pre-tribs insist, the limited
standing of the Apostles at Matthew 24:3, placed them in relationship with the future Jewish Remnant,
then it is simply impossible to relegate them to that Remnant in Matthew 28, because their spiritual
condition and standing had been transformed since the former occasion. I have already referred to words
of Kelly’s to show that after the resurrection the Apostles stood on Christian ground; they stood before
God in the fullness of the redemption accomplished by Him who died the death, and rose in the power of
an indissoluble life (Heb. 7:16). To the Jews, as a matter of fact, our Lord did not manifest Himself after
75See Kelly, Christ’s Coming Again, and Second Coming; Darby, Synopsis; Trotter, chapter 15; Gaebelein,
Olivet Discourse and Matthew. Kelly is very specific on the points mentioned in the text.
76On the words: “He breathed on them and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit “(John xx. 22), the
reader is referred to Kelly’s N.T. Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 140.
Page: 80
His resurrection; He revealed Himself only to His brethren, the men and women who had been redeemed
by His blood, and were now in union with Him (Matt. 28:10; Heb. 2:11-13; cf. Acts 10:41).
Every argument, therefore, that the theorist uses to prove that the Apostles at Matthew 24:3 represented
the Jewish National Remnant of the future, avails to refute his contention that at 28:19-20 they did not
represent the Christian Church; for the ground on which they now stand is not Jewish, but Christian; and
He of whom they are companions is not a Christ after the flesh in Israel, but the risen and glorified Lord
of the universe.
The fact that the Remnant theory can be made, on pre-trib dispensational presuppositions, to fit the
Apostles’ standing alike before and after the tremendous change of the cross, the resurrection, and the
bestowal of the Spirit, is proof that the whole Remnant hypothesis is a veritable nose of wax to be turned
and twisted as the difficulties dictate.
Marvelous is the Remnant in the hands of a thorough-going dispensationalist. Are there "martyrs,"77 "for
God’s word and Christ’s Gospel still in the disembodied state in heaven, after the Secret Rapture and
resurrection? The Remnant or its converts will account for them. Are there "saints" (Paul’s and John’s
name for Christians) in the tribulation at the End? 78 Again, the Remnant’s converts fulfill all that is asked
of them. Are there "Elect" (the term used by our Lord and His Apostles for the saved of this
dispensation)79 to be mustered at the Last Day? The Remnant with its Imprecatory Psalms, and the
Sermon on The Mount, accommodates itself to the situation. It meets every emergency, solves every
difficulty, carries every weight. At one and the same time it is going to complete 80 a commission
(Matthew 10:1-23) that began with a prohibition to go among Gentiles, and take up another to go and
disciple all Nations.
Again, if the spiritual attainments and standing of the Apostles at the time preclude the application of
Matthew 28:19-20 to a semi-converted Remnant of the Last Days, still more do the spiritual blessings
and functions presupposed preclude it. According to the Commission, the persons addressed will disciple
all nations and baptize them into the name of the Trinity. Now this is something that it will be impossible
for the Remnant to do, because the strange theory itself credits the Remnant with only the haziest notions
of Christ’s person. Almost all pre-tribs even teach that the Remnant will not acknowledge Jesus as
Messiah; Gaebelein himself tells us81 that it is "an evil interpretation" that makes Christians of the
144,000 Jewish witnesses, who, ex hypothesi, are to fulfill Matthew 28:19-20, during the time of
Antichrist; and yet his new-fangled interpretation of the missionary Commission sends them out to win
and baptize all nations! And as for baptism, the very significa nce of the rite rules out the Remnant; for we
know that that sacrament signifies, among other things, the identification of the believer with Christ in
His death, but, ex hypothesi, the Remnant will know nothing of such a truth.
77 Revelation 7:9-17, 6:9-11, 20:4b; Isaiah 26:19.

78 Revelation 22:21 (R.V.), 13:7, 14:12
79 Matthew 12:4 (eklektoi: the same word as in 24:31), and Romans 8:33, etc.
80 Matthew 10:23 is applied by Dr. Gaebelein to the future preaching of the Remnant.
81 Olivet Discourse, p. 45.

Page: 81
Again, the persons addressed by Christ were commissioned to teach their converts "to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Not a few select passages from the Sermon on the Mount;
not a few stray snippets selected by dispensationalists as too rugged for the Church; not isolated
fragments from the "Jewish Gospel;" but "all things whatsoever I have commanded you;" including, of
course, the command: "This do in remembrance of Me," and all other precepts and commands in the
discourses of the Upper Room, and their sublime teaching on the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of
Christ with believers, and the new commandment of love in the family of God. All this, however, will be
lost on the Remnant, for they, so far from being able to inculcate those wonderful doctrines, will be, ex
hypothesi, ignorant of the first principles of the Gospel of Christ, Gaebelein tells us with enthusiasm that
the witnessing Remnant will even fulfill the Imprecatory Psalms, and at the same time some of the
Beatitudes of our Lord! This seems totally incredible, but it is so.82
Finally, the persons addressed by the Lord Jesus were promised the presence of the risen, glorified Christ
by the Spirit, every single day until the Age should end (v. 20). The Lord Himself was to be their strength
and portion. Does any theorist seriously contend that the Jewish Remnant will enjoy this unique
blessedness?
When one thinks of this dispensational miracle of a company of semi-Christian, semi-converted Jews,
guided now by the Imprecatory Psalms, now by the Lord’s Prayer, some Beatitudes, and the more
arduous portions of the majestic Sermon on the Mount, going out to evangelize the world in twelve
hundred and sixty days, at the very time that the Holy Spirit, ex hypothesi, has been raptured to heaven,
and Antichrist is reigning in a world of men given over to judicial blindness, and of this company of
144,000 evangelists succeeding in converting "the overwhelming majority" of the inhabitants of the
world to Christ, and when one thinks that the essential features of this ludicrous picture are
enthusiastically accepted by countless multitudes in Christendom, one can only find suitable words in
Lucian,83 who, though he lived about eighteen hundred years ago, furnished a marvelous picture of
modern reasoners who swallow an absurdity for one of their premises, carry it through to its logical
conclusion, and, without a smile, offer us a fantastic conclusion, which gets not a whit saner or truer from
endless repetition and dogmatism:
I fancy you hearing from some teller of tales how there is a certain lady of perfect beauty, beyond
the Graces themselves or the Heavenly Aphrodite, and then, without ever an inquiry whether his
tale is true, and such a person to be found on earth, falling straight in love with her, like Medea in
the story enamored of a dream-Jason. And what most drew you on to love, you and the others
who worship the same phantom, was, if I am not mistaken, the consistent way in which the
inventor of the lady added to his picture, when once he had got your ear. That was the only thing
you all looked to, with that he turned you about as he would having got his first hold upon you
averring that he was leading you the straight way to your beloved. After the first step, you see, all
was easy; none of you ever looked round when he came to the entrance, and inquired whether it
was the right one, or whether he had accidentally taken the wrong; no you all followed in your
82 See his Matthew, Olivet Discourse, and Hath God, etc.
83 The Rival Philosophies.

Page: 82
predecessors’ footsteps, like sheep after the bell-wether, whereas the right thing was to decide at
the entrance whether you should go in.
Perhaps an illustration will make my meaning clearer: when one of those audacious poets affirms
that there was once a three-headed and six-handed man, if you accept that quietly without
questioning its possibility, he will proceed to fill in the picture consistently--six eyes and ears,
three voices talking at once, three mouths eating, and thirty fingers instead of our poor ten all told;
if he has to fight, three of his hands will have a buckler, wicker targe (small shield), or shield
apiece, while of the other three one swings an axe, another hurls a spear, and a third wields a
sword. It is too late to carp at these details when they come; they are consistent with the
beginning; it was about that that the question ought to have been raised whether it was to be
accepted and passed as true. Once grant that, and the rest comes flooding in, irresistible, hardly
now susceptible of doubt, because it is consistent and accordant with your initial admissions. That
is just your case; your love-yearning would not allow you to look into the facts at each entrance,
and so you are dragged on by consistency: it never occurs to you that a thing may be self-
consistent and yet false; if a man says twice five is seven and you take his word for it without
checking the sum, he will naturally deduce that four times five is fourteen, and so on ad
libitum (at one's pleasure). This is the way that weird geometry proceeds: it sets before beginners
certain strange assumptions, and insists on their granting the existence of inconceivable things,
such as points having no parts, lines without breadth, and so on, builds on these rotten foundations
a superstructure equally rotten, and pretends to go on to a demonstration which is true, though it
starts from premises which are false.
Just so you when you have granted the principles of any school, believe in the deductions from
them, and take their consistency, false as it is, for a guarantee of truth. Then with some of you,
hope travels through, and you die before you have seen the truth and detected your deceivers,
while the rest, disillusioned too late, will not turn back for shame: what, confess at their years that
they have been abused with toys all this time? so they hold on desperately, putting the best face
upon it and making all the converts they can, to have the consolation of good company in their
deception; they are well aware that to speak out is to sacrifice the respect and superiority and
honor they are accustomed to; so they will not do it if it may be helped, knowing the height from
which they will fall to the common level. Just a few are found with the courage to say they were
deluded, and warn other aspirants. Meeting such a one, call him a good man, a true and an honest;
nay, call him philosopher, if you will; to my mind, the name is his or no-one’s; the rest either have
no knowledge of the truth, though they think they have, or else have knowledge and hide it (vol. 2
pp. 83-85).
These words of the great Attic wit and literary miracle of the second century of our Era are more caustic
than one likes, but otherwise they are perfectly applicable to those students of prophecy who confuse and
combine two companies of the End-time that the Scriptures distinguish, namely: a Remnant of pious
Israelites in Palestine, who are sealed against death and apostasy in the last great trial, and are converted
to the Saviour at His descent to the mount of Olives;84 and the Christian Church of Judaea, which, in
84Revelation 7:1-8, and Revelation 14:1-5; Joel 2:32 (R.V.); Zechariah 8:11-12, 12-13; Matthew 23:39;
Romans 11:25-26.
Page: 83
Apostolic times, formed part of the Body of Christ, 85 if the Apostle Paul is to be trusted, and, in the End-
time, will study Christ’s word, will act on it to the saving of their souls, and will share His glory when He
comes to reign:86 Jews in the land of Israel, subject to its laws and codes and constitution, just as
Christians elsewhere are subject to the laws of their countries; yet Christians who love the Saviour of
Israel, and wait for the blessed hope of His Glorious Appearing. 87
The failure of theorists to distinguish these things is what necessitated and created the two-headed, two-
tongued monstrosity in Israel and Christendom at the End-time--a half-converted, half-Christian Jewish
Remnant, which at one and the same time evangelizes the nations--and invokes the curses of heaven upon
them: which cleaves to the Imprecatory Psalms--and uses the Lord’s Prayer, some of the Beatitudes, and
the Missionary Commission of Matthew 28: which knows nothing of present peace, forgiveness and
deliverance and converts untold millions to Christ: which is sealed against death--and has many
thousands of "martyrs "who are so fortunate as to enter heaven and attain the highest blessings which is
nebulous in its knowledge of full salvation--and becomes nursing father to the glorious martyrs of
Revelation 7.
An acute writer said of pre-war Russia that it showed an Asiatic face towards Europe, and a European
face towards Asia. And the Remnant of Darby, Trotter, and Gaebelein88 will be a prodigy in the
manipulation of its conflicting moods and feelings, as it pursues "the gentle art of making enemies, and
preaches to them the Gospel of the Kingdom."
It is all consistent and ludicrous, because they began by accepting the absurdity that a cantankerous O.T.
company in the strait-jacket of the Imprecatory Psalms is to be identified with members of the Christian
Church, now on the soil of Palestine, now among the nations, who keep the teaching of Jesus Christ in
using the Lord’s Prayer and other ordinances, in discipling all nations by baptism, and by teaching their
Saviour’s will as the grand principle of a new life.
There will always be a few to think that, in addition to exceptional gifts and insight, Darby wore a mantle
of infallibility; so that the Remnant theories will last as long as the Synopsis is read, which will be a long
time; but there is no excuse for Open Brethren’s persisting in the acceptance of theories that, more than
any other factor, not excluding Sacerdotalism, are making the oral teaching of our Lord of no effect:
theories that are blighting Bible study and Christian fellowship all over the world: theories and traditions
that have cursed the movement from the beginning. Why is there no excuse? Because the great leader
who saved them from a new bondage, who was mighty in prayer to God for the support of thousands of
orphans, the sending forth of missionaries, and the distribution of the Word of God, taught them
the truth on the hope of Christ’s Second Coming, 89 without the subtleties, the distortions, and the errors
that others wrote on their broad phylacteries. And if some think that mighty prayer, spirituality, and the
simplicity of Christ are inadequate guides on prophecy, then there are the admirable books by Tregelles, a
85 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Galatians 1;22; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Romans 16:7.

86 Revelation 12:14, 17; Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:34-36 etc.
87 Titus 2:3. See Weymouth’s, Moffatt’s and Goodspeed’s translations and chapter 9 of this volume.
88 The picture is given with a wealth of detail by all three writers.
89 The Second Coming of Christ, by George Muller; a sermon preached in 1881.
Page: 84
thorough scholar: Remarks on The Prophetic Visions of Daniel90 and The Hope of Christ’s Second
Coming, to supply what they desire in the way of competent scholarship. The boycott on these and
Newton’s works might well be lifted in this centennial year. 91
It is seriously and repeatedly urged by theorists that the fact of the Missionary Commission’s being
recorded in Matthew’s Gospel is proof that it cannot be applicable to the Church. But the atoning death
and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ are also recorded in that same Gospel; must we therefore
assume that those doctrines do not have reference to the Church of God, but apply only to the Remnant of
Jews in the Last Days? We must do if this argument is sound. True it is that one of Matthew’s aims was
at proving that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel; but that Gospel was written in vain unless we see that it was
a principal intention of its author to show that He who is Israel’s Messiah is also Lord and Saviour of a
Church from all nations. In the selection of the parables and incidents in the last sixteen chapters of his
Gospel, the Apostle aims at showing, among other things, that the Gospel has broken beyond the limits of
Judaism, and, in an age when Jesus is rejected officially by the Nation, is gathering a new and living
Israel from all tribes and nations of the earth. It is Matthew’s Gospel alone that records the Lord’s
purpose to build His new Ecclesia (16:18).
The volume that opened by giving the "genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham,"
closes fittingly and grandly by showing Jesus, no longer as the Saviour merely of the lost sheep of the
house of Israel, but as the Saviour of a company from all nations, and Lord of the universe; by showing
that this company is subject, not to the law of Moses, but to the precepts and principles of Him whose
commandments are not grievous; by showing that this Israel after the Spirit will not enjoy the presence of
Jehovah at stated times and places only, but all the days, and in all places, until He shall come forth in
His glory, and the Church shall see Him as He is.
A modern master in Israel and the Church thus characterizes the Great Commission. 92
The last words of our Lord, as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, are invested with a special
interest. They are most memorable, when we consider the occasion on which they were uttered,
and the calm majesty with which the Saviour, rejected by men, declares Himself the Light of the
world and the Lord of all ages; when we think of the commentary which is written on these words
in the Book of Acts and in the history of the last eighteen centuries; of the solemn and touching
manner in which they are brought before us as a living reality in every baptism; of the power
which they have exerted in constraining the Church to go forth with the Gospel message, and
90Published originally by Samuel Bagster & Sons, London; Newton’s works on prophecy (The Prophecy of the
Lord Jesus as contained in Matthew 24-25, etc,) were published by Houlston & Sons, London. They are now
obtainable from the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony Movement.
91It is fair to state that Sir R. Anderson treated the 144,000 as “Jews and yet Christians;” but, as seen above,
Gaebelein calls this “an evil interpretation.” Anderson, followed by Bullinger and F. E. Marsh, held that the
Pentecostal Church did not belong to the Body of Christ, which began with Paul. But this fiction is disposed
of by 2 Thessalonians 2:14; Galatians 1:22; 1 Corinthians 15:9; and Romans 16:7.
92 Adolph Saphir: Christ and the Church (preface).

Page: 85
when we remember the precious and all-comprehensive promise they contain of the Lord’s
presence with His Church, until the Church shall be "for ever with the Lord."
These words of our Saviour contain also a brief summary of Christian doctrine, a concise epitome
of Church truth. The centre is the Person of Christ; the foundation is the revelation of God as
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Here we see the spiritual character of the Church, as the Light and
Teacher of the nations. Here we are reminded of the new obedience of the Gospel, as
distinguished from the dispensation of the Law. The Apostolic Commission points out the relation
of the Church to the world--her character and her mission; while it contains all needful
encouragement and consolation, both in the declaration of Christ’s omnipotence, on which it rests,
and in the promise of His Presence with His people throughout the dispensation. (Italics his.)
When I hear the theorists relegating the Great Commission to the Jews because it is written in the
"Jewish" Gospel, I am always reminded of an interesting story, which has a good moral. A revered
missionary friend of mine in Melbourne, Australia, had the admirable custom at dinner, when the family
circle was complete, of selecting a Biblical topic as a subject of conversation. By means of the discussion
that followed, even young people were instructed in the mysteries of the faith; for the father was a
scholarly man, and a reverent student of the Scriptures, including prophetic truth. But of course there was
a danger of young people’s not seeing things in their right proportion, and of being misled by half-truths.
One day the mother, on going to the front gate, found one of her sons, a youth about nine, engaged in a
vigorous fight with a neighbor’s son. The mother rebuked her boy and asked him for an explanation. "He
hit me on the face and I hit him back," came the reply. "But," the mother asked, "have you never read the
words of the Lord Jesus, "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"?
"The lad thereupon asked, "Mother, in which Gospel is that text found?" "In Matthew’s," was the reply.
Upon which he quickly and triumphantly responded, "Well, mother, Matthew’s Gospel was
written for the Jews!"
How very like the grown-up theorists who, whenever they are confronted with a text in Matthew or the
Apocalypse that smashes their system, endeavor to wriggle out of their difficulty by explaining, with a
wave of the hand, "That’s in the Jewish Gospel," or "That was spoken to Jews!" The poor Apostles! If
only they had been a conglomeration of men from the heathen tribes in the four corners of the earth, then
we could have accepted teaching addressed to them as Christians and meant for the Body of Christ; but
seeing that they came from the same race as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; as Moses and David and
Daniel; as Rabinowich and Edersheim and Adolph Saphir, they could not receive teaching from the Lord
in the days of His flesh that was suitable for the Church out of all Nations! So, in effect, it is gravely
argued in certain circles where the new wisdom prevails.
Let sober Christians have done with a system of prophetic interpretation that leads them to subscribe to
vagaries like this. Let them, if need be, throw overboard the new theories of the Advent rather than give
up this glorious promise of the Saviour’s presence with His people; for surely His gracious words are not
only calculated to stir the conscience in view of millions lying still in darkness, but also to arouse joy
unspeakable in the soul of everyone who is laboring for Him; for He promises to be with us, and holds
out to us the hope of His coming again.
In his learned and helpful commentary on Matthew Plummer says of the Lord’s promise to His Church:
Page: 86
There need be no doubts or faintheartedness after such an assurance as that, and nothing is
wanting to the fullness of it. There is the solemn introduction, "Behold;" the emphatic pronoun,
"I," showing that no less than the Risen Lord Himself is to be their companion and their ally; the
detailed description of the time ("all the days"), leaving not a single day without the certainty of
this help; and the express statement that this promise holds good as long as the present
dispensation shall last ("until the consummation of the age"). When "the consummation of the
age" has been reached, they will no longer need the assurance that He is with them to aid them in
their work, for their work will be accomplished, and they will "see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2) (p.
436).
The words of another wise expositor may well close our consideration of the Missionary Commission:
"The Church enjoys the spiritual presence of her Lord until the close of the current age, which would be
coincident with the second advent" (Meyer).
VIII. The Church And The End In The Epistles
The two previous chapters on the Parable of the Tares and the great Missionary Commission dealt with
the relation of Christians to the Consummation (sunteleia) of the Age; in the Parable we found that the
wheat, representing the Church, is gathered at the Day of the Lord, when the unfaithful are also judged;
in the Great Commission we found it presupposed that the Church will continue on earth until the Lord
Himself comes in His glory, at the same Consummation of the Age.
There is another word used in the Gospels for the End; it is telos, which, when used of the Last Things,
means simply the End or close of the present world-period: the Day of the Appearing of the Son of Man,
our Lord and Saviour. We are so fortunate here as to have most Darbyists with us; it is they who insist
most strongly on the point, as anyone can verify by referring to the comments of Kelly, Scofield, and
many others on Matthew 10:22, and 24:6, 13, 14, where the End (telos) is spoken of. See also F. C.
Jennings, The Time of the End (pp. 4-6).
But if we argue that those texts presuppose that Christians will exist on earth till the Coming of the Son
of Man in glory, as described in Matthew 24:29-31, we are immediately told that it is the Jewish Remnant
that is in view, and that the Church will have been raptured off the scene years and perhaps generations
before.
It is quite impossible to deal with the convenient Remnant hypothesis in this work; one literally requires a
volume to examine it and the whole "dispensational" system on which it rests. There isn’t the remotest
hope of finding common ground now, unless we go to the Epistles of Paul and Peter and John. In another
volume I shall pay pre-tribs the compliment of meeting them on their own ground.
Let us therefore go to the Epistles, especially as our opponents affirm vigorously that "the End" is never
found there for the hope of the Church. Writing in the London (October 17th, 1907), Dr. W. H. Griffith
Thomas remarked on Matthew 24:14: "I cannot find the word ‘end’ is anywhere else applied to the
coming of the Lord for His people." And another scholarly Anglican writes: "As regards the word ‘End’
‘--’ and then shall the end come.’ This is not the Coming of Christ; that event is nowhere called the
Page: 87
‘End.’ Here is the source of error with so many Bible students . . . ."93 So also Dr. Gaebelein frequently
and emphatically. I propose to show that not fewer than five texts in the Epistles associate "the End"
(telos) with the Christian hope; and if one text of Scripture availed to "hang the universe on" in William
Kelly’s day, he would be the first to agree that five will stand the expanding universe of Einstein, Lord
Rutherford, and Sir James Jeans, and should suffice to support a biblical doctrine.
(a) 1 Corinthians 1:7-8: Waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also
confirm you unto the end (telos), that ye be unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ
(R.V.).
There is a wealth of exegetical literature to confirm our view that the End here is the Parousia of Christ. It
is scarcely necessary to cite it, because the juxtaposition of the two eschatological
terms Revelation and Day of Christ, which all the pre-trib leaders applied to the Day of the Lord, is right
at hand to show what Paul meant. Yet a few brief quotations will be serviceable. A. T. Robertson says
that "Unto the End" means "End of the age till Jesus comes, final preservation of the saints" (iv., p. 71).
Robertson and Plummer in ICC say: "The doctrine of the approach of the end is continually in the
Apostle’s thoughts: 3:13; 4:5; 6:2, 3; 7:29; 11:26; 15:51; 16:22" (p. 7). Godet says in his commentary:
"The end is the Lord’s coming again, for which the Church should constantly watch, for the very reason
that it knows not the time of it; compare Luke 12:35 and 36; Mark 13:32 (p. 58). Canon Evans in one of
the more brilliant volumes of the Speaker’s Commentary remarks: "The end, not of life, but of this Aeon,
or dispensation." So also Alford, Bachmann, Bousset, and J. Weiss. Admirable is Meyer:
Unto the end applies not to the end of life, but, as the foregoing "the revelation of our Lord Jesus
Christ" and the following "in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" clearly show, to the end of the pre-
Messianic period of the world’s history (the "this age," see on Matthew 13:32) which is to be
ushered in by the now nearly approaching (7:29; 15:51) Parousia. Compare 10:11; 2 Corinthians
1:13. It is the "consummation of the age," Matthew 13:39ff; 24:3; 28:20; compare Hebrew 10:26.
(b) Hebrews 3:6: If we hold fast our boldness and the glorying of our hope firm unto the end
(R.V.).
(c) Hebrews 3:14 We are become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our
confidence firm unto the end (R.V.).
Of these two passages A. B. Davidson says in his commentary: "The end is not the end of life, but the
moment when hope becomes reality with the coming again of the Son (see on 1., 1; compare 10:37)" (p.
85). Alford says: "The end thought of is not the death of each individual, but the coming of the Lord,
which is constantly called by this name." Lunemann comments thus: "As verse 14, 6:11, 1 Corinthians
1:8, al., unto the end of the present order of the world, intervening with the coming again of Christ, and
thought of as in the near future (Compare 10:25, 37), at which time faith shall pass over into sight, hope
into possession." In the true spirit of the Apostolic writer Adolph Saphir writes:
93 Dr. J. H. Townsend: A Bright Tomorrow, p. 46.
Page: 88
Cherish the hope which in Christ Jesus is given unto you who believe in the Saviour. Look
forward to the coming of the Lord, to the joy and glory which He will bring unto His disciples. Be
not afraid, for He will sustain you during all your difficulties and trials, and you will surely be
kept unto that day. And be not afraid that the glory and brightness will overwhelm you; for Christ
the Lord will be glorified in you, and thus be your strength, and you shall shine forth as the sun in
the kingdom of your Father. Hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of your hope. In calm and
humble assurance, looking only unto Christ crucified for sinners, you cannot but rejoice in hope
of the glory of God. As you trust in Jehovah your righteousness, so you look forward to Jehovah
your glory. The God of hope (the source and object of hope) fill you with joy and peace in
believing, through the power of the Holy Ghost (Rom. 15). . . . The end spoken of is nothing else
but the appearing of the Lord Jesus, when hope shall be changed into sight. The day is
approaching (10:25), and with it our glory (i., pp. 185-186).
(d) Hebrews 6:11: Show the same diligence unto the fullness of hope even to the end (R.V.).
In this verse the same piercing truth is set forth: Afford says: "‘The End’ is the coming of the Lord,
looked for as close at hand." And Lunemann comments: "unto the end, i.e., in such manner that ye
cherish and preserve to the end the Christian’s hope of the Messianic kingdom to be looked for at the
coming again of Christ, as a firm confidence of faith, untroubled by any doubts . . . until (at the Parousia
of the Lord) hope passes over into the possession (of the kingdom) itself."
It is noteworthy, but not at all surprising, that two of the ablest of pre-trib commentators, F. W. Grant, in
his Numerical Bible, and Kelly in his full and lucid lectures on Hebrews, leave this expression "unto the
End" unnoticed at each of its three occurrences. It is simply passed by as of no significance. Had they
been dealing with the Gospels undoubtedly the Remnant would have been brought out to solve the
difficulty. In Epistles to the Churches, however, no such resource is available; for, happily, it is only an
odd expositor like Bullinger who deprives Christians of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
(e) Revelation 2:26: And he that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him
will I give authority over the nations (R.V.).
The reluctance that pre-trib writers exhibited to expound the phrase "unto the End" in Hebrews, clings to
them at Revelation 2:26. Kelly, Scofield, Ottman, Grant, Jennings, Baines, Newberry, and others, all
leave it alone. Kelly has two expositions of Revelation, one of five hundred pages, but he can’t bring
himself to look the expression in the face. Ottman has a massive commentary of five hundred pages, and
he does the same. F. C. Jennings has a volume of two hundred and twenty-two pages on the fifty-one
verses of Revelation 2-3, applying them marvelously to seven ages or states of Church history, mostly
corrupt, but he has neither time nor space for the pregnant phrase "unto the End" of 2:26. All this is very
natural, for this passage, read naturally, presupposes that the people who overcome--the Christian
survivors who gain the victory over the temptations and trials that characterize the present time of
waiting--keep Christ’s word and Christ’s works, unto the End; the end of the present Age at the Day of
the Lord. And the whole context requires this interpretation. In verse 25 the Lord enjoins the overseer at
Thyatira to hold fast till He come--that glorious Coming which had been mentioned at 1:7, and not since:
"Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him." Synchronizing with this, and synonymous,
too, is the next expression (v. 26), "the End," when the overcomers assume authority over the nations;
verse 27 clinches the interpretation by giving the inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom, according to
Page: 89
the Second Psalm. Verse 28, a beautiful one, does not refer to a pre-tribulation Rapture of the saints, but,
more probably, to the Lord Himself and His kingly-rule.
Exegetical literature supports this interpretation. A. T. Robertson says that "unto the end" is the same as
"till I come" in verse 25 (vi. 312). So also Swete and Anderson Scott, who links the phrase with Mark
13:13.
In a comprehensive paragraph Zahn goes to the heart of the writer’s meaning:
The fundamental thought is the same as that which has already come to light at Revelation 1:5f,
namely, that Christ through His atoning work for our sins not only made us priests having free
access to God, but also constituted all members of His community partakers of His kingly-rule
over the world and the kings of the world. There exists, however, the difference that this idea is
here referred to the End of the present world-period, as also the "I come" in verse 25, and the
saying about the Morning Star in 5:28. In comparison with the dawning Day of the future
Parousia the time of waiting for this Parousia is night. Only when the Lord returns does there
begin the time of shepherding all nations with an iron sceptre that is, of an imperative rule of
Christ and His Church over that part of mankind which at present does not belong to the Church.
This development is presented in this way at three other places of the Apocalypse where parts of
the second Psalm are applied to the prophecy of the End (11:18, 12:5, 19:15), and in the second
place, where Jesus designates Himself as the Morning Star, shining forth brightly in the End-time,
and at the close testifies this once more to the Churches (Rev. 22:16). A more precise explanation
of the development comes only at Revelation 20:1-10, and is there comprehensively set forth
(Offenbarung, i., pp. 294-5).
If the reader, with this new light from the Epistles on the End, will return to the occurrences of the phrase
in the Gospels, he will readily see that, if Jewish Christians are in view at Matthew 10:22, Christians of
every land are contemplated at 24:6, 13 (Mark 13:7, 13), for Matthew 24:14 says expressly that the
spread of the Gospel to all mankind is the last event heralding the End. Even verse 15, though particularly
appropriate to Christians in Judaea, will be exceedingly serviceable to the Church Catholic.
The underlying presupposition in all this is that in the Gospels, as in the Epistles, Christians continue on
earth till the very End of the Age; and this is totally opposed to pre-trib theories.
IX. The Church And The Glorious Appearing
In previous chapters of our inquiry we have sought to find out when the resurrection and rapture of the
saints will take place, before or after, the apocalyptic Week of Daniel. Except in an incidental way, we
have not examined the great words used by the Apostles in reference to the Second Coming of Christ. It
now remains to do this, because, in view of the frequent and lengthy references to this subject in the
Epistles, it cannot but be that we shall find light there on the subject of our inquiry.
Let us search the Epistles and see whether any evidence exists there of the Apostles’ revealing a new
coming, which is to precede by several years the one spoken of so frequently by our Lord in the days of
His earthly ministry. It is admitted that our Lord taught the Apostles on Mount Olivet to expect Him at
Page: 90
the Day of the Lord, when He would appear visibly, in great glory, for the overthrow of His foes, and the
inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. If, therefore, we can find in the Epistles that the Apostles and
their converts also were looking expectantly for the revelation of Christ from heaven at the Day of the
Lord, then we shall be able to conclude, not only that the Coming of the Gospels and that of the Epistles
are identical, but also that the theory that the Church will be raptured to heaven some years before the
Day of the Lord is a delusion.
There are four principal words used in the Epistles in reference to the End of the Age and the Return of
Christ. They are (1) Manifestation or Appearing; (2) the Revelation or Apocalypse; (3) the Coming, and
(4) the Day of the Lord.
It is admitted by the real leaders of the pre-trib school that the terms Appearing, Revelation, and Day of
the Lord are all synonymous, or at least related, expressions referring to the Day of Christ’s glorious
Advent at the close of the Age. It is contended, however, that the term Coming refers to an advent of
Christ that will take place some years--at least seven--prior to the Appearing, Revelation, or Day of
Christ. The Coming is for the Church; the Glorious Appearing for the world and Israel.94 Now, if the
Apostles revealed a new coming prior to the Glorious Appearing, there must be a clear trace of it either in
their discourses in the Acts, or in their Epistles. Again, the scheme is that Christians will be raptured to
heaven at the Coming and will return with Christ, seven or more years later.
Such is the statement, remarks B. W. Newton in The Second Coming. It is a very intelligible
statement. But is it true? Its truth may easily be tested. If it were true, we should be unable to
point out one single passage of Scripture that recognizes believers as remaining on the earth until
either "the Epiphany" or "the manifestation" or "the revelation" of the Lord; three distinct
expressions, all used in the Scripture, and all equally implying publicity. If we are to be removed
from the earth before the Epiphany of Christ, it is evident that the Scripture can nowhere either
state or imply that we are to remain in the earth until the Epiphany. If we can point
out one passage that speaks of believers being in the earth until the Epiphany, the whole argument
is disproved, and the system connected with its falls (pp. 7-8).
Not only so, we must nowhere find the Coming associated with the reward of the saints, the judgment, or
the destruction of Antichrist. Likewise we must nowhere find the Christian hope associated with
the Appearing, the Revelation, or the Day.
Let us study the Epistles on this important subject; and we may begin with the occurrences of Appearing-
epiphaneia.
(1) 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (R.V.).
The first use of the term is in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, where we read:
And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his
mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation (epiphaneia) of his coming (parousia).
94 See chapter 1, where extracts are given from “the Big Four:” Darby, Kelly, Trotter and C. H. M.
Page: 91
Clearly the Appearing of Christ is His Glorious Coming at the Day of the Lord. And, used in connection
with the regal word Parousia, it indicates the triumphant arrival of the King. "It is a powerful picture how
the mere breath of the Lord will destroy this arch-enemy."95 As an eschatological term Appearing has a
clear and definite meaning at its first mention in the New Testament. Of extreme significance is the use
of Parousia for the same crisis of judgment, but we leave the word till [the] next chapter.
(2) 1 Timothy 6:14 (R.V.).
That thou keep the commandment without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
But how can Christians observe this instruction if, as pre-trib assert, they will be raptured to heaven
several years or decades before the Appearing of Christ? Undoubtedly the Appearing is the event that
will terminate the service of Christians on earth. Clearly, therefore, they cannot be raptured before it
takes place.
(3) 2 Timothy 4:1.
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who will judge the living and the dead, in the light
of his appearance and his reign, I adjure you to preach the word (Moffatt).
Here the Appearing of Christ is held out as the time when Christ’s Kingdom will come, and when
Christians will stand before Christ Jesus. Alford says: "We have here His coming, when we shall stand
before Him--His Kingdom in which we hope to reign with Him."
(4) 2 Timothy 4:8.
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge,
shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing.
Does this look as if the Apostle Paul did not make the Glorious Appearing of Christ his hope? He himself
loved that appearing: he had his heart set upon it, because of the reward that the righteous judge was to
give him. Undoubtedly this refers to the hope of the Church, -- "the first stage of the advent" --since our
Lord said: "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14). The Glorious
Appearing and the resurrection of the saints synchronize. Both occur, as the context shows, "at that Day"
--the well known Day of the Lord.
(5) Titus 2:13.
Awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ
(Derby).
Now it is to be pointed out that in the Greek of this great passage the two
substantives hope and appearing are, as Ellicott points out in his Commentary, "closely united, and under
95 G. Milligan, cited by A. T. Robertson.

Page: 92
the vinculum (linked) of a common article." It is not, "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing," as
if two separate events were in view. It is simply: "looking for the blessed hope and appearing." The one
expression explains the other, or, as Green says in his Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek
Testament: "The ‘manifestation’ is but another expression for the hope" (p. 198). See also A. T.
Robertson, vol. 4, p. 604, and his Grammar of the N.T. (p. 786), where he applies the law to a famous
example in this same passage.
If Greek grammar is our guide, then we are bound to the conclusion that "the blessed hope" of Christians
is "the glorious appearing" or "the appearing of the glory" of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Hence it is that in the translations of the New Testament into modern, idiomatic English, the passage in
Titus 2:13 runs:
Moffatt:
Awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour
Christ Jesus.
Weymouth:
Awaiting fulfillment of our blessed hope--the Appearing in glory of our great God and Saviour
Jesus Christ.
Goodspeed:
We wait for the fulfillment of our blessed hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and
Saviour Christ Jesus.
Conybeare:
Looking for that blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus
Christ.
Wade:
Looking forward to the hope (so fraught with happiness) of witnessing the Manifestation.
The new rendering, "the appearing of the Glory of our great God and Saviour" is most significant. Every
Christian Hebrew would know at once that the Coming of Jehovah at the Day of the Lord is in view. This
was the hope of Israel; every Israelite looked forward to that great Day when the chosen People, looking
upon Jehovah would say: "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the
Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad in his salvation" (Isa. 25:9).
At Pentecost the Church of Christ shared this hope; for the Coming of Jehovah is now the Coming of
Jesus for the Church. This is seen already at Acts 1:11-- "This same Jesus . . . shall so come in like
manner" --a promise that Darby rightly referred to the glorious "manifestation in this lower world," when
"He will return to earth to be seen of the world," (Synopsis in loco.) In Acts 3:19-21, Peter preached the
same Glorious Appearing as is found in the O.T. and the Gospels, and at Acts 1:11. It is for what our
Page: 93
Lord called the "Regeneration" (Matthew 19:28). At 2:19-21, the Apostle quotes from Joel, applying to
the Day of Pentecost a prophecy of the End-time, which I shall quote in some modern versions, including
Darby’s:
Moffatt:
The sun shall be changed into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Ere the great, open Day of the Lord arrives.
And everyone who invokes the name of the Lord
Shall be saved.
Weymouth:
To usher in the Day of the Lord
That great and illustrious Day;
And everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord
Shall be saved.
Wade:
Before there cometh the great and impressive Day of the LORD;
And it shall ensue that everyone that invoketh the Name of the
LORD will be saved.
Goodspeed:
Before the coming of the great, splendid Day of the Lord.
Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved
Darby:
Before the great and gloriously appearing Day of (the) Lord come.
On the Greek word used here (epiphane) Darby says that it "has in it the sense of ‘manifestation,
appearing, displaying itself.’ Compare Titus 2:11, 13." New Translation, notes at Acts 2.
These words of Darby’s enable us to see that Paul in Titus 2:13 has the same day, and the same majestic
event in view, namely: the Coming in glory of Jesus the Messiah, who is Jehovah, the Hope of Israel, and
our Hope as well (1 Tim. 1:1).
Page: 94
And a man half-asleep can see that modern scholarship’s contribution at Titus 2:13 spells the ruin, and
the irretrievable ruin, of pre-tribs comforting program of the End. For according to them "the blessed
hope" is a secret event, clean detached from all connection with the Day of the Lord, which, they tell us,
is a terrible and terrifying affair, occurring several years or decades later; whereas according to Paul the
blessed hope of Christians is none other than the Glorious Appearing itself.
The use of the word appearing in the Pauline Epistles is absolutely decisive on the principal issue of our
inquiry: for Christ’s Appearing brings Antichrist to the pit (2 Thess. 2:8); closes the career of Christians’
upon earth (1 Tim. 6:14); sets Christians before their Lord when He comes to reign (2 Tim. 4:1); forms
the object of Christians’ affection (2 Tim. 4:8); and is definitely held out--as clearly as language can
make it--as the "Blessed Hope" of the Church (Titus 2:13).
Is it not terribly serious, therefore, that pre-trib leaders should attribute to Satanic influence the rejection
of a secret, Pre-tribulation Rapture, and the acceptance of the Glorious Appearing of Christ as the Blessed
Hope of Christians?96
Several years ago an expositor97 of note among pre-tribs, who had some concern for exact exegesis, and
saw that the Christian hope in Titus 2:13 is nothing else than the Glorious Appearing of Christ took to
task the Editor of a prophetic magazine for erroneous exegesis on this passage. Exegesis apart, he
deserved a prize for his courage. Well, he corrected the Editor’s carelessness in perpetrating the error--
which had always been a foundation pillar in the school--that "the blessed hope" of Titus 2:13 referred to
the Rapture, several years before the "Glorious Appearing." He pointed out that the Greek demands the
sense that the blessed hope is simply the Glorious Appearing. I was astonished to see this in an orthodox
magazine, and was curious to see how this courageous writer was going to square his sensible exegesis
with the pre-trib presupposition that the blessed hope precedes the Glorious Appearing by at least seven
years; or could it be possible that a reaction had set in with a return to the truth of Scripture? But alas, for
the vanity of human wishes! The writer who began so well ended up with a more violent leap in the dark
than the confreres whom he criticized: for, he would have us believe, Paul in Titus 2:13 was not referring
to the proper hope of the Church at all! "The blessed hope" of the Glorious Appearing is not strictly for
the Church, since it occurs some years after the more blessed hope of the Rapture of 1 Thessalonians
4:17. We are to believe, ex hypothesi, either that Paul, like the opponents of pre-tribs, "confused" the
Rapture and the Appearing of Christ, or else that, knowing that the Secret Rapture seven years before the
Glorious Appearing was the true hope of Christians, he carelessly led Titus and the whole Church
universal to believe that the Glorious Appearing was the true hope. An imaginary pretribulation rapture is
to be more esteemed than the blessed hope of Titus 2:13. I do not think we need to expose the hollowness
of this latest contention and its implications.
It is like nothing so much as a man’s having a gourd that he dug around and manured and watered, and
covered with a booth of leaves to keep out the sun, which was arising with withering in his wings.
96See C. H. M., p. 31; A. J. Pollock, May Christ Come at Any Moment? p. 3, and Gaebelein The Olivet Discourse, p.
89.
97C. F. Hogg, “The Morning Star,” Aug. 1, 1912. His position twenty years later is examined in a subsequent
chapter of this volume.
Page: 95
The candid student will see that there is one and only one sound interpretation of Titus 2:13, and that is
that "the appearing of the Glory of our great God and Saviour" is the true and proper hope of the saints. 1
Thessalonians 4:13-17 is but a more detailed reference to the same event. The theory that the latter is a
secret event, is one of the most amazing innovations ever made on the faith of the Church; and the theory
that it occurs several years before the Day of the Lord is once and for ever shattered by the sure and
satisfying statement of the Apostle’s that Christians, redeemed and schooled by the grace of God, live
lives "of self-mastery, of integrity, and of piety in this present world, awaiting the blessed hope of the
appearance of the Glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself up for us to
redeem us from all iniquity and secure Himself a clean people with a zest for good works," (Moffatt).
Just as Paul taught that the Glorious Appearing is the hope of the Church, so did the Apostle Peter.
Addressing the Elders of the Churches he says in his First Epistle:
And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth
not away (1 Peter 5:4; R.V.).
A comparison of this with Paul’s similar declaration in 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20 proves that the crowning
and the rewarding of the saints take place at the Coming of Christ; Luke 14:14, 1 Corinthians 15:52, and
Revelation 11:18 show that the rewarding takes place at the resurrection on the Day of the Lord. For
ordinary people, therefore, it is clear that, in Peter’s view, the Appearing of Christ coincides with the
Coming and the first resurrection.
The Apostle John taught the same thing, as the following passages from his first Epistle shows:
And now my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness,
and not be ashamed before him at his coming (1 John 2:28, R.V.).
Here again the Appearing and the Coming are but two aspects of the same event: the Glorious Appearing
of Christ the Lord.
In 1 John 3:2 the Appearing of Christ is both the cause and the occasion of the transfiguration of
Christians, just as in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 this blessedness is linked with the coming of the Kingdom:
"Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if
he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is" (R.V.).
But the most decisive text to prove John’s attitude is found in Revelation 1:7, which reads as follows:
"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all
the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."
To appreciate properly the presence of this moving passage on the first page of the book it is necessary to
bear in mind that the book of Revelation, as a whole, is an Epistle, written by John the Apostle to the
Seven Churches of Asia. It contains an opening salutation (1:4-6),98 continues throughout in the first
98John, to the seven Churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you and peace, from Him which is, and which
was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before His throne; and from Jesus Christ,
the faithful witness, etc.
Page: 96
person, and concludes, like the other N.T. Epistles, with the Apostolic benediction upon the readers of the
letter--"the grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints, Amen" (22:21, R.V. and Darby).
This character of the Apocalypse as an Epistle written to the Churches of Asia (which were founded in
great part through the evangelistic labors of Paul, and had already received an earlier encyclical from that
Apostle, i.e., the Epistle to the Ephesians) has been overlooked by pre-tribs, but is well established by
many eminent students of the Apocalypse. 99
Sometime before the war the British Admiralty addressed an important communication on Imperial
Naval policy to each of the overseas Dominions; accompanying this common memorandum was a
covering letter for each, dealing with local considerations. So it is with the Revelation. The Apocalypse
proper is an Epistle to the Seven Churches, and to the Church universal, concerning the approaching
times of Antichrist, and the sufferings of the saints. The Seven Epistles are special messages (not letters)
to the overseers of the Churches of Asia, praising, exhorting, or reproving them, according to the
condition of their congregations.
The importance of this fact can scarcely be exaggerated, for it shows that when John wrote his fourth and
last Epistle in A.D. 96 he was animated by precisely the same hope as animated Paul when he wrote his
last Epistles, those to Timothy and Titus in 65-66. Paul rejoiced in the blessed hope of the Glorious
Appearing of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ; John is thrilled by the very same hope: the Coming of
Jesus Christ in the clouds of heaven, to be seen by every eye, and specially by the penitent tribes in the
land of Israel (Rev. 1:7, Darby).
This same Advent of the Coming One takes place, as we saw when studying the resurrection, at chapter
11:17, when the first resurrection and the rewarding of the saints are effected. It is described in detail at
[Revelation] 19:11-20:6, where Antichrist is overthrown, the dead in Christ are raised, and the living
saints are translated to sit upon thrones, and exercise kingly rule in the Days of the Son of Man.
What shall we say to these things? Simply that all the sophistry of men cannot find room for a secret
rapture, or a pre-tribulation rapture: they are forever ruled out by the fact that the book from beginning to
end knows nothing100 of any coming of the Lord, prior to His Glorious Appearing at 1:7, 11:18, and
19:11. And what is true of the Apocalypse, is true of the whole N.T. revelation from our Saviour’s oral
teaching until the close of the Apostolic Age: Messiah comes in great glory; the holy dead are raised; the
sons of Jacob look penitently upon their brother Joseph, whom they rejected and sold into Egypt; the
Kingdom comes, and with it the glory of the righteous. The Coming for the saints and the
Coming with the saints take place at the same crisis; the day of the resurrection and transfiguration of the
holy dead, and of the renewal of Israel.
I have shown that this was the hope of O.T. saints, of the Pentecostal Church, of the Churches founded by
Paul, and of those addressed in the Revelation. It is also the hope of Hebrew Christians of our own
99See Ramsay: The Seven Churches of Asia, pp. 36-8; Hort Romans and Ephesians, p. 89; Zahn, ENT, iii., pp.
389-91, 413; Swete, The Apocalypse, p. 217; Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East, p. 237.
100 Chapter 14 gives a proleptic (anticipated) view of the End without describing the Coming.
Page: 97
generation; many will welcome the beautiful testimony of one of the greatest Hebrew preachers since the
Apostles:101
The New Testament has also a point to which it looks; and what is that point? Oh, I will speak
freely on this subject. It is the second advent of our Lord, when He will return with His saints and
when He will make Himself manifest to Israel and the whole world, not in order that the last
judgment may be held, but that another historical period may be ushered in, when God’s will shall
be done upon this earth as it is in heaven, and when Jesus Christ and the transfigured saints shall
come to be seen and be acknowledged: and then there shall be fulfilled the promises which God
has given from the beginning of the world. When he comes, Israel will say, "It is Jehovah, and it
is His first Advent." The Church will say, "It is Jesus, and it is His second Advent." Israel will
say, "He has come to take possession of the throne of David, and Jerusalem will be glorified and
will be His nation." And the Church will say, "He is glorified in the saints, and admired in all
them that believe, and we, whom He has redeemed with His blood, shall reign with Him on the
earth."
This is what all the Apostles taught, and taught constantly. Scarcely are the Thessalonians
converted from idolatry, before the Apostles teach them to wait for the coming of God’s Son from
Heaven. There is no summary given in the Apostolic Epistles, of what we believe, that does not
bring in "the blessed hope the Glorious Appearing (notice the expression) of the Great God and
our Saviour Jesus Christ." Purposely the expression is the Jehovah who will appear unto Israel. It
is Jesus who appears with the Church--the same thing-- "the great God and Our Saviour Jesus
Christ." And the angel explained it to the disciples "This same Jesus shall so come." It is the next
thing which is to happen (pp. 174-5).
Again:
Therefore, in the New Testament, both in the gospels and in the epistles, the coming of the Lord
Jesus is connected with the national restoration and blessing of Israel; or in other words, the
coming of Jehovah; and so until we come to the blessed book of the Revelation. There we have all
summed up in this book of the Kingdom, and this book of the Church. There we see the unity of
the whole record which God has given to us. He will come again. Jehovah means the Coming
One, and now He is called Jesus, who was, and is, and is to come; and of whom the Church says,
"Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly," (p. 179).
X. The Unveiling Of The Son
It is a simple element of Christian belief that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and is now at the
right hand of God; also that He will one day come forth in power and glory. One of the names given to
this crisis is apokalupsis--Revelation or unveiling. All pre-trib teachers taught that this great event
coincides with the Day of the Lord and the inauguration of the Kingdom.
Now, if pre-trib theories of the End-time are true, it follows that this word, when used in the Epistles,
must never be found associated with the existence of the Church on earth. If it is so used even once then
101 Adolph Saphir, The Divine Unity of Scripture

Page: 98
the theories are wrong. We found that the Glorious Appearing is called "the blessed hope;" what of
the Revelation?
(1) 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10:
The first occurrence of the word is in 2 Thessalonians 1, where the Apostle describes in splendid and
awful colors the very arrival of the Day of the Lord. The common versions are good, but the sense is
brought out rather better in the modern ones. Here is Goodspeed’s:
This is a proof of God’s justice in judging, and it is to prove you worthy of the Kingdom of God,
for the sake of which you are suffering, since God considers it only just to repay with suffering
those who are making you suffer and to give rest to you who are suffering and to us, when our
Lord Jesus appears102 from heaven, with his mighty angels in a blaze of fire, and takes vengeance
on the godless who will not listen to the good news of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with
eternal ruin and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and his glorious might, when on that
Day he comes to be honored in his people, and wondered at in all who believe in him--because
our testimony has been confirmed in you.
Could Paul have written this passage if he believed that Christians are to be raptured away to heaven
several years or decades before the Day of the Lord comes? The suggestion is fantastic. Once it is seen
that "rest" is a noun, the object of "recompense," then Darby’s scheme falls like a house of cards. He and
his associates and followers have a comforting scheme that the Elect will be raptured away several years
before the Day of Judgment described in this chapter. Yet Paul, dealing specifically with the question of
relief from tribulation, says that Christians will get it "at the Revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven
with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them
that obey not the gospel" (R.V.).
Not all the wisdom of Rabbis and sophists has succeeded in fitting this text into the new program of the
End-time,103
(2) 1 Corinthians 1:7:
The next (chronological) occurrence of the word Revelation is in 1 Corinthians. In the immediate context
the Apostle thanks God for the grace that had been given unto the Corinthians, enriching them in
everything, especially in "readiness of speech and fullness of knowledge" (Weymouth) and he adds:
so that ye come behind in no gift waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall
also confirm you unto the end, that ye be unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ
(R.V.).
The great Apostle warmly commends his readers because they were waiting for the unveiling of Christ in
His glory; and, lest anyone should misunderstand his meaning, the writer clinches the matter by affirming
See chapter on the “Saints’ Everlasting Rest” for an examination of some attempts to evade the obvious
103
meaning of this chapter, 2 Thessalonians 1.

Page: 99
that God will confirm them unto the End of the Age; he even goes further: he is confident that they will
be free from reproach104 on the Day of the Lord Jesus Messiah, when another Age is ushered
in. Revelation, End, and Day--all three terms indicate the same glorious event that the Corinthians were
waiting for: the appearing of the glory of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, which is the blessed
hope of all Christians, as we have already seen.
A. T. Robertson comments, vol. 4, p. 71
It is an eager expectancy of the second coming of Christ here termed revelation like the eagerness
in prosdechomenoi in Titus 2:13 for the same event. "As if that attitude of expectation were the
highest posture that can be attained here by the Christian" (F. W. Robertson).
And Canon Evans in his volume in the Speaker’s Commentary says:
The sense of this definitive clause is, "awaiting,105 as you are," i.e., in full, "looking away from all
else and looking out for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ;" the name and titles at full length,
as in verse 2, denoting the majesty of the unveiled Presence. Compare for thought Philippians
3:20, "out of which heaven we do look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall
transfigure the body of our humiliation unto conformity with the body of His glory."
Nobody holding to a secret Coming of Christ and a pretribulation Rapture of the saints as the immediate
hope of the Church could have written the words of 1 Corinthians 1:7. If we compare them with those in
Titus 2:13, written by the same hand, we cannot possibly avoid the conclusion that the true hope of
Christians is the approaching Advent of our Lord in great power and glory.
(3) Romans 8:18-19:
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory
which shall be revealed to us-ward. For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the
revealing of the sons of God (R.V.).
“Unimpeachable, for none will have the right to impeach.” Robertson and Plummer, quoted by A. T.
104
Robertson.
105 The same word is used in the following instances besides 1 Corinthians 1:7: --
Romans 8:19--The earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the Sons of God (R.V.).
Romans 8:23--ourselves also.. waiting for our adoption, to wit the redemption of our body (R.V.).
Romans 8:25--If we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience wait for it (R.V.).
Galatians 5:5--We through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness (R.V.).
Philippians 3:20--Whence also we look for the Saviour.
Hebrews 9:28--And unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Page: 100
This passage does not mean that Christians will have been some years previously raptured to heaven, and
concealed there, as the theorists assert. It simply means that Christians, who are sons of God now, though
in humiliation, and not recognized as such by the world, will be manifested in their true character and
glory at the Revelation of Christ (1 John 3:2).
Christians will be transfigured and openly manifested as the sons of God. This is the "redemption of the
body" that he refers to in verse 23 of this same chapter, and "the glory that shall be revealed to us-ward"
according to verse 18. Just as in 2 Corinthians 15:23-54 the Parousia is followed at once by the
resurrection and transfiguration of the redeemed (vv. 23, 51-52), and the inauguration of the Kingdom. 106
So in Romans 8:18-30, the Revelation of Christ ushers in the redemption and transfiguration of the
body,107 and the regeneration of nature (vv. I9-22): the saints are conformed to the image of God’s Son,
and creation itself is delivered from bondage, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.
No wonder the Church waited for the Revelation!
In their volume on Romans Sanday and Headlam remark on our passage:
The same word apokalupsis is applied to the second Coming of the Messiah (which also is
an epiphaneia, 2 Thessalonians 2:8) and to that of the redeemed who accompany Him: their new
existence will not be like the present, but will be in "glory," both reflected and imparted. This
revealing of the sons of God will be the signal for the great transformation (p. 207).
(4) 1 Peter 1:7:
That the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by
fire, might be found unto praise and glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ (R.V.).
Very evidently this passage treats of the blessed hope of Christians, for, after speaking of Christ’s
appearing, Peter says, "Whom having not seen ye love." At the Revelation, Christians will see Christ and
share His glory. Moreover, according to this text, the saints will be tested and rewarded at the Revelation
of Christ. It must also be the time of resurrection as Luke 14:14, Revelation 11:18, and 22:12 prove.
(5) 2 Peter 1:13:
Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be
brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Here again the Christian’s hope is the Revelation, for then it is that grace and glory will come to them.
Moreover, at 4:7, in this Epistle, he desiderates for his readers similar alertness and sobriety in view of
the approaching End. Could Peter have written like this if he believed that several years before the End,
and the Revelation of Christ, Christians would be raptured secretly to heaven?
(6) 1 Peter 4:13:
106 Verses 25, 50, 54; Isaiah 25:8

107 Verses 23, 18-19, 29-30
Page: 101
But, insomuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings rejoice; that, at the revelation of His glory
also ye may rejoice with exceeding joy (R.V.).
This verse is a companion of 2 Thessalonians 1:7. Each deals with the tribulation and trials of the saints.
Paul tells his readers that, at the Revelation of Christ, Christians will be recompensed with rest: Peter has
the same message. Just now Christians suffer and pass through fiery trials. At the Revelation of Christ’s
glory they will rejoice.
It is clear from the above use of the word Revelation that the Apostles Paul and Peter knew of no coming
prior to the Revelation of Christ in His glory. This revelation is everywhere implied as being the hope of
the Christian Church. It brings rest from tribulation (2 Thess. 1:7), and reward for service here below (1
Pet. 1:6-7); it is the grand event that Christians ardently wait for (1 Cor. 1:7), being the time for the
redemption and transfiguration of the body, and the regeneration of Nature (Rom. 8:19-30); it is the time
for fullness of grace and glory for all saints (1 Pet. 4:13; 1:13). No wonder Peter spoke of the Revelation
as a time to be glad with exceeding joy.
We have now found that the terms Consummation, End, Appearing and Revelation are all linked
indissolubly with the hope of the Church: shall we find that the Parousia brings the triumph of the King?
Let us see.
XI. The Parousia Of The King
The next word claiming attention is Parousia, which is usually translated in the Authorized and Revised
versions by coming, and in the recent independent translations by coming and arrival. We first meet it in
the N.T. at Matthew 24:3, which reads: "What will be the sign of your Coming and of the close of the
age?"108 Here and everywhere else in the Gospels it refers to the triumphant Advent of our Lord at the
close of the present world-period. Pre-tribs admit this, but contend that the Lord was addressing the
Apostles as representatives of a Jewish Remnant of the End-time, and that it is to the Epistles of Paul that
we must go to get light on the Church’s hope; the Coming of the Son of Man is not for the Church, but for
Israel and the world. Literally, as I have said, a volume is required to examine adequately the theories of
the standing, sufferings, and missionary preaching of that Remnant. But in the Epistles of Paul we are on
common ground: it is allowed that Parousia in the Epistles always refers to that Coming of Christ which
is the hope of Christians. Let us go, therefore, to Paul. And it is in his earliest Epistles (excepting
Galatians), those to the Thessalonians, that we meet with several references to the word that we are to
examine. Pre-tribs think that Paul is with them, and rely on these very Epistles to prove their whole case
on the Second Coming. Here are the references according to the Revised Version. For the sake of
completeness I also give the occurrence of the word in the great chapter on resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:23 Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ’s at his coming.
1 Thessalonians 2:19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of glorying? Are not even ye, before
our Lord Jesus at his coming? For ye are our glory and our joy.
108 So Weymouth and Goodspeed; Moffatt has “arrival;” A.V., R.V. have “coming.”
Page: 102
1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our
God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 We that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise
precede them that are fallen asleep.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 May your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you brethren touching the coming of the Lord.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay
with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation (epiphaneia) of his coming.
Only two of the above texts require detailed study. We may as well consider first the stronghold of the
new program of the End.
(1) 1 Thessalonians 5:13.
Most pre-tribs are frank enough to admit that if this passage goes against them, then their main position is
lost; their whole safety rests, in the last resort, upon the holding of this fort against attack. To borrow a
figure from Provost Salmon, we face an adversary who has been driven from one fortress after another,
but now secures himself with special confidence in his last; if he fails here he must fall back in a rout.
What does the Apostle say?
But I would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning the rapture of the Saints, that ye sorrow
not, even as the rest, which have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13).
The careless reader will have read the above passage without observing any appreciable change in its
wording; others will have noticed a significant variation at verse 13. Whereas Paul writes: "I would not
have you to be ignorant brethren, concerning them that are asleep," the citation above reads,
"concerning the rapture of the saints," for so it is often unconsciously read by every theorist who
approaches the text. According to Paul, he is going to give fresh instruction concerning "them that are
asleep;" according to the theorists he is about to give a revelation concerning the Rapture of the saints. In
a former chapter I quoted the dictum of a pre-trib in America-- "the Rapture is an incident of the coming,
spoken of directly once, and only once; and then given as a new revelation to meet the sorrows of the
Lord’s bereaved. It is never repeated." Such statements are characteristic of thousands made in
pamphlets, books, and magazines; they are typical of the exegetical looseness that characterizes so many
of the school. For, first, it may be asserted with all boldness that the Rapture was not given in 1
Thessalonians 4 "as a new revelation." I have already shown in chapter 6, with the complete concurrence
of Darby, Kelly, Newberry, and, indeed, of all the earlier theorists, and present-day ones like Scofield,
that the Rapture of believers was not "given as a new revelation" by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4, but by the
Lord Jesus Christ twenty years earlier. Secondly, it is to be asserted that the new revelation given "to
meet the sorrows of the Lord’s bereaved" was not the Rapture at all, but the fact that at the Coming of the
Lord, the saints who survive till then will have no precedence or advantage whatever over the saints who
sleep. Thirdly, in view of the Rapture craze, fathered by theorists, it needs to be asserted that the real
Page: 103
message of comfort about the Apostle’s words is not that there will be a Rapture, but that at the Lord’s
Coming the saints, whether watching or sleeping, will live together with the Lord, and be forever with
Him; so that, as Faussett beautifully puts it in his commentary: there will be "no more parting, no more
going out," and Moffatt: "no more sleeping in him or waiting for him." Fourthly, it will be shown before
we have finished with strange theories, that the Rapture, so far from being "spoken of directly once and
only once, and never repeated" was so spoken of more than once, and was often repeated. 109
To anyone not infatuated with special theories the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 is as plain as a
pikestaff: in the words of Faussett:110 "Jesus is represented as a victorious king, giving the word of
command to the hosts of heaven in His train for the last onslaught, at His final triumph over sin, death
and Satan," (Rev. 19:11-21).
The N.T. grammarian, A. T. Robertson, writing on the phrase "with a shout" in verse 16 says: "an old
word, here only in N.T., from keleuo, to order, command (military command). Christ will, come as
conqueror." Conybeare translates by a "shout of war," and adds: "the word denotes the shout used in
battle." Alexander in The Speaker’s Commentary has the paraphrase: "with a cry of command ringing
forth, like that of the general of a great army."
"Christ will come as conqueror." Here is the keynote of the passage. And this is proved beyond all doubt
by the kingly word Parousia, used here. It is one of the great contributions of modern scholarship that we
now understand what the early Christians felt when they read in Paul’s Epistles of the Parousia of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Scholars and archaeologists have been digging in the rubbish-heaps of Egypt and
found this word used in scores of documents in everyday life for the arrival of kings and rulers, or the
visit following. Let us have this in the words of a scholar, who has rendered priceless services in
explaining the words of Paul. In his great work, Light from the Ancient East,111 Deissmann deals with the
word Parousia. I quote some paragraphs from it:--
Yet another of the central ideas112 of the oldest Christian worship receives light from the new
texts, namely: parousia, "advent, coming," a word expressive of the most ardent hopes of a St.
Paul. We now may say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope of
the Parousia is the old Advent text, "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee" (Zech. 9:9; Matthew
21:5). From the Ptolemaic period down into the 2nd century A.D. we are able to trace the word in
the East as a technical expression for the arrival or the visit of the king or the emperor (or other
persons in authority, or troops). The parousia of the sovereign must have been something well
known even to the people, as shown by the facts that special payments in kind and taxes to defray
the cost of the parousia were exacted, that in Greece a new era was reckoned from the Parousia
109 John 14:3; Matthew 13:30; 24:31, 40-41; Mark 13:27; Luke 17:34-35; Rev. 20:4; 14:16.
110Lest the word “final” should be misunderstood, I remark that Canon Faussett held ardently to the kingly
rule of Christ, following the Advent in Revelation 19:2, and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18.
111 The Greek quotations are omitted.
112Even Cremer, vol. 9, p. 403, could only say: “How the term came to be adopted it would be difficult to
show.” He inclines to think it was an adaptation of the language of the synagogue. In another note
Diessmann says that the translation “coming again” for Parousia is incorrect.
Page: 104
of the Emperor Hadrian, that all over the world advent-coins were struck after a parousia of the
emperor, and that we are even able to quote examples of advent sacrifices.
The subject of parousia dues and taxes in Egypt has been treated in detail by Wilcken. The oldest
passage he mentions is in the Flinders Petrie Papyrus II. 39e, of the 3rd century B.C., where,
according to his ingenious interpretation, contributions are noted for a crown of gold to be
presented to the king at his parousia: "for another crown on the occasion of the parousia,
12 artabæ." This papyrus supplies an exceptionally fine background of contrast to the figurative
language of St. Paul, in which Parousia (or Epiphany, "appearing") and crown occur in
collocation. While the sovereigns of this world expect at their parousia a costly crown for
themselves, "at the parousia of our Lord Jesus" the apostle will wear a crown-- "the crown of
glory" (1 Thess. 2:19), won by his work among the Churches, or "the crown of righteousness"
which the Lord will give to him and to all them that have loved His appearing--2 Timothy 4:8.
I have found another characteristic example in a petition, circa 113 B.C., which was found among
the wrappings of the mummy of a sacred crocodile. A parousia of King Ptolemy, the second, who
called himself Soter ("saviour"), is expected, and for this occasion a great requisition has been
issued for corn which is being collected at Cerceosiris by the village headman and the elders of
the peasants. Speaking of this and another delivery of corn, these officials say: "and applying
ourselves diligently, both night and day, unto fulfilling that which was set before us and the
provision of 80 artabae which was imposed for the parousia of the king...."
Are not these Egyptian peasants, toiling day and night in expectation of the parousia of their
saviour king, an admirable illustration of our Lord’s words (Luke 18:7) about the elect who cry
day and night to God, in expectation of the coming of the Son of Man (Luke 18:8)?
As in Egypt, so also in Asia: the uniformity of Hellenistic civilization is proved once more in this
instance. An inscription of the 3rd century B.C. at Olbia mentions a parousia of King
Saitapharnes, the expenses of which were a source of grave anxiety to the city fathers, until a rich
citizen named Protogenes, paid the sum--900 pieces of gold, which were presented to the king.
Next comes an example of great importance as proving an undoubted sacral use of the word, viz.,
an inscription of the 3rd century B.C., recording a cure at the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus,
which mentions a parousia of the healer (saviour) god Asclepius--"and Asclepius manifested
his parousia." For the combination of parousia with manifestation see Thessalonians 2:8. Other
examples of Hellenistic age known to me are a passage in Polybius--"to expect earnestly
the parousia of Antiochus" (the verb is very characteristic, cf. Rom. 8:19)--referring to
a parousia of King Antiochus the Great, and two letters of King Mithradates VI., Eupator of
Pontus at the beginning of his first war with the Romans, 88 B.C., recorded in an inscription at
Nysa in Caria--"and now, having learnt of my parousia." The prince, writing to Leonippus the
Praefect of Caria, makes twofold mention of his own parousia, i.e., his invasion of the province
of Asia.
It is the legitimate continuation of the Hellenistic usage that in the Imperial period the parousia of
the sovereign should shed a special brilliance. Even the visit of a scion of the Imperial house, G.
Caesar (+4 A.D.), a grandson of Augustus, was, as we know from an inscription--"in the first year
of the epiphany [synonymous with parousia] of Gaius Caesar" made the beginning of a new era in
Page: 105
Cos. In memory of the visit of the Emperor Nero in whose reign St. Paul wrote his letters to
Corinth the cities of Corinth and Patras struck advent-coins. Adventus Aug(usti) Cor(inthi) is the
legend on one, Adventus Augusti on the other. Here we have corresponding to the Greek
parousia the Latin word advent, which the Latin Christians afterwards simply took over, and
which is today familiar to every child among us.
How graphically it must have appealed to the Christians of Thessalonica, with their living
conception of the parousiae of the rulers of this world, when they read in St. Paul’s second letter--
("the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus... shall destroy by the manifestation of His parousia,
whose parousia is according to the workings of Satan"-- 2 Thess. 2:8-9)--of the Satanic
"parousia" of Antichrist who was to be destroyed by "the manifestation of the parousia" of the
Lord Jesus!
How deeply a parousia stamped itself on the memory is shown by the eras that were reckoned
from parousiae. We have heard already of an era at Cos dating from the epiphany of G. Caesar,
and we find that in Greece a new era was begun with the first visit of the Emperor Hadrian in the
year 124; --the magnificent monuments in memory of that parousia still meet the eye at Athens
and Eleusis. There is something peculiarly touching in the fact that towards the end of the 2nd
century,113 at the very time when the Christians were beginning to distinguish the
"first parousia of Christ from the "second," an inscription at Tegea was dated
"in the year 69 of the first parousia

of the god Hadrian in Greece."
Even in early Christian times the parallelism between the parousia of the representative of the
State and the parousia of Christ was clearly felt by the Christians themselves. This is shown by a
newly discovered petition of the small proprietors of the village of Aphrodite in Egypt to the Dux
of the Thebaid in the year 537-538 A.D., a papyrus which at the same time is an interesting
memorial of Christian popular religion in the age of Justinian.
"It is a subject of prayer with us night and day, to be held worthy of your welcome parousia."
The peasants whom a wicked Pagarch has been oppressing, write thus to the high official, after
assuring him with a pious sigh at the beginning that they awaited him "as they watch eagerly from
Hades the future parousia of Christ the everlasting God."
Finally:-
Quite closely related to parousia is another cult-word, epiphaneia, "epiphany, appearing." How
closely the two ideas were connected in the age of the N.T. is shown by the passage in 2
Thessalonians 2:8, already quoted and by the associated usage of the Pastoral Epistles, in which
"Epiphany" or "Appearing" nearly always means the future parousia of Christ though once it is
Cf., for instance, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, c. 14 (Otto, p. 54), “the first parousia of
113
Christ,” and similarly in c. 52 (p. 174). The Christian era was afterwards reckoned from the first parousia.
Page: 106
the parousia which patristic writers afterwards called "the first." Equally clear, however, is the
witness of an advent coin struck by Actium-Nicopolis for Hadrian, with the legend: "Epiphany of
Augustus;" the Greek word coincides with the Latin word "advent" generally used on coins... the
new proofs available are very abundant.
It is not too much to say that these facts about the language in which the N.T. was written must
revolutionize some old and favorite ideas. In particular, when we open the Epistles to the Thessalonians,
we know for certain that Paul, in speaking of the Parousia of the Lord, is referring to the arrival, nay, the
arrival in triumph, of Christ the Lord. The humble believers in Thessalonica, when they witnessed the
imposing parousiæ of the emperor or his representative, and when they read the words of the Apostle
about the Parousia of the Lord, would remember with joy that their Emperor, Jesus the Messiah, will
have His Parousia, which will be an overpowering manifestation of divine power and glory, full of joy
for the righteous, full of terror for the impenitent and the ungodly, and opening up a new era for the
world.
At 1 Thessalonians 2:19 this Parousia is associated with crowns and rewards for the servants of Christ; at
3:13 with an immense retinue (entourage) of the holy dead; at 4:15-17 with the resurrection of those
saints, and the Lord’s summons to His hosts for the decisive conflict; at 5:23 with the saints’ holiness and
preparation for that day; at 2 Thessalonians 2:1 it is mentioned with the assembling of the Elect as one of
two events characterizing the Day of the Lord, and requiring to be fulfilled before anyone could say, "the
Day of the Lord has come;" at 2:8 with the Glorious Appearing of Christ, and the overthrow of
Antichrist; and at 1 Corinthians 15:23, 50-52, with the resurrection and transfiguration of the redeemed
when the Kingdom is established.
Not different is the teaching of the other Apostles: James, who, according to Bartlet, Mayor, Zahn, and
many other authorities, wrote about A.D. 45, a few years before the "revelation" in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-
18 of a special coming "for the Church," deals with the Parousia of the Lord in a primitive almost O.T.,
way;114 He who judges the ungodly and vindicates the elect is at hand. In 2 Peter 1:16 the Parousia is
associated with the Coming and Kingdom of the Son of Man in the Gospels;115 at 3:12, the Apostle
desires that his readers should be found "looking for and hasting the coming of the day of God" (R.V.
mg.), which is the same as the Day of the Lord in 5:10, the day that closes the present Dispensation of
mercy, and ushers in the regeneration of nature, according to Isaiah and our Lord. 116 John in his First
Epistle, at 2:28, associated the Parousia with the public manifestation of the Son, and this in 4:17 is
called "the day of judgment." This majestic event requires that we abide continually in Him, so as to have
boldness in the great Day, and "not be ashamed before him at his parousia."
114James 5:7, 8; on verse 7 Alford says: “Be patient therefore (‘therefore’ is a general reference to the
prophetic strain of the previous passage: judgment on your oppressors being so near, and your own part, as
the Lords’ righteous, being that of unresistingness) brethren... until... the coming of the Lord.”
115 Matthew 16:28 and 17:1-8. This is the interpretation of the Transfiguration by both Kelly and Gaebelein
in their commentaries on Matthew. It is not so sure as they think.
116 Isaiah 65 and 66:22; Matthew 19:28.
Page: 107
The suggestion of Darby, backed by the vigorous efforts of Kelly117 and others, to prove from this most
magnificent passage in 1 Thessalonians 4 that a secret coming, a secret resurrection and a secret rapture
are portrayed, followed by the rise and reign of Antichrist, is among the sorriest in the whole history of
freak exegesis. It is on a par with what the postmillennialists say at Revelation 20:4-6--just as bad and
just as dangerous to the truth of the Millennium; for if 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 can be fulfilled as secretly
as Darbyists insist, then so can the classic passage in Revelation: it is an inconsistency to deny it.
Admitting the principle of secrecy is selling the pass of the Pre-Millennial position. Anything becomes
possible; the vagary of Dr. J. Stuart Russell and others that 1 Thessalonians 4 was fulfilled at the
destruction of Jerusalem, and the lunar suggestion of Pastor Russell (or his successor) that it was
accomplished in 1914. We are in a land of guesses, dreams and delusions that Christ and His Apostles
sought strenuously to save us from. If anyone doubts this reasoning let him consider the following
exposition of Revelation 19:2 by a leading post-millennialist, Dr. Agar Beet:118
The vision of Revelation 19:2 does not necessarily describe an event visible to men on earth. We
are not told in Chapter 20:4-6 that the risen ones will reign with Christ on earth; nor have we in
verse 4 any hint of a visible return of Christ to earth. Possibly the events of Revelation 19:2 to
20:4 may take place without any interruption of the ordinary course of human life.
These words, mutatis mutandis (things being changed which are to be changed), are an exact
reproduction of pre-trib ideas of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. It is Darby and Kelly who insist, and loudly
insist, that this latter passage "does not describe an event visible to men on earth." It is they who assert
that that sublime Advent will take place "without any interruption of the ordinary course of human life,"
and that the passage does not contain "any hint of a visible return of Christ to earth." And, as if to
complete the resemblance between the two schools, Beet indicates that in his opinion the reign of the
risen ones in Revelation 20:4-6 will not be exercised on earth but in heaven--exactly the position of Kelly
and his colleagues, who vigorously insist that the risen saints during the millennium will not reign on
earth, but from heaven.
117“Brayings of ignorance,” “antagonists of the truth,” “it is mere and ignorant unbelief” and scores of others
were the grossly offensive expressions used by Kelly of his opponents, to browbeat his readers into
acceptance of his distorting exegesis. Not only that, the influence of Satan was attributed to those who
rejected the Secret Rapture or the distinctions between the Coming and the Day, Appearing, and Revelation
of Christ. Now half the school is doing it!
Kelly could be excellent--when expounding the truth; Spurgeon said of him that “he was born for the
universe, but narrowed by Darbyism.” But in espousing ecclesiastical and prophetic error he used most of
the tricks of controversy. In the writings of Dr. Gaebelein an American interpreter of Kelly, the same
deplorable spirit is often found. It is no pleasure to say this, for the author’s Harmony of the Prophetic Word
has much in it that is excellent.
The present writer is glad to testify that in what he had read of Darby on prophecy the courteous and
urbane spirit has been admirable. He was often ingenuous in making ruinous admissions. Of course Darby
could use another blade.
118The Second Advent (“British Weekly” extras), 1887, p. 30; see also the author’s Last Things in Fern Words
(1913).
Page: 108
Thus we see how thoroughly the strange doctrine of a secret, invisible advent of Christ is a complete
undermining of the fundamental position of Pre-millennialism. In vain may the theorist protest against
the violence of Beet’s exegesis; in vain may he insist that the language of the Apocalypse requires a
visible, glorious Advent breaking in upon the life of humanity; he himself by his own violent principles
of interpretation has provided Beet and his school with the requisite justification. Every argument he uses
against Beet is a refutation of his own system.
Similarly it must be admitted that if the innumerable company of the sleeping saints who rise at the
Advent of 1 Thessalonians 4 may rise and be transferred to heaven without any interruption of the life of
humanity beyond a passing scare and inconvenience, then the same must be granted as possible of the
resurrection of the martyrs in Revelation 20:4-6. Finally, if millions of living Christians, whom the world
sees and with whom it has intercourse every day, can be translated in clouds to heaven without the
world’s witnessing it, then it is but straining at a gnat to deny that God can bind Satan--whom we have
never seen--and overthrow Antichirst and his allies secretly, and without a glorious Advent of which all
the world will know. Thus we see, I repeat, that the Secret-Rapture theories are a menace to the hope of
Christ’s Coming.
But there is no need to labor the point: the Secret Rapture theory is being increasingly abandoned by
theorists. R. A. Torrey gave it up; so did Anderson; now Messieurs Hogg and Vine indicate119 their
doubts about it, combined with a reluctance to give the fond thing up; they say: "What is to happen ‘in
the twinkling of an eye’ cannot be witnessed and therefore must, in so far, be secret," (p. 168).
Yes, people can never see lightning; it cannot be witnessed; it is so secret! May one point out that what is
said to take place "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" is not the Rapture of the saints, but their
transfiguration, as 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 proves? Yet every theorist works the phrase to death to prove a
million miles of miracle at the Rapture; for, they tell us, the whole round world will see nothing of the
stupendous events of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. It is as pure a myth as ever entered the brain of man.
Men who taught this dangerous delusion were capable of teaching other beautiful and comforting errors
on the Second Coming. And they did; and did it with such success that multitudes in all the Churches hail
them as heaven-sent truths, worth dying for. "It is amazing," says an American theologian, "how gullible
some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion."120 And very devout and
Christian men, "with half-baked theories about the Second Coming of Christ," can be as successful as any
deceiver. The very excellence of their character and Christian standing adds to the danger. This accounts
for the amazing popularity of the Secret-Rapture, pre-Tribulation theory:121 some spiritual giants
espoused it. But sound exegesis, and the new discoveries about the use of the word Parousia in popular
speech, are the annihilation of all ideas of secrecy at the Advent, and of an Advent to be followed by the
triumph of the Man of Sin.
119 Touching the Coming, p. 168.

120 Robertson, vol. 4, p. 49.
Very appropriately works of fiction have taken up the theory; see Sydney Watson’s In the Twinkling of an
121
Eye and The Mark of The Beast.

Page: 109
In their work Touching the Coming, Messieurs Hogg and Vine complain that the translation coming
is wrong; relying, or seeming to rely, on Cremer’s Lexicon, they claim that presence is the fundamental
meaning of Parousia and that the word should be so translated (pp. 58-67). With rashness the authors set
aside the comments of Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, and all the scientific commentaries, and press on the
reader their view that presence is the only acceptable translation (pp. 60, 153). The reader is even led to
believe that Cremer treated the translation arrival as erroneous, and as "somewhat artlessly" admitting
that translators thus made the Greek word Parousia "mean what, in fact, it does not mean." This is a
complete misstatement of Cremer’s position. He gives the first meaning of Parousia as presence, with 2
Corinthians 10:10, and Philippians 2:12 as his examples of this sense. He then gives arrival as the second
sense of the word, quoting 1 Corinthians 16:17, 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, and 2 Peter
3:12, as examples. He then goes on: "With this meaning is most probably connected the application of the
word to the second coming of Christ."122 He gives numerous examples and continues:
The two expressions (Day and Coming) are used interchangeably in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and 2.
According to the passages in question, the parousia of Christ denotes His coming from heaven,
which will be an advent and revelation of His glory, for the salvation of His Church, for
vengeance on its enemies, for the overthrow of the opposition raised against Himself--of
antichristianism--and finally, to realize the plan of salvation. Cf. (in addition to the passages
already named) 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8; James 5:7; 2 Peter 1:16, 3:12.
And Cremer is appealed to by our authors to prove that Parousia does not really mean arrival, and should
always be translated "presence." What next!
The burden of Cremer’s article is, in fact, the annihilation of pre-tribs’ and our authors’ views on the
word Parousia, and their whole program of the End; this although Cremer is sixty years behind the times
of Deissmann, Milligan, Moulton, and Abbot-Smith. Cremer admits that Parousia in Matthew 24:27, 37,
39, means "arrival," and he goes on to identify it with the terms Appearing, Day,
Revelation, and Coming in the Epistles. Our authors say that "‘Coming’ is properly represented by a
perpendicular line thus |; parousia is properly represented by a horizontal line thus --." Yes, but if we
read the page sideways we get an opposite effect. And our authors read Cremer on the skew.
Cremer goes on to raise a doubt about the rightness of using Parousia in the sense of arrival. But he is
not quarrelling with modern translators for translating the word coming or arrival. His doubt is over the
Apostles themselves: they used it undoubtedly in the sense of arrival: how did they do this when the
original sense was presence? That is Cremer’s argument.
When teachers misread the Lexicon, how can we trust their reading of the N.T., which it explains?
What Cremer did not know fifty years ago has been made abundantly clear by the Papyri discoveries in
the Near East, cited copiously in this chapter. Parousia was everywhere used in the sense of
the arrival or coming of kings and rulers on a visit to a town. How appropriate to the Arrival of our
Saviour-God, Jesus Christ, when He comes in triumph to rescue His afflicted people, and establish the
kingly rule of God. All the new translations of the N.T. that have been published in the last sixty years, in
the light of intense research, give coming, advent, arrival, appearing, to translate Parousia, when used of
122 Biblico-theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek, p. 238.

Page: 110
the End. Darby, Kelly, the American and English revisers, Weymouth, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Way, Wade,
and the Twentieth Century, all make use of those terms. The new N.T. lexicons of Souter, Abbot Smith,
and the monumental one of Milligan and Moulton, which incorporate the new material from the Papyri
discoveries, all give arrival or coming as one of the fundamental meanings of the Greek word Parousia.
And now the famous Greek lexicon compiled by Liddell and Scott, in the new edition revised and
augmented throughout by Dr. H. S. Jones, gives the senses presence, arrival, occasion, visit, and then
says, "In the N.T. the Advent, Ev. Matthew 24, 27 al." (Part 7, 1933 p. 1343.) So also the Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary (1936) on the anglicized form: "The second coming or advent of Christ (the sense in 1
Corinthians 15:23, etc.)."
But no translation (not even Darby’s), and no up-to-date lexicon of N.T. or classical Greek will satisfy
the authors. Why? Because they want a "blanket" meaning for the word to cover a new-fangled, fantastic
scheme of the End-time, which turns topsy-turvy all previous programs, including Darby’s. They
themselves require a chart to explain their scheme. I will give a silhouette in a few words, and not
unfairly: the Coming or Presence of Christ, according to them, begins at the Secret Rapture, extends over
an undetermined period of several years, and ends with the Appearing in great glory of our Lord.
Let the reader think of the implication in this: after Messiah’s Presence begins, ex hypothesi, Antichrist
arises, deceives the nations, oppresses the Covenant People, and comes to a full triumph in the Great
Tribulation when the millions of saints in Revelation 7:9-17 are martyred! A truly bewildering and
misleading program as to His Coming.
If the writers had applied their idea, in which there is an element of truth, to the Advent of our Lord in
glory, and to the period of His "visit," when He opens up a new era for the world, by His kingly rule,
there would be much in the new researches to support them; but their scheme, as they put it, is totally
without foundation; it is an innovation on the faith, and on pre-trib traditions as well. Moffatt, whose
translation embodies the results of the new lexical research, translates parousia by "arrival," again and
again. It is his usual word:--
1 Corinthians 15:23 "All who belong to Christ, at his arrival."
1 Thessalonians 2:19 "In the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ on his arrival."
1 Thessalonians 5:23 "Till the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ."
2 Thessalonians 2:1 "With regard to the arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ."
2 Thessalonians 2:8 "Whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His lips and quell by
His appearing and arrival."
Of particular interest is 2 Corinthians 7. "But the God who comforts the dejected comforted me by
the arrival of Titus. Yes, and by more than his arrival"(vv. 6-7). According to the conjecture of Wieseler,
cited by Weymouth, Titus walked in as Paul was writing. This cheered the Apostle, as did the report he
had to give. This one passage completely demonstrates that arrival is a fundamental meaning
of Parousia; Paul was comforted by the arrival, and the subsequent intercourse.
Page: 111
But the most damaging exposure of this new program and this new chart is the word of our Lord: "For
like lightning that shoots from east to west, so will be the arrival (parousia) of the Son of Man."123 Here,
as in Thessalonians, "Christ comes as a Conqueror" and Rescuer, and his Parousia, far from being a
prolonged period, is a single crisis breaking with the utmost suddenness; and, far from being followed by
the rise of Antichrist, is preceded by it, and followed by the reign of the Son of Man (Matthew 24:15;
19:28). Shall we prefer the fond theories of men to this majestic declaration?
Having examined the word Parousia let us come to grips with the great passage in First Thessalonians.
First, concerning the occasion of Paul’s oracle, I cannot do better than quote some remarks from Prof.
Frame’s masterly volume in International Critical Commentary (ICC) on Thessalonians:
Since Paul’s departure, one or more of the Thessalonian Christians had died. The brethren were in
grief not because they did not believe in the resurrection of saints, but because they feared that
their dead would not have the same advantages as the survivors when the Lord came. Their
perplexity was due not simply to the Gentile difficulty of apprehending the meaning of
resurrection, but also to the fact that Paul had not when he was with them discussed explicitly the
problem of the relation of survivors to dead at the Parousia. Since they had received no
instruction on this point (contrast vv. 1-2, 6, 9, 11, v. 2), they write to Paul for advice "concerning
the dead," (pp. 163-4).
Prof. Frame then goes on to show "that the question is not: Will the Christians who die before
the Parousia be raised from the dead? but: Will the Christians who die before the Parousia be at
the Parousia on a level of advantage with the survivors?"
Secondly, concerning the nature of the revelation made by Paul, it is as clear as light that it was not the
Rapture, still less an entirely new coming of Christ "for the Church," but merely a new detail of the
Lord’s Coming to show the sure blessedness of the sleeping saints. That the burden of 4:13-18 is the
place and blessedness of the Christian dead at the Advent, is clear from the fact that four times they are
referred to, as the following from the R. V. will show:
But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep (13).
Them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him (14).
We that are alive, that are left….shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep (15).
The dead in Christ shall rise first (16).
123Matthew 24:27 (Moffatt). On the first use of the word Parousia Plummer says (on 24:3): “It intimates that
the return of the Messiah in glory will not result, like the First Coming, in a transitory stay, but will
inaugurate an abiding presence” (p. 329). This admirable note about sums up the truth of modern research
on the Parousia: a triumphant arrival of our Lord followed by His presence in His kingly rule. J. Weiss
following Deissmann, says, that Parousia “does not signify Return, but Arrival.” (Derste Korintherbrief, p.
357) With this qualification Plummer’s note may be accepted.
Page: 112
And Paul meets the difficulty by indicating a new circumstance concerning the relation of the survivors
to the holy dead at the Advent; this to show that at the Coming of the Lord, the living will have no
precedence over the dead, and that these, consequently, will be at no disadvantage,
Prof. Frame observes on the central point:
Whatever the procedure in detail may be, the point is clear that at the descent of the Lord from
heaven, the dead are raised first of all, and then the survivors and the risen dead are together and
simultaneously (hama sun; "together with") snatched up and carried by means of clouds to meet
the Lord in the air (p. 1174).
If Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 professed to be giving some additional details concerning the relation
of the sleeping and surviving saints at the well-known Coming of Christ, then he could not have made
himself better understood, because, since the time the Apostle penned the words, no doubt has ever
existed amongst his principal interpreters concerning the precise significance of his "revelation." But if
his intention was to introduce--as theorists now insist--an entirely new coming of Christ, and a new
resurrection of the saints--a coming and resurrection different from those found in the earlier Scriptures--
then, though he was writing in a language that is said to be the most perfect instrument of accurate
thought and expression that the world has seen, and though the Apostle himself was possessed of singular
lucidity and great powers of reasoning, he failed miserably to make himself understood; since for nearly
two thousand years all his best expositors failed to see his meaning, until recent theorists discovered, or
thought that they had discovered, that Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 was setting forth a new
resurrection earlier than the "first," and a new coming of Christ earlier than that in the Gospels.
The question of importance now is, have we any indication when this coming of Christ will take place?
Pre-tribs insist that the passage teaches that Christ will come for His saints prior to the last of Daniel’s
Seventy Weeks, and especially before the Great Tribulation. This, however, is impossible, since the text
contains no reference to the Great Tribulation and Daniel’s prophecies, and this it must have had, to reach
any such doctrine as that proposed. And Daniel’s prophecies contain no reference to the Rapture, as such.
It is clear, therefore, that the theorists in interpreting 1 Thessalonians 4 read their ideas into the passage;
Paul did not put them there.
But though the prophecy in 1 Thessalonians 4 contains no reference to the Seventy Weeks, it nevertheless
gives us a clue that enables us to overthrow the new theories. In that Scripture the Coming of the Lord
synchronizes with the resurrection of the saints. The latter follows immediately upon the former. Nobody
disputes this. Well, when do the dead rise, before or after the apocalyptic Week? We have already seen
that, alike in the teaching of the Prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ, of Paul and the Apocalypse, the
resurrection of the saints is located with the utmost definiteness at the Day of the Lord. Paul, far from
revealing a new resurrection, insists that he is expounding an old one.
Here is the fundamental blunder, the crowning disaster of the new ideas on the Second Coming; the
theorists quietly assume that all the passages on the resurrection of the saints can be brought forward in
front of the Seventieth Week to suit their novel interpretation of the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4; but it
is to be insisted on that such wresting of the Scriptures cannot be allowed. The time of the Rapture must
stand or fall with the time of the saints’ resurrection; and this is located at the Day of the Lord.
Page: 113
It remains to answer some objections to the obvious view that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, will be fulfilled
at the Day of the Lord. The theorists contend that, as there is no mention of signs and seals heralding the
Advent in 1 Thessalonians 4, and as seals and signs are always associated with the Advent at the Day of
the Lord, the former cannot be identical with the latter. But what these writers have overlooked is that
there is no mention of seals and signs after the Coming in 1 Thessalonians 4. Not even in the following
chapter, where the Day of the Lord is spoken of, is there any mention of preceding signs and seals: so that
if from the absence of seals in 1 Thessalonians 4 it is legitimate to assert that the Coming in that chapter
must precede the Day of the Lord, then the same must be conceded concerning the Advent in chapter 5,
because there also is no mention made of signs and seals. 124 It must be different from the Day in
Revelation 19:2 ff, and 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
Moreover, the absence of preceding signs and seals does not necessarily prove that the Advent in chapter
4 will precede the Day of the Lord by seven years; adopting the theorists’ method of interpreting the
text by itself, it would be just as reasonable to maintain that that Advent will occur seven years after the
Day of the Lord, when all the signs and seals are done with!
The reason why there is no mention of preceding signs and seals in 1 Thessalonians 4 is because the
Apostle does not profess to be describing the Second Coming. His theme, properly speaking, is not the
Second Advent, but the relation of survivors to the dead at that event. In other words, the Apostle is
dealing with a single aspect of the Coming, and that as it concerns the dead in Christ. And this avails also
to explain why no mention is made of the bearing of the Advent upon the unbelieving world. Theorists of
course find here a proof of their theory of two "second" Advents, but it is sufficient to say, in the words
of Westcott on Hebrews 9:28: "Nothing indeed is said of the effect of Christ’s Return upon the
unbelieving. This aspect of its working does not fall within the scope of the writer."
Paul, I repeat, is not even describing in detail the hope as it concerns the Church; for there is no mention
of the transfiguration of the believers--an essential feature of their blessedness; the Apostle says nothing
again of the judgment-seat of Christ, and the recompense of the saints; nothing of the marriage-supper of
the Lamb. These aspects are all omitted, as also the relation of the Advent to Israel and the world, simply
because the Apostle had no occasion to raise them. He was dealing with a company of Christians who
already knew the main facts of Christ’s Coming from the Apostle’s own oral teaching, but had doubts
about the place that the dead whom they mourned would have at the Advent. But to argue from the
Apostle’s silence upon other points--such as the destruction of Antichrist, the judgment of the ungodly,
and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom--that therefore these events do not occur at this time is
an unreasonable attitude. Just as logical would it be to contend that since there is no mention of the
transfiguration of the saints and the marriage-supper of Christ, those events must be conceived of as
occurring some time later.
It is well-known that post-millennialists made much of Paul’s silence at this point upon the question of
the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ at the Advent. "Paul does not teach in 1 Thessalonians 4 that
This fact is even used by some to prove that Paul’s teaching here contradicts that of our Lord, because the
124
Lord spoke of preceding signs: contradicts also the teaching of 2 Thessalonians 2, where signs are also
mentioned.
Page: 114
the millennium will follow the advent." So they argue--just as our theorists do. The reply that Alford and
Faussett gave to such unreasonable exegesis is as applicable to the reasoning of our theorists as it was to
that of the antagonists of a literal millennium. Alford writes in his commentary:
Christ is on His way to this earth. . .; that St. Paul advances no further in the prophetic
description, but breaks off at our union in Christ’s presence, is accounted for, by his purpose
being accomplished in having shown that they who have died in Christ shall not be thereby
deprived of any advantage at His coming. The rest of the great events of that time--His advent on
the earth, His judgment of it, assisted by His saints (1 Cor. 6:2-3), His reign upon earth, His final
glorification with His redeemed in Heaven--are not treated here, but not therefore to be conceived
of as alien to the Apostle’s teaching.
Nor, he might have added, to the purpose of this Advent.
Excellent also is the interpretation of Moffatt in his Commentary in Expositor’s Greek Testament (EGT):
What further functions are assigned to the saints thus incorporated in the retinue [entourage] of
the Lord (3:13; cf. 2 Thess. 1:10) --whether, e.g., they are to sit as assessors at the judgment (1
Cor. 6:2, 3; Luke 22:30) --Paul does not stop to state here. His aim is to reassure the
Thessalonians about the prospects of their dead in relation to the Lord, not to give any complete
program of the future (so Matthew 24:31, Didache 10, 16). Plainly, however, the saints do not rise
at once to heaven, but return with the Lord to the scene of his final manifestation on earth (so
Chrysostom, Augustine etc.). They simply meet the Lord in the air, on his way to judgment--a
trait for which no Jewish parallel can be found--and so shall we be always with the Lord (no more
sleeping in him or waiting for him).
Pre-tribs also make use of the Rapture of the saints to meet the Lord "in the air" to prove their
extraordinary theory that Christ does not come on to earth at this time, but returns to heaven. This also
was an essential part of the postmillennialists’ argument; the idea of Christ’s reign upon earth was as
obnoxious to them as it is to most theorists.
The truth is, pre-tribs are precluded from an adequate appreciation of 1 Thessalonians 4; the Secret
Rapture delusion has blurred their vision, and the importance attached to the Rapture has led them to
overlook the elementary principle that "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20,
R. V.), but must be compared diligently with other Scriptures. For when we compare 1 Thessalonians
4:13-18 with other Scriptures, and carefully weigh its own terminology, we have no difficult y in seeing
that the Second Coming will not be secret, but in visible glory; that the hope of the Church is not an event
to be followed by the rise and reign of the Man of Sin, but by his destruction, and the reign of Christ and
His saints on the renewed earth.
But if any doubt exists that the Coming of 1 Thessalonians 4 will take place at the Day of the Lord, it is
removed by the opening verses of chapter 5 of the same Epistle, where the Apostle is still speaking of the
Second Coming.
This passage causes great embarrassment to pre-tribs, and they are reduced to unnatural explanations to
square its teaching with their theories: the Apostle is no longer speaking of the Second Coming of Christ,
Page: 115
but of the third; no longer dealing with the Advent as it affects Christians, but unbelievers; the Day of the
Lord, and "the times and seasons," have no reference to the Church’s hope, but only to the Day of
judgment some years later. So they assert.
If the Day of the Lord has no reference to the Christian hope, why did the Apostle give the Thessalonians
so much instruction concerning its arrival, and the necessity of sobriety and alertness on the part of
Christians in view of its coming? If he held the views of pre-tribs, why did he not drop the subject of the
Day of the Lord altogether when speaking to Christians, and confine himself to the Rapture? This is what
pre-tribs do; they insist that Christians have not the least practical concern with the coming of the Day of
the Lord as a hope, since they will have been with the Lord for years when it comes. But the awkward
thing is that the Apostle, far from eschewing the giving of instruction to Christians about the Day of the
Lord, has given very detailed instruction, in the Second as well as the First Epistle, about the coming of
that Day; and this, not merely to arouse their interest in a subject of prophetic inquiry, but to prepare
them mentally and morally for its coming.
Light is thrown upon 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6, by considering what led the Apostle to write it. The
Thessalonians had two difficulties about the Lord’s Coming. The first was concerning the hope and place
of the dead. The Apostle answered it in the closing verses of chapter 4, where the living are referred to
but incidentally, to show the precise relation of the two classes. The second difficulty of the
Thessalonians followed from the first: if the dead saints missed the blessedness of the Coming and
Kingdom of Christ, then their own position became precarious, since they were mortal men and might not
survive to see the Advent and share its glory. Unless, therefore, they could be sure that Christ would
certainly come in their own lifetime, their hope was vain. Hence they requested from the inspired Apostle
information "concerning the times and seasons," that is, they wished to know the precise period that must
intervene before the Advent, and they desired to know exactly when the Lord would come. In other
words, their second difficulty was about the living and their prospect of seeing the Day.125
Paul answers it in chapter 5 by dealing with the Day of the Lord as it will affect the living. The dead are
no longer in view, since he has already settled the difficulty concerning them; they are not mentioned at
all now, until the end of the whole section. The Apostle informs the Thessalonians that their request to
know the intervening period prior to the Advent is beside the mark, since the time of the Lord’s Coming
is not a subject of calculation at all; for the day of the Lord’s Coming will be like the arrival of a thief--
sudden and unexpected. Like a thief, however, that day will come upon the ungodly alone; not so upon
the believers, since they are expecting that Day, and will be ready for it whenever it comes.
The true significance of this section is obscured for pre-tribs by the unfortunate break into chapters at this
point. Convinced that the meaning will become clearer, I propose to set down here, in parallel columns,
three of the admirable modern versions of Paul’s oracle in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, to 5:2, without any
division into verses and chapters; then I shall add two paraphrases from famous expositors of the passage
in Paul.
125 I must acknowledge my obligations here to the commentaries of Milligan and Findlay.
Page: 116
Of the many idiomatic translations of First Thessalonians I purposely choose three that were not made by
professional theologians, but by classical scholars, two of them--W. G. Rutherford and A. S. Way--Greek
scholars of renown. This is done simply to avoid the suggestion that I have sought translations with a
theological bias.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:2
Weymouth Rutherford Way
(a) Concerning the Dead (a) Concerning the Dead (a) Concerning the Dead
Now, concerning those who There is a matter upon which And, in this connection, I wish
fall asleep we would not have we would have you informed-- you to have no false
you ignorant, brethren, lest I mean the fate of friends conceptions, my brothers, of
you should mourn, as do the when they die. To know it will the lot of those who are now
rest who have no hope. For if save you from repining as the sleeping in death: you must
we believe that Jesus died and rest of the world repine, who not grieve for them as the
rose again, in the same way have no hope. If we believe heathen do, who have no hope.
also through Jesus God will that Jesus Christ died and rose If we really believe that Jesus
bring with Him those who again, then shall God at the not only died, but has risen,
have fallen asleep. And this intercession of Jesus bring we must, by inference, believe
we declare to you on the with Jesus those of us who that those too who have,
Lord’s own word--that we have gone to their rest. through Jesus’ power, been
who are alive and survive until hushed to sleep, will God
the Coming of the Lord will This indeed is the Lord’s draw heavenward in Jesus’
have no advantage over those teaching, that we who shall be train.
who have fallen asleep. For alive, who shall continue here
the Lord Himself will come till the Lord’s coming, shall Yes, this I tell you, as a
down from heaven with a loud have no advantage in time revelation from God, that we
summons, with the voice of an over those who have gone to who may be surviving up to
archangel, and with the their rest; that with a crash, at the Day of the Coming of the
trumpet of God, and the dead the archangel’s cry, at the Lord shall most certainly not
in Christ will rise fast. trumpet-call of God, the Lord enter into His presence before
Afterwards we who are alive in his majesty shall descend those who have fallen asleep.
and survive will be caught up from heaven; and all who have
along with them in the clouds died faithful to Christ shall For--
to meet the Lord in the air. arise first; thereafter we who
remain alive shall be caught The Lord Himself, with a
And so we shall be with the
up together with them in the reveille-call, With the shout of
Lord forever. Therefore
encourage one another with clouds to meet the Lord in the an archangel, And with the
these words. sky; and then we shall be clarion of God, Shall descend
forever with the Lord. Make from heaven. Then the dead
this your theme in assuaging who are in Messiah’s keeping
each other’s sorrow. shall be first to rise; Then we,
the living yet left on earth,
Page: 117
shall be with them caught

away amidst the clouds into
the sky, to that meeting with
our Lord,
And so for evermore with the

Lord shall we be. With this
assurance, therefore, comfort
one another.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:2
Weymouth Rutherford Way
(b) Concerning the Living (b) Concerning the Living (b) Concerning the Living
But as for the times and dates Of the time and the But, on the question of the
it is unnecessary that anything circumstances of our Lord’s time, the precise date, of the
be written to you. For you coming you have no need to Coming, my brothers, it is not
yourselves know perfectly be told. We cannot tell you necessary for you to be
well that the day of the Lord more exactly than you have informed in my letter. You
comes like a thief in the night. been told already--"The day of yourselves know perfectly
While they are saying "Peace the Lord comes as a thief in well that The Day of the Lord,
and safety," then, in a the night." When men say "All as comes a robber in the night
moment, destruction falls is well! there is nothing to so cometh. When men are
upon them, like birth-pains on fear!" then in an instant saying, "All is peace and
a woman who is with child; destruction overtakes them as safety!" Then on a sudden
and escape there is none. But labor overtakes a mother with destruction looms over them,
you, brethren, are not in child, and there is no escape As the birth-pang of a
darkness, that the day should But you are not creatures of travailing woman: There shall
surprise you like a thief; for all darkness that the Day of the be no escape for them--none;
of you are sons of light and Lord should surprise you as But you, my brothers, are not
sons of day. We belong thieves are surprised. You gropers in darkness, that the
neither tonight nor to have been made free of the Day should, like a robber, take
darkness. light and the brightness of day. you unawares. No, all of you
We have nothing to do with are sons of light, sons of day--
So then let us not sleep like the night or the darkness. If Not of the night are we, nor of
the rest, but let us keep awake the rest of the world are the gloom! Oh, then, let us not
and be sober. For those who asleep, we ought to be awake sleep, as do other men; But let
sleep, sleep at night, and those and alert.Night begets sleep, it us keep vigil and sober. For
who get drunk, are drunk at begets also the stupor of the they that slumber, by night
night. But let us, since we drunkard. But we belong to they slumber; And they that
belong to the day, be sober, the day; we ought to have the are drunken, by night they are
putting on the breastplate of alertness of men armed with drunken But we who are of the
faith and love, and for a faith and love for corslet and day, let us be sober, Having
Page: 118
helmet the hope of salvation. the hope of salvation for arrayed us in corslet of faith
God has not destined us to helmet. For whereas God and love, And, for our helmet,
incur His anger, but to obtain might have visited us with in the hope of salvation;
salvation through our Lord judgment, it has been his will Because God appointed us not
Jesus Christ who died for us, that we should obtain to be victims of His wrath, But
so that whether we are awake salvation through our Lord to the winning of salvation,
or sleeping we may share His Jesus Christ, who died for our Through our Lord, Jesus the
Life. sakes, that whether awake in Messiah, Who died for us, to
life or asleep in death, we this end, That, whether in life
Therefore encourage one should attain to eternity we yet keep vigil, or sleep in
another, building each other together with him. death, Sharing His life we may
up, as in fact you do. live. Then still comfort one
Realizing this, encourage one another, still build each other
another and reinforce up into His temple, as I know
everyone his brother’s faith, as you are doing already.
indeed you do.
Having given three translations by classical scholars of the crucial passage in Thessalonians I propose
now to give two paraphrases of it by eminent exegetes; the first is by Dr. Plummer as given in his
commentary; and the second by G. Milligan in his volume in the Macmillan series. Then I shall give the
setting and argument as seen by G. G. Findlay in his volume in Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools
and Colleges (CGT), and by Zahn in Introduction to the New Testament (INT) (vol. 1, pp. 221-2, 253).
There will be some repetition, of course, but there will also be increasing light from some of the most
lucid expositions ever given of these Epistles.
Plummer Milligan
Concerning the Dead Concerning the Dead
Now there is a matter, Brethren, about which With regard moreover to that other matter
we do not wish you to remain uninformed; I which we understand is causing you anxiety,
mean about those among you who are falling the fate namely of those of your number who
asleep before the Coming of the Lord; for we are falling on sleep before the coming of the
desire to save you from sorrowing in the way Lord, we are anxious, Brothers, that you should
that the rest of the world cannot fail to sorrow, be fully informed. There is no reason why you
because they have no share in our Christian should sorrow, as those who do not share in
hope. Our hope saves us from such sorrow, for, your Christian hope cannot fail to do. For as
if we really do believe that Jesus died and rose surely as our belief is rooted in the death and
again, so also we are quite sure that God will resurrection of Jesus, even so we are confident
cause those who by the hands of Jesus have that God will bring along with the returning
been laid to sleep to be brought again with Jesus those who have fallen on sleep through
Him. We are quite sure of it, for this we say to Him.
you on the authority of the Lord, that we who
are alive, who survive the Coming of the Lord, Regarding this, we say, we are confident, for
will assuredly have no advantage in time over we have it on the direct authority of the Lord
Page: 119
those who have fallen asleep before the Himself that we who are surviving when the
Coming. We cannot do so, because the Lord Lord comes will not in any way anticipate
Himself will come down from heaven with a those who have fallen asleep. What will
commanding summons, namely, with an happen will rather be this. The Lord Himself
archangel’s cry, with a trumpet of God; and all will descend from heaven with a shout of
who have died and are now in Christ will at command, with the voice of an archangel, and
once rise again. Then, and not till then, we who with the trumpet-call of God. Then those who
are alive and survive shall, one and all, with died in Christ, and in consequence are still
them be caught up in clouds, for a meeting living in Him, shall rise first. And only after
with the Lord, into the air; and thus for that shall we who are surviving be suddenly
evermore with the Lord shall we be. caught up in the clouds with them to meet the
Wherefore, in times of doubt and depression, Lord in the air. Thus shall we ever be with the
comfort one another by repeating these words Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with
(vol. 4, pp. 73-78). these words (vol. 4, pp. 73-78).
Plummer Milligan
Concerning the Living (Chap 5:1-11) Concerning the Living (Chap 5:1-11)
Now, as to the times and the circumstances of We have been speaking of Christ’s Return. As
the Lord’s Coming, Brethren, you have no to the time when that will take place, Brothers,
need for anything further to be written to you. we do not need to say anything further. For you
For you yourselves know accurately from what yourselves have already been fully informed
we have already taught you, that the time of the that the coming of the Day of the Lord is as
Coming of the day of the Lord is just as unexpected as the coming of a thief in the
uncertain as the coming of a thief in the night. night. It is just when men are feeling most
It is just when men are saying, "We may feel secure that ruin confronts them suddenly as the
secure; we are perfectly safe," then in an birth-pang of a travailing woman, and escape is
instant destruction comes upon them, just as no longer possible. But as for you, Brothers,
travail-pangs upon a woman with child, and the case is very different. You are living in the
there is no possibility of escape. But you, daylight now: and therefore the coming
Brethren, are not living in darkness, so as to let of the Day will not catch you unawares.
the Day overtake you, as daylight overtakes
thieves. For all of you are sons of light and are Surely then, as those who have nothing to do
sons of day. We Christians have nothing to do with the darkness, we (for this applies to you
with night nor yet with darkness; surely, and to us alike) ought not to sleep, but to
therefore, we ought not to slumber, as the rest exercise continual watchfulness and self-
of the world do, but to be awake and be sober. control. Night is the general time for sleep and
For those who slumber, slumber at night, and drunkenness. But those who belong to the day
those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But, must control themselves, and put on the full
seeing that we are of the day, let us be sober, as panoply of heaven. That will not only protect
is only right for men who have just put on faith them against sudden attack, but give them the
and love, as a breastplate for our hearts; and as assurance of final and complete salvation.
a helmet for our heads, hope of salvation. And Salvation (we say) for this is God’s purpose for
ours is a sure hope, because God did not us and He has opened up for us the way to
Page: 120
appoint us to be visited with His wrath, but to secure it through our Lord Jesus Christ. His
secure for ourselves salvation through our Lord death on our behalf is the constant pledge that,
Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, living or dying, we shall live together with
whether awake in life or slumbering in death at Him. Wherefore comfort and edify one
the time of His Coming, one and all with Him another, as indeed we know that you are
we should live. According, as we said before, already doing.
comfort one another, and build up each the
other, as indeed you really are doing.
Findlay gives thus the setting and argument of 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to 5:11:--
Concerning Them That Fall Asleep (4:13-18)
In regard to the coming of the Lord Jesus, which filled a large place in the missionary preaching
of the Apostles and in the thoughts and hopes of their converts ([1 Thess.] 1:3, 10, 2:12, 3:13;
Acts. 17:30 ff.), there was misgiving and questioning upon two points; and about these the
Thessalonians appear to have sent inquiries to St. Paul: (a) as to the lot of those dying before the
Lord’s return--would they miss the occasion and be shut out of His kingdom? (4:13 ff.); (b) as to
the time when the advent might be expected (5:1-11). The two subjects are abruptly introduced in
turn by peri(concerning), as matters in the minds of the readers; they are treated in an identical
method. With the former of these questions made acute by the strokes of bereavement falling on
the Church since St. Paul’s departure, the Letter proceeds to deal. The readers (1) are assured that
their departed fellow-believers are safe with Jesus, and will return along with Him (vv. 13 ff.); (2)
they are informed, by express revelation, that these, instead of being excluded, will have the first
place in the assembling of the saints at Christ’s return (vv. 15-17); (3) they are bidden to cheer
one another with this hope (v. 18). Lightfoot quotes from the Clementine Recognitions, vol. 1 p.
52, the question, "If those whom His advent shall find righteous shall enjoy the kingdom of
Christ, will therefore those who died before the advent be wholly deprived of it?" showing that
the difficulty raised by the Thessalonians was felt elsewhere in the Early Church. This passage
stands by itself in Scripture, containing a distinct "word of the Lord" (v. 15), in the disclosure it
makes respecting the circumstances of the Second Advent; it is on this account the most
interesting passage in the Epistle.
The Coming Of The Day (5:1-11)
The second misgiving of the Thessalonians respecting the parousia was closely connected with
the first (4:13 ff.). If only "the living" --hoi perilexpomenoi--might count on witnessing
the parousia then any uncertainty about its date throws a cloud upon the prospects of all believers;
if the season was delayed, any of those living might be cut off before the time and no one could
count on seeing the wished-for day! This apprehension made the desire of the Church to know
"concerning the times and the seasons" painfully keen; no mere curiosity prompted the question
but a practical motive, a natural fear arising from the very loyalty of the Thessalonians to Christ
and the "love" of "His appearing" which the Gospel awakened in them. The Epistle has allayed
[dispelled] the main cause of disquiet by showing that there will be no essential difference in the
lot of those found "sleeping" and those "waking" at the Lord’s return (cp. verse 10 below); it goes
Page: 121
on to remind the readers of what they had been taught already, viz., that "the day of the Lord" is
to come by way of surprise to the wicked, for which reason its date must be hidden (verse 2 ff.).
The "sons of light and of day" will be ready for "the day" whenever it dawns (v. 4 ff.). Their duty
and safety is to be wakeful and sober, arming themselves with faith and hope (vv. 6-8)--a hope
grounded on God’s purpose of salvation revealed in the Gospel, which assures to them through
Christ’s death a life of union with Him remaining unchanged in life and death (vv. 9 ff.), and
secure whether His coming be earlier or later.
It remains to give Zahn’s statement of the setting and the argument of 1 Thessalonians 4:13 to 5:11 many
will be glad to have this illuminating extract from one of the great theological works of the age. I cite
from International New Testament (INT) vol. 1, pages 221-222, and page 253:126
Another evidence of the expectancy with which the return of Jesus was awaited is seen in the
peculiar way in which the Church mourned for its departed members. This was due to the opinion
that those who had died before the parousia would not immediately share the glory of the
kingdom as would those who lived to witness the Lord’s return. Although, the apostle argues,
they should have been saved from this error by their faith in the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead, because it was not possible that death should separate the Christian from Christ (4:14), all
anxiety concerning the participation in the parousia of those who have died in the faith he sets at
rest by a word of the Lord, i.e., a specific teaching consciously based upon one of Jesus’ prophetic
utterances (4:15). In this definite form such teaching could not have been a part of the missionary
preaching.
While on this point Paul is inclined to enlarge upon what he had said before, another question
which was occupying attention in Thessalonica, namely, as to when the end should come, and the
length of time that must elapse before that event he holds to be superfluous (5:1, cf. Acts. 1:6 ff.)
and without practical value. For, he argues, it is one of the simplest elements of the Christian
preaching, that for those absorbed in a worldly life the coming of the day of the Lord will be
unexpected and sudden; while, on the other hand, the Christian, who lives in constant expectation
of the parousia, the time of which it was impossible to determine by natural reckoning, will be
always ready, living always the kind of a life that is in keeping with this future day of the Lord
(vv. 2-10).
To those absorbed in the present earthly life the day of the Lord will come as a snare and the Lord
as a thief; the disciples of Jesus are to watch, be sober and ready in order that He may not so come
to them. They are to give heed to the signs of the times which portend [foreshadow] the end; not
to pay overmuch attention to those that are remote from the event, but not to overlook those that
are near. If they are to avoid the latter mistake, they must know what those signs are to be; if the
former, they must have a general idea of what is to happen before they appear. But since it is
fundamentally impossible to know when the end will come and when the signs immediately
126 It should be explained that the last paragraph was written later by Zahn to defend the Thessalonian
Epistles from a charge of contradiction. He shows their unity, and their agreement with our Lord’s teaching.
Its inclusion here seems apposite.
Page: 122
preceding it will appear, it is the part of wisdom as well as the natural impulse of love to live in
constant readiness for the approaching end.
If Paul believed that the Thessalonians would be raptured to heaven some years before the Day of the
Lord, what a chance he had at 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 of asserting his belief! How easy to have said, "the
Day of the Lord is coming, but, thank God, you will never see it, since years before its arrival, you will
be raptured to heaven." Instead of that he has left no doubt whatever that Christians will exist on earth to
see that Day;127 it is the day they wait for--day of joy for the redeemed, of wrath for the impenitent. Of
joy, because He who comes is the Saviour who will gather the saints to Himself and complete their joy;
of wrath, because He who comes is also the Judge who will take vengeance on them that know not God,
and obey not the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, whenever He shall have come to be glorified in His
saints, and admired. in all them that believe. 128
It will thus be seen that according to Paul the day of the Lord’s Coming will have a two-fold aspect. For
unbelievers Christ will come as a thief: for Christians He comes as the Master to reckon with His
servants, and induct them into the inheritance. It was ever thus that the Lord Himself preached the
doctrine of His Second Coming--not two distinct advents, separated by a number of years, but one single
Advent with a two-fold bearing--upon His faithful people, who look with humble yet joyous expectancy
to His Return, and upon the false and unbelieving who say, "where is the promise of His coming?"129
127 On the “times and seasons “Lightfoot observes:

Here chronoi denotes the period which must elapse before and in the consummation of this great event, in
other words it points to the date while kairoi refers to the occurrences which will mark the occasion, the
signs by which its approach will be ushered in (comp. Matthew 16:3, the signs of the times). (Notes on
Epistles, p. 71.)
Anderson, Forgotten Truths, p. 71, says that the Apostle after speaking of the Coming as a present hope,
“went on to speak of the day of the Lord as pertaining to the ‘times and seasons’ of Israel’s national history.”
But the Apostle did no such thing; neither Israel nor “Israel’s national history” is referred to once in the
whole passage. The phrase “times and seasons” was clearly used by our Lord in Acts 1:7 to discourage
knowing the date of the Return or measuring the period that precedes it. The question of the Apostles was
most natural: the Lord’s answer most appropriate. At 1 Thessalonians 5:1 a similar question is asked, and
practically the same answer is given: no date fixing, no measuring of the period! The Day comes as a trap:
the Lord as a thief to the careless. Be not careless, but watch. If only students would learn the lesson and quit
their guesses and calculations! Sir R. Anderson, be it said, has given an excellent example on this point.
The Editor of “The Morning Star” (June 15th, 1913) states that “these times and seasons,” with their
prophetic burden, the Thessalonians ‘knew perfectly.’” But this is exactly what they did not know at all. They
even request information about them from the Apostle; what they did know perfectly was that the day of the
Lord’s coming was to come as a thief at night; and, the Apostle implies, this very fact of its suddenness
rendered any disclosure or calculation concerning the intervening period until the advent unnecessary and
impossible. The truth is, the writer of this article set out to correct the commentators, without having
perceived the meaning of the Apostle (pp. 111-12).
128 2 Thessalonians 1:10; this chapter, not the Great Tribulation, explains the “wrath” of 1 Thessalonians 5:9.
129 Luke 12:41-8; Matthew 25:43-4.
Page: 123
It is curious how one can realize this and yet cling to the pre-trib theories of the Advent. Sir R. Anderson,
for example, who is the ablest advocate of the new theories of the Parousia, used an illustration some
time ago that not only threw light on our Lord’s parable of His Coming as a thief, but was also an
apposite commentary on Paul’s use of the same figure; and, withal, it shows how unnecessary is the
theory of two "second" Comings. He said:130
When a man opens his door with a latch-key at midnight and walks into his house, his wife does
not scream with surprise and fright. She expects him and his coming is the most natural thing
possible. But if a woman neither expects her husband nor wants him she would probably greet
him as if he was a burglar. This is precisely what the Lord Himself intended when He spoke of
coming to some "as a thief in the night."
What the speaker failed to observe was how admirably his parable also fits the teaching of Paul; for the
great Apostle in speaking of the effect of Christ’s Coming upon the living, remarks that, to the worldly-
minded the Day of the Lord will come as a thief, because, to use Anderson’s parable, "they neither expect
nor want Him." It will be otherwise, however, with Christians: "they will not scream with surprise and
fright" for, to continue in Anderson’s words "His coming is the most natural thing possible." The Lord
meets His Bride and judges the faithless at the same crisis.
(2) 2 Thessalonians 2:8:
Only one other use of the word Parousia in the Epistles to the Thessalonians need detain us longer: it is
one that has already been cited, but not considered.
And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his
mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming (R.V.).
This text confirms the doctrine drawn from 1 Thessalonians 4:14--5:10, for Christ is again represented as
coming in the character of a Conqueror and Rescuer; again, the regal word Parousia is used; Antichrist is
sent to his doom; "the mere outburst of His presence shall bring the adversary to nought, cf. the sublime
expression of Milton, --‘far off His coming shone.’"131 The same glorious event as gathers the saints
brings judgment upon the Man of Sin.132
130 Things to Come, vol. 4, p. 91.

131 Dean Alford, in loco.
132A. T. Robertson comments: It will be a grand fiasco, this advent of the man of sin. Paul here uses both
epiphaneia (epiphany, elsewhere in N.T. in the pastorals, familiar to the Greek mind for a visit of a god) and
parousia (more familiar to the Jewish mind, but common in the papyri) of the second coming of Christ.
“The mere appearance of Christ destroys the adversary” (Vincent). And Zahn says: --
Epiphaneia, manifestation, which is not at all superfluous, along with parousia, but, like the expression
“breath of his mouth,” indicates the outward manifestation of the coming of Christ (INT, vol. 1, p. 255.)
Page: 124
XII. Messiah’s Day
The examination of the terms End, Appearing, Revelation, and Parousia established the fact that one and
all are undoubtedly used of the Day that brings the fulfillment of the Church’s hope; also that the candid
interpretation of the passages where they occur presupposes that the Church will be on earth until the End
of the Age, as our Lord had taught in the Parable of the Tares, and the Great Missionary Commission.
One set of terms remains to be examined, namely those bearing on the Day that closes the present world-
period and ushers in the Age to Come. One of these terms, "the Last Day," was examined in our study of
the resurrection in the Gospels; but there are several others that refer to the same day, namely: "the Day,"
"in that Day," "Jesus Messiah’s Day," "Messiah’s Day," "the Day of the Lord Jesus," "the Day of the
Lord Jesus Messiah,"133 and "the Day of the Lord." To avoid wearisomeness I shall arrange the texts into
groups and comment on each, with an occasional reference to an individual text. And we shall confine
ourselves to the Epistles of Paul, for they are common ground pre-trib leaders applied all the above
expressions to the Glorious Appearing of Christ. Well then, do we ever find the Day of the Lord
inseparably linked with the Church’s hope, or some vital aspect of it? If the secret, pre-tribulation
Rapture is true we must never find Christians in the New Testament looking for the Day of the Lord, as if
it were the time for the fulfillment of their hope, or for closing their career on earth.
1. THE DAY
(1) 2 Thessalonians 5:4. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should over take you as a thief.
(Darby’s version.)
The natural meaning of this passage is that "the day" will overtake both Christians and the ungodly. Upon
these it will come with the unexpectedness of a thief; not so, however, with those. Christians are looking
for the Lord, and His Coming will find them expecting Him. As Frame says "Although the day comes
suddenly for both believers and unbelievers alike, it is only the latter (v. 3), and not the former (vv. 4-5a)
who are taken by surprise," (p. 180).
And Stier says: "Christ comes to His people as their Lord; to the unfaithful and secure, as a thief in the
night."
133I follow here the example of Bishop Lightfoot in substituting “Messiah” for “Christ” in these texts. The
universal use of the latter as a proper name for our Lord has obscured the fact that almost always in the N.T.
“Messiah” or “the Christ” would give the sense and the “atmosphere” better. What a lot of fresh meaning, for
instance, Lightfoot imparts to a familiar text when he renders it, “we preach a Messiah crucified.” (Cited in
the Study Bible 1 Corinthians; where the Bishop is also quoted as saying that “it is not so much a name as an
office that is referred to.”) So also is it in reference to the “Day of Christ,” etc.
In his work, The Lord From Heaven, Anderson says: “I would take sides with those who refuse to believe
that ‘ Christ ‘ is ever used merely as a proper name. With the Jew it was a sacred title of great solemnity; and
it is hard to believe that a Hebrew Christian could have come to regard it in any better light “(p. ro5).
The texts are otherwise given as in the RX., except 1 Corinthians 5:5, where the latest edition of the Greek
Text (Nestle’s 14th Edition, Stuttgart, 1930) omits the word “Jesus;” so also the American 1911 Bible,”
Westcott and Hort, Goodspeed, D. Smith, Rutherford, CGT, and ICC.
Page: 125
In his lucid work in Expositor’s Greek Testament (EGT), Moffatt says:
While the Day comes suddenly to Christians and unbelievers alike, only the latter are surprised by
it. Christians are on the alert, open-eyed; they do not know when it is to come, but they are alive
to any signs of its coming. Thus there is no incompatibility between this emphasis on the
instantaneous character of the advent and the emphasis, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ff., on the
preliminary conditions.
There is only one Coming, but it has two different effects and characters towards those who watch, and
those who slumber. This accounts for the Lord’s warning to the Overseer at Sardis: "If, therefore, thou
shalt not watch, I will come as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee" (Rev.
3:3 R.V.). It depended on the Overseer’s attitude whether Christ’s Coming would have the character of
blessing or judgment.
(2) 1 Corinthians 3:13: Each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it because it is
revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is.
Darby points out in his New Translation that it is the Day that is revealed in fire. Clearly it refers to the
same event as 2 Thessalonians 1:8, where the Lord is "revealed in fire" taking vengeance on the
unrighteous, and bringing rest to the saints.
When are the saints tested and rewarded? According to Paul in our passage, at the Day of the Lord;
elsewhere at His Appearing and Reign (2 Tim. 4:1, 8); at the Parousia (1 Thess. 2:19, 3:13), and at His
Coming to judge and reign (1 Cor. 4:5, 8); according to John, at the Last Trumpet (Rev. 11:18), at the
beginning of the kingly rule of Christ (Rev. 20:4-6), and at the Day of Judgment (1 John 4:17); according
to our Lord, "at the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14), at the Last Day (John 6:39-54), at His Coming
as Son of Man (Matthew 16:27), and at His Coming "for the Church" (Rev. 22:12). This last passage is
illuminating: "Behold I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his
work is."
The resurrection, judging, and rewarding of Christians take place at the Day of the Lord. What therefore
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder in the interest of a theory.
(3) Romans 13:11-12 Knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is our
salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off
the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
On this expression Moffatt remarks in Expositor’s Greek Testament (EGT) on Thessalonians: "The
present age is utter night, as contemporary rabbis taught; the age to come is all day. Meantime faith is to
hold fast through this night." William Kelly says: "The Apostle elsewhere insists that ‘the day is at hand’
(Rom. 13). What day? The day of the Lord of course" (Second Coming, p. 174).
And on our passage Moule remarks beautifully in The Expositor’s Bible:
The night with its murky silence, its "poring dark," the night of trial, or temptation, of the absence
of our Christ is far spent, but the day has drawn near; it has been a long night, but that means a
Page: 126
near dawn; the everlasting sunrise of the longed-for Parousia, with its glory, gladness and
unveiling (p. 365).
It is quite impossible to believe that Paul would have made these references to alertness, testing, and hope
in relation to the Day, if he believed that Christians would be raptured away from the world a generation
before the Day appears.
(2) IN THAT DAY
We now come to another eschatological expression that is used in Paul’s Epistles. I refer to the phrase "in
that day." It is used frequently in the O.T., and when it is not used in a local, demonstrative sense, it has
but one meaning--the Day of the Lord. It was the day when the outcasts of Israel would be gathered,
Israel converted, the sleeping saints raised, Jehovah manifested in His glory, and the Kingdom
established. We find it in the Gospels in the same sense. "Many will say unto me in that Day, Lord, Lord
did we not prophesy by thy name?"134 --again the day of the Kingdom and the day of judgment, as the
context shows.
Can we find this expression associated with the hope and reward of Christians?
(1) Thessalonians 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all them
that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day.
(2) 2 Timothy 1:12 I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto
him against that day.
(3) 2 Timothy 1:18 The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day.
(4) 2 Timothy 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord the
righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his
appearing.
There cannot be any doubt about the meaning of "in that Day" in the above-mentioned passages. It is the
day of revelation, when persecutors are judged, Christians gain relief from persecution, and marvel at the
Lord when they see Him as He is; it is the day of rewards and resurrection; the day of the Glorious
Appearing, which the saints love, because it is their blessed hope (Titus 2:13).
In Christ’s Coming Again Kelly admits that the passages in 2 Timothy refer to the Day of the Lord, but
contends that it is the rewarding that is in view, not the Rapture (pp. 59-61, 85). But he cannot retreat by
134Matthew 7:22(R.V.); cf. Luke 17:31. “A technical eschatological expression derived from the O.T.
prophetic literature; cf., e.g., Malachi 3:17-18; it is of frequent occurrence in apocalyptic literature e.g., in the
Book of Enoch (cf. 45: 3, ‘On that day mine Elect One will sit on the throne of glory and make choice among
their deeds’). Cf. Matthew 24:36.” (Canon Box: The Cent. B., Matthew, new edition.) Moffatt translates the
three occurrences in 2 Timothy by “the great Day.”
Page: 127
that path; four barriers and more bar the way: Luke 14:14, Revelation 22:12, 11:18, and 1 Corinthians
4:5, 8. Escape there is none.
(3) MESSIAH’S DAY135
(1) Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which began a good work in you will
perfect it until Jesus Messiah’s day.
(2) Philippians 1:10 That ye may be sincere and void of offence unto Messiah’s day.
(3) Philippians 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may have whereof to glory in Messiah’s
day, that I did not run in vain neither labour in vain.
All the pre-trib leaders recognized aright the true significance of Messiah’s Day: it is the day when
Messiah comes forth in glory to set up His Kingdom in the Future Age:136 our Lord showed us clearly
what He understood by the expression: He said to the disciples:
The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall
not see it. And they shall say unto you, Lo, there! Lo, here! go not away, nor follow after them:
for as lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the heaven, shineth into the other part
under heaven; so shall the Son of Man be in his day...After the same manner shall it be in the
day that the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:22-30).
On the expression "days of the Son of Man" Zahn has the following excellent comment:137
Among the Jews this was the most usual naive for the time of the Messianic Kingdom. To live to
see the dawn of this time had long been the yearning desire of the God-fearing (Luke 2:25, 38;
10:24; 11:2; Acts 26:6 ff.) and, after He is separated from them (Luke 9:27; 21:28), should again
become the earnest desire of the disciples of Jesus..."The Day" of the Son of Man (v. 24) is the
day of His unveiling, of His stepping forth from concealment (v. 30); it is, so to speak, the Day of
His accession to the throne, therefore the first of the unending days of the Messiah (cf. Luke
1:33).
Darby, Kelly, Trotter, C.H. Mackintosh, and a thousand others saw the truth of these things; what is
astonishing is that they failed to see how intimately the Day of Messiah is bound up with "‘the blessed
hope" of the Church. The first passage in Philippians clearly presupposes that Messiah’s Day terminates
the service of the saints on earth: progressive sanctification goes on in them until the Day when Messiah
appears, and they shall be like Him, for they shall see Him as He is, (1 John 3:2). In the second, the
135 Cf. Darby’s translation of these passages.

136“But there was still another reason why the title ‘Son of Man’ was specially appropriate to Jesus. The
name Messiah denoted the Lord of the Messianic age in His capacity as Ruler; in reality it was applicable to
the person so predestinated only when His enthronement had taken place, not before it “(Dalman, The
Words of Jesus, p. 265). Kelly defines “the day of Christ” as the day “when they that suffer shall reign with
Him” (Revelation, p. 236). See further quotations from Darby, Trotter, Kelly and C. H. M. in chapter 1 above.
137 Zahn-Kommentar, in loco; the conclusion of the quotation is from the note on p. 601.
Page: 128
Apostle prays for the same grace in believers as he desires for them elsewhere at the Parousia, as 1
Thessalonians 3:13 and 5:23 prove. In the third the Day is clearly the same as the Parousia in 1
Thessalonians 2:19-20, where the Apostle is also speaking of his reward. That being so, Messiah’s Day is
the day of the saints’ resurrection (Luke 14:14). An interval of several years or decades between
the Parousia (with the first resurrection) and Messiah’s Day is without foundation. I observe that Kelly
and F. W. Grant, in their expositions of Philippians leave the expression "Day of Christ" unexplained.
(4) THE DAY OF THE LORD JESUS
(1) 1 Corinthians 1:7-8 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus
Messiah; who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye be unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus
Messiah.
This text was examined in chapters 8 and 10; the collation of Revelation, End, and Day of Messiah, our
Lord, makes it certain that the End of the present world-epoch is in view. Where, then, is there room for a
previous rapture of the Church? 1 Thessalonians 5:23, links them all with the Parousia.
(2) 2 Corinthians 1:14 We are your glorying, even as ye also are ours in the day of our Lord Jesus.
This connects Revelation 11:18 and Luke 14:14 with the Parousia and resurrection in 1 Thessalonians
2:19, to the ruin of the whole scheme that interposes an interval of several years between the Coming in 1
Thessalonians 2:19 [and] 4:15, and the rewarding of the saints at the Day of the Lord.
(5) THE DAY OF THE LORD
Here we have the well-known O.T. formula for the Day that closes the present Age, and ushers in the
Messianic Kingdom. It is a day of judgment upon the ungodly, but of blessing upon the righteous. Does
Paul ever link this Day with the hope and final salvation of the Church? He does.
(1) 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 In the name of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Zahn in Introduction to the New Testament (INT) (vol. 1, p. 278) explains thus:
The Apostle in Ephesus proposes that the Church in Corinth join with him in the name of Jesus
and in the confidence that Jesus’ miraculous power will be vouchsafed to them (cf. Matthew
18:19 ff.), to constitute a court which shall deliver the offender over to Satan in bodily death, in
order that his spirit may be saved in the day of judgment. It is not to be an act of
excommunication by the Church, but a judgment of God, a miracle in answer to prayer, in which
Paul and the Church are to unite, and for which a definite day and hour are to be arranged.
The underlying presupposition is that when the saints are raised at the Last Day they give account to God.
1 Corinthians 3:13-15, 4:5-6, Romans 14:10 (R.V.), and other places give the scene. And the passage
under consideration refers the testing and judgment to the Day of the Lord. Moreover, the Church, not the
Remnant, is in view.
Page: 129
(2) 1 Thessalonians 5:2138 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in
the night.
Alford interprets thus:
You and all we Christians have no reason to fear, and no excuse for being surprised by, the DAY
of the Lord: for we are sons of light and day (Hebraisms signifying that we belong to, having our
origin from, the light and the day).
(3) 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and our gathering together unto Him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be
troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is now present;
let no man beguile you in any wise, for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdition. (English R.V.)
Almost all the scientific commentaries are agreed that this passage, indeed, the whole of the Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians, was written to correct the error current amongst the Thessalonians that the
Day of the Lord had already come.139 By means of an Epistle attributed to Paul, or by a pretended
revelation of the Spirit, teachers were asserting erroneously that the Day had come. The Apostle
addresses himself to overthrow this delusion, and he does so by showing that before the Day of the Lord
may arrive certain definite events must precede it: in particular, the Apostasy, and the revelation of the
Man of Sin.
What concerns us chiefly, however, is the theorists’ explanation of this passage. 140 They assert that the
Coming of the Lord is to take place before the revelation of Antichrist, and several years before the Day
138In their work on Thessalonians, Messrs. Hogg and Vine say that at chapter 5:1, “the apostle proceeds to
describe the effect of that revelation upon the world;” what is exact is that at 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 the
dead (in Christ) are in view; in verses 1-6 the living.
139The translation “is just at hand” is to be rejected, for the same word is rendered “present” in every other
place in the N.T. Moffatt translates “is already here;” Weymouth has “is now here;” Goodspeed has “has
already come.” Zahn says: “The rendering of enesteken, ‘is immediately at hand,’ or ‘is beginning,’ should be
abandoned, because unsupported by grammar and by usage. As is well known, the present is called by the
grammarians ho enestos chronos, and in business transactions he enestosa hemera, was the regular use of ‘
this day’”(INT, vol. 1, p. 235).
140See Notes on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, by A. C. Gaebelein (NY., 1901), and Kelly Christ’s Coming Again--a
volume that defends to the last ditch “the secret Rapture” and the other novelties of the School. It is
characterized by much sophistry and special pleading, and, at times, by grossly offensive vigor.
A saint in the American Church, the late Dr. W. J. Erdman, wrote a tract called The Time of the End, in which,
with courtesy, even urbanity, he examined Darby’s theories. It was easy to show that the marriage in
Matthew 25 and Revelation 19 is located at the Day of the Lord, for that is where Anderson, Marsh and
Bullinger, following the Scripture, located it. Here is Kelly’s outburst: “No, my brother, prejudice and passion
have misled you. The marriage is in heaven and before that day. Dare you deny it in flat contradiction of
God’s word? Tremble for yourself, and beware of such temerity.” Yet this is mild compared with the
handling of Newton, Tregelles and the “Apostolic Fathers.” The odium theologicum is without parallel in
serious theological literature of recent decades. Kelly has a real grievance against the literature of the
Page: 130
of the Lord. The passage on the contrary is a thorough denial, not only of the particular delusion that
afflicted the Thessalonians, but also of the one espoused by modern theorists.
The new interpretation is erroneous for the following reasons:141
(a) The Epistles to the Thessalonians nowhere teach that the Coming will take place before the Day of the
Lord. The passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 locates the Coming at the resurrection; and the resurrection
in Scripture is everywhere located at the Day of the Lord. Nowhere is this more clearly asserted than in 1
Corinthians 15: 54 and Isaiah 25:8. The resurrection of the saints synchronizes with Israel’s deliverance
and conversion.
(b) In 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18, the Parousia is represented as a triumphant arrival of our Lord as King,
assembling His hosts for the conflict with the powers of this world and the rescue of the Elect. This is at
the Day of the Lord.
(c) In 2 Thessalonians 5:1-6, where Paul deals with the Advent in its relation to the living, he clearly
presupposes that the Day approaches for all the living.
(d) In 2 Thessalonians 1, Paul had taught in unmistakable terms that it is at the Revelation of the Lord in
great power that suffering saints will be recompensed with rest, and persecutors with tribulation. They
were suffering; therefore the Day had not come, for it brings relief.
(e) The theorists’ interpretation is erroneous because this very chapter shows that Antichrist is to be slain
by Christ at His Coming (Parousia, verse 8), whereas they assert that the Parousia precedes even
the rise of Antichrist. And the presence of the word Appearing only makes matters worse for the
theorists. Prof. Frame says: "The words ‘epiphaneia’ and ‘parousia’ are ultimately synonymous: the
point is that the manifest presence itself is sufficient to destroy the ‘Anomos,’" --lawless one. The truth of
this was clearly demonstrated by the extracts from Deissmann in our last chapter. Not only that, we saw
in our chapter on the Glorious Appearing that again and again the Appearing is represented as the
realization of the Church’s hope; and Titus 2:13, proves that the Glorious Appearing is the very hope
itself. On 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Canon Faussett remarks: "The first outburst of His advent--the first gleam
second century; according to him and other theorists the whole Church up to A.D. 96, when John wrote the
Apocalypse believed in a secret Pretribulation Rapture; yet within a decade or two it has gone: spurlos
verschwinden: has vanished without leaving a single trace behind.
Picture the miracle involved in believing that, a decade or two after Darby’s death in 1882 the whole
Brethren movement, in all countries, is found to have given up the Secret Rapture, and is looking only for the
Glorious Appearing: and not a vestige of Protest or controversy or any such thing! This is the miracle that
Brethren want us to swallow, about the abandonment of the Apostolic hope by the children and
grandchildren of the Apostles. There is an easier explanation: Our Lord in Matthew 24, Paul in Titus 2:13
(and everywhere else), John in Revelation 1:7, and Peter in his Epistles, made the Glorious Appearing the
hope of Christians; the secret, pre-tribulation Rapture is a Gentile conceit of the nineteenth century. And no
amount of vituperation against the Apostolic Fathers, Tregelles, and Newton can make it anything else.
141This text is especially interesting because it was here that Mr. Tweedy of Demerara, and Mr. Darby
thought they found a secret Rapture, several years before the Great Tribulation. (See Kelly’s Christ’s Coming
Again and R. Cameron’s Scriptural Truth About the Lord’s Return.)
Page: 131
of His presence is enough to abolish utterly all traces of Antichrist, as darkness disappears before the
dawning day . . . the word for appearing (English Version here ‘the brightness’) plainly refers to the
coming itself."
What we have in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is simply another aspect of the one Glorious Appearing described
in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, and Revelation 19:11 ff., and referred to in Titus
2:13.
(f) It is not to be wondered at that the new program of the End cannot survive a natural interpretation of 2
Thessalonians 2:1-3. According to Paul, the Day of the Lord’s Coming will be preceded by an apostasy
in the Church, and the arrival of Antichrist. At Christ’s Coming the Man of Sin shall be sent to his doom.
The theorists, however, teach that the Parousia of our Lord will be followed by the Apostasy and the rise
of Antichrist; and Paul is invoked to support this ludicrous scheme of the future!
Even this is not all; for it must be said that whilst pre-tribs do not teach the delusion that the false
teachers in Thessalonica taught, they do sponsor the same ideas as rendered that delusion possible: that
Christ might come secretly, that His Coming might Precede the arrival of the Apostasy and of Antichrist,
that He might come at any moment, and that tribulation might continue for saints after His Coming, were
precisely some of the presuppositions that rendered possible the propagation of the delusion that the Day
of the Lord had already come. And all are pillars in the- pre-trib edifice. But Paul informs us that they
were false teachers who taught thus, and he teaches that certain predicted events must precede the Day of
the Lord’s Coming.
If we do likewise, we teach the Lord’s Coming in a Scriptural way; if we do not, we are misguided and
misleading teachers.
(g) The theorists’ explanation requires us to believe that the real delusion at Thessalonica was that in the
brief space of a few months between the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, the whole "pre-
trib" program of the End was believed to have been fulfilled. We know that the Day of the Lord was
believed to have actually arrived; very well then; if they held "pre-trib" views after receiving and reading
1 Thessalonians 4:14-18, they necessarily believed, when opening the Second Epistle, that the Secret
Coming, the Secret Rapture, and the Secret resurrection of that passage, ex hypothesi, had first taken
place: and so secretly that they knew nothing of it; then the interval of seven years or more with the
doings of Antichrist, and then the Glorious Appearing of the Lord--all had gone by in the course of half a
dozen moons, and they were left lamenting
What the Thessalonians were deluded into believing was bad enough in all conscience, but this
explanation of it is history, exegesis, and eschatology for the credulous.
(h) If, as the theorists insist, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, instructed the Thessalonians to expect
the Coming of the Lord several years or decades before the Day of the Lord, why does not Paul in 2
Page: 132
Thessalonians 2:1-3 appeal to the Coming or Parousia (with the resurrection and Rapture) as a necessary
precursor of the Day of the Lord? Why did he not say--as the theorists invariably say:142
Now we beg you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to
him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, . . . as that the day of the Lord is present. Let not anyone
deceive you in any manner, because the day will not come unless the gathering of the saints have
first come, and the Man at God’s right hand have been revealed to His own, in blessed and holy
retirement, in heaven, and apart from all signs and events.
Why did he not do that? Here was the chance of a lifetime to shut out misunderstanding and error. He
does not take it. Instead, he writes: the Apostasy must come first and the Man of Sin have his Parousia.
Pre-tribs cannot get five minutes into an address, or five pages into a book, on prophecy without
remarking on "the fact" --which contains scriptural teaching on the Lord’s Coming, and "the double
bearing of the fact," which tells of new traditions of men on the beautiful, secret, pre-tribulation Rapture
of the Church and the risen saints as an indispensable precursor of the terrible, dreadful, horrible and
awful Day of the Lord, and occurring years and years before that Day breaks on a world already
distracted by the prior removal of the light and salt of the earth and by the reign of Antichrist. These
things, it is claimed, are as plain as A.B.C. in the Epistles of Paul; so they are--if one closes one’s eyes
and swallows two big assumptions, namely: that the Day of the Parousia is always and only a calm,
bright day, fit only for a wedding or a rapture, and without shadows or dust of battle or any such thing;
and that the Day of the Lord is always and only a day of darkness and thick clouds, and awful gloom, fit
only for a battle, or a clash of powers from the unseen world. 143 The New Testament smites both
assumptions at every turn: the Lord associated the glorious Day with the muster of the saints (Matthew
24:37); Paul, the Parousia with the great Day of battle, and "the blessed hope" with Jehovah’s Glorious
Appearing;144 John, the marriage-supper of the Lamb and His Church with the Day of wrath upon the
world.145 Yet pre-tribs swallow the assumptions mentioned as truths, and, believing in the unity and
harmony of the Bible, bend a hundred texts to fit the assumptions.
Paul did differently. Having shown in 2 Thessalonians 1 the two sides of blessing and judgment, rest and
doom, at the Revelation, or Day, or Parousia of the Lord, he links the Coming and the Day in 2
Thessalonians 2:1-3 as the most natural thing possible; wishing to give right teaching on the Coming of
the Lord, and the Rapture of the saints, he says that the Apostasy and Antichrist must come first.
Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering
together unto him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, .
142See A. J. Pollock, p. 19: “Why should he beseech them by the rapture [sic]? For the obvious reason that as
the rapture would take place before the day of the Lord could set in that day could not be present.”
143 Here is a typical extract from Trotter, and it is representative of the school (p. 283): The one (the
Parousia) is all brightness and joy; the other (the Day of the Lord) is all gloom, and darkness and terror.”
And see chapter 1 of this volume. What a travesty of the Apostolic note of joy at the Coming of the Day, with
its light and blessing for all believers, banishing the gloom and darkness of this Age, when He is absent.
144 2 Thessalonians 2:8; cf. Revelation 19:20; Titus 2:13.
145 Revelation 19:1-20; cf. Matthew 24:51-25:1: “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like,” etc.
Page: 133
. . as that the day of the Lord is now present; let no man beguile you in any wise; for it will not be,
except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed.146
Beginning to exhort them touching the Coming of the Lord, he proceeds to speak of the Day of the Lord.
Is not this a remarkable circumstance? It is a convincing proof that the two things were synchronous in
Paul’s mind, and not separated by a period of years as the theorists assert. And if we adopt another
meaning of the preposition and translate "on behalf of," the case is even worse for the new theories; for
the passage then reads:
Now we beseech you brethren, on behalf of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and
our gathering together unto Him to the end that ye should not think that the Day of the Lord is
now present.
To minds unswayed by presuppositions, the meaning is clear. Paul is seeking to refute a delusion that the
Day of the Lord had already come. He does so, first, by citing two principal characteristics, and,
secondly, two principal precursors, of the Day of the Lord. The characteristics of the Day are the Arrival
of the Lord, and the muster of the Elect; it is as if he said, "how can the Day have come, when the two
things that characterize it have not happened? As you are still suffering here on earth, and the Lord has
not come in person, how can the Day have arrived?" He merely mentions these two features because his
first Epistle, written a few months previously, had fully expounded them. The two precursors of the Day
of the Lord are the coming of the Apostasy and the revelation of the Man of Sin. These he develops to
remind them of his doctrine preached orally when with them; for, as Zahn says in Introduction to the
New Testament (INT):
This error Paul meets not by proclaiming a new revelation, but by reminding his readers of the
things they had heard him say when he first preached the Gospel to them--things which therefore,
they ought not only to know, but also to use, as a means of defense against such a misleading
claim as this (2:5, 6). This explains why, in what is said about the forms that the unfolding of the
closing events of the present age is to assume as also about the parousia of Christ and the union
of Christians with Him, the definite article is used (2:1, cf. 1 Thess. 4:14-18), it being assumed
that these terms were familiar to the readers. "The Day of the Lord," Paul argues, cannot have
come already; for according to what he had said earlier, it could not come before "the falling
away" and the revelation of "the man of lawlessness," whom Christ is to destroy at His second
coming (vol. 1, p. 226).
To most minds no doubt will remain from a consideration of Paul’s use of "the Day," "in that Day," "the
Day of the Lord," and "Messiah’s Day," that all are synonymous expressions for the day of the Parousia,
which closes the present Age, and ushers in the Age to Come; it is the day of resurrection, of reward, of
rest for the saints; but of judgment and condemnation for the impenitent.
146I have omitted the intervening words on the instruments of deception, to bring the conclusion into
greater relief, and sooner before the mind. The sense is in no way altered.
Page: 134
And a study of the rest of the N.T. confirms the teaching that the Day has no terrors for the saints, for it is
the day for the realization of their dearest hopes. In Hebrews 10:25, it is held out as a day that concerns
the Church, and, in verse 37, the writer, obviously referring to the same event, says: "For in a little, a very
little now, The Coming one will arrive without delay."147 Peter, in 2 Peter 1:19, holds out the Day as a
day of hope for the Christian, terminating the present darkness;148 and at 3:12, the Apostle speaks of the
saints as "expecting and helping to hasten the coming (parousia) of the day of God,"149 at the
regeneration of Nature, according to Isaiah 65:17-25, 66:22-23, Matthew 19:28, Acts 3:21, and Romans
8:18-22.150 On this Canon Faussett aptly remarks:
Not that God’s eternal appointment of the time is changeable, but God appoints us as instruments
of accomplishing those events which must be first fulfilled before the Day of God can come. By
praying for His coming, furthering the preaching of the "gospel for a witness to all nations," and
bringing in those whom "the longsuffering of God" waits to save, we hasten the coming of the day
147 Moffatt; so Weymouth.

148“We have also the prophetic word made sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed in your hearts, as
unto a lamp that shineth in a dark place till the day dawn and the day-star arise.” This is the version of an
American revision company in 1911, whose secretary was C. I. Scofield. It followed the punctuation adopted
by Tregelles. Despite the truculent opposition of Kelly (Christ’s Coming Again, part 2, p. 7) I think the above
version gives the sense better. Of course Kelly, fighting to save a secret rapture several years before the Day,
must get rid of a text that presupposes that the believer’s path will be illumined by the study of prophecy
until the Day dawns; for his scheme presupposes that, after the Rapture (represented, ex hypothesi, by the
morning star) there will follow the rise of Antichrist and the blackest night this world has ever seen; and no
one can tell us how long this “dawn “is going to last, whether 1260 days or 1260 years!
It should be added that we have no quarrel with the beautiful A.V. here only with its misuse; yet the other is
clearer.
149 Weymouth.
150That the Day of the Lord embraces not merely the day of Messiah’s Advent, but also the period of His
subsequent reign seems to be admitted by A. B. Davidson. In his Theology of the O.T. (pp. 381-382), he says:-
The day of the Lord widens out into a period, homogeneous, no doubt, but extensive (p. 382). Again:--
Though the “day of the Lord,” as the expression implies, was at first conceived as a definite and brief period
of time, being an era of judgment and salvation, it many times broadened out to be an extended period. From
being a day it became an epoch. This arose from the fact that under the terms day of the Lord, that day, or
that time, was included not only the crisis itself, but that condition of things which followed upon the crisis
(p. 381).
It is in this light that 2 Peter 3:10-13 must be interpreted; at Acts. 3:21 and 2 Peter 1:11, it is Messiah’s
Kingdom that is in view; Delitzsch, on Isaiah 65-66 well says that there is a coalescence of the Messianic
Reign and the eternal state. Only Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, and John in the Apocalypse 20:1-21:8,
distinguish the two Eras.
See Anderson: Forgotten Truths, p. 70: “The Day of the Lord is an era.” And Dr. Oesterley says: “Sometimes
the ‘Day’ is used in a wide sense for the new era itself;” The Last Things, p. 14.
Page: 135
of God . . . Christ says, "Surely 1 come quickly. Amen." Our part is to speed forward this
consummation by praying "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
If anything was wanting to justify the above exegesis concerning the identification of the Day of Christ
and the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ with the hope of the Church, it is supplied by the fact that many
advocates of the theories introduced by Darby are now teaching the same doctrine as that set out above.
Having short or convenient memories they are insisting in the strongest manner that the Coming of Christ
synchronizes with the Day of Christ. Now, as I have shown in the first chapter, Darby, Kelly, Mackintosh
and Trotter all taught in the most decided manner that the Coming of Christ is one thing, the Day of
Christ is another; the two are separated by an unknown period of years. Not only this, when pre-
millennial writers like Tregelles, Newton, Müller, Alford, Saphir, West and Erdman taught that
the Day of Christ was the same thing as the Coming of Christ, their teaching was repudiated in energetic
fashion by orthodox pre-trib advocates. It was confusing in the extreme and a betrayal of the blessed
hope, to mix it up with the Day of Christ; so it was arrogantly asserted.
Now, however, if Gaebelein,151 Anderson152 and Scofield153 are to be believed, the blundering and
confusion must be attributed to the past eminent leaders of the pre-trib school of prophecy, for it is now
being asserted on the housetops that "the Day of Christ" synchronizes with the hope of the Church at
the Parousia.
It is contended, according to the new school of the new persuasion, that whilst the Coming of Christ and
the Day of Christ are identical, yet they occur long before the Day of the Lord. It is this day that concerns
Israel and the world, whilst the Coming and the Day of Christ refer exclusively to the Church. I want the
reader to note the remarkable volte face [change in position] in this defense of pre-trib theories; for when
properly understood, it reveals in the clearest manner the utter worthlessness of the exegetical foundation
upon which the new theories rest. The change occurred as follows. Prior to the appearance of the Revised
Version of 2 Thessalonians 2:2, that text read "the day of Christ" and not "the day of the Lord" as in the
Revised Version. To Darby this change made no difference whatever, for he taught, with commendable
consistency, that all these expressions--"the Day of Christ," "the Day of Jesus Christ," "the Day of the
Lord," "the Day of Jehovah," signified one and the same day. So that even after he had adopted the
reading "Day of the Lord" in his translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:2, he continued to speak of "the Day of
Christ" as synonymous (Synopsison Phil. 2:16).
The Revised Version, by eliminating the one unfavourable 154 instance of "the Day of Christ" at 2
Thessalonians 2:2, proved a veritable godsend, in that it released Philippians 1:6, 9, 10; 2:6; 1 Corinthians
1:7-8, and 2 Corinthians 1:14 for service elsewhere in prophetic charts and programs. But yesterday it
was shocking to apply them to the hope: today, shocking to withhold them. In other words, all the
151 Votes on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 (p. 5).

152 The Hebrews Epistle, p. 85, etc.
Will the Church pass’through the Great Tribulation, pp. 11,, 13, 28; Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1212,
153
What do the Prophets Say? (p. 122).

154 Unfavorable that is, to an “any-moment” Coming and Rapture, at Christ’s Day, without previous signs.
Page: 136
favorable texts mentioned above155 were now coolly and conveniently brought forward by about thirty-
five years and applied unabashedly to the blessed hope of the Church! Only the Day of the Lord was left
at the close of Daniel’s apocalyptic Week in order to prop up that part of the new program of the End
which continued to assert that whilst the Coming and the Day of Christ had no predicted signs or events
preceding them, the Day of the Lord was to be preceded by signs innumerable, especially by the
Apostasy, and the revelation of Antichrist. And those of us who still assert that the Day of Christ and the
Day of the Lord are the same, are looked upon as benighted [intellectual darkness; unenlightened] people,
though their identity was a fundamental part of the new system before the R.V. appeared. We can cite
page after page from Darby, Kelly, Mackintosh and Trotter to prove our position. Yet they have been torn
to ribbons in the house of their friends.
This historical sidelight, and the complete change of front it has revealed, will serve two purposes. First,
it confirms us completely in our exegesis in applying "the Day of Christ" and kindred expressions to the
blessed hope of the Church; secondly, it shows that what passes for new light may mean simply that one
is living by one’s wits; that one is an opportunist snapping up chances by the way, a policy known to Mr.
Micawber.
I remark in passing that many people will have been persuaded that both sections of the Darbyist school
are right: Anderson, Scofield and Gaebelein, in that "the Day of Christ" is emphatically the day for the
fulfillment of the blessed hope of the Church; Darby, Kelly, Trotter, C.H. Mackintosh, and large numbers
even today, in that "the Day of Christ" (or Messiah) is the same as "the Day of the Lord."
As for the new view that the Day of Christ, or Messiah’s Day, will precede the Day of the Lord by
several years or decades, it is sufficient to point to 1 Corinthians 1:7, where Messiah’s Day, the End of
the Age, and the Revelation are all linked together. More damaging still is the consideration that, on the
new view, the glorious Day of Messiah, which is a principal theme of O.T. prophecy, is to be succeeded
by the rise and reign of the Man of Sin and the deepest degradation that Israel has ever known. Messiah’s
Day forsooth [in truth]! "Messiah" means anointed, that is, King; and these new innovators in Israel want
us to believe that this King’s glorious Day, the Day of days of the King of kings, is going to be followed
by Antichrist’s triumph and Reign, not His own, and by that interregnum of confusion, apostasy, and
delusion that their word-painters have made so familiar. It is fair to say that Darby, Kelly, Trotter, and C.
H. Mackintosh at least spared us this preposterous tax on our credulity.
Hence even this new-fangled version has been found troublesome, and a still newer one has been found.
Messrs. Hogg and Vine in Touching the Coming have discovered that the expressions "Day of Christ,"
"Day of Jesus Christ" and "Day of the Lord Jesus" are a period of time beginning with the Rapture and
ending with the Glorious Advent (pp. 66-70, 97). And the proof of this latest dispensational novelty?
None but the requirements of their own fantastic program; they make what they would prove, the
presupposition of their exegesis, And how long will Messiah’s "Day" last? Heaven only knows: it may
only be a little while--three and a half years or seven years, or seventy, but Anderson insists that the
Scripture will still harmonize if the period lasts for a thousand! And the effect of Messiah’s Day?
Christians as the salt and light of society are withdrawn from the world, Antichrist arises and comes to
155 Philippians 1:6, 9, 10; 2:16; 1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 2 Corinthians 1:14.
Page: 137
his triumph; Israel suffers as she has never suffered before. This is no caricature, but a statement of the
case. One must sorrowfully remark that the defense of these false theories throws up sophistry that can
give points and a beating to the Rabbis in Israel; there is an unwillingness to accept the plain facts of a
text like 1 Corinthians 1:7, and scores of others. For the infatuated, there are always three ways out of
every difficulty: "Messiah’s Day" applies to the Day of the Lord; does that embarrass? Then apply it to
the Rapture several years or decades before; does that still embarrass? Make it a bridge spanning both.
This is what is being done with Parousia, Appearing, Revelation156 and Day. They are pushed and pulled
to make them say the very opposite of what they say in Scripture. Everything, anything is preferable to
the withering of a gourd of men’s planting.
XIII. Sir Robert Anderson’s Theory Of A Series Of Comings
We are confirmed in our repudiation of the new exegesis of the words coming, appearing, revelation and
day of Christ, by the simple fact that from within the theorists’ camp a powerful voice has been raised,
which, whilst seeking to vindicate essential features of the new scheme, has repudiated most of the
blundering exegesis by which that position has been propped up. I refer to Sir R. Anderson’s
volume, Forgotten Truths. The writer was quick to see how erroneous and absurd was the exegesis that
relegated the Appearing and Revelation to an event at least seven years after the fulfill ment of the
Church’s hope. He saw, what every unbiased student has seen, that the hope of the Church is nothing else
than the Glorious Appearing of Christ. Unfortunately, instead of rejecting the pleasing schemes of the
Second Advent that originated in denying or ignoring this fact, and could survive only by the free use of
imagination and “grasshopper” exegesis, Sir R. Anderson set to work to find a new apologetic for the
main scheme of the prophetic future, introduced by Darby. His scheme is contained in his well-known
volume, The Coming Prince, but principally in his more recent work, Forgotten Truths.157 It is not my
intention to review this volume, which has caused astonishment and disappointment in many quarters. It
seems scarcely credible that a work abounding in a spirit and method that I forbear from characterizing,
should have come from the same pen as gave to the Church one of the most brilliant, sane, and helpful
works ever issued on unfulfilled prophecy--The Coming Prince. Even in circles where Sir R. Anderson
has been able to count on flattering reviews, his latest volume was roundly condemned for its methods
and spirit.
156Appearing and Revelation are now in the second stage: they are actually being applied to the Secret
Rapture; see Vine, The Rapture and the Great Tribulation, pp. 23-6. Their being made a period, covering the
times of lawlessness and the rise and triumph of Antichrist, is only a question of a little more exegetical
persecution.
157 Also Unfulfilled Prophecy, 2nd edition.
It is with the greatest regret that here and elsewhere I find myself differing from the respected author of
these volumes. I am one of thousands to whom The Gospel and Its Ministry, The Coming Prince, and other
works in exposition of the faith, were illuminating and helpful. But, unfortunately, Sir R. Anderson’s views on
“dispensational truth” have been pushed to extreme lengths, so that what I hold to be thoroughly erroneous
teaching is given forth as “assured results” of a new enlightenment. I am dealing, however, with Sir R.
Anderson’s views, not with him personally. A like remark applies to my exposure of Dr. Bullinger’s position;
it is possible to entertain respect for him as a devout Christian man, whilst repudiating his system of lunar
interpretation, (Written in 1914).
Page: 138
A typical hair-raising statement of Sir R. Anderson’s, which shakes our confidence in him as an exegete,
is on one of the most sacred and glorious of Apostolic declarations about the life beyond the grave: “‘To
die is gain’ is the evil creed of a suicide. The apostle never said that,” (p. 63).
Sir R. Anderson tells us that the true rendering should be “to have died is gain.” Such pedantic literalism
is reminiscent of the dying pundit who confessed that he had given his life to elucidating the Greek
article: he had been wrong; he ought to have given it to the dative case! Millions of saints have been
comforted by the Apostle’s saying about death, and all the recent translations, including Darby’s, tell us
that they were right: to die is gain for the Christian, for he is immediately ushered into the presence of his
Saviour and Lord, (Phil. 1:23; Rev. 7:9-17).
I have spoken of methods, and here is an example at hand to illustrate my meaning. After remarking that
the Coming of the Lord as Saviour is confounded with the Day of the Lord, Sir R. Anderson adds
(Forgotten Truths, p. 71): “In fact the error which the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was designed
to correct is now in the creed of Christendom.”
This is a gross and unpardonable misstatement, and simply springs from the author’s inveterate habit of
tilting at the theologians, Churches, and Creeds of Christendom. We know what was “the error that the
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was designed to correct.” They had imbibed the teaching that the
Day of the Lord had already come, (2 Eph. 2). Now, whatever may be the defects of “the creed of
Christendom,” it is only by an outrage that it can be said to contain the error that the Day of the Lord has
arrived. It may be asserted with all confidence that “the creed of Christendom” is that the Day of the Lord
(when the resurrection and judgment of “the quick and the dead” shall be accomplished) is still future. If
Christendom is behind the Thessalonians in looking for Christ, it certainly is ahead of them in believing
that the Day of the Lord has not yet come; ahead of them (and modern theorists) in repudiating the
vagaries that our Lord’s approaching Advent may take place secretly, and at any moment, and may be
followed by the rise of Antichrist and tribulation for the saints.
Let not students of prophecy think and talk lightly of the Creed of Christendom. Happy should we be
today if the whole Church could rally round this standard as she did in the first centuries of our Era,
seeing in it a glorious symbol of the outstanding facts of our religion, which she was to confess and
maintain before the world. Great part of our trouble is that ministers either disbelieve the Creed, or
multiply it a hundredfold to our division and confusion. A very great patristic theologian has shown in
successive studies158 that the essentials and form of the Creed go back to the very heart of the Apostolic
Age; it saw the Church through the stress and storm of almost interminable struggles with heretical,
“mosquito” sects, and was the joyful confession of the faithful as they received the waters of baptism.
The men who framed the Creed loved our Lord’s Appearing, and considered that no statement of
Christian doctrine was complete without its being mentioned. They included, therefore, a brief article
designed to go straight to the heart and conscience of their converts from heathenism: an article taken
158Zahn: The Apostles’ Creed (E.T.) and Skizzen arcs Leben der alten Kirche (1908; chapter vii, “The Rule of
Faith and The Baptismal Confession”). Zahn rejects the tradition that the Apostles sat down formally and
composed the creed, but maintains that the principal articles go back to a “form of sound words” in use in
the Apostolic Age itself.
Page: 139
verbatim from the speech of Peter and Paul159 in their sermons or writings. The candidate for baptism
confessed that God’s only Son, our Lord, who was seated on the right hand of God, would return “to
judge the quick and the dead.” The statement had the advantage of brevity, solemnity, and credibility.
Would that this could be said of modern statements of the Lord’s Coming.
Another extraordinary theory of Sir R. Anderson’s--it amounts almost to an obsession--is that Matthew’s
Gospel is “Jewish” in such a sense that it cannot refer to the mystical Body of Christ, the Church of this
Dispensation. The following extract will show to what lengths this extraordinary vagary is pushed:160 --
The First Gospel does not contain a single word that is inconsistent with its scope and purpose in the
Divine scheme of revelation, as a record of the Lord’s mission and ministry as Israel’s Messiah; and it
will be studied by believing Israelites in days to come as if the present Christian dispensation had never
intervened.
I have grave doubts of the fulfillment of Sir R. Anderson’s prophecy; even if they read Matthew’s Gospel
when drowsy, or studied a copy of it interleaved with Bullinger’s Mystery, or Sir R.
Anderson’s Forgotten Truths, or had access to no commentary on it except Dr. Gaebelein’s, their perusal
and study of Matthew 13:3-52; 16:18; 18:17; 22:1-14: 24:14, 31; 26:13; and 28:18-20, would completely
bewilder them if they studied it “as if the present Christian dispensation had never intervened.”
Over against the wild suggestion that Matthew’s Gospel is narrowly Jewish in its contents, scope, and
outlook, I set herewith the testimony of the author of perhaps the best commentary we have on the First
Gospel:161 --
In greatness of conception, and in the power with which a mass of material is subordinated to great ideas,
no writing in either Testament, dealing with a historical theme, is to be compared with Matthew. In this
respect the present writer would be at a loss to find its equal also in the other literature of antiquity (ii. p.
566).
One would like to quote pages from this magnificent study of “The Contents, Plan, and Purpose of
Matthew’s Gospel;” there is space, however, for only two or three paragraphs--just sufficient for our
present purpose. After throwing a flood of light on the famous and difficult passage, “On this rock I will
159 Acts 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:5.

Forgotten Truths, p. 126. See also The Bible and Modern Criticism (p. 278), where Sir R. Anderson says
160
concerning Christ’s purpose to build His Church (“on this rock I will build my Church,” Matt. 16:18):
“I deprecate any exposition of these passages which makes them refer exclusively, or even primarily, to the
present dispensation. Such an exegesis is, I think, refuted by the fact that it is in the teaching of the First
Gospel that these words are recorded.”How like our Melbourne story (see p. 118), “Matthew’s Gospel was
written for the Jews! “It ought to be said that this strange interpretation of Matthew 16:18 did not originate
with Darby, but with Sir R. Anderson and Dr. Bullinger. I know no other writers who entertain it. In chapter
7 I have dealt briefly with these strange views of the First Gospel, and in a forthcoming volume on Matthew
24 and 25, the Remnant and other dispensational theories will be exhaustively examined.
161I am referring to Zahn’s large volume in the N.T. Commentary edited by him; the citations, however, are
from the English translation of his INT.
Page: 140
build my Church, etc.,” and remarking that “it is this idea of the Church” that distinguishes the central
section of the Gospel (11:2--20:34), Dr. Zahn goes on:--
It is because Jesus is condemned to death by the heads of the people and delivered over to the Gentiles
for the carrying out of their sentence (16:22; 20: 18 ff.) that the kingdom of God is to be stayed in its
sweeping onward progress (cf. 11:22), and a period intervene between its beginning through the word of
Jesus and its completion with His parousia, during which the kingdom of heaven shall have its
preliminary realization in a Church of the Christian confession by no means free from foreign elements,
in which even the best members are still tainted with sin, (13:36-43, 48; 18:7-35; 22:11; 24:12). This
Christian Church and the Jewish people are represented as two sharply distinguished bodies. The
teaching concerning discipline within the Church (18:15-35), marriage (19:3-12), the relation of children
to Jesus and so to His Church (19:13-14), the attitude toward earthly possessions (19:16-26), the Divine
reward in relation to human labor (19:27–20:16), ruling and serving (20:20-28, cf.; 23:8-12; 24:45-51)--
all these presuppose a Church of Jesus, which, whatever its organization, was certainly separate from the
Jewish people, and regulated by a different law from that which prevailed among the Jews, (ii. pp. 551-
2).
In the same study Dr. Zahn deals thus with the close of Matthew’s Gospel:--
The one declared to be dead appears alive to His friends in Jerusalem as well as in Galilee (28:9, 17). The
same person who refused to call either the power of God or that of the devil to His aid in order to disarm
His foes and to gain dominion over the world (4:8; 26:53), speaks as Lord of heaven and earth. The
Messiah of Israel who longed to save His people from sin, and who remained loyal to this His first duty,
even unto death, (1:21; 10:5 ff., 23; 15:24), commissions the Eleven to make all peoples without
distinction His disciples through baptism and teaching. With this Church, which shall increase constantly
as the majestic command is carried out, His invisible presence shall abide until the end of the world, i.e.,
until His visible return (28:18-20; 24:3, 14). Thus ends “The Book of the History of Jesus Christ, The
Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” (pp. 555-6).
Worthy to be placed alongside the above is another great scholar’s testimony to the Catholicity of
Matthew’s Gospel:
I am with you (ego meta humōn). This is the amazing and blessed promise. He is to be with the disciples
when, he is gone, with all the disciples, with all knowledge, with all power, with them all the days (all
sorts of days, weakness, sorrow, joy, power), till the consummation of the age (has tes sunteleias tou
aionos). That goal is in the future and unknown to the disciples. This blessed hope is not designed as a
sedative to an inactive mind and complacent conscience, but an incentive to the fullest endeavor to press
on to the farthest limits of the world that all the nations may know Christ and the power of His Risen
Life. So Matthew’s Gospel closes in a blaze of glory (A. T. Robertson, in loco).
If, as Sir R. Anderson teaches, there will be in Palestine (when the Great Commission is being fulfilled in
the End-time) a company of “Jews and yet Christians”162 -- “a believing community of Israelites,” who
The Coming Prince (p. 170). The note is important, so also the following page (171), where the Seven
162
Epistles are given a “Dispensational” reference to the time after the Rapture. See also his Silence of God,
which is of fundamental importance in the author’s scheme, and his tract The Distinction between The
Page: 141
will be “Jews whose faith will be akin to that of the Lord’s disciples during His earthly ministry,”163 then
the question of their standing is settled for us. Paul had thought this question through, and had definitely
decided that the Church, the Body of Christ, did not begin with his conversion. Sir R. Anderson, Dr.
Bullinger, and Dr. Marsh affirm that it did, but Paul is dead against them. He asserts that he was the least
of the Apostles, because he “persecuted the Church of God,” (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:23; Phil. 3:6). And
whereas dispensationalists hold up the Thessalonians as model Churches, Paul commends them because
they “became imitators of the churches of God, which are in Judea in Christ Jesus,” (1 Thess. 2:14). As
Bishop Lightfoot points out,164 the phraseology is carefully chosen: “churches of Judea” alone might
have meant any Jewish assemblies; but the addition of “in Christ Jesus” was absolutely decisive. And in
Galatians 1:22 Paul speaks of “the Churches of Judaea which were in Christ Jesus.” Then in Romans 16:7
he mentions two kinsmen “who were in Christ before me.” What all this means is plain: the mystical
Body of Christ began with the Churches of Judaea, years before Paul was converted. Sir R. Anderson and
his coterie would divide ancient Christendom into the “Pentecostal” Church and the “Body of Christ
Church.” The Apostle Paul gloried in showing his solidarity with the mother Church of Judea, and gave
proof of it, not only in the passages mentioned, but by devoting much time among the Gentile Churches
to raising a collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem, (2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; Acts
24:17; Gal. 2:10). He seized an opportunity to demonstrate the unity and fellowship of Jews and Gentiles
in the one Church of God in Christ Jesus.
We need not worry much, therefore, about the attitude of Jewish Christians in the End-time toward
Matthew’s Gospel; and we can safely reject freak theories of the Advent that depend upon first accepting
freak theories about Apostles, Churches, and Gospels. Having been assured by Sir R. Anderson that there
will be Christian Israelites in Palestine in the End-time, equal in standing to the Apostles and the
Pentecostal Church, the whole pretentious system collapses, for a natural reading of Matthew 24-25 leads
to the conclusion that they will fulfill some rugged texts there about the Great Tribulation, whereas the
new theories require us to believe that all Christians will have been raptured to heaven several years
before.
Another thing that awakens attention in Sir R. Anderson’s scheme of the End is his frequent reference to
a certain “future age,” after the Rapture of the Church, and before the Messianic Reign. He does not, and
cannot, produce a scrap of evidence for any such “age.” The only age in time that Scripture speaks of to
follow “this present Age” is that called “the Future Age,” or “the World to Come,” when, not Antichrist,
but Christ the Lord assumes the sovereignty of the world.
One of the most eminent of present-clay theologians writes thus:
It is common knowledge that Bible eschatology as a whole is set within a definite framework--the
conception of two distinct worlds or æons; “the present age,” or simply “the age” largely subject to the
Kingdom of Heaven, The Kingdom of God, and The Church (pp. 9–10). Here the position is taken up that there
will be a Church on earth that will be Jewish, without belonging to the Body, but to the Bride--of course after
the Rapture. It is to this “Church” that Sir Robert applies Matthew 16:18. It would be a kind of continuation
of the Pentecostal Church.
163 Forgotten Truths, pp. 75-6.
164 Notes on Epistles of St. Paul.
Page: 142
powers of darkness, and “the coming age,” which by its victorious advent abolishes all tragedy. It is upon
this grand apocalyptic opposition that Paul builds his main view of the last things. 165
But it is time to come to Sir R. Anderson’s main position on the Return of Christ. It is, briefly,166 “that
what we term the second advent of Christ is not a single event, but includes several distinct
manifestations.” He finds a doctrine of “various comings” in the future taught in Scripture. How many
such comings of Christ there will be Sir R. Anderson cannot inform us. But after careful “sorting” of the
Scriptures, he finds at least four distinct future appearings of Christ, namely:--
 That of 1 Thessalonians 4, when the surviving Church and the risen saints will be caught up; this
will occur before the Seventieth Week of Daniel.
 That of Acts 1:9-11;167 Zechariah 14:4, which will occur at the close of that Week, and has
reference to Israel’s deliverance.
 That of 2 Thessalonians 2:8, when Antichrist is destroyed.
 That at the conclusion of the millennium for the Last Judgment.
But of course there may be many more appearings, for the peculiar principles that lead to a doctrine of
four “second” advents may lead, when logically applied, to a doctrine of forty. If the Coming of the Son
of Man must be different from the Coming of the Lord, then the coming of Messiah must be something
different still; so that each distinctive title of Christ, and each new permutation of them, will connote “a
special relationship” and a special coming. Sir R. Anderson does not openly contend for this, but that is
what his principle leads to. And his handling168 of the sister phrases, Day of Christ, Day of the Lord
Jesus, and Day of the Lord confirms us in our inferences. How utterly rabbinical and erroneous it all is
may be seen from the fact that the Coming of the Word of God in Revelation 19:11-16 to destroy “the
Beast,” is the same as the Coming of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 to destroy “the Man of Sin.” Even
Sir R. Anderson cannot deny this, since he identifies, and rightly identifies, the Beast and that person.
The Appearing of 2 Thessalonians 2:8 and that of Revelation 19 are the same, despite the great
differences in titles and “coloring,” whereas on Sir R. Anderson’s principles they ought to be distinct.
Holding to a whole series of distinct comings of Christ in the future, it is not surprising that Sir R.
Anderson should quarrel with the expression “the Second Advent,” for, whilst he himself believes in a
second advent, he seems to lack the courage to sort and label his various comings following the second,
as the “third,” “fourth,” and “fifth” advents of Christ. Would he do so, we should not need to trouble
about refuting his scheme; the mere statement of it might be trusted to do that. The simple fact that the
most illustrious scholars and theologians have used the term “the Second Coming” does not restrain Sir
R. Anderson from attributing its use to deplorable error and ignorance. It does not seem to occur to him
that the great scholars and theologians may be right and he wrong. One is reminded, not for the first time
in this controversy, of the Scottish girl’s espying her brother among the recruits and finding them all “oot
o’ step except oor Jock.” How applicable to this new-fangled scheme of Sir R. Anderson’s! It was never
165 Prof. H. R. Mackintosh in “The Expositor” (Studies in Christian Eschatology), Feb., 1914, p. 123.
166 See Coming Prince, p. 155; Hebrews Epistle, appendix 3.; Forgotten Truths, pp. 46-8 and 144.
167 See the footnote at p. 186 (Coming Prince).
168 Hebrews Epistle, p. 85.
Page: 143
heard of prior to him, and has not commended itself to a single teacher of light and leading since; yet he
parades it with much dogmatism as an established truth. The following considerations will show why it is
to be rejected as an innovation:
(a) The writer of Hebrews speaks (9:28) of a “second” appearing-- “He shall appear a second time,
without sin unto salvation.” So inconvenient is this text to Sir R. Anderson’s theory that he has boldly
denied169 that this refers to the second Coming of Christ! He thinks the truth of the priesthood explains
the text, and in his Forgotten Truths refers to this again: “When Aaron passed within the veil, the people
watched till he came out again” (p. 46). Exactly! and the writer of Hebrews goes on to tell us that our
great High Priest, who accomplished redemption upon the cross, and bore the sins of many, entered into
heaven itself, where He carries on His priestly ministry on behalf of His people; but, says the writer,
“unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin unto salvation.”
Sir R. Anderson dislikes both the A.V. and R.V. of this text, saying that the expression “shall appear the
second time conveys a wrong impression.” But on the contrary its accuracy is confirmed by the Revised
Version, Darby’s, Weymouth’s, Moffatt’s, Goodspeed’s, Conybeare’s, Wade’s and Way’s. Every one of
those versions also gives the translation “will appear a second time” or “will appear again,” which Sir R.
Anderson also tries to get rid of in the interest of his freak interpretation. A. T. Robertson says of our text
that it is a “blessed assurance of the second coming of Christ, but this time ‘apart from sin;’” and of the
verb apekdechomai he says that it is “the very verb used by Paul in Philippians 3:20 of waiting for the
coming of Christ as Saviour (v., p. 405). This same verb, and the text in Philippians where it occurs, are
quoted with approval by Sir R. Anderson in a version of Grimm’s:170 “We are assiduously and patiently
waiting for the Saviour.” This is precisely the truth of Hebrews 9:28 that he would filch from us so as to
make theologians and students who speak of the Second Coming look perverse or ignorant, or both. And,
be it added, it is Christians, not “the earthly people,” who await “assiduously and patiently” the coming
forth of the High Priest to bless them.
(b) Whilst we read in Scripture of Christ’s appearing a second time, it is remarkable that it never speaks
of a third or fourth or fifth appearing. Not even at the Last Judgment (Rev. 20:11), do we read of an
appearing, because Christ comes at the beginning of the millennium and never leaves His people. There
is no place for a third appearing.171
It is unfortunate for Sir R. Anderson, and all other theorists, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, which speaks
of our Lord’s Second Appearing, locates it at the Day of the Lord, when the Kingdom is introduced:
“And when he again bringeth in the first-born into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God
worship him,” (1:6; R.V.).
169 Coming Prince, p. 291.

170 Forgotten Truths, p. 65.
The words of W. Kelly are substantially correct: “Christ’s coming to the world is really described in
171
chapter 19, before the millennium. At the end of the millennium there is no coming of Christ, but rather a
departure, if you will, of the heaven and the earth,” (Second Coming, p. 322).
Page: 144
Westcott in his commentary gives us the true meaning: “For the present He has been withdrawn from the
‘habitable world,’ the limited scene of man’s present labors; but at the Return He will enter it once more
with sovereign triumph,” (Acts 1:11).
A first appearing at the Incarnation to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (9:28), and a second
appearing in the future to bless His expectant people, and establish His reign (1:6; 10:25, 37), are the
Eschatology of Hebrews. The Apostle cheers his Jewish readers with the thought that the next appearing
of Messiah will be followed immediately by His visible triumph; Sir R. Anderson would encourage
Jewish Christians in Palestine with the news that the next Appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ will be
followed by the triumph of Antichrist, and the further degradation of the Hebrews.
(c) It is awkward also for Sir R. Anderson’s scheme that Paul, who is supposed to have favored or
introduced the new scheme, knows of only one future appearing--the appearing of Christ. The event is
associated with the destruction of Antichrist at the beginning of the millennium, (2 Thess. 2:8; Isa.11:4;
Rev. 19:20) with the reign of Christ (2 Tim. 4:1), with the rewarding of the saints (2 Tim. 4:8), which we
know from the Apocalypse is located at the Day of the Lord (11:18), from Luke 14:14 at the resurrection,
and from Revelation 22:12 at the coming.
But this is not all; this Glorious Appearing is definitely held out as being “the blessed hope” of Christians
(Titus 2:13). Sir R. Anderson, who saw this, and saw also the blundering exegesis of the whole school on
this text, adroitly tries to claim it as supporting his own peculiar scheme. After quoting the text about “the
Glorious Appearing,” he scornfully asks: “Will anyone dare rob us of these words by referring them to
the great and terrible day of the Lord?”172
If identifying “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” with “the glorious
appearing” of Jehovah at the Day of the Lord is a capital crime, then all writers and commentators and
theologians in every age of the Church are guilty of it; for all of them (including Darby and Kelly, and
every soul of man in the dispensationalist school) applied the Glorious Appearing of the great God to the
“gloriously appearing” Day of the Lord. And rightly so, because in Titus 2:13 the Glorious Appearing is
set in juxtaposition to “this present age,” in which Christians glorify God by sober, righteous, and godly
lives. Very evidently the Glorious Appearing terminates “this present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) and ushers in
the new Age, when Christians, having suffered, shall reign. Yet Sir R. Anderson’s exegesis would
commit us to the vagary that after the Glorious Appearing of Jehovah-Jesus (Titus 2:13), apostasy will
come in like a flood, Antichrist rise to persecute the saints, the Great Tribulation supervene, and the
Jewish Nation enter upon the blackest night in her whole history, accepting Antichrist as Messiah. In the
whole range of the exegesis that Sir R. Anderson pillories (and it is all except his own, practically), there
is nothing quite so “hotchpotch” and ludicrous as this. The Glorious Appearing of Messiah followed by
the rise and triumph of the Man of Sin! How different from the truth of Scripture, for Paul tells us that by
172Forgotten Truths, p. 66. Canon Girdlestone, in an address before the Prophecy Investigation Society
(“Morning Star,” Jan. 1st, 1913), says the Hebrew word in Joel 2:31, signifies awe rather than terror. He says:
“This day is called great and terrible by Joel, and ‘dreadful’ in Malachi; but the original word is the same, an
indication rather of awe than terror: a solemn time to be considered with awe and reverence. God shall then
vindicate Himself and His ways of righteousness before all.”
Page: 145
the “brightness” or “appearance” of Christ’s Coming, the Man of Sin shall be sent to his doom, (2 Thess.
2:8).
Neither Sir R. Anderson’s scheme nor Darby’s can bear the magnificent light that modern scholarship
throws on 1 Thessalonians 4:4-18, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, and Titus 2:13, as
descriptions of the triumphant arrival of our Lord.
(d) All that Sir R. Anderson has said about the impossibility of the various prophecies being fulfilled in
one Glorious Appearing of Christ (with many events accompanying and following it) is applicable, on his
principles, to the great crisis of the death of Christ. Adopting his canon that fulfillment of purpose
concerning the Jew, the Gentiles, and the Church of God cannot be accomplished at the same crisis--
which is his underlying presupposition--we could say, “what ‘hotchpotch’ to suppose that Christ died at
one and the same time for Paul (Gal. 2:20), for Israel (John 11:51-52), for sinners, as such (Rom. 5:8), for
the Church of God (Eph. 5:25), for the O.T. saints (Heb. 11:40), for the vindication of the righteousness
of God (Rom. 3:25), for the reconciliation of all things (Col. 1:20), to bring to naught the prince of death
(Heb. 2:14), to deliver us from bondage (Heb. 2:15), died that we might be crucified with Him (Gal.
2:19-20); what ‘hotch-potch’ also to suppose that the death of the Son of Man (John 3:14), is the same as
the propitiatory sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:14); how absurd that the death of
the good Shepherd (John 10:11), can be the same thing as the death of the Lamb (John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19),
that all the typical sacrifices of the O.T. cultus should be fulfilled in the death of the one Man (Rom. 5:15,
19).”
Yet we know that all was fulfilled in the death of the Son of Man; that one crisis embraced all purposes
and relationships. So also will it be with the Appearing of the Son of Man. It is one crisis with various
phases and relationships. At His Coming out of heaven He gathers the Elect saints and destroys the Man
of Sin; He then comes on to the earth, where the Jews look upon Him whom they pierced; the Kingdom
is then established in power. And all the essence of simplicity.
(e) Efforts have been made to substantiate the theory of a series of future Appearings by drawing an
analogy between the Scriptural account of the first Advent and the very latest theories of the Second. This
has been done ingeniously by Miss Ada R. Habershon in an interesting parable, “The Rabbis’
Discussion,” published in the London “Christian,” December 23rd, 1909.
She aims at proving that as the first Coming of Christ was made up of various comings (events of the
Incarnation and Ministry), separated by years, so also the Second Coming of Christ will consist of
various comings or events separated by years, but all constituting the Parousia. She says: “The attempt to
fit all the prophecies concerning the Lord’s parousia into one event has contributed largely to the
prevailing confusion of teaching.” To this I reply: --
(i) Those who reject the nineteenth-century theory of several future Comings do not endeavor to crowd
all the events of the Parousia “into one event.” All that they are guilty of is insisting that the Parousia
consists of a single crisis, a single Advent accompanied and followed by many events and phenomena
concerning the history of Israel, the Church, and the Kingdom of God.
Page: 146
(ii) Miss Habershon bids us believe that the Parousia is spread over a protracted period. This, however, is
rather different from what the Lord Jesus Christ taught. He said: “As the lightning cometh out of the east,
and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man be,” (Matt. 24:27).
(iii) The facts of the first coming of Christ do not support Miss Habershon’s scheme. It is she who
confuses the matter. The advent of the Eternal Son to this world took place in a moment of time; but it
was followed by His presence in this world for about forty years; many events took place in that time that
were not parts, but results of His coming or arrival. So will it be at His Return. His Advent will take place
suddenly, and be followed by many predicted events; they are not separate Comings, but results of His
one glorious Arrival. Having come, Christ remains with His people forever, first, in the Messianic
Kingdom of a thousand years on the renewed earth, then in the eternal state, when God shall be all in all
To have furnished a parallel to this scheme of Miss Habershon’s and Sir R. Anderson’s, Christ should
have ascended to heaven sometime after His birth, returned to this world to be baptized, ascended again
to heaven, and later returned to fulfill some other phase of His mission; for the scheme Miss Habershon is
propounding presupposes several descents out of heaven, and several ascents back again.
(iv) Miss Habershon uses the following illustration to maintain her scheme: “The flag on Buckingham
Palace proclaims the presence of the King in the Metropolis, and tells us that the court is in London.”
This illustration might be used to good effect in connection with the Second Coming, but I am at a loss to
see how it illustrates, much less supports, the latest theory; for when Christ’s Parousia in 1 Thessalonians
4:15 is fulfilled according to the new schemes, will that “proclaim the presence of the King”? Not at all.
It will be the signal that the greatest darkness and sadness have only commenced for the world; for
apostasy comes in like a flood, Antichrist arises to his triumph; Israel suffers fearful delusion, and
tribulation follows for saints on earth. The King of kings has come in His glory, but Antichrist flourishes
here below! And this is gravely offered to us as a substitute for the “prevailing confusion:” that at
Christ’s Coming Antichrist will be immediately slain, and the reign of the Prince of Peace set up!
(f) The root error in Sir R. Anderson’s scheme is due to his misreading of 1 Thessalonians 415 and 1
Corinthians 15:51. He would have us believe that Paul there revealed the “mystery” 173 (or secret truth) of
the hope of the Church:174 this is a new Coming different from that in the earlier Scriptures. The theory is
173 Forgotten Truths, pp. 45-46.
174 If true, this curious theory would involve the startling conclusion that, up to the writing of 2
Thessalonians 4, the Apostolic Church did not have the hope of Christ’s Return! With praiseworthy
consistency Sir R. Anderson actually says that the Lord taught the Apostles to look for events, not for His
Coming! (Forgotten Truths, p. 79). Yet the Epistle of James (4:7-8), which Sir R. Anderson accepts as the
earliest N.T. writing, shows conclusively that the Coming of Matthew 24:27-30 was a living and joyous hope
in the Church about A.D. 45, when Zahn, Mayor and others date the Epistle of James.
Anyone who can read Matthew 24--25 and conclude that our Lord taught the Apostles not to look for His
Coming is simply in great bondage. The hope is everywhere, there and in Acts, whilst Paul was still in his
sins, and in James before 2 Thessalonians 4.
Page: 147
entirely erroneous. The truth revealed at 1 Thessalonians 4:15, is simply that living believers will have no
advantage whatever over those who fall asleep; both together will meet the returning Lord. And at 1
Corinthians 15:51 the Coming of the Lord is not even referred to! The truth revealed is simply that not all
believers shall fall asleep, but that all shall be changed from corruptible to incorruptible in an instant of
time.
And Sir R. Anderson’s scheme is annihilated by the fact that the resurrection and transfiguration of the
saints are located by the Apostle at the Day of the Lord, (1 Cor. 15: 54. cf.; also Isa. 25:8, etc.).
If Sir R. Anderson persists, in spite of this, in maintaining a series of future Comings, then the terminus a
quo for the first is the Day of the Lord. But if the first Coming in his series is so located, I think the
charm of his scheme would wear off even for himself.
A man was travelling, and issued from a range of hills on to an extensive plain. He crossed a stream that
ran off to his right over a long stretch of sand; after an hour or so a thread of water gushed toward him
from the right, falling over a cascade of white marble to his left; soon another stream was approaching
him from behind, flowing over gravel, through pure red soil, and going off into the woods nearby. With
the appearance of water again after an hour’s riding, the question arose: how many rivers had he crossed,
one or several? The contours of the region were not decisive against several; the traveler was a stranger in
the neighborhood; to find out from an inhabitant of the country was difficult; but he had adopted a
method that gave him a definite and accurate conclusion: he had observed that the water at every
crossing, in every direction, and over every succeeding bed of sand, of rock, of gravel, of marble, carried
always, not only a particular substance in solution, but also a peculiar kind of grass floating on the
surface; he drew the conclusion, with such certainty as the Method of Agreement in Inductive Logic
could afford him, that the several streams were one: one stream in extremely varied surroundings.
Now in God’s word there is a stream of revelation that meets us everywhere--in the Prophets, the
Gospels, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse. It touches the Coming of the King, and His kingly rule among
the children of men. It passes through the most varied country, now of hope and fear, storm and calm,
peace and judgment, anarchy and righteousness, covenant and promise, laughter and tears.
And the King’s subjects, for the better knowledge of His mind, and the more faithful waiting for His
arrival, would know whether there is one stream or two--one Coming or two or several. Most said: but
since the beginning it has been held that there is only one; but others said: that is confusion; God has
shown us recently that there are two; and one said: but there are several. And another said, let us try the
stream and see whether there is everywhere, at each turn, amid all the changes of coloring, of direction,
of emphasis, of relation, some circumstance, something in the streams, that binds them into one. If we do
this, and have eyes to see, and courage to follow, we shall know of the doctrine. And it was found that
Isaiah, at 25:8; 26:19; Daniel at 12:2, 13; our Lord at Luke 14:14-15; 20:35, and John 6:39-54 Paul at
Romans 11:15; 1 Corinthians 15:23-26; 50-54, and John in Revelation 11:15-18 and 20:4-6, had so
linked the saints’ resurrection, the coming of the Kingdom, and the renewal of Israel, that no reasoning of
man could separate them.
Page: 148
XIV. The Saints’ Everlasting Rest
No treatment of pre-trib views of the Second Coming of Christ would be adequate if it omitted dealing
with the subject of the Church and the Antichristian tribulation of the Last Days. To the leaders among
pre-tribs the principal gain of the new program of the End-time was that it got the Church off the scene
before the arrival of the last Antichrist. They labored under the impression that, in propagating a pre-
tribulation Rapture, they were reviving truth that had lain buried for centuries under the rubbish of
tradition; and it seemed to them unfitting and intolerable that the Church, united as she is with her Head
in heaven, should be on earth when the hour of trial arrived. In all honesty they thought that the finished
work of Christ and the very character of God 175 were at stake in the matter.
Now, if the Church is to be removed from the scene before the time of Antichrist, if she is to enter on her
rest several years or decades before the Day of the Lord, then we must nowhere find passages of
Scripture that locate her obtaining relief at the Day itself; we should expect to find texts putting the
blessing in terms that leave no doubt. We shall examine first, however, a text that is relied on confidently
to meet the latter condition.
Revelation 3:10: --
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 contended by pre-trib writers that the Greek preposition ek in the above text must be translated out
of, and that what Christ promised to the Angel or Overseer of the Philadelphian Church was complete
exemption from the trial, by the prior rapture of the saints to heaven. In reply to this I remark:--
(a) Even if we admit the translation that the theorists contend for, it does not in the least follow that the
whole of the Christian Church in the generation of the Second Coming will be raptured to heaven some
years before the Day of the Lord. The argument presupposes the very point to be proved; for it is a mere
assumption that the only way God can preserve His Church from the Great Tribulation is by rapturing her
to heaven above. As a matter of fact, the Rapture is not so much as mentioned or hinted at; so long,
therefore, as another possible means of preservation out of the hour of tribulation exists, it is a mere
assumption that the Church must be raptured away in order to fulfill this promise of Christ. This very
book of Revelation reveals the possibility and certainty of a people in relationship with God being thus
preserved from the Great Tribulation. We are told that the Sun-clad Woman flees to the wilderness, and
is there protected by God from precisely the hour of the last Great Tribulation--“a thousand and two
hundred and three score days,” (Rev. 12:6, 14). Not all the power of the Dragon can avail to reach or
touch her. Not a word is said about her being raptured out of the world, yet the Woman is untouched by
the final persecution under Antichrist. I am not arguing that the Sun-clad Woman is the Church, or that
the latter will escape the Great Tribulation; these are matters for consideration. But what I do contend for
175This point is dealt with in the last chapter. One may mention tracts on the Church and the Great
Tribulation by J. H. Burridge, A. H. Burton, A. C. Gaebelein, F. E. Marsh, C. I. Scofield, and W. E. Vine; the most
thoroughgoing treatment is in Kelly’s Second Coming and Christ’s Coming Again. I deal with him in this
chapter and the last.
Page: 149
is that, in view of Revelation 12:14, a holy people in relationship with God can be exempted from the last
tribulation, without being taken up to heaven by a rapture. 176
So far as the language of Revelation 3:10 is concerned, there is nothing in it that compels us to believe
that the Church must be raptured to heaven for the promise to be fulfilled; for we have seen a people of
God kept “out of” the Great Tribulation, without so much as leaving the ground under its feet. Reasoning
such as this will, I repeat, be irksome to those who are careless of logical proof for their theories, but its
reasonableness will be admitted by those who acknowledge the elementary rule of exegesis, that we must
not introduce our ideas into the text, but draw the natural and obvious meaning from it.
I am aware of the arguments that are used to nullify the contention that the Church need not be taken
from earth to escape the last fiery trial: “The Church is a heavenly people;” “the saints of the Body are in
union with Christ;” “our citizenship is in heaven,” and so on; all of which are blessed truths; but the use
of them to deny that the Church may be exempt from the tribulation without a rapture, is the merest
sophistry.
When the terrific judgment (Luke 19:27; 20:16; 21:22; 1 Thess. 2:16; cf.), fell upon Jerusalem and the
Jews nearly nineteen hundred years ago, God did not see fit to rapture “the heavenly people” out of the
world. Nor has He seen fit to remove them out of the midst of appalling calamities such as plagues,
famines, and wars during nineteen hundred years: calamities that every biblical writer would speak of as
judgments of heaven upon heathenism or apostate civilization.
(b) So far we have assumed the correctness of the theorists’ contention that the language of Revelation
3:10 demands an exemption from the tribulation. This, however, is not nearly as certain as they would
have us believe; for many of the most competent Greek scholars unhesitatingly maintain that the use in
Revelation 3:10 of the preposition ek from out of the midst of--not merely out of--is precisely the
consideration that demands the very opposite conclusion to that which pre-tribs wish. According to these
scholars the Greek means that Christ promised to the Angel at Philadelphia preservation throughout the
hour of tribulation. In Moffatt’s translation of the N.T. the promise of Christ to the Angel at Philadelphia
reads as follows:--
Because you have kept the word of my patient endurance, I will keep you safe through the hour of
trial which is coming upon the whole world to test the dwellers on earth.
And Goodspeed renders as follows: --
Because you have kept in mind the message of what I endured, I also will keep you safe in the time of
testing that is going to come upon the whole world, to test the inhabitants of the earth.
Faussett says that the Greek means (so as to deliver thee) out of, not to exempt from temptation.
176Kelly says that “any geographical refuge” is vain, for the tribulation “will befall the whole habitable
world” (Christ’s Coming Again, p. 86). But of course he forgets or avoids Revelation 12:14, which shows that
his inference from 3:10 is false.
Page: 150
I give now the views of Beckwith and Zahn, whose commentaries are among the best since Alford’s.
Beckwith says: “The Philadelphians and those who show the same Christian steadfastness are promised
that they shall be carried in safety through the great trial, they shall not fall,” (p. 484). Zahn translates the
promise thus: “I also will keep (and rescue) thee out of the hour of temptation.” And he comments thus:
Testimony is borne once more to the Bishop of Philadelphia’s proved faithfulness up till now, and he is
assured that Jesus will requite him for this, when He will preserve him at the time of the great temptation
that is to come and test the inhabitants of the earth, and will rescue him out of the danger that will exist
even for Christians found in it. More or less like that should one render the sense of the pregnant
construction, “I will keep out of the hour,” (Zahn-Kommentar, i., pp. 305-6).
Archbishop Trench in his work on the Seven Churches, remarks as follows upon the passage:177 --
The promise does not imply that the Philadelphian Church should be exempted from the persecutions
which should come on all other portions of the Church; that by any special privilege they should be
excused from fiery trials through which others should be called to pass. It is a better promise than this;
and one which, of course, they share with all who are faithful as they are--to be kept in temptation, not to
be exempted from temptation (terein ek not being here = terein apo, Jam. 1:27; Prov. 7:5; cf. 2 Thess.
3:3); a burning bush, and yet not consumed (cf. Isa. 43:2). They may take courage; the blasts of
persecution will indeed blow; but He who permits, uses, and restrains them, will not suffer His barn-floor
to be winnowed with so rough a wind that chaff and grain shall be borne away together.
Swete in his commentary adopts the same view: “The promise, as Bede says, is ‘not indeed of your being
immune from adversity, but of not being overcome by it.’” And after referring the trial to “troublous
times which precede the Parousia,” Swete adds: “to the Philadelphia Church the promise was an
assurance of safe keeping in any trial that might supervene.”
If we bear in mind that- these are the comments of scholars who are not biased by preconceived notions
on our dispute with pre-tribs, the force of their words will be readily appreciated; for they, desirous only
of interpreting the Greek correctly, and without any desire or inclination to read favorite theories into the
text, adopted the interpretation that is the very one despised by theorists, namely: that the faithful will be
in the tribulation, but preserved from being overcome by it. 178
(c) Other occurrences of the same Greek preposition veto the suggestion that a rapture out of the earth is
the only way of fulfilling the promise of Revelation 3:10. Here are some passages that are relevant to our
discussion of the significance of the preposition ek.
(1) John 17:15:--
177Pages, 183-4. The text from Isaiah quoted by Trench is as follows: “When thou passest through the
waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through
the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.”
178It ought not to be suppressed, however, that a few scholars waver upon the point. Alford, for example,
states that ek means “from out of the midst of: but whether byimmunity from, or by being brought safe
through, the preposition does not clearly define.” This was Moffatt’s view when he wrote his commentary
for the EGT; but in his translation of the N.T., published three years later, he adopted the view quoted above.
Page: 151
I pray not that Thou shouldst take them from (ek) the world, but that Thou shouldst keep them from (ek)
the evil one (R.V.).
Here we meet with the same construction, “to keep from or out of,” and a little consideration will show
how fatal the text is to those who dogmatically maintain that the preposition in Revelation 3:10
necessarily demands a rapture out of the world to escape the trial; for we find the Church kept from the
Evil one,179 whilst it is expressly asserted that she must remain in the world. Christ prays in the same
moment that His Church be not removed from the world, and yet that she may be preserved from the Evil
one:--
They are not, says Meyer, to be taken out of the unbelieving world which hates them (which would take
place by death, as now in the case of Jesus Himself, ver. 11), but they are to be kept by God, so that they
ever come forth morally uninjured, from the power of Satan surrounding them, the power of the prince of
the world. (Italics his.)
There can be no question that the above is the correct explanation. Not by death, not by rapture, not by
removal in any shape or form from this world--which, in one sense, is Satan’s domain\180 --but by
remaining in it, and there by the grace and keeping power of God living worthily of Him; thus are the
saints kept from the Evil one, as the Saviour prayed. Turning now to Revelation 3:10, we see how
agreeable to the sense of John 17:15 is the view of those scholars who maintain that the Greek
preposition ek, from out of the midst of--for this is its most literal meaning-- implies that the Angel at
Philadelphia was to be preserved through and out of the hour of tribulation, so that, while others yielded
to the Apostasy and denied Christ, he would be kept safe unto the End. And, I repeat, even if we allow
pre-tribs to insist that ek means immunity from tribulation, John 17:15 furnishes conclusive evidence that
this may be accomplished without the saints leaving the world. It was vital to the pre-trib scheme of the
prophetic future to prove that the verse teaches that the Church will be raptured to heaven at least seven
years before the Day of the Lord, in order to escape the tribulation under Antichrist; but the text teaches
no such thing; it is read into the passage by advocates of pleasing theories that have the misfortune to
lack any better proof.
(2) Another text that throws light on Rev. iii. 10 is Gal. i. 4, which reads as follows 181 :--
Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from (out of) this present evil world (age),
according to the will of God and our Father.
179Satan, not evil. So English R.V., American R.V., Weymouth, Wade, Moffatt, and the commentators
generally. It is the Devil Christ has in mind and not merely evil. Darby’s rendering (“out of evil”) is not
according to his usual literalness and accuracy, for he ignores the force of the article.
Our Lord speaks of “The Prince of this world” (John 16:11); Paul of “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4),
180
and of “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2).

181See R.V. margin; it is age, not world. The distinction is important. Kelly (Galatians, in loco) argues on the
assumption that the word means “world,” whereas his own translation correctly reads “age.”
Page: 152
Here we are told that Christians are delivered out of this present Age, and yet it is obvious from the very
fact of their existence that they are in it: in it, yet delivered from its sins, its spirit, and its doom. Meyer
comments:--
Christ, says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver us out of this wicked period, that is, to
place us out of fellowship with it, inasmuch as through His death the guilt of believers was blotted out,
and through faith, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the new moral life--the life in the spirit--was brought about
in them (Rom. 6:8), Christians have become objects of God’s love and holiness, and as such are now
taken out of that “evil age” so that, although living in this age, they yet have nothing in common with its
“wickedness.” (Italics his.)
Here then is another example of the use of ek that has the very opposite significance to that which
theorists assert that it has; for Christians, whilst delivered out of this evil age, still remain in it. When,
therefore, pre-tribs have solved this paradox in Galatians 1:4, then, and not till then, will they be at liberty
to reject that interpretation of Revelation 3:10 which maintains that the preposition ek signifies that the
Angel of the Church at Philadelphia was promised preservation through the midst of the hour of trial, and
not immunity from it.
(3) The same lesson is taught in a remarkable passage in Hebrews 5, where we read that our Lord, in
Gethsemane, “had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was
able to save him from (ek, out of) death, and was heard in that he feared” (v. 7).
Here is a case where we know that the Lord suffered and passed through death, and yet was saved out of
it.182 Anything more decisive than this passage could not be wished for.
The results of our study of Rev. iii. to may be briefly summarized as follows:--
(i) Nothing is said about the Rapture of the Church out of the world some years prior to the Great
Tribulation.
(ii) Even if the promise meant exemption from the tribulation, this would not necessitate the Rapture of
the Church. She could be preserved in other ways whilst still on earth, as was the Church of Judæa at the
destruction of Jerusalem, and as the Sun-clad Woman will be in the last half of Daniel’s Seventieth
Week.
(iii) The preposition ek may possibly mean immunity from, but more probably it means out of in the
sense of being “brought safe out of.” In any case it may not be forced to prove a rapture out of the world,
for in John 17:15 Christians are “kept out of the Evil one,” whilst still remaining in his domain. In
182It is scarcely necessary to refute a strange theory that our Lord was afraid of dying suddenly in
Gethsemane, before accomplishing redemption on the cross. This is totally opposed to sound views of our
Lord’s person and to His express claim; (John 10:18). I owe the reference in Hebrews 5 to James Wright’s
lecture in J. H. Burridge’s booklet. Robertson (Grammar of Greek N.T., p. 598) quotes John 12:27, and says
that the Lord “had already entered into the hour;” on Revelation 3:10, he says: “we seem to have the picture
of a general temptation with the preservation of the saints.”
Page: 153
Galatians 1:4, the saints are delivered out of this evil world, whilst still remaining in it, and according to
Hebrews 5:7, the Lord, by resurrection, was saved “out of death,” though called on to go through it.
(iv) The promise of immunity from the trial would have been more clearly expressed by the use of the
preposition apo, which means from in the sense of separation or removal from the exterior or limit of a
thing or place; whereas ek rather means from the interior of a place or object. 183
(v) The use of ek in Revelation 3:10 distinctly implies that the Overseer would be in the hour of
tribulation; the promise refers, either to removal from out of the midst of it, or preservation through it.
(Cf. Jer. 30:7, where Israel is preserved through Jacob’s Trouble).
We have examined the principal text adduced to prove a rapture of the Church before the Great
Tribulation; it proved inadequate. There is still another side to the question: if such exemption of the
Church from the Great Tribulation is a scriptural truth, then we must nowhere find terms used of the
sufferers in the Great Tribulation that are commonly used of the Church. How does it stand? A proper
answer to the question would require a detailed examination of dozens of expressions, for which there is
no space available; moreover, on some of those texts we should be arguing in a circle. For instance, one
of the common words in the Epistles for the saved of this dispensation is elect: “as the elect of God, put
on;”-- “according to the faith of God’s elect;” “who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?”
And the elect?
The late Dr. Griffith Thomas, in reply to a correspondent, defined them thus184 :--
Those who have accepted Christ as their Saviour, are living in the power of the Holy Spirit through faith,
and glorifying God by lives of consistent obedience. The elect are always described in the New
Testament by expressions which include the two sides of truth, the Divine and the human.
Well, we meet this word Elect frequently in the sermon of our Lord’s on the Last Things (Matt. 24:22,
24, 31); and there cannot be any doubt that they are in the thick of the last great struggle. But pre-tribs
intervene sharply to tell us that we err: the Elect in the Epistles are the Church; in Matthew 24 the “lost
tribes” and the Remnant of Jews of the End-time.185 And the proof of this? Only their own strange
interpretation of Matthew 24. Their system requires it; therefore it must be so: in the Epistles it means
people who know and love the Saviour, and aim at being filled with His Spirit. In the Gospels, a people
ignorant of the first principles of Christ, ignorant of redemption, devoid of the Spirit, guided by select
beatitudes and other snippets from the Sermon on the Mount, and by the Imprecatory Psalms; fulfilling
Matthew 28:18-20 in 1260 days; converting countless millions of the heathen to Christ during the
absence of the Holy Spirit, yet, though preaching the Gospel of that Kingdom (Matt. 24:14) whose very
183See S. G. Green, Grammar of Greek Test., p. 236; also T. Newberry’s “Graphic Scheme of the Greek
prepositions as viewed according to the idea of Geometrical relationship” (Newberry Bible, p. 11, N.T.).
184 “The Christian,” Feb. 25th, 1909.
185 A. C. Gaebelein, Olivet Discourse, pp. 60-1, 72.
Page: 154
essence is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,”(Rom.14:17) 186 they invoke terrible
curses upon their enemies, and their enemies’ children. Elect indeed!
To refute such supreme rubbish requires either a volume or a page; we can only give it a page, which will
be sufficient for those ingenuous readers who have followed us so far, and have seen that the saints are
raised at the Day of the Lord; that the Blessed Hope is none other than the Glorious Appearing; that the
Appearing, the Revelation and the Day of Christ are for the Church; that the Parousia is not in secret, but
in triumph.
It is utterly wrong to say, as A. C. Gaebelein says, that the Elect “throughout the Gospels always means
His earthly people.” In mid-morning of the very day when He spoke of the Elect in Matthew 24:, our
Saviour, in the most “dispensational” of His parables--that of the Wedding for the King’s Son, (Matt.
22:1-14)187 where one sees the gospel passing from Jerusalem, to Judæa, Samaria, and the uttermost
parts of the earth--used the term “the Elect” of the saved of the present Church dispensation. The
parable ends: “many are called, but few are chosen,” and the word is “eklektoi,” elect, the very word
used by our Lord at sunset, when telling of the suffering of His Elect, and their gathering at the Last
Day, (Matt. 24:22, 24, 32).
Could anything be more conclusive?
In His discourses the Lord shows us the Elect being won for Him through the world-wide preaching of
the gospel (Matt. 22:14); shows the Elect in the very midst of the trial (24 passim); describes the trial
itself a; (Matt. 24:21-22; cf. Rev. 13) portrays the Elect as a poor widow, crying in her distress to the
Righteous Judge to hasten His Coming, and remember her in her affliction, (Luke 18:1-7);188 shows us
that, when the when all seem weak and liable to be deceived by the terrible delusions of the End-time, He
can stand it no longer; He shortens the days of her afflictio n; He arises in His pity, His majesty, His
186As one’s good faith is at stake here, I remark that justification for every statement and inference in the
text is forthcoming from the two chapters on the Remnant in Trotter’s Plain Papers; in Gaebelein’s Hath God
Cast Away His People?; Gospel of Matthew (2 vols.), and The Olivet Discourse, and Kelly’s numerous writings,
especially Christ’s Coming Again and Lectures on The Second Coming and Kingdom. But I have had to leave
exhaustive treatment of the subject to a future volume.
See the Harmony, by J. A. Broadus and A. T. Robertson, and The Lives of Our Lord, by S. J. Andrews and
187
Edersheim.
188Zahn says that the Parable is really a continuation of the Parousia discourse of the previous chapter; he
points out that the Lord represents His Community between His earthly ministry and His Return, as a
widow, lamenting the delay, and praying constantly for His Arrival. In Revelation 8:1-6, he thinks, the
Community is again seen at prayer for the Advent. Zahn rightly says that there is no contradiction to the
Church’s being considered, under another aspect, as a Bride awaiting union with the Bridegroom (Zahn-
Kommentar, Lucas, in loco).
Adolph Saphir is quoted (Memoir of Adolph Saphir, by G. Carlyle) as being on a hymnal committee of the
English Presbyterian Church that was considering a line about the Church’s being a Widow. Some objected
to the sentiment (they who want a reigning Church now), and Saphir remarked, “I thought it was only the
Apostate Church that said, ‘I sit a queen, and am no widow’” (Rev. 18:7).
Page: 155
power and rescues His Elect by gathering them to Himself (Matt. 24:21-31, 40-41). Redemption, release,
has not merely drawn nigh, but has come (Luke 21:28).
The assertion of Kelly’s in his Second Coming (p. 211) that there is no rapture at Matthew 24:31, is as
bold as it is unfounded. Our Lord in that passage gave a perfect picture of the assembling of the saved of
this Dispensation by means of a rapture; St. Mark even used for “gather” the verbal form of the same
word used for “gathering” in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, where Paul refers to the Rapture. 189 To unbiased minds
the gathering of the saved, or the Elect, in Matthew 24:31, is the prototype of Paul’s teaching in 1
Thessalonians 4:16-17, and 2 Thessalonians 1. The student may be referred to Kennedy’s important
work, St. Paul’s Conception of The Last Things (pp. 55 ff.) and Salmon’s INT; Zahn’s survey is
developed in a later chapter.
The language of the Lord has not the slightest reference to the Jews, or the Jewish National Remnant, or
merely Jewish believers. He had dealt with them in 24:16-- “let those who are in Judaea (not the Elect)
flee unto the mountains,” and in verse 30, “then shall all the tribes of the land lament, and they shall see
the Son of Man coming” (Darby’s version)--and in the next verse He passes on to speak of the muster of
a Community independent of all nationality--the Elect whose salvation the Lord had told of in Matthew
22:14: the saved of this Dispensation. The Elect, “those whom He chose,” as Mark adds (13:20), are
assembled by a rapture that is even described with some detail both in Matthew and Luke (Matt. 24:40-
41; Luke 17:34-36).
Yet Kelly, Gaebelein, and others, bring in their half-converted, half-Christian, Jewish Remnant
(unconverted, un-Christian would fit the facts better), and the grossly mythical “Lost Ten Tribes”190 to
explain away one of the grandest prophecies in Scripture.
And Paul? He has no other doctrine for the release and relief of the saints in tribulation. In 2
Thessalonians 2 he describes with a few graphic touches the rise and triumph of the last Antichrist, on the
very eve of the Day of the Lord. With terrible powers from the Abyss the Adversary prospers and presses
hard on Christendom, when our Lord Jesus, appearing on the scene, slays him with the very breath of His
mouth, and “annihilates him by His appearance and arrival,” (Goodspeed).
Milligan in his outstanding commentary speaks of the “‘manifestation of His coming’ involving the idea
of something striking--a conspicuous intervention from above,” (p. 149).
Again: “Epiphaneia draws attention to the ‘presence’ as the result of a sublime manifestation of the
power and love of God, coming to His people’s help,” (p. 151).
Jesus the Lord appearing on the scene in triump h, and intervening for the rescue of His saints--this is the
doctrine of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8, as it was of our Lord.
Even more relevant and decisive is the great Apostle’s treatment of the Advent in the previous chapter of
2 Thessalonians, for he is writing to a Church when it was going through the fires of persecution. In a
189“Assembling” (Goodspeed), “muster” (Moffatt), “summons to muster” (Rutherford)--on 2 Thessalonians

2:1.
190 A. C. Gaebelein, Olivet Discourse, p. 72.
Page: 156
passage of great power on the Day of the Lord’s Appearing, he reveals incidentally and naturally when it
is that the saints obtain rest from persecution. Here are his words191 :--
For these are a plain token of God’s righteous judgment, which designs that you should be found worthy
of the Kingdom of God, for the sake of which, indeed, you are sufferers; since it is a righteous thing for
Him to requite with affliction those who afflict you; and to recompense with rest you who suffer
affliction--rest with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the Angels of His power. He
will come in flames of fire to take vengeance on those who do not acknowledge God and do not obey the
gospel of our Lord Jesus.
Zahn’s paraphrase of the setting goes as usual right to the heart of things:--
This patience, which the readers have shown in enduring such constant sufferings, ought to be a source of
comfort to themselves, inasmuch as it is at once the token and the warrant that as believers they shall
have part in the glory of the Kingdom of God at the righteous judgment to be established at the return of
Christ, when their persecutors shall be given over to eternal destruction (1:5--20). That the readers may
be made more and more ready for the decision of that great day, is the constant prayer of the founders of
the Church (1:11-12) (INT, 1, p. 225).
In 1 Thessalonians 4:13--5:6, the Apostle had dealt with the Day of the Lord’s Coming in relation to
deceased and living Christians, and only incidentally in relation to the world; here in 2 Thessalonians he
describes the great Day--day of wrath and judgment for impenitent and ungodly men, who persecute the
Elect; yet a day of surpassing joy to the Elect, for it brings to them the Kingdom, and the glory, and their
everlasting rest.
A. T. Robertson (4, p. 43) comments pithily:--
7. Rest with us (anesin meth’ hēmēn). Let up, release. Old word from aniēmi, from troubles here (2 Cor.
2:13; 7:5; 8:13), and hereafter in this verse. Vivid word. They shared suffering with Paul (verse 5) and so
they will share (meth’) the rest. At the revelation of the Lord Jesus (en tēi apokalupsei tou Kuriou Jēsou).
Here the Parousia (1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 5:23) is pictured as a Revelation (Un-veiling, apokalupsis) of the
Messiah as in 1 Corinthians 1:7, 1 Peter 1:7, 13 (cf. Luke 17:30). At this Unveiling of the Messiah there
will come the recompense (v. 6) to the persecutors and the rest from the persecutions. This Revelation
will be from heaven (ap’ ouranou) as to place and with the angels of his power (met’ aggelōn dunameos
autou) as the retinue and inflaming fire (en puri phlogos, in a fire of flame, fire characterized by flame).
(Italics his.)
What do pre-tribs say to these things? As usual they have three ways of escape, each more worthless than
the other. (1) Following Darby and Kelly, Hogg and Vine say:--
The time indicated is not that at which the saints will be relieved of persecution, but that at which their
persecutors will be punished. The time of relief for the saints had been stated in the earlier letter, 4:15-17;
1912 Thessalonians 1:5-8 (Weymouth). There is no ulterior motive in quoting from a version in idiomatic
prose--Darby’s version gives the same sense--it is only that familiar words often obscure the truth by their
very familiarity.
Page: 157
here passing reference to a fact within the knowledge of the readers was all that was necessary
(Thessalonians, p. 228).
These are simple misstatements of fact.
(a) 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 does not mention “rest” from beginning to end; not persecution,
but death was the problem. Here in 2 Thessalonians 1 the problem is fierce persecution, and the Apostle
deals with it by consoling them concerning the significance and reward of suffering, and by telling them
that they will get relief from it at the approaching Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ in judgment and
glory (vv. 7-8). Once it is seen that “rest” is a noun, not a verb, then Darby’s and every theorist’s scheme
collapses.
(b) But the Apostle also gives the Day of the Lord as the time for the glorification of the saints, and for
their looking upon Him in adoring wonder and seeing Him as He is-- “in that day,” (2 Thess. 1:10).
(c) Simultaneously with this occurs the doom of the impenitent.
(d) Not only that, the Apostle gives in the clearest terms another indication when the saints are to be
released and rested from tribulation: it is when the Saviour-judge appears in His glory (2 Thess. 1:10).
The teaching is ruinous to the whole new scheme of exemption from trial for the saints by a rapture years
before the End.
(2) Pre-tribs assert that, as the Rapture is not mentioned, the “first stage of the Advent” is not in view. Of
course not; Paul and the other Apostles did not fall into the nineteenth-century delusion of making “a
mere incident of the Coming” the hope itself. Not the Rapture, but the Glorious Appearing was “the
blessed hope” of the Apostolic Church. After the writing of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 and 2 Thessalonians
2:1, Paul and the other Apostles made scores of references to the Christian hope without mentioning the
Rapture.
But, even if the Apostle had mentioned a Rapture at 2 Thessalonians 1:7, pre-tribs would arrange three
shifts to get rid of it. This is not cruel or churlish, but the plain fact. The Rapture of the elect saints in
Matthew 24:31, was explained away because it clashed with the fond theory of a rapture before the Great
Tribulation.
Again, the Parable of the Taxes sets forth the Rapture under the figure of the gathering of a harvest of
wheat (Matt. 13:30); so perfectly clear is this, and such was the unanimity among the pre-trib leaders, that
Kelly in one of his last writings could say: “This, we all surely agree, means and must be to meet the
Lord, who deigns to descend into the air:”192 yet that does not hinder Gaebelein from disturbing and
judaizing the parable to make it teach the very reverse of what our Lord taught.
The harvest of the saved is seen again in Revelation 14:15-16, a chapter that gives a proleptic view of the
End, but Darbyists make it apply to something totally different.
192 Christ’s Coming Again, 2., p. 104

Page: 158
The N.T., including our passage in 2 Thessalonians 1, teaches that the saints will be gathered and
glorified immediately before the wrath falls on the unbelieving. No doubt it would be more pleasing to
pre-tribs if they could convict us of leaving the Church on earth to share the wrath of the great Day; and,
indeed, it is a favorite artifice with some of them to say: “Well, if you do not admit our theory of an
interval of some years between the Rapture and the Day of the Lord then you must believe that the
Church will be upon earth when the wrath of that Day falls upon the ungodly.”
But the dilemma is a false one; it is possible to reject the pleasing delusion of a rapture some years before
the Day of wrath, without accepting the error that the Church will partake of the wrath. It never seems to
occur to these writers that, immediately before the wrath of the Day of the Lord falls, God can call His
saints to Himself, without the necessity of an additional advent a generation earlier. Yet this is precisely
the doctrine of the Apostle in 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10. Everlasting destruction shall fall on the impenitent
“whenever the Lord shall have come to be glorified in His saints.”193
And this conception of the Great Day is exactly in keeping with the analogy of the past, as recorded in
Scripture: exactly in keeping with the teaching of the Lord Jesus upon the prophetic future. On the
authority of our Lord we learn that it happened thus in the days of the Flood: “They did eat, they drank,
they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the
flood came, and destroyed them all,” (Luke 17:27).
Our Lord evidently saw no incompatibility in the saints of those days remaining in the world until
immediately before the judgment fell; for the saints entered into their rest and refuge, and the judgment
began to fall on the ungodly, on the same day. And the Lord saw nothing unseemly in the same thing
happening at His Second Coming, for He said, “as it was in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the
days of the Son of Man,” (Luke 17:26).
The same lesson the Lord drew from the days of Lot: “They did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold,
they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from
heaven and destroyed them all,” (Luke 17:29).
The Lord Jesus evidently saw no inconsistency in His saints’ remaining in Sodom until immediately
before the wrath of God fell; for the salvation of the godly and the doom of the sinners took place on the
same day. And the Lord apparently saw no incongruity in the same things happening at His Return; for
He said, “even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed,” (Luke 17:30). That is, the
righteous shall first be removed and then the judgment shall fall. And as if to leave no doubt about this,
He proceeds to describe the conditions of human life in the day of His revelation, and the circumstances
of the Saints’ removal:--
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken (paralēmphthēsetai;
taken home, or received), and the other left (aphethēsetai, left alone, left unprotected). Two women shall
be grinding together; the one shall be taken (taken home, received), and the other left (left alone, left
193 2 Thessalonians 1:10; the translation is discussed below.
Page: 159
unprotected). Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken (taken home, received), and the other
left (left alone, left unprotected). (Luke 17:34-37)
The very same figures are used in Matthew 24:39-44--a section that begins with the Parousia of the Son
of Man, and ends with a solemn exhortation to the Apostles to be ready for His Coming; and all is in
explanation of the Rapture of the Elect in verse 31 and 22:14. Few in the whole history of the Church
doubted the meaning of these terms until new Rabbis arose with hair-splitting and fantastic theories of the
End to commend to the faithful; the Elect are not the saved won by the missionary Crusade of 24:14;
22:9-10, 14, and 28:18-20, but a Jewish Remnant and Jewish outcasts, nearly or totally devoid of
Christian knowledge, feeling, experience, and standing!
There is perfect harmony between Paul’s teaching in 2 Thessalonians 1, and that of the Lord Jesus Christ
in His discourses on the End. Both locate the muster of the saints and the doom of the impenitent on the
same day, the day of His Revelation in glory; both place the blessing of the saints immediately prior to
the descent of the Divine wrath.
Nothing different is taught in Luke 21:36, which reads as follows:--
Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that
shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.
The use of this text by pre-tribs to teach that the Church will be raptured away from earth several years or
more before the End, is a mockery of consistency, I had almost said, of honesty. A moment ago they
were all affirming that “the Son of Man” was a title never used when Christ’s relation to the Church was
in view; it was a finger-post to tell us that Israel or the world was under consideration. Yet here they are
with their short memories demanding that this time we should see the Church here. We will oblige them:
the Church is in view here, but not in the sense, nor at the time, the theorists wish. They who “stand
before the Son of Man” are the raptured saints, the Elect, gathered on the Day of the Son of Man, as
Matthew 24:31, 41, and Luke 17:30-36 conclusively prove.
The Day of the Lord’s Coming is pictured as a trap falling on the inhabitants of the world (v. 34); on the
ungodly it comes as a surprise; and if the disciples give way to intemperance and the cares of this life it
will surprise them too. They should pray constantly for grace to be ready for that Day when it comes, in
blessing for the faithful, in judgment for the unbelieving:--
Take care that your hearts are not loaded down with self-indulgence and drunkenness and worldly cares,
and that day takes you by surprise, like a trap. For it will come on all who are living anywhere on the face
of the earth. But you must be vigilant and always pray that you may succeed in escaping all this that is
going to happen, and in standing in the presence of the Son of Man. 194
194 Goodspeed’s version.

“And to take your stand in the presence of the Son of Man” (Weymouth). “There will be no dread of the Son if
one is always ready” (A. T. Robertson, ii., p. 262). There is truth in the view of some expositors that “stand”
has reference to being able to meet the Judge; e.g., “The great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to
stand” (Rev. 6:17, R.V.). So Psalm 76:7; cf. 1 John 28; Psalm 1:5a.
Page: 160
This blessed promise and prospect, however, is not good enough for theorists. They want about thirty or
forty years’ notice. An interval is inserted between the deliverance of the saints and the overthrow of the
ungodly. The real reason is apparent. Christians must be saved, not merely from God’s wrath, but also
from the trials and tribulations of the Last Days. Here is the source of all our novelties--two “second”
comings; two “first” resurrections, two “Ends” of the Age: two “fulnesses” of the Gentiles, two
“raptures” of saints; by one means or another the saints must be saved, not only from the wrath of God,
but also from the wrath of man. But whilst the Scripture assures us of the truth of the one, it repudiates
the other on almost every page of the New Testament.
Of course pre-tribs have a shift to get rid of these damaging facts: they interpret the Rapture in Matthew
24:41, and Luke 17:34-35, as a seizure to judgment;195 the leaving as a leaving for blessing, in the kingly
rule of the Son of Man. Darby, in one of the few instances where he allowed private views to influence
(and mar) his admirable, literal translation, translated paralambanō in Luke 17:34-35, by seize. The use
of this word in the N.T. is absolutely opposed to this; it is a good word; a word used exclusively in the
sense of “take away with” or “receive,” or “take home.” Its use on the first page of the N.T. gives the
keynote: we are told that Joseph, after the terrible ordeal of fear concerning the faithfulness of his
betrothed, was instructed to receive the holy Virgin: “Joseph, fear not to take Mary your wife home for
what is begotten in her comes from the Holy Spirit,”196 <and, “Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had
commanded him: he took his wife home.” Absolutely decisive is the fact that, when our Lord spoke the
words, “I will come again and receive you unto myself,” which all pre-tribs apply to the Rapture of 1
Thessalonians 4:17, He made use of the same word (paralambanō) as is used for the Rapture of Matthew
24:41 and Luke 17:34-35.
Consideration of all the facts is left to our volume on Matthew 24-25; we leave the matter for the present
by quoting some excellent remarks of a scholarly writer197 on Matthew 24:40–41 and parallels:--
With the view that the taken are taken to judgment, and the left are left to glory, it is needless to say more
at present than that it is built on a single (not unnatural) misconception. For the word “took,” in the case
of the Antediluvians--“took them all away”--means “to arrest,” “to take to destruction;” whereas when
“one is taken and one is left,” the word means “to take as a companion.” It is a rapture of honor: it is the
word used when our Lord selects three only out of the Twelve for watchfulness against the great
tribulation of Gethsemane, the select resurrection of Jairus’ daughter, and the kingdom glory of the
Transfiguration.
The truth of these facts is undeniable, as anyone can verify by consulting a good N.T. lexicon, or the
standard commentaries on Matthew and Luke.
195 A. C. Gaebelein, Olivet Discourse, p. 78.

196Matthew 2:20, Moffatt’s version: Weymouth has “do not be afraid to bring home your wife Mary;” and, he
“brought home his wife” (v. 24). Goodspeed has: “Do not fear to take Mary, your wife, to your home” and
Joseph “took his wife to his home.” Wade has “take to yourself,” “took to himself.” Very significant are
Wade’s translations of the eschatological passages in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 by “one is taken into safety
and one is left to his fate.” That gives exactly the sense of the passages.
197 D. M. Panton, B.A., in “The Overcomer.”
Page: 161
(3) A third artifice to evade the plain meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is an appeal to the tense of the verb
“come” in verse 10. It is contended198 that the verb should be translated “when he shall have come to be
glorified in his saints,” and that this presupposes an interval of several years between the giving of rest at
the Rapture, and the Appearing in judgment in this chapter.
But even if we grant the translation it does not help the theorists one little bit. All that can be inferred
from the literal tense is what we have just seen to be the teaching of our Lord, namely: that as soon as the
saints are removed from the world, the judgment falls upon the impenitent. And this agrees perfectly with
verse 7, whereas to import into verse 10 an interval of several years contradicts it.
In current English few say, “when he shall have come” (Darby), or “whensoever he shall have come”
(Hogg and Vine); they are correct English, but a trifle stilted. Everyone says, “whenever he comes,” “as
soon as he comes,” or simply, “when he comes.” And this is exactly how the great English versions of the
past, and the recent versions into idiomatic English, translate hotan elthēi in 2 Thessalonians 1:10. The
A.V., the R.V., the American R.V., Conybeare, and The 1911 Bible all have “when he shall come.”
Frame, Goodspeed, Moffatt, Rutherford, David Smith, Wade, and Weymouth all have “When he comes.”
Way has “When he descends,” Plummer “Whenever he shall have appeared again,” and Milligan,
“Whenever he has (or shall have) come.” And “whenever” in English simply means, in this connection,
“at whatever time,” or “as soon as.”
Scores of instances could be given from all the versions, including Darby’s, of the same Greek
construction of hotan (when), followed by a verb in the aorist subjunctive, having the simple meaning
“whenever” or “as soon as” one comes or does something. The grammarian Dr. Robertson gives a typical
example from 1 Corinthians 15:24, and comments on it: “When he shall have abolished (hotan
katargesei). First aorist subjunctive with hotan, indefinite future time. Simply ‘whenever he shall
abolish,’ no use in making it future perfect, merely aorist subjunctive” (iv., p. 191).
Important also are Robertson’s remarks on this very passage in 2 Thessalonians 1:10. He says: “When he
shall come (hotan elthēi). Second aorist active subjunctive with hotan, future and indefinite temporal
clause coincident with ‘at the revelation’ (en tei apokalupsei) in verse 7” (iv., p. 44).
I may add that Dr. Westcott discusses the same grammatical usage in his comments on Hebrews 1:6. In
the light of these studies, and of the unanimity of our translations of the N.T., we may say that the pre-trib
attempt to interpose the Seventieth Week of Daniel between the granting of rest to the saints at verse 7,
and the destruction of the ungodly in verse 9, or between the Coming for the glorification of the saints
and the Revelation in fiery judgment on the unrighteous, is shattered on the rock of Greek grammar. Rest
for the saints (7), participation in the kingdom (5), and their glorification, are all coincident with the
198 Bullinger, “Things to Come,” i., pp. 17, 139; The Church Epistles, in loco.
At the first writing I dealt fully with the arguments of Bullinger and P. Mauro on this passage: the former
“progressed” to the extent of assigning 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and nearly all the N.T. to “Post-rapture”
saints. The latter discovered many dispensational errors in his numerous early writings, as well in the
school generally, and then abandoned the Scripture doctrine of the Lord’s Return--threw out the baby with
the bathwater.
Page: 162
Glorious Revelation of our Lord at the Day of the Lord, when the unrighteous are banished from His
presence. Thus are both persecuted and persecutors recompensed at the Last Day.
In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, at 2:19 and 4:14--5:10, the Apostle had dealt with the Day of the
Lord’s Coming as it affected the reward, gathering, and resurrection of the saints, and even then only
incidentally to clear up difficulties; in chapter 5 he refuses to calculate dates, or measure the present
period, and warns the living believers that the Day comes suddenly for all, and like a thief for those who
do not watch. Many aspects of the Lord’s Coming, however, were passed over: nothing was said of the
Kingdom or of rest from tribulation; nothing of the transfiguration of the saints and their association with
the King; and there was only a passing reference to the Day as a day of wrath. The misunderstanding of
the Apostle’s reference to the Day’s coming suddenly (First Epistle 5:2-4), and an outbreak of fierce
persecution, made possible the spread of false rumors that the Day of the Parousia had actually arrived.
The Apostle, therefore, in the Second Epistle, describes in detail the Day of the Parousia (chapter 1). He
omits almost all reference to the resurrection and Rapture, which were dealt with in the First Epistle, and
refers now to what the First Epistle had omitted, namely: the rest, transfiguration, and glory for the saints
when the Lord comes with His Kingdom, and the reward, in banishment and destruction, for the
persecutors. “You think the Day has come?” the Apostle is already answering; “Impossible,” he says:
“because you are in tribulation, and the ungodly flourish; whereas the Day brings rest for the saints, and
utter ruin for the persecutors.” Then in chapter 2 he clinches the matter by saying that the Day of
the Parousia or Appearing cannot have come yet, for the Antichrist is to precede Him, and he has not yet
come. He shall come, however, in his own time, and flourish by lying wonders, but the Lord shall slay
him by His Glorious and triumphant Coming (v. 8). The Apostle makes it certain that the Glorious
Appearing of the Lord, which in Titus 2:13 is called the Blessed Hope of the Church, is also the Day of
wrath upon Antichrist and his hosts.199
St. John has the very same doctrine of the Advent. The saints who are seen suffering throughout the
Apocalypse, and risen and translated to thrones at the Last Trump in 11:15-18 and 20:4-6, are openly
displayed in bridal union with the Lamb (19:6-8), immediately before the victorious “Field Marshal” (vv.
11-16), to use a word of Zahn’s, comes forth in full regalia, riding prosperously in His majesty, His right
hand teaching Him terrible things.
Here as everywhere in the N.T. the Day of the Lord is two-sided. At Matthew 24:27-51 and Luke 17: 22-
37, He comes as Conqueror, as Judge, as Rescuer; at 25 as Bridegroom and Judge, and possibly as
199In his Forgotten Truths Sir R. Anderson has some references to this conception of the Last Day; they may
be noticed here:--
“Common sense might veto the suggestion that His Coming as Avenger and Judge is the event described as
‘that blessed hope,’” (pp. 70-71). Well, the Lord and His Apostles had great common sense, and inspiration
as well, and they all treated the Day of the Lord as the day for Jehovah’s Appearing; and in Titus 2:13 this is
stated to be “the blessed hope” of Christians. Even theorists are beginning to see this. (See Touching the
Coming, by Hogg and Vine.)
Referring to the Glorious Appearing in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, Sir R. Anderson says: “To call that a ‘blessed
hope’ would savor of the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition, rather than of the Christian’s grace-taught heart,”
(p. 66). This sounds about as intimidating as it was meant to be; but the writer must fix up his quarrel with
the Apostle. It is he who calls the Glorious Appearing the Blessed Hope of Christians (Titus 2:13).
Page: 163
Rescuer of His Brethren (v. 40). At 1 Thessalonian 4:13--5:11, the Lord is again seen coming as
Conqueror, as Judge, and as Rescuer; so also at 2 Thessalonians and again in the following chapter,
where He overthrows the Man of Lawlessness and rescues His Elect.
John has a similar representation of the Day; for our Lord comes as Bridegroom and Rescuer for the
Church, and as both Conqueror and King for the Nations.
Before leaving this chapter on the saints’ rest from tribulation it is necessary to examine John’s use of the
word saints--the usual name throughout the Epistles200 for the Churches of God in Christ. Well, in the
concluding book of the New Testament, written about A.D. 96, John the Apostle writes whole chapters to
the Seven Churches of Asia, founded by Paul or his associates, about the great crisis of the End; he tells
them much about Antichrist and the Great Tribulation: much about the saints--the saints prevail in prayer
(5:8; 8:3-4); the saints suffer and are overcome 7); the saints have patience, wisdom, and faith, preferring
death to dishonor (13:10; 14:12); the saints seal their testimony with their blood, (16:6; 17:6; 18:24); a;
heaven itself and the saints and Apostles201 rejoice over the downfall of Babylon, where their blood had
been shed (18:20, R.V.); the saints receive their reward at the Last Trumpet (11:18); the saints and
martyrs of the End-time, and of all time, are raised at the First Resurrection (20:4-6), becoming “priests
and kings” unto God.
We have further references throughout the Book to the saints’ standing and position. Chapter 1:5-6 gives
the keynote. There we read that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, and made “kings and priests”
to God. At verses 9-10, as soon as the Twenty-four Angelic Elders speak of the prayers of the saints, they
at once tell us who they are: they are those whom the Lamb had redeemed by His blood--an election out
of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, which had become “kings and priests” unto God; at
12:10 they are called Brethren--brethren of John and his fellow Christians.
Then in terms as clear and explicit as language can find--at 19:8-9, not at 4:1--the saints are identified on
the very Day of the Lord with the Church, the Bride of Christ of this Dispensation, as the whole N.T.
teaches from Matthew to the Revelation, pace Dr. Bullinger, Dr. Marsh, and Sir R. Anderson (Matt. 25:1-
13; 22:1-14; Eph. 5:23 ff.; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rom. 7:1-5). It is then, and only then, that the saints are raised
and assembled, and inherit all things.
Who are the saints? “Jewish” saints--they of the Imprecatory Psalms, the Sermon on The Mount, and the
Missionary Commission-- “Tribulation” saints, “Post-rapture” saints, “Pentecostal” saints, “Gentile”
saints, “Martyred-remnant” saints and “millennial” saints; any saints except Christians. So say the
theorists, and without such Rabbinical and unscriptural jargon, and weird charts to explain that jargon,
they cannot even expound, much less save, their innovations on Scripture.
And what says John? His very silence is decisive; he will not qualify or boggle or quibble: he says simply
the saints, pur et simple, and until about 1830 everybody understood him immediately. In the Apocalypse
he is writing an Epistle to the Seven Churches of the province of Asia, with moving messages to their
200 Cf. the striking expression: “as in all the Churches of the saints,” (1 Cor. 14:33, R.V.).
201 i.e., at least Peter and Paul, who, according to sound tradition, were slain in Rome.
Page: 164
Overseers. He begins with a salutation as definite as those in the other Church Epistles; he addresses the
Churches directly in the epistolary form, all through, and closes with a benediction (see R.V.).
As if to ward off a nineteenth-century refinement that the main body of the Book of Revelation (4:1--22)
is not suited to the “heavenly hope,” and not of great practical concern to the Church, but rather to the
half-converted Remnant and its converts after the Rapture, the Seven messages to the Overseers either
begin or end with the piercing word: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
Churches;” that is, as Sir W. M. Ramsay points out in his admirable work on The Letters to the Seven
Churches of Asia, not merely what is said in the Messages, but also in the main body of the Apocalypse:
there the Spirit, in this Fourth Epistle of John, is speaking to the whole of Christendom; He is giving to
the Churches instruction that deeply concerns her; He is telling of the Church’s approaching struggle with
the powers of darkness, and of the inheritance of the saints in light. It is the Last time, and ye know that
Antichrist cometh; yet a greater than Antichrist shall come, and shall not tarry.
Finally, the saints--saints in the Seven Churches, saints in the whole of Christendom at the end of the
First Century, saints in tribulation and needing good cheer, receive from the aged Apostle the Apostolic
benediction, with the grace of the Ascended Lord, our Saviour Jesus Christ. “The grace of the Lord Jesus
be with the saints,” (22:21, R.V.).
Who are the saints? Let us deal frankly and intelligently with the Apocalypse: let us shed the methods
and spirit of the Rabbis who made God’s word of none effect by their traditions; we shall soon know of
the doctrine.
“Will the saints go through the Great Tribulation?” No Darbyist would debate such a question for an
instant. He would feel that the dice had been loaded against him: loaded by the Apostles themselves, for
they everywhere use “saints” of Christians, members of the Mystical Body. So he must haggle and
boggle over his terms. Even, “Will the Church, or any Part of It, go through the Great Tribulation? “will
not suit his sense of the nicety of things, for Bullinger202 and Anderson203 saw Churches on earth after the
Rapture of the Church, the Body of Christ. The debate must proceed on the question:204 “Will the
Mystical Body of Christ, or any Part of It, pass through the Great Tribulation?” They will not touch a
debate until they have first split the Church of God in two. And the best reply to their nicely
circumscribed proposition is that the Bible was not written to answer speculations at once so subtle and
so wooden: speculations worthy of the “schoolmen” in the time of our Lord and in the Middle Ages. The
Scripture is rugged and practical, and answers such questions artlessly, casually, and without debate, and
leaves us to our intelligence, our honesty, and our courage.
But on the question of identifying the saints the greatest exegetical nuisance to pre-tribs is the
innumerable multitude--in this very book of Revelation--of Jews and Gentiles, who, dying in the last
Great Tribulation, are seen in a disembodied state in heaven (7:9-17). In vain do Kelly and Grant and
202 The Apocalypse, on 2-3.

203 Coming Prince, pp. 170, 180.
204See, for example, Forgotten Truths, pp. 78-9, with its mystifying reference to the Body of Christ; also the
references given in my last chapter.
Page: 165
many more of the same school assert that only Gentiles are in view; John has settled the matter by saying
that they come out of “every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues;” therefore they include
saints from the twelve tribes of Israel. Thomas Newberry admits this with refreshing candor (p. 54). John
then goes on to say that this immense multitude stands before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in
white robes and having victors’ palms in their hands. They ascribe their salvation to God and the Lamb.
Beyond all question this is the most glorious company in the whole of Scripture; their witness, their
sufferings, their glory, and their rest in the presence of the Lamb and Good Shepherd, have inspired the
saints and martyrs all down the ages. Men and women, youths and maidens, have performed prodigies of
heroism under the inspiration of this magnificent vision of the End.
Who are the saints? The Rapture, say the theorists, took place years before this time in the drama of the
Apocalypse. Yet here we see the spirits of just men made perfect: the souls of the martyrs in heaven
awaiting their resurrection. They fell in the Great Tribulation instigated by the Antichrist, and heaven has
received them. Pre-tribs, however, are shy, and hesitate to give to them the right hand of fellowship,
because they come out of the Great Tribulation, and because--the whole Rapture tradition is at stake.
Though our Lord accepts them as His brethren, 205 in union with Him, the advocates of the new prophetic
teaching are unhappy about conceding to them the highest blessings and privileges.
Ottman,206 Vine, Kelly, Grant, and others, bid us see an earthly scene in Revelation 7:9-17, the glorious
multitude being Gentiles on earth in the flesh, when the millennium is established. The first two give as a
reason for this that the mention of “day” and “night” in verse 15 is inconsistent with conditions in
heaven; then the same paltry reasoning will relegate the sublime vision of heaven in chapter 4 to our poor
earth, for at 4:8, it is said that the cherubim “have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the
Lord God, the Almighty.”
I must leave to another place William Kelly’s contortions of exegesis on the nature of the Great
Tribulation, put forth with studied offensiveness in his two books on the Second Coming. His statement,
as miserable as it is inexact, that the “tribulation of those days is no honor,” is answered by the glorious
vision in Revelation 7:9-17, by the First Resurrection in 20:4-6, and by every exhortation to perseverance
and faithfulness in the Apocalypse. It will be great honor, fraught with the highest reward. Where is this
not spoken of in the Revelation?
F. C. Bland, author of a work on prophecy that has much that is excellent in it, has a still more astounding
solution of the vision of Revelation 7:9-17, so as to save the Rapture theories from ruin. From the
circumstance that John appropriates some phrases from Isaiah 49 to describe the blessing of the multitude
in the vision, he insists that the multitude must be Jews (p. 139). I will only suggest in passing that on
that unwise principle we should filch pretty well every blessing and relationship from the Church in favor
of the Jews. Growing in credulity, Bland thinks that “probably the ten tribes” are referred to (p.
I think that there is something in the suggestion of T. Newberry’s that these martyrs are seen again in
205
Matthew 25:4o as the “Brethren;” of course raised from the dead. But this is merely a “pious opinion.”
206 Page 185; Vine, The Rapture and the Great Tribulation, p. 40.
Page: 166
140).207 That is, the ten “lost” tribes, coming home to Palestine out of the nations of the earth, fulfill the
sublime vision of Revelation 7. It seems totally incredible, but there it is in cold print. Any rubbish rather
than the true and obvious explanation that there we see saints, martyrs, and Christians, who are to fall in
the last affliction of the Church: men and women whose shoes we are not worthy to unloose, and
awaiting in the abode of the holy dead the better resurrection at the Last Day.
I know few things more calculated to bring prophetic study into disrepute than this unhappy and
persistent effort by Kelly and other hypercritical dispensationalists to belittle the sacrifice of the martyrs,
explain away their glory, and reduce the whole vision to an earthly scene, not far from Palestine, I
suppose. One has heard of the naturalist who botanized on his mother’s grave; surely there might have
been some restraint on speculation at this part of the Apocalypse.
Throughout Church history, Revelation 7:9-17 has been interpreted as a heavenly vision, that of those
saints who loved not their lives unto death. From the R.V. of verse 14 we must apply it to the martyrs of
the Enid-time; from that fact, and from their being a community of Jews and Gentiles, saints redeemed by
Christ, and from the additional circumstance, admitted by T. Newberry of the pre-trib school, that “their
inheritance is heavenly,” (p. 54), we must conclude that they are Christian martyrs in the time of the last
Antichrist. Kelly’s statement that they have “no distinctive properties of the Church” is as inaccurate as it
is audacious, (Second Coming, p. 228.)
It is a real pleasure to give here a paragraph from Darby, who discussed this vision in a truly admirable
spirit. As a rule he had a wretched prose style, but the beauty of the scene communicated something to
his writing. He applied the vision to the Elect, but hesitated--for inadequate reasons208 --to apply it to the
martyred Church of the Last Days. Admitting that the scene is in heaven he wrote these beautiful words
on verses 16-17: --
God is a tabernacle over them, as to solace them. The Lamb feeds and leads them. God would dispel, in
the souls of those that are His, the dread of His majesty, by the thoughts of His gentleness, His meekness.
A soul that is unconverted has no idea of a God tender, gentle, who “wipes away tears.” God will have us
near Him, as children near their father He loves His children enough to take notice of all their afflictions,
to comfort them, and to wipe away their tears, (Apocalypse, p. 40).
I think that these words will remove any lingering doubt that the palm-bearing multitude in heaven is that
portion of the Christian Church for all tribes and nations, which falls in the tribulation of the End-time.
207On the myth see David Baron’s History of the “Lost” Ten Tribes; also The British Israel Theory, by Dr. H. L.
Goudge, Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford (1933, Mowbray). Both works deserve a
large circulation to counteract a strong delusion of our days.
208Especially the old view, now abandoned by pretty well every expositor in America, England, and
Germany, that the Twenty-Four Elders represented the redeemed. We have seen that this is a mistake. They
simply are Angelic leaders in the worship of Heaven.
Page: 167
XV. Some Objections Considered
It will be advisable to deal with some of the objections that have been raised to the Scriptural view of
Christ’s Second Coming. I might very well, in view of the cumulative force of the evidence adduced,
adopt the opposite words of Bishop Butler’s, quoted by C. H. M., “a truth being established, objections
are nothing; the one is founded upon our knowledge, the other upon our ignorance.” Nevertheless, as it
may tend to remove misconceptions, and some real difficulties, I shall notice some of the principal
objections urged; these are often related to each other, but may yet be distinguished.
(a) “Is it not a brighter and more comforting view that Christ will come before the Great Tribulation?”
Yes; nobody ever disputed that; the theorist certainly has the advantage here, and if only he had the
Scripture with him, his case would be convincing; but I think the very fact of the scheme’s being so
comforting and pleasing to the flesh is a consideration that reveals its unscriptural character; for it is not
the way of Scripture to make the path of the saints easy. Our Lord saw fit to leave His Elect on earth till
the Glorious Advent in Matthew 24:31. Paul did the same in 2 Thessalonians 1. And the Apostle John
wrote several chapters about the times of Antichrist, without saying a single word to make the path of the
saints easy. He placed the resurrection and release of the saints at 11:18 and 20:4-6.
(b)” How can the Day of the Lord, overcast with portentous signs, and the display of severe divine
judgments, be a day of hope?”
This objection is met by the simple fact that, at the Crucifixion of Christ there were fearful portents,
earthquakes, and a display of divine judgment. We are told that people were filled with amazement and
terror at these signs; yet this was the day of the Church’s redemption: the greatest day of blessing in the
whole history of the world; the day when Christ made expiation for our sins, and when believers were
crucified with Christ. Yet all the wondrous blessings of the Cross took place in immediate connection
with a fearful display of divine power, striking terror into the hearts of men.
Why, therefore, should it be deemed incredible that the completion of the Church’s redemption (Eph.
4:30) should take place in connection with signs and portents in the heavens, and a display of divine
judgment upon the world? The essential fact for us to know is that Jesus by His death has delivered us
from the wrath to come, and that immediately prior to the full revelation of divine wrath, He will gather
the saints to Himself.
One has seen the effect of tropical storms on people when first going to reside in a land where they
prevailed. Having been brought up in a land where lightning and thunder were rarely seen, they found the
effects of a typically tropical storm to be terrifying, almost “uncanny.” But one is astonished to find that
the inhabitants of the country in question looked forward to these electric storms with unmingled
satisfaction. They forgot the elements of terror in the scene, in remembering the glorious blessings that
the storm would bring. They saw the welcome rains falling from heaven and putting an end to their time
of suffering and privation. The terrible period of drought and famine, dealing out death on every hand,
would give place to the period of green and plenty. And truly their hopes were well founded, for in a few
days, death seemed swallowed up of life; there was joy with plenty on every hand. The storm, therefore,
had two different effects upon two classes of people. To those unaccustomed to the scene, and unmindful
of the blessings at hand, it was terrifying; they saw only the electric storm. The more experienced
Page: 168
inhabitants, however, rejoiced at the thunder and lightning because these heralded the blessings beyond.
So is it in regard to the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Strangers to the grace of God and His ways will
be alarmed by the portents of that Day. We are told in the Apocalypse that they even call in their terror
upon the rocks and the mountains to hide them from Him who comes (6:16-17). Their guilty consciences
warn them that it is a day of judgment. With us Christians, however, it is different: “We are a colony of
heaven, and we wait for the Saviour who comes from heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform
the body that belongs to our low estate, till it resembles the body of His glory,” (Phil. 3:20: Moffatt).
Again: “When all this is beginning to take place, grieve no longer. Lift up your heads, because your
deliverance is drawing near” (Luke 21:28: Weymouth). What to the world is a day of judgment, striking
terror into their hearts, will be to Christians a day of salvation, light, and redemption, filling their souls
with joy.
(c) “If Antichrist comes first, then we are not looking for Christ, but for Antichrist.”209
This objection is ungenerous. It means that unless we are looking for Christ in the exact manner that the
theorists are looking for Him, we are not looking for Him at all. Yet the undeniable fact is that this “any-
moment” view of Christ’s Return only originated about 1830, when Darby gave forth at the same time
the mistaken theory of the Secret Coming and Rapture; but all down the centuries there had existed
Christians who longed for the Revelation of Christ, whilst expecting that Antichrist would come first.
Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the first three centuries of the Church’s history. The first view
that we have of the Church after the close of the Apostolic Age is that of a Community of Christians
suffering for the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, separated from the world, and waiting for God’s Son
from Heaven. But, consistent with this, they expected that Antichrist would be first revealed; and this
idea that Christ’s approaching Advent would be followed, not by the rise, but by the destruction, of
Antichrist, has been held by the saints all down the centuries.
Some excellent remarks of Pastor White’s on this point may here be cited; they are taken from his
tract, The Saint’s Rest:--
In everyday life, we do not find ourselves looking for an expected event with less intensity because we
know that something else must happen first. Yet I have heard it said of those who accept the word of God
which expressly teaches that before the return of the Lord Jesus in visible glory, “that Man of Sin” must
be revealed--2 Thessalonians 2:3--that they are looking for Antichrist, and not for Christ Himself. To this
we reply, the prior coming of the former is indeed a subject of our expectation, for it is so written, but
our LORD HIMSELF IS THE OBJECT OF OUR LONGING DESIRE. IT IS “HIS APPEARING” WE LOVE. “N OT ON THE
INTERVENING DARKNESS WE REST, BUT ON THE BRIGHTNESS BEYOND,” (PP. 9-10).
From everyday life I take the following: A stranger in a town was looking about as he walked down Main
Street. Soon a friend accosted him and asked what he was looking for:” A Barber’s Pole,” came the reply.
“Do you need support?” he was asked. “No; I want the hairdresser’s saloon; I was looking merely for the
sign.”
209 “Our Hope,” August, 1914.
Page: 169
The Apostles taught their converts to be prepared for the coming of Antichrist. Paul, writing to
Christians, goes into great detail about the coming of Antichrist, and expressly warns the Thessalonians
that Antichrist must come before the Lord does. Then the Lord Jesus by the brightness of His “coming”
will slay him (2 Thess. 2:3-8). The Apostle John says: “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have
heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know it is the last
time,” (1 John 2:18). Does this look as if John taught Christians not to expect Antichrist?
Tregelles remarks in his Second Coming:--
This one passage shows us that the Church had then been taught concerning the coming of Antichrist;
that the Apostle knew that they had received this teaching; and that it was right that Christians should
understand that this is a thing that concerns the Church: in the beginning of the next chapter he speaks of
the hope of our being like Christ when He shall be manifested: that is our hope; and because it is our
hope, we may contemplate the rise and working of Antichrist, or anything else that the Scripture says
shall take place first (p. 21).
(d) “Is not the theory that certain events must precede the Coming of the Lord what is meant by the
servant’s saying, My Lord delayeth his coming’?” (Matt. 24:48-51.)
This objection has been vigorously pressed by Dr. Gaebelein in his Olivet Discourse. He is extremely
severe on teachers who abandon the theory of an imminent, impending, unheralded, any-moment Advent
of Christ, and come to believe that our Lord will arrive only after various predicted events; according to
him they are fulfilling the part of the evil servant in the parable; it is almost an apostasy from the faith;
here are his words: --
In some way they became ensnared in teachings which put off the glorious event till after the great
tribulation, the manifestation of Antichrist, etc., and this unscriptural view silenced their testimony
completely. It is sad to see this, and we fear, if our Lord tarries, some of these men (as it has been already
the case) will act the part of the evil servant in a still more pronounced way (p. 89).
This contention, in the first place, is extremely unjust, for it implies that pretty well all the doctors and
fathers of the Church in the second and third centuries, and very many outstanding ones since the
Reformation, as well as multitudes of saints in all ages of the Church, who looked for the Coming of
Christ as He taught them--after the fulfillment of various signs, and after the arrival of Antichrist--are to
be likened to the drunken servant of the Parable, who, when his lord tarried, set about ill-treating his
fellow-servants and feasting with the drunkards (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:41-46).210
210 In the present writer’s view the hope of Christ’s Coming is not to be confined to Millenarians. Many today,
who have difficulties about the Millennium, cherish the hope of the Saviour’s Return. Several American
writers, some of respectable scholarship, formerly held pre-trib views, but afterwards abandoned them.
Among them were Drs. J. M. Stiffer, Nathaniel West, W. J. Erdman, and W. G. Moorehead. They loved the
Lord’s Appearing till the end of their lives. It has never transpired that a single one of them played the part
of the evil servant; and they remained Millenarians. Dr. Gaebelein quotes with approval (pp. 89-91) William
Kelly, where he says that we who look for Christ according to Matthew 24 are victims of “spiritual
nightmare” and “oppressive feeling” from believing that “the Church will go through so dreadful a crisis.” Dr.
Gaebelein is too much addicted to the logical fallacy of petitio principii to be able to detect it in so brilliant a
Page: 170
Secondly, what are we to think of the profanity--it is time to call it by its right name--that dares to assert
that Christians who accept the plain teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ to the founders of His Church about
His Parousia, have “become ensnared in teachings” that are erroneous and harmful? It is intended
otherwise, but this dispensational teaching is simply a daring casting off of the authority of Christ. And
all this to bolster up a set of theories that Scripture condemns at every turn.
Anyone who will consider carefully the Scriptures just cited, will have no difficulty in seeing that what
the Lord condemned in the servant was not that he realized that the master had delayed his arrival, but
that he proceeded to get drunk and ill-treat his brethren. As Tregelles says:--
His sin is the use which he makes of his partial knowledge, instead of his employing it to lead him the
more definitely to watch for the promised indication of his master’s coming. He who looks for promised
events as indications of the Lord’s advent, will not rest for a moment in the events themselves; their value
is, that they lead on the thoughts and affections to Him for whom the Church is called to watch and wait,
and who has Himself promised these signs to His expecting people. To watch unscripturally is really not
to watch at all; but to substitute something of emotion and sentiment for the “patient waiting for Christ”
(loc. Cit., pp. 63-4).
The intolerance just cited illustrates some other remarks of the same writer:--
Those who make sentimentally the secret rapture the centre of all their thoughts have habitually shown
how utterly their love fails towards any Christians who object to this theory. They often speak of them as
if such were devoid of love to Christ, and they treat them as if that were the case. It might seem as if they
had made that one point (in which they are led by feeling, not by Scripture) the very test of Christian
profession (p. 89).
It is worthy of note that the Lord Jesus Himself led the Apostles to expect some delay in His Coming. In
the Parable of the Ten Virgins we read: “As the bridegroom was long of coming they all grew drowsy
and went to sleep,” (Matt. 25:5; Moffatt). And in the same chapter we read, “After a long time the Lord
of those servants cometh and reckoneth with them,” (Matt. 25:19).
Are we therefore to conclude that our Lord was responsible for the sleep of the foolish virgins, and the
sloth of the unfaithful steward, because He indicated a considerable delay in His arrival? Judging by the
peculiar reasoning of Dr. Gaebelein’s, we must answer in the affirmative. But the truth is that the very
delay was to be used as an incentive to increased fidelity and watchfulness by the servants:--
“Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come,” (Matt. 24:42).
controversialist and sophist as W. Kelly. It must be admitted that Kelly, after fifty years of pugnacious
advocacy of a very secret rapture, a very secret resurrection, and a very secret Parousia, was a good judge of
dreams. Could he return today, and find half the school throwing over the Secret Rapture, the secret
resurrection, and the secret Parousia, and Dr. Gaebelein and other leaders of the pre-trib school teaching
that the Church’s hope will be fulfilled on Messiah’s Day, and that Antichrist arises after that Day, he would
have more still to say about “nightmares” and “oppressive feeling.”
Page: 171
“Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh,” (Matt. 24:44).
“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour,” (Matt. 25:13).
“Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for
their Lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh; they may open
unto him immediately,” (Luke 12:35-36).
These were the exhortations that the Lord Jesus gave to His disciples in view of His Return in glory. And
so expressive are they of entertaining the Coming of Christ in the Gospel as “a present hope,” that many
theorists, with surprising inconsistency, have appropriated them and applied them to the Coming of 1
Thessalonians 4:13-17.
Miss Habershon, for instance, in The Present Dispensation, so applies Luke 12:36. But whilst this is true,
it comes badly from people who contend that the hope of the Church was first revealed in 1
Thessalonians 4:13-17; moreover, the end of the section in Luke 12 reveals that it was the Coming of the
Son of Man that was in question: “Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of Man cometh at an hour
when ye think not,” (v. 40). This applies also with full force to Dr. Gaebelein.
Certain it is, therefore, that the Lord Jesus did not think that the moral influence of His Coming was in
any way impaired by the instruction that He Himself gave concerning events that would intervene; for
He, in answer to the question of the Apostles, taught that such events would intervene before He returned.
“If then, we were to say that a belief in intervening events interferes with the hope of the coming of the
Lord, or contradicts it, we must have adopted some incorrect opinion respecting it,” (Tregelles, loc. cit.,
p. 9).
(e) The prior fulfillment of predicted events is inconsistent with entertaining Christ’s Coming as a present
hope.”
This depends upon the meaning of “a present hope;” if it means a hope that may be realized at any
moment, this very day, then the inconsistency is to be admitted. 211 But if it means that we may not expect
Christ in our own lifetime, then it is to be resolutely resisted.
The early Church, whilst looking for Christ’s Return in the lifetime of that generation, did not expect
Christ “at any moment;” we know this from the predictions made by the Lord and His Apostles
concerning events to be fulfilled in the Apostolic Age, prior to Christ’s Return. The statement of the case
by Mr. Shackleton is unanswerable; he takes first the events predicted concerning Paul:--
At his conversion he was told that he was to suffer great things, and to be sent far off to the Gentiles.
Therefore he must have known that there was a long career of service before him. In writing the Church
at Rome, he speaks of a projected visit to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, and after that to Spain. Prophets
too, speaking by the Spirit, had told him that bonds and afflictions awaited him. In bidding farewell to the
211Only people who believe that the Apostasy has come, that the Pope or Mahomet is Antichrist, and that the
prophecy of the world’s evangelization has been fulfilled (Matt. 24:14) have a basis for believing that the
Lord may come “at any moment.” But not many now accept the second.
Page: 172
elders at Miletus, he told them of evils that would arise after his departing from them; and these things
would take a little time to develop. Then when Paul had been cast into prison at Jerusalem, the Lord
stood by him at night and told him that he must bear witness also at Rome (Acts 23:11). Again, when
writing to the Philippians from prison, he speaks of his desire to depart, or the alternative, that he might
be liberated and pay them another visit. In both his Epistles to Timothy, he foretells spiritual dangers of a
time still in the future.
The predicted death of Peter was another event that had to transpire before the second coming; and in his
second Epistle Peter also forewarns the saints of the time of religious corruption and apostasy that was to
set in at some undefined period after his decease. Paul too speaks plainly of his approaching death in 2
Timothy 4:6. These Scriptures sufficiently demonstrate the inaccuracy of the view that the Apostles
thought the second coming might occur at any moment. 212
What are we to conclude from these undeniable facts? That Peter and Paul did not entertain Christ’s
Coming as “a present hope?” Yes, judging by the theorists’ logic: Peter looked for his death in old age,
not for Christ’s Coming. Paul looked for his imprisonment, sufferings, and a future visit to Rome; whilst
he bade the Ephesian elders not to look for Christ, but for ravenous wolves! All this because (say the
theorists) the intervention of predicted events is inconsistent with entertaining the Coming of Christ as “a
present hope.” Fair and sensible people will see at once that the true view is that whilst the
Apostles expected certain events to happen in the meantime, they yet desired the Glorious Appearing of
the Saviour. Miss Habershon in her paper The Present Dispensation seeks to obviate this difficulty by
stating that it is only since the death of the Apostles, some of whom received private revelations that they
would die, that there has not been a single thing which had to be fulfilled before the Lord could call away
His heavenly people to meet Him in the air.
She admits that certain events were predicted to happen in the lifetime of the Apostles, and that the
Lord’s Coming was conditioned by their prior fulfillment; and she admits that this did not interfere with
the Apostles looking for Christ. These admissions give her whole case away; in admitting the principle of
looking for the Lord Jesus, whilst expecting certain events beforehand, she has refuted the pre-trib case
that the two are inconsistent. So that we may dismiss as mere perversity all assertions that the two
attitudes are incompatible, and that we who expect the prior accomplishment of certain events have
abandoned the hope of Christ’s Return.
And Miss Habershon’s assertion that since the time of the Apostles “there has not been a single thing
which had to be fulfilled before the Lord could take away His heavenly people to meet Him in the air,” is
refuted in convincing fashion by the pre-trib interpretation of the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia
(Rev.2-3).213 Miss Habershon herself says in her
212 Will the Church Escape the Great Tribulation?, pp. 31-2.
213Bengel spoke of this interpretation as “a product of human subtlety;” I agree with him. It is judicially
examined by Archbishop Trench in his Seven Churches. Miss Habershon’s paper on The Present Dispensa-
tion is in “The Morning Star” for June 15th, 1913. There was another by her in the issue of December 15th,
1912. Both were read before the Women’s Branch of the Prophecy Investigation Society, England.
Page: 173
Parables: “In a very striking manner the Epistles to the Seven Churches give a chronological panorama
of Church history, delineating with a few touches the leading feature of each era,” (p. 256). Think of the
absurdity of people telling us that after the death of the Apostles, Christ’s Coming might have taken place
“at any moment,” and in the same breath telling us that several epochs or eras of Church history--some of
which have lasted for hundreds of years--had first to intervene!
Sir R. Anderson, who saw how fatal the experience of the Apostles was to the theorists’ argument that
one cannot expect predicted events and look for Christ at the same time, sought to escape by a clever, but
sorrowful evasion. He says in his Hebrews: “It has been urged that, as the Apostle Peter knew he was to
die, and the Apostle Paul knew he was to visit Rome, the coming was not a present hope in Apostolic
times. To call this quibbling would be discourteous,” (p. 175).
It is a controversial artifice to dismiss as “quibbling” or “trifling” what one cannot reply to Sir R.
Anderson knew it well. Opposing with unwearying zeal the truth affirmed repeatedly in the N.T. that the
Church is the Bride of Christ, he found 2 Corinthians 11:2 too plain and too convincing; so he termed the
appeal to it “trifling.” So here. He cannot refute the fact that the Apostles were expecting some events to
be fulfilled before the Coming of the Lord without any diminution of their hope; so he will treat the
argument as “quibbling” and pass on!
But he must be told that those who reject “any-moment” theories of the Coming of Christ, do not
repudiate the idea that Christ’s Return should be “a present hope;” what they repudiate is the nineteenth-
century dogmatism that, unless we are looking for Christ to come at any moment, we are not looking for
Him at all, but for Antichrist, or intervening events: our heart is not upon Christ, etc. Whereas in truth we
expect events, but wait for the Savior. And it is a complete confirmation of our view that the Apostles
themselves, whilst awaiting ardently the Revelation of Christ as “a present hope,” still expected the
fulfillment of events that might take years to accomplish.
All that is essential to make the Coming of Christ “a present hope” is that He may come in our lifetime,
and that daily we should long for His Coming, and mould our lives in the light of it. And such a hope, it
is to be asserted, is not confined to theorists.
The argument of this section may fitly conclude with some observations from two well-known writers. I
quote first an opposite illustration from Muller’s successor at the Bristol Orphanage:--
The intervening events (of which we are forewarned) stand in relation to the advent of the Lord as the
semaphore stands to the incoming train. You go down to the station to meet a beloved friend, who you
know is coming by a particular train, and while waiting you watch the signals. As long as the semaphore
stands at right angles you know the train has not passed the last station. What were you waiting for? The
dropping of the semaphore? No, your friend; but you watch for the signals, because they show when your
friend is near.214
In his Second Coming, Tregelles says:--
214 J. Wright, quoted by Pastor F. H. White.
Page: 174
Whatever makes the feelings sit in judgment on Scripture, and whatever thus leads to the avoidance of
the force of that Scripture teaching which is not in accordance with such feelings, must, however
apparently sanctified and spiritual, be of nature, and not of God. Are we to seek to be guided by other
hopes than those which animated the Apostolic Church? They knew that days of darkness would set in
before Christ’s coming; they were instructed respecting the many Antichrists and the final Antichrist, but
so far from their hope of the coming of the Lord and of resurrection being thus set aside, they were able
to look onward through the darkness to the brightness of the morning.
It may freely be owned that those who think it right to expect the Lord at any moment, and who sternly
condemn others who maintain that His appointed signals shall take place first, have often in their hearts
much real love to Him; and love toward His person is never to be regarded lightly. But let such remember
the prayer of the Apostle, “That your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all
judgment,” (Phil. 1:9): it is not only of importance that love should be rightly directed as to its object, but
also that there should be in the soul real spiritual intelligence. If a wife has the promise of her husband’s
return from a distant country, and she has his written directions for the sale of the house during his
absence, and part of these directions includes a statement how his return shall be expected, that a letter
will arrive first to say by what ship he will come,--there would be no want of love (and that, too,
intelligent love) on her part, if she sought to be occupied day by day as he directed, and if she showed
that she believed his word that the promised letter should come, and that then he would himself arrive by
the appointed vessel. She would be waiting according to his word and will; and no one could reproach
her for want of love to her lord from not being on the tip-toe of momentary expectation. But if the wife
were to say that the part of her husband’s directions respecting the promised letter related to the servants
of the house, and not to her, and if she were to be constantly on the shore, expecting her husband’s
landing in a way that he had not promised, and if she refused to be brought to attend simply to what her
husband had said,--she would, while professing to do this out of love to him, show that she was a
visionary, and not one whose love was guided by the simple intelligence of her husband’s mind as
distinctly expressed: feeling would have led away from true obedience.
There are, indeed, those who say that love can allow of nothing as between their souls and the coming of
the Lord; they avoid any real scriptural inquiry on the subject; and when events prophesied by our Lord
are pointed out, they say that their views are directed upward, that there they find their strength, in
contrast to men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the
earth (Luke 21:26). And thus they avoid the force of even our Lord’s words, through a supposed
spirituality. Men’s hearts may be dismayed, but this will not apply to believers, who would see in that
which caused dismay to others the bright prospect of deliverance to themselves, for the coming of the
Lord would be at hand. The dreamy ethereality which assumes the name and the garb of spirituality,
avoids the apprehension of facts: they appear too unrefined and there is too little in them for the exercise
of mere sentimental feeling (pp. 84-87).
(f) “If our hope is the coming of Christ according to Matthew 24:27-31, then there are too many events to
be fulfilled to allow the Coming to be fulfilled in our time”
But how does the objector know this? He is simply setting limits to God’s ways and power. I maintain,
on the contrary, that there has not been a time in the history of the Church since the destruction of
Jerusalem, when Christians could so reasonably expect the Coming of Christ in their time as now. The
Page: 175
very movements in Israel, the Nations, and the Church, which the Lord Jesus predicted as signs of His
Appearing, are being fulfilled under our very eyes. History is moving at a gallop, and every thoughtful
man is conscious of momentous changes at hand in the history of the world. In his Christian View of God
and The World, Dr. James Orr wrote long before the Great War:--
It is curious how this feeling of an impending crisis sometimes finds expression in minds not given to
apocalyptic reveries. Lord Beaconsfield said in 1874: “The great crisis of the world is nearer than some
suppose.” In a recent number of the “Forum,” Professor Goldwin Smith remarks: “There is a general
feeling abroad that the stream of history is drawing near a climax now; and there are apparent grounds for
the surmise. There is everywhere in the social frame an untoward unrest, which is usually a sign of
fundamental change within,” (p. 361).
And what a development of this spirit of “change and decay,” of unrest and dissolution, there has been
since the above words were written! It is no longer that society is merely disturbed by unrest, but that
anarchy is spreading at an alarming rate. It is not merely that democracy is abroad, but that lawlessness is
being preached from the housetops; “the complete grammar of anarchy” is being proclaimed with an
ardor that is ominous and startling.
Nor is it that only the Lord’s prophecy about wars and lawlessness is being fulfilled In Zionism we see a
movement of immense significance among the Jews. National hopes have been rekindled, and tens of
thousands are returning to the land of their fathers. 215 Any day may see the Concert of Ten Kings in
Roman Europe and the national restoration of the Jews. In the Church the very movements predicted by
the Lord and His Apostles are going on: worldliness, lukewarmness, and apostasy are dominant in many
parts of Christendom; at the same time the Gospel is being preached among all nations, and its conquests
in the past one hundred and fifty years exceed anything since the early centuries of the Church, (Matt.
24:10-14; 2 Thess. 2:3).
That the prophecy of Matthew 24-25 is not incompatible with retaining the Coming of Christ as a present
hope, will become perfectly clear from the following admissions of our opponents:--
In his Coming Prince, after discussing the events of the End-time, Sir R. Anderson says: “In forecasting
the fulfillment of these prophecies, we are dealing with events which, while they may occur within the
lifetime of living men, may yet be delayed for centuries,” (p. 211). And speaking of the Coming of the
Son of Man in Matthew 24:29-31 the same author says in his Forgotten Truths: “And yet that Coming
might have taken place within the lifetime of those to whom the words were addressed” (p. 139).
Here it is actually conceded that the whole program of Matthew 24 and 25, with its prophecies of the
defection from the faith, the evangelization of the whole world (24:14); the revelation of Antichrist (v.
15), and the Great Tribulation (v. 21), could have been fulfilled in the lifetime of the Apostles
themselves!
215See some remarks on this in Sir R. Anderson’s Coming Prince (1881), pp. 281-2. The remarks in this
section were written in 1914; since then Palestine has been constituted the Jewish National Home. The
restoration has begun.
Page: 176
How much more, therefore, is the Coming a present hope to us, after nineteen centuries of development,
and the fulfillment of important predictions under our very eyes?
Just as surprising and welcome is Sir R. Anderson’s statement in his Unfulfilled Prophecy: “The present
generation may possibly witness the building of the very temple upon which the Prince of Daniel’s
prophecy will yet set up his image” (p. 81). Similarly, in expounding the Parables of the Kingdom in
Matthew 13, which give the inception, course, and consummation of the history of Christendom in the
present world-period, Trotter contends that “there was nothing to suggest that at any point in the past
history of Christianity, the whole might not be wound up in a very short period indeed,” (p. 276). And the
very title of the page where those remarks are found reads: “one generation might have sufficed.”
The practical difference, therefore, between Trotter and other ingenuous expositors, and ourselves, is that
we think (with their complete concurrence), that the Parousia in Matthew 24:29-31, was always “a
present hope,” in that the events might--so far as could be seen at the time--have taken place in that
generation, or any succeeding generation; whereas on pre-tribs’ interpretation of Revelation 2-3 which,
according to all the leaders of “the centre,” signified considerable periods of Church history, we (and the
Apostle John if he held the subtle interpretation), have sorrowfully to tell them that the Parousia of the
Lord, on such presuppositions, never could be a present hope until an Angel from heaven, or an inspired
Apostle, or a prophet, had appeared to inform us that the final “period”--Laodicea--had really begun, and
that “one generation would be sufficient for its fulfillment.”
At any rate, Anderson’s and Trotter’s admissions about the Parousia in Matthew 24 warrant us in asking
them (or their successors) to quit affirming that our view of the Parousia puts it off for centuries, or that
the fulfillment of the events of Matt. 24:4-31 is too distant to permit the retention of the Lord’s Coming
there as “a present hope” in the twentieth century: for their assertions elsewhere (against the Post-
millenarians) are at hand to prove that it always was, and always will be.
(g) “If Christ comes for His saints on the Day of the Lord, how are we to reconcile this with the
statements of Scripture that He then comes with His saints?”
There is no need to reconcile them; Christ comes for His saints and with them at the same crisis. When
He comes according to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and Matthew 24:31, He is on His way to earth to
establish the Messianic Kingdom. But before the blow falls upon the ungodly, the Elect are gathered from
one end of heaven to the other to meet the approaching Lord. They meet the Lord in the air and follow in
His train.
A Scottish-American scholar216 of seventy years ago, who did what Professor Frame of New York
generously called “the best American work on Thessalonians,” comments thus on the Parousia and
Rapture of Thessalonians 4:13-17:--
216Dr. John Lillie in his Lectures on Thessalonians, pp. 267-9. Dr. Moffatt’s view in EGT was quoted at length
in a previous chapter: It agrees with that of Chrysostom, Augustine, Lillie and others: “They simply meet the
Lord in the air, on His way to judgment.” Prof. Frame was, I take it, referring to a critical commentary on
Thessalonians by Dr. Lillie; it has not been seen by the present Writer. I quote from his Lectures, which are
both scholarly and popular.
Page: 177
And what, you may now inquire, what becomes of the Lord and His gathered Saints? Do they abide
permanently in the air? No; “it is as He is coming, not abiding,” says Augustine, “that we shall go to meet
him.” Will the Lord, then, return at once with them to heaven, whence He had just descended? And to
that question also, I think we may give a no less confident negative. There are only three other places in
the New Testament, where the phrase here translated “to meet” occurs; and in all of them (Matt. 25:1, 6;
Acts 28:15) the party met continues after the meeting to advance still in the direction in which He was
moving previously. Guided by these examples, and agreeably, as I believe, to the general testimony of
Scripture on this subject,217 I should prefer to adopt the illustrations furnished by one of the most eminent
of the Fathers: “If He is to descend, for what purpose shall we be caught away? To honor us. For so,
when a king is entering a city, those in honorable station go forth to meet him, but the criminals await
their judge within, and when a fond father arrives, the children, worthy of the name, are taken out in a
chariot, to see and caress him, but unoffending domestics remain within,” (Chrysostom). Or as still
another expresses the same view without a figure (Ambrosiaster): “We shall be caught away to meet
Christ, that all may come with the Lord to battle, not in Heaven surely, but on earth. Nor, indeed, to my
own mind is anything in the future more certain, than that the glorified Church is to be thus associated
with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords in the judgment of the Nations and the government of this
world, as well as in the inheritance of all things.”
During the Balkan War of 1912 an incident took place that illustrates, in a measure, what will take place
at the Return of Christ. When the Serbian commander and his troops were approaching an ancient
Serbian town in the hands of the enemy, they could be seen wending their way down the hill overlooking
the city below; the inhabitants of the town were electrified by the sight: the Serbian descendants with joy,
the Turks with fear and trembling. As the Commander and his troops came nearer, the officials and loyal
citizens went forth to meet the man whom they were hailing as their deliverer. A scene of delirious
enthusiasm and exultation followed, and then the assembled multitude, having met him, turned and
accompanied the commander and his troops on the way back to the city. The Turkish flag was hauled
down and the Serbian one hoisted in its place. He had come for and with his rescued people on the same
day.
Now, at the Parousia in triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ, His faithful people, as they see Him coming,
will be caught up to meet Him in the air: they go forth to meet Him, and then return with Him to earth to
share His triumph in the Kingdom of Glory. Christ has come for His saints, and with them at the same
crisis; He has been admired in all them that believe, and they have been manifested with Him in glory.
The “appearing of His coming” brings rest and glory to the saints, destruction to the Man of Sin, and the
beginning of the reign of God for the world. 218 “No prophecy of Scripture is of its own interpretation” (2
Compare Zechariah 14:4-5; Matthew 24:29-31, 25:31, etc.; 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 19:11, etc., to the end of the
217
book; besides the numberless prophecies with which these connect themselves (Lillie).
218 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:8; Rev. 19:11-20:6.
The phrase “coming with His saints,” at its first occurrence (1 Thess. 3:13) almost certainly refers to the
Lord’s arrival with the spirits of the holy dead. Their position and blessedness at the Parousia were a
principal motive in writing the Epistle. Paul at the first opportunity makes mention of them, but
incidentally. This is the view of Findlay in his excellent commentaries in CGT and CB, and of several
others. Sir R. Anderson, in his Forgotten Truths (p. 109), thought angels were in view; but in Unfulfilled
Prophecy (p. 9) he applies 1 Thessalonians 3:13 to the sleeping saints, coming with the Lord, as at 4:14,
Page: 178
Pet. 1:20); and it was the failure of theorists to realize this that led them to evolve and propagate the
amazing theory that the Glorious Advent of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 will be followed by the rise and
reign of the Man of Sin. Interpret it with the help of other Scriptures, and we learn that the Appearing will
be followed by the ruin of Antichrist, and the Reign of Christ, the Lord.
(h) “Why is it needful to disturb us over our view of the Lord’s Coming? Even if we are wrong, no great
harm will have been done.”
But is no harm done in teaching Christ’s Coming according to the wisdom of men? As the last crisis
approaches is it a light affair that men are being taught that we shall not be on earth when it comes?
When the Church has to face Antichrist and pass through the consummation of her suffering for Christ’s
Name, is it not a delusion that men are preparing her for a rapture before the Last Days arrive? The nearer
the time comes, the greater is the danger. Yet the very teaching that our Lord deemed most wholesome
for His Apostles is now denounced by some theorists as Satanical, 219 when applied to the Church.
If somebody had evolved the theory in Noah’s day that many years before the judgment came, the saints
would be conducted to an ark of refuge already prepared, without their being put to shame and scoffing in
building one on dry land, would it not have been the part of kindness to show that God had promised no
such thing, but that immediately before the judgment the saints would be received into the ark that, amid
reproach and contempt, they had built? Moreover, it is theorists, not their opponents, who are “disturbers
of the peace.” All down the centuries the Church expected Christ’s Coming after the arrival of Antichrist,
according to the teaching of Christ and His Apostles. Only in 1830 did a school arise that treats with
intolerance, and often with contempt, the attitude of those who had looked for Him in the manner just
named. Not the slightest respect was paid to a view that had held the field for 1,800 years.
(i) “If we believe that He cannot come for many years, because certain predicted events must be fulfilled,
the inevitable consequence will be, that His promised return can have no immediate bearing upon our
personal conduct, as a daily hope and continual incentive to fidelity.”220
This extraordinary statement is sufficiently answered by referring to Paul’s Epistles where he connects
again and again the Revelation and the Glorious Appearing--which, all pre-tribs agree, “cannot come for
many years, because many predicted events must be fulfilled”--with the life and service of the saints on
earth. He never once appeals to a secret rapture to mould their lives; but frequently to the Glorious
Appearing, the Revelation, and the Day of the Lord. I could fill a booklet with extracts to prove that all
which he quotes. It is wrong to assert that previously raised and raptured saints are now coming out of
heaven.
Similar remarks apply to Colossians 3:4, which is to be explained by Philippians 3:21; 2 Thessalonians
1:10; 1 Pet. 1:3-6, 13; 1 John 2:28, and 3:2.
219 Gaebelein, Olivet Discourse, pp. 88-9.
A. J. Pollock, May Christ Come at Any Moment? p. 3. “Is Satan aware of all this? We believe he is, and,
knowing his deadly hatred toward our Lord Jesus Christ, we are assured he will use this theory for his
own evil ends.” Also C. H. Mackintosh, pp. 31-32, where looking for the Hope as taught by our Lord is, with
similar unction, attributed to the Devil.
220 “Our Hope,” August, 1914.
Page: 179
the pre-trib leaders thought and said the same; but the following from Darby must suffice; 221 it might
have had Dr. Gaebelein’s objection in view, as something that needed to be refuted:--
The Apostle exhorts Timothy to go on diligently and faithfully, looking for the Appearing. When the
Word of God is speaking of joy to the saints, it is the coming. The moment he speaks of responsibility to
the world or to the saints, it is always His appearing. What would have been the use of saying to Timothy
to keep the commandment until His appearing, if it were not practically a present expectation. And then
how mighty its power on the conscience: not the very highest motive, but one we need.
Could any single paragraph more completely refute the whole stock-in-trade of the new views on the
Secret Rapture, and the objection that the Glorious Appearing of Christ cannot be “a present hope”?
Darby admits that the Appearing was “a present expectation” to Paul and Timothy, for then they would
be rewarded. This is true, but this is also the time of the first resurrection, and the Coming of the Lord, as
Luke 14:14; Revelation 22:2; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 3:13; Revelation 11:18 prove.
Dr. Gaebelein’s taunt that the expectation of certain predicted events “turns the thoughts from Himself to
signs; from the ‘hope set upon us,’ to the unprofitable study of ‘times and seasons;’ from the Bible to
newspapers,” and the suggestion also about his opponents’ “being deeply interested” in present-day
international movements, including Zionism and the Eastern Question, come rather badly from the editor
of a Magazine on prophecy. For the columns of “Our Hope” reveal that Dr. Gaebelein himself or his staff
spends a fair amount of time on the newspapers. Indeed, in this American magazine, and the English ones
“The Morning Star” and “Things to Come,” we are continually having extracts from the newspapers
about the apostasy of Churches and Ministers, about Zionism and other movements among the Jews, the
Eastern Question, wars among the nations, and international politics! And when the Great War broke out
in 1914, what a harvest it provided for writers on prophecy crying, “Lo, here!; lo, there!” Even so
excellent a man and writer as C. I. Scofield, a leader among the “any-moment” advocates, was tempted to
prophesy; in the “Sunday School Times” of Philadelphia he wrote:222 --
Armageddon is to be fought, not on the fields of France or Germany, but around Jerusalem, on the plain
of Esdraelon, and Idumea. If, then, Turkey and the Balkan States shall be drawn into the war now raging-
-then we may confidently answer that the war which is now drenching France, Poland, Belgium, and
Germany with torrents of human blood, on a scale and with a remorselessness never before equaled in
human history, does indeed mark the beginning of the end of this age, (p. 628).
Well, all those Nations entered the conflict, the war extended to the Near East, even to the Holy Land; but
the struggle ended, and we have had eighteen years of peace. It was unwise to predict that the Great War
marked “the beginning of the end.” Dr. Gaebelein tells us what that phrase means: he says that it is the
first half of Daniel’s seventieth Week. See his remarks, quoted in a note on page 243.
Why do prophetic students make these mistakes? Because their secret any-moment Rapture obsession
deprives them of the true signs that our Lord gave to His Apostles. He gave two signs as indicating that
221 Second Coming, p. 13.

222 October 17th, 1914.
Page: 180
the End was definitely near: the world-wide preaching of the Gospel, and the appearance of Antichrist in
the Temple.223
But as all “any-moment” advocates treat the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 24:4-31 as “Jewish,” and
repudiate “signs” for the Church, they cannot know when the Lord is near; the only event that
conditions, ex hypothesi, the Coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18, is the conversion of the last of the
Elect, and the newspapers cannot oblige theorists in this respect. We, however, who accept Christ’s
teaching, know that even that event is related to the prophecies of Matthew 24:14 and 31, as Matthew
22:14 proves; from all we derive light on the course and consummation of the present Age.
Yet pre-tribs being human, craved a sign, and found one; they were certain, a hundred years ago, that
Matthew 25:6--the midnight cry to go out and meet the Bridegroom--referred to Brethren’s Advent
testimony, just as the Lord was about to come; they were twice wrong: the sign was wrongly chosen; for
the opening verse of Matthew 25 gives the time for the fulfillment of the Parable of the Bridegroom; it is
coincident with the judgment in the closing verses of the previous chapter; the midnight cry is on the Day
of the Lord. Secondly, the Lord did not come as was everywhere most confidently expected, and as the
“sign” required. The attitude of heart, however, was not dishonoring to Brethren. Meanwhile we who are
not above learning from signs indicated by our Lord, see the Gospel spreading grandly among all
Nations,224 and have witnessed the conflagration of 24:7, 225 which, on pre-trib principles, was only to
take place after the Rapture.
There is ample proof of this from the highest quarters. All pre-trib expositors of Revelation 6 refer the
first four seals to the first half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week, and the fifth seal to the epoch of the Great
Tribulation; and they rightly draw attention to the fact that Matthew 24:4-15 corresponds exactly with
the first five seals. More than that, the events of Matthew 24:4-14 and Revelation 6:1-8 belonged, ex
hypothesi, to the post-Rapture interval. Writing before the Great War their leaders drew attention to the
significant words of our Lord at Matthew 24:7, where He predicted an appalling conflagration of whole
nations in arms rushing upon each other. Dr. Gaebelein does this in his Olivet Discourse.226 Expounding
verse 7, he says: “Anyone who follows present-day history will see how, everything is ripening for just
such a universal warfare” (p. 30). And Sir R. Anderson in a valuable address on the Book of Revelation,
spoke to the same effect in 1896. Expounding the second seal of Revelation 6 he said: “Wars were in the
223 Matthew 24:14-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8, gives the same event.

224Matthew 24:14; 22:1-14; 28:18-20. The rabbinical theory that the gospel of the Kingdom is different
from the Pauline gospel is left to the volume on Matthew 24 and 25. For ordinary folk Hebrews 2:3 alone
will be decisive. See last chapter of this volume.
225Verse 6 gives the old style of warfare: one army against another; verse 7 gives something new: a nation
in arms rushing against another nation in arms. We seem to have seen this in our day.
226 See pp. 23-30. Referring to verses 4-14 he says: “The words we have before us refer us to the
beginning of that end, while in the last verse quoted, the fourteenth, the Lord said ‘then shall come the
end.’ What follows the fourteenth verse then refers directly to the end,” (p. 22). On the same page it is said
that only “in a secondary and general way” do verses 4-14 describe the characteristics of the present time,
i.e., before the Rapture. In other words, verse 7 belongs to the first half of Daniel’s Seventieth Week, after
the Rapture. See pp. 23 ff.
Page: 181
first judgment, such wars as we have in civilized warfare; but here are seen armed nations in conflict. So
in Matthew 24 our Blessed Lord goes on to say that nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom. Mark the words: it is not that they send armies against one another, but that nations shall rise
against one another--whole nations in arms” (“Things to Come,” 2 p. 109).
Well, then, the universal war, predicted by our Lord, and interpreted by Dr. Gaebelein and Sir R.
Anderson, came; but the Secret, pre-Tribulation, impending, imminent, any-moment Rapture, detached
from all predicted signs and events, did not come, and never will. For of it we may say, as Dr. Peter T.
Forsyth said of the humanitarian Christ of the Modernists: “It is a beautiful picture in the great window,
to fool poor men.” In view of these things, and his own presuppositions about secrecy, every pre-trib
ought seriously to consider the possibility that the Rapture took place before 1914.
No better reply, outside the Scriptures, was ever given to “any-momentism” as advocated by pre-tribs
with a total inability to see the standpoint of their opponents, than that in some remarks by the late Dr.
West, in his review of Pastor Frank White’s tract, The Saints’ Rest. Coming from the most learned of
American students of unfulfilled prophecy, a scholar who had made a lifelong study of the whole field,
and wrote two brilliant works on Eschatology, 227 it merits close attention:--
I regard the tract The Saints’ Rest and Rapture; When? as absolutely scriptural and unanswerable, and the
best thing I have ever seen in small compass, as a corrective of the utterly unscriptural, any-moment
theory of our Lord’s second coming: a theory which makes of Christ and His apostles self-contradictory
teachers, and of the scriptures wholly unreliable oracles. No delusion more pleasing and sweet on the one
hand, or more wild, groundless, and injurious to truth and faith, on the other, has ever captivated the
minds of men, than this one of an any-moment, unseen, secret advent, resurrection, and rapture, a
delusion condemned and exposed on almost every page of the Word of God. An unconditional,
immediate, impending, any-moment imminency of an event, detached from all the signs that herald its
approach, and which has lasted 1800 years, is an imminency that may last for 1800 years more. Such is
not the believer’s hope To watch ourselves, to watch against the snares, subterfuges, sins and temptations
that beset us, to watch lest our garments be taken from us, to watch for the improvement of our talents, to
watch that our vessels have oil in them--and all in view of an account when the Lord comes, to watch the
signs of the times, the events which are the footsteps of the coming Lord, the spread of the Gospel, the
rise of lawlessness, the increase of apostasy, the interest in Israel, the attitude of the nations, our souls
ever directed to the realization of His blessed hope, is to watch for the coming of the Lord, and to wait for
His appearing. I pray God’s perpetual blessing on this tract by Mr. White. The question is no longer a
question of exegesis with such clear light before us. It is simply a question of ethics with every believer.
Have we the right moral disposition toward the truth, or will we still cling to error because we have
unfortunately defended it too long; shall we act against the Truth or for the Truth? “Unto the upright there
ariseth light in darkness.”
227The Thousand Years in Both Testaments and Daniel’s Great Prophecy. The re-issue of these works, and
of C. D. Maitland’s Apostolic School of Prophetic Interpretation, Burgh’s Lectures on the Book of Revelation,
and S. R. Maitland’s First and Second Inquiry into the 1,260 Days of Daniel, is much to be desired. Also
Adolph Saphir’s Thoughts on the Book of Revelation, and Lillie on Thessalonians and the Epistles of Peter.
Page: 182
(j) Another objection to our view of the End is drawn from Paul’s mysterious words in 2 Thessalonians
2:6-7, about the hindrance and the hinderer restraining the coming of Antichrist. Here, it is contended, a
Rapture before Antichrist’s advent is presupposed.
I shall give the passage in a literal version--the R.V.--then in Conybeare’s idiomatic translation, and,
finally, in a paraphrase by Dr. Plummer. This is simply to get all the light possible on a confessedly
obscure passage, which ought never to serve as a pillar for a doctrine.
And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the
mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of
the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one (vv. 6-8a, R.V.).
And now you know the hindrance why he is not yet revealed, in his own season. For the mystery of
lawlessness is already working, only he, who now hinders, will hinder till he be taken out of the way; and
then the lawless one will be revealed, (Conybeare).
And for the present time, you already know from your own experience the power which restrains him
from appearing, so that he may not be fully revealed until the season divinely appointed to him for his
revelation has arrived. I say fully revealed rather than come into existence, for, as a matter of fact, this
mysterious principle of lawlessness is already set to do its evil work; only it does this work in secret,
without being revealed, until he who for the present is restraining it from appearing be taken out of the
way. And then, and not till then, the Lawless One will be revealed.... (Plummer).
It is quite impossible to deal adequately with this difficult passage, which has occupied the attention of
many of the greatest expositors of the Church. I must limit myself to giving a mere outline of what seems
the best interpretation, and to recommending the reader to see the admirable notes of G. G. Findlay’s in
his edition of this Epistle in the CB, or CGT, and to Plummer’s commentary, which is excellent on this
difficulty. Most other commentaries take substantially the same view.
There is agreement on three points:--
1. That an impersonal influence is holding back the Man of Sin, commonly identified with
Antichrist.
2. That a person is also holding back his arrival.
3. That with the removal of this influence and this person-13 the Antichrist would be revealed.
What is the influence? Who is the person?
Almost all pre-tribs reply, “The Holy Spirit in the Church; with His removal at the Rapture of the Church
(1 Thess. 4:17) Antichrist will be revealed.”228 To this it is to be replied:--
(a) This is ingenious, but it is a mere conjecture, and precarious at that. Milligan well says: “It seems
impossible to conceive of any adequate sense in which the words ‘until he be taken out of the way’ (heos
228 So Kelly, Christ’s Coming Again, ii., p. 99, etc.

Page: 183
ek mesou genētai)229 can be applied to Him” (Thessalonians, p. 101). It is difficult to avoid the feeling
that Darby softened the expression when he translated it, “until he be gone.” The sense is “be gotten out
of the way” (Goodspeed), or “be taken out of the way,” with most versions. I add that the pre-trib
expositors Hogg and Vine, in their volume on Thessalonians (pp. 258-260), give up decidedly the
application to the Holy Spirit and the Rapture. They say that this interpretation is without support in the
rest of the N.T.; that it is nowhere said that the Holy Spirit will leave the world at the Rapture; and that
the interpretation is quite modern: which is extremely good and agreeably surprising, coming from
today’s leaders in the new school.
(b) If the Holy Spirit was in Paul’s mind why did he need to hesitate mentioning the subject? Clearly he
does not want to put down on paper what he thought. Instead, he reminds them that when in their midst
he “often told them,” or “used to tell them” (v. 5) about it. But with pen in hand he holds back. Why?
(c) The oldest and best interpretation is that Paul hesitated to set down in words what he meant, because
he had in mind the Roman Empire. The impersonal influence was the magnificent system of law and
justice throughout the Roman world; this held lawlessness and the Man of Lawlessness in check. Then
the line of emperors, in spite of wicked individuals, had the same influence. Plummer and Zahn should be
seen here.
But, hints the Apostle, both will be swept away, and then the Antichrist shall appear. If modern
missionaries, because of national self-esteem, must be careful in referring to the Powers in whose
domains they work, it was no less so in the time of the Apostles. Peter speaks of Babylon (1st Epistle
5:13) using a common evasive term for the city of Rome, whence he was writing. 230 John in the
Apocalypse prophesies the destruction of the city of Rome, but uses the term Babylon” (17–18). Again in
17 he prophesies the downfall of the empire, but under symbolic language, referring to her as the Sixth or
reigning head of the world-power, in its age-long persecution of the people of God. Five heads had
fallen--Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Graco-Macedonia; Rome, the Sixth, then-standing,
would also fall; a seventh would come and last for a while; then disappear. All is enigmatical (vv. 8-11).
The same evasiveness is found in Josephus, a contemporary of John’s. Dr. Montgomery, in his volume on
Daniel in ICC, quotes Josephus’ interpretation of the Fourth Kingdom in Daniel 2 as Rome, but thought it
not proper to relate the meaning of the Stone, “doubtless fearing offence to Rome, ib. and 10, 4. Policy
thus kept him from expounding the book more fully, to our loss” (p. 105).
In his Apostolic School (pp. 221-2) C. D. Maitland quotes Chrysostom’s view of the hinderer, and I think
that it is about decisive. Perhaps most scholars and theologians follow him:
But speaking here of the Roman Empire, he does so, and with good reason, enigmatically and obscurely.
For he had no wish to provoke needless hostility, or to incur superfluous risk. And, had he said that the
Roman Empire would soon be overturned, they would presently have dispatched him as a pestilent
229 Gentiles is a word for birth, not removal.

In their commentaries on Romans both Godet and Zahn quote the words of Hilgenfeld’s about Peter’s
230
death in Rome: “To be a good Protestant one need not combat this tradition.”
Page: 184
fellow, and with him all the faithful, as persons living and fighting for, that end. Therefore he does not
say that this will happen, or that it will happen soon, although he says what amounts to the same thing.
It is hastily assumed that the Empire has passed away, without Antichrist’s arrival.231 In one way it did, in
1806, as Lord Bryce points out in his Holy Roman Empire; but Roman law and Roman justice are still a
barrier, and the Emperors live on in the Papacy; on which there are some acute remarks in Dean
Inge’s Protestantism. And one may quote part of the stately paragraph from Thomas Hobbes, included by
Mr. Logan Pearsall Smith in his Treasury of English Prose (p. 60): “And if a man consider the origin of
this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the
deceased Roman Empire sitting crowned on the grave thereof.” See Findlay here, CB, pp. 148-9.
An additional reason why pre-tribs misunderstand 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, is that they have a theory that
the Roman Empire is to be revived from the Abyss at the End-time. This is incorrect. Both Paul and John,
following Daniel (vii.), teach that it was to be swept away; the Little Horn, which is seen in Rev. 13 rises
on the fall of the Fourth beast. In Revelation 17 Rome is the Sixth head of the world-power, and falls. A
seventh--a Charlemagne, a Napoleon, or, as Alford suggests, the modern European States system--rises
and falls. Then there is an eighth, which is one of the previous five that had fallen before Rome (Rev.
17:8-11). John meant the Greco-Macedonian head, with Antiochus as its representative king; for in
Revelation 13, the Antichrist there--the First Wildbeast--whilst embodying features of Daniel’s other
beasts, was in general appearance like a leopard (v. 2), the animal that signified the Greco-Macedonian
kingdom in the Book of Daniel (7:6). To believers in a real inspiration of the Apocalypse, Zahn’s
explanation (INT 3, pp. 440-47) of the Seven Heads of the Beast of chapters 13 and 17, is one of the most
brilliant solutions in this brilliant age of exegesis. Whether, as Hofmann suggests, Antiochus, the
Antichrist of the O.T., will, in fact, redivivus (bring back to life), be the Antichrist of the End, is better
left unanswered. Of course there will be connectio ns between the Greco-Macedonian kingdom of the
End-time, and the dying Roman empire. I add that both B. W. Newton (Prospects of the Ten Kingdoms,
7), and Sir R. Anderson (Coming Prince, 15), saw that Antichrist comes out of the Grecian part of the
Roman Empire. Both chapters are well worth reading. Newton anticipated Zahn on some points, but
adopted the erroneous view that the heads represented seven forms of government, when the key was at
his fingertips.
Dr. W. W. White of New York thought that the difference between the powers of Daniel 2 and 7 was that
the former gave them as man saw them; the latter as seen by God. There is truth in this; but the better
view was expressed by Adolph Saphir at a Mildmay Conference; the former chapter gives the powers
seen as exercising power delegated by God; hence there is no mention of the Antichristian revolt. The
latter gives the powers seen as persecuting the Kingdom of God, and we get a fifth power, the Little
Horn, arising on the ruins of the fourth. Yet it is one of the previous ones, redivivus.
There one must stop; the subject was only referred to because of the pre-trib belief that the Roman
Empire is not referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, and that that Empire is to be Antichrist’s kingdom in
the End-time. On the contrary Paul, in spite of wicked individuals among the emperors, took a highly
favorable view of Rome; again and again he enjoyed its protection. Romans 8:1-7 is typical. Zahn should
be consulted by all means here.
231 There are excellent remarks on this by Newman in his Sermons on Antichrist, in Tracts for the Times.
Page: 185
It should be added that any solution of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 must be conjectural; the best of the
conjectures is the one that comes down from Tertullian and Chrysostom, and is set forth above.
‘I remember reading once in a pre-trib magazine several years ago that two pre-tribs had been in
Mussolini’s presence and discussed’ the Roman Empire with him. He was greatly interested in their
affirmation that the N.T. taught the revival of that Empire.
One wonders how much this erroneous opinion has influenced European history in the past few years?
(k) It is strongly objected by pre-tribs that our view proceeds upon a confusion of two principles at the
End-time; the Gospel of grace going forth to the Nations, and a special ministry to the covenant People in
Palestine.
Sir R. Anderson, to prove the absolute necessity of a Coming of our Lord prior to the Seventieth Week of
Daniel, uses this argument in his Forgotten Truths: “For just as we aver that ‘God cannot lie,’ we may
assert that He cannot act at the same time upon two wholly different principle s” (p. 44).
A state of transition is a total impossibility for the logical dispensationalist; for him and his rigid system
the Book of Acts is a serious problem, for it shows in the clearest manner the existence, side by side, at
the same time, of the very state of affairs that Sir R. Anderson tells us is as impossible as that God should
lie. The Apostolic Church continued to observe the cultus of the Temple in Jerusalem, joining in its
prayers and ritual for a generation after the Cross, and keeping all the commandments of the Law,
blameless. At exactly the same time Paul and his companions were spreading what the Germans call the
“law-free Gospel” among the nations, and forming Churches with no obligation to keep the Law and
cultus of Israel. And with it all God was well pleased.232
And the apostle Paul, when he visited Jerusalem; far from imposing his law-free gospel and worship on
the Mother Church at Jerusalem, gladly submitted to all the ritual required of him (Acts 21:20-40). He
was never more like a true servant and missionary of Christ than when he became a Jew to the Jews, to
see if by some means he might gain some. Many pre-trib teachers, with their rigid dispensational
theories, have even criticized the Apostle for his conduct in Acts 21 233 They know not whereof they
speak. The Jewish Church had been instructed beforehand by the Savior of Israel how it should behave
whilst the Temple stood. In one of the profoundest parables and incidents of our Lord’s ministry, there
was great light for the Apostles, and some for separatists as well, on how to conduct themselves toward
religious systems that have a form of godliness, whilst denying its power; at Matthew 17:24-27 we read:-
-
When they reached Capharnahum, the collectors of the temple-tax came and asked Peter, “Does your
teacher not pay the temple-tax?” He said “Yes.” But when he went indoors Jesus spoke first; “Tell me,
Simon,” he said, “from whom do earthly kings collect customs or taxes? Is it from their own people or
This whole question of an overlapping of dispensations will be discussed in a projected volume on

232
Matthew 24 and 25.

233 So Scofield, Correspondence Course, 2, part 5, p. 50.
Page: 186
from aliens?” “From aliens,” he said. Then Jesus said to him, “So their own people are exempt. However,
not to give any offence to them, go to the sea, throw a hook in, and take the first fish you bring up. Open
its mouth and you will find a five-shilling piece; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself,”
(Moffatt’s version).
No one has illuminated the incident so happily as Zahn in his INT p. 552).
The twelve apostles are never to forget their relation to the people of the twelve tribes (Matt. 19:28, cf.
10:23), and the disciples in general are to follow Jesus’ example, and from pure love are to cherish their
relation to Israel. This we learn from the profound narrative preserved in 17:24-27 (peculiar to Matthew).
Though fundamentally separated from the Jewish cultus, and though freed by sonship of the “great
King,” whose dwelling is not in Jerusalem but in heaven (cf. v. 34 ff.), from every obligation to observe
the ceremonial law, as long as the temple stands they are still to pay the temple tax, i.e., to fulfill the
cultus duties incumbent upon an Israelite, as Jesus had done (Matt. 3:15; 5:17-20, 23 ff., 23:3, 23). The
words, “in order that we may not offend them,” contain the entire program of the politics of the Israelitish
Church of Jesus before the year 70. Jesus intended to make the distinction between the Jewish people as
represented officially in the high priests and rabbis, further in the Pharisees who were beyond all hope of
improvement, and the blind multitude that followed them, on the one hand (Matt. 15:12-14), and the
house of Israel, the people of the twelve tribes, on the other, many of whom had erred but could be
brought back to the fold (Matt. 10:6; 15:24). The former may be offended if they will (15:12); no one is
to place a stumbling-block in the way of the others which can keep them from the truth (17:27, cf. 11:6).
This light will save us from criticizing the Apostles and the Elders of the Jerusalem Church, and from
forgetting that there was a whole generation when God was acting “at the same time upon two wholly
different principles:” a whole generation of transition. It will save us from asserting that there may not be
another stage of transition in the End-time, when, at the same time as the Gospel spreads grandly among
all nations, God works upon His ancient people in Jerusalem, through Two Witnesses in the spirit and
power of Elijah (Rev. 6:2; 7:9-17; 11 Cf. Matt. 24:14-15; 28:18-20). If two “wholly different principles”
cannot be in vogue at the same time, the fact was as little known to the writer of the Apocalypse as it was
to the authors of Matthew and Acts, and to our Lord.
(l) Pre-nibs all contend that there is deep significance in the use of titles in the Scripture references to the
Lord’s Coming; we confuse things by applying the Coming of the Son of Man to the Church; that being
the title for the Lord’s relation to Israel, the earthly people.
All pre-tribs affirm these things; Sir R. Anderson with apparently devastating force. In his Unfulfilled
Prophecy (p. 20) he waxes tragic over applying the prophecies concerning the Coming of the Son of
Man in the Gospels, to the Coming of the Lord in the Epistles; all because we do not study the titles. If
we do this we shall not hesitate to place the Coming of the Lord before the times of Antichrist, and the
Coming of the Son of Man after them. For my part I cannot see the logical sequence at all; looking at
things simply from the point of view of the titles I cannot deduce a “post” or a “pre” millennial Advent,
or a “pre” or a “post”-tribulation Advent.
Does this esoteric knowledge of the significance of titles extend to the death of the Son of Man and
the death of the Lord? Must we believe that the science of titles obliges us to place the one before, the
other after, the sixty-ninth Week of Daniel? Is the death of the Son of Man for “the earthly people” and
Page: 187
none beside? Anyone with an ingenious mind, and well skilled in “rightly divid ing the word of truth,”
could, on these curious presuppositions, establish exactly the same “flat and flagrant opposition” between
the death of the Son of Man, and the death of the Lord, and arrive at startling conclusions concerning the
number of times that our Lord died in the days of His flesh--to judge from the variety of titles and
relationships used in the N.T. in reference to the death on the Cross. Does the reader suggest that this is
irreverent? It is merely logical and intended to refute something that approaches irreverence--the
importing into the N.T. of a number of “second” Advents that are required to save a nineteenth-century
innovation.
Then in his Forgotten Truths (p. 78) Sir R. Anderson waxes triumphant over his discovery that the
title Son of Man “is never once used in the Epistles: never once used in Scripture in relation to the Church
of God or the people of this dispensation.” I submit, therefore, that, if this is so, if the Church has no
relation to the death of the Son of Man, she is still in her sins; also that the Jewish Remnant, or “the
earthly people,” will fulfill the scripture about “eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of
Man,” (John 6:53).
Secondly, Sir R. Anderson’s argument about the silence of the Epistles on the title proves too much; for
if, as he claims, it is always a title in Scripture for the Lord’s relation to “the earthly people,” then it
should have been used in the Epistles whenever the Apostles wrote of Israel, the Jews, or the earthly
people. But they did no such thing; they wrote scores of times of “the earthly people,” and never used the
title “Son of Man.” Sir R. Anderson, therefore, has no light to give us; what he affirms dogmatically as an
acute discovery, is simply an idle assumption, totally incapable of proof. More than that, it is quite
wrong.
Over against his astonishing assertion that that title “is never used in Scripture save in relation to His
earthly people” (Unfulfilled Prophecy, p. 19), I set the remarkable view of Theodore Zahn, an exegete
whose work inspires the greatest confidence in the highest circles. It is taken from his study of the title
“Son of Man” in his illuminating work Grundriss der Neutestamentlichen Theologie, published in 1928,
but representing lectures given in his prime: “This name constitutes just as much a contrast to the
conception ‘King of Israel’ as to that of ‘Son of God’ (John 1:49). Never did Jesus call Himself the ‘Son
of Man’ where His special calling and relation towards Israel is in question, but very often where He
speaks of His significance for the whole of mankind (John 3:13-16; 12:23, 32, Matt. 13:37 ff.); so also
regularly where He speaks of His Return (Matt. 16:28; 24:27, 30, 37; 25:31); because His significance for
the whole of mankind will be clearly revealed at the End of the days” (p. 21).
To overthrow Sir R. Anderson’s assertion it was only necessary to give one instance where “Son of Man”
is used of Christians; I have done that, giving John 6:53. One may add 6:27 and 13:31-32--this last in the
Upper Room discourses. But Zahn’s view will repay study, for it is the true one.
The reason why the Lord used the title “Son of Man” so frequently in the Gospels, and the Apostles
avoided it so completely in the Epistles, is one of the many dispensational secrets hidden from
dispensationalists; their acceptance of fables like the missionary miracles of the Jewish Remnant in the
days of Antichrist, the Secret Rapture, and the Secret Advent, necessitates their rejecting or ignoring the
beautiful light that truly “dispensational” scriptures like the Parable of the Tares, of the Temple Tax, of
the Marriage of the King’s Son, of the Closed Door (Luke 1325-28), and the Great Missionary
Commission throw on the counsels of God.
Page: 188
What pre-tribs have missed on the title “Son of Man,” modern scholarship has explained to us, clearly
and decisively. What I am about to say is abridged largely from another of the great works of theology of
the past generation--Dalman’s The Words of Jesus. It is perhaps to this great Talmudic scholar’s work
that we principally owe the solution of this problem, as of some others as well.
(i) The title “Son of Man” had associations with the days of our Lord’s earthly life that were no longer
true of the exalted and glorified Lord. It testified of His frailty as a member--though sinless member--of
the human race.
(ii) Related to the foregoing is the additional point that our Lord chose the title because He “conceived
himself as fulfilling the róle of the Suffering Servant depicted in Isaiah 53. But the via dolorosa was the
gateway to glory. The Suffering Servant would go to the Father, but return again in glory on the clouds of
heaven (Matt. 16:27 and 24:30). This unique and profoundly original conception is expressed by the title
‘Son of Man.’” (Canon Box on Matthew, pp. 26-7.)
Zahn makes the further suggestion that Matthew had the same prophecy in view in his selection of
material:
The absence of all display which characterized this work (of ministering to the suffering), as well as the
fact that Jesus refrained from all violence in the conflict with His enemies, led Matthew to bring forward
again from Second Isaiah, as he had done in 8:17, the picture of the Servant of Yahweh, who works with
perfect quietness, and yet through the power of the Spirit wins victory for all peoples, as a prophecy
fulfilled and to be fulfilled in Jesus (12:15-20. INT, ii. p. 547.
(iii) The Lord used the title “Son of Man” to avoid the use of the title Messiah or King, which would have
caused Him very grave difficulty. “Properly speaking,” says Dalman, “the name Messiah denoted the
Lord of the Messianic Age in His capacity as Ruler; in reality it was applicable to the person so
predestinated only when His enthronement had taken place,” (p. 265).
After the Ascension the Apostles glory in telling Israel that Jesus is exalted to God’s throne to be both
Lord and Messiah. All power is His; it was now neither necessary nor fitting to apply to Him a title--“Son
of Man”--with equivocal associations from the days of His weakness.
Daman continues his study thus:--
The Church was quite justified in refusing, on its part, to give currency to the title; for in the meantime
the “Son of Man” had been set upon the throne of God, and was, in fact, no longer merely a man, but a
ruler over heaven and earth, “the Lord,” as Paul in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Teaching of
The Apostles in its apocalyptic statement, rightly designate Him who comes with the clouds of heaven (p.
266).
(iv) One should know better than to try and refute Sir R. Anderson and William Kelly by appealing to the
wisdom of the Church Fathers, for, like most millenarians, they were extremely severe on those men,
whose problems and difficulties they were totally unable to appreciate. But I will cite the Fathers, or
rather, give Dalman’s citation of them, confident that in this case their attitude will be found impressive,
Page: 189
if not decisive, even by dispensationalists. For it explains why the use of the title “Son of Man” never
obtained a footing in Church usage; it may very well have been that Paul felt the same thing.
Dahnan gives a long list of Church Fathers who, with one consent saw in the title “Son of Man” a
reference to the human side in the descent of Jesus; and Dalman adds: “It could not be understood by
Greeks otherwise than as referring to one who desires to be known as son of a man. A name of this sort
for Jesus might, in the Greek-speaking Church, be regarded from a dogmatic standpoint; but it was not
adapted for practical use” (p. 253).
That was the true reason for the non-use of the title “Son of Man” in the pagan world. And when
dispensationalists and purists are flogging the Church Fathers of the early centuries for their blindness
and perversity in interpreting the Scriptures, let them at least count it to them for righteousness that they
refrained from using the title “Son of Man” so as to avoid even the appearance of believing that our Lord
was of purely human origin. There is every reason for believing that they derived this feeling from the
example of the Apostles in their correspondence and intercourse with their Churches.
In his important recent commentary in ICC on John, Archbishop Bernard, in a full study of the Lord’s use
of the title “Son of man,” mentions some interesting points. He says that the title, “properly understood,
includes all that ‘Christ’ connotes; but, unlike the title ‘the Messiah,’ it does not suggest Jewish
particularism” (131). “For Him it connoted all that ‘ Messiah ‘ meant, and more, for it did not narrow His
mission to men of one race only. It represented Him as the future Judge of men, and as their present
deliverer, whose Kingdom must be established through suffering, and whose gift of life was only to
become available through death” (133). He also mentions why the Church Fathers probably avoided it--
“they dreaded the suggestion of human fatherhood in the case of Jesus.”
I submit, therefore, that these considerations are quite decisive in overthrowing the pre-trib contention
that “Son of Man” is the Lord’s title in His relation to “the earthly people;” and that the Parousia of the
Son of Man is one thing, and the Lord’s Parousia is something totally different, taking place several
years, and perhaps generations, before the former. If we use our imagination a little, and picture the scene
when Peter, James, John and Andrew (Mark 13:3) rejoined their colleagues on descending from the
Mount of Olives, where they had heard the prophecy of the End, the ensuing conversation about what
they had heard would not have contained one single mention of the expression “Son of Man.” Peter
would tell of what the Lord had said; the Lord had told them of the intervening events; the Lord had then
told them of the two decisive signs (Matt. 24:14, 15), and had then gone on to describe His--
the Lord’s Parousia: that it would follow the desecration of the Temple by the last Adversary, the world-
wide proclamation of the Gospel, and the final affliction of the Elect: that the Lord’s Parousia would not
be secret, but in manifest glory, for all should see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven; that then the
Lord should send His angels to gather the elect saints from one horizon to the other. For the best of
reasons the Lord spoke of the Parousia of the “Son of Man;” for the best of reasons the Apostles spoke
then, and wrote later, of the Parousia of the Lord, for they are one and the same thing. Detailed proof of
this I leave till the next section. I there show that the two comings are wonderfully harmonious.
(m) There is contradiction between the sequence of events in Matthew 24:4-31 and 1 Thessalonians
4:14-18 and other Scriptures that deal with “the Church’s hope,” and in the attitude of mind enjoined by
the Lord in His discourse, and by Paul in his Epistles. If however, we apply them to two distinct comings-
-one before, and one after, the coming of Antichrist--they harmonize.
Page: 190
This objection is pressed again and again by Sir R. Anderson, with incredible, overwhelming vigor: one
almost said, violence. In the Preface to the second edition of his Unfulfilled Prophecy he says that the two
Comings are “hopelessly inconsistent, and the attempt to harmonize them is thoroughly Jesuitical,” (p. 8).
Later in the same volume we read: “The Apostle’s words are in flat and flagrant opposition to the Lord’s
explicit teaching,” (p. 20). Again, “If then these several Scriptures relate to the same event, we must
jettison either the First Gospel or the Pauline Epistles, for the attempt to reconcile them is hopeless,” (p.
20).
These things are not said by a Wellhausen, a Hamack, or a Kirsopp Lake, but by a Fundamentalist
advocate with a belief in verbal inspiration. The writer who rent the Church in twain to save the Mystical
Body of Christ from the tribulation of the Last Days, now threatens us with a N.T. ripped in two in the
interests of the same delectable theory.
In his Unfulfilled Prophecy Sir R. Anderson goes on to speak of those who, following the Lord’s
warnings to the Apostles against expecting Him secretly, or before the Great Tribulation, look for Him at
its close; he says: “This teaching absolutely kills the hope” (p. 22). Elsewhere he remarks: “It is
extraordinary that any intelligent reader should confound that event with the Coming revealed in the
Epistles” (p. 18). Again: “The suggestion is almost profane that He, who is the Truth, would bid us live in
‘constant expectation of His return,’234 if the dread events foretold in Matthew 24 must precede His
Coming” (p. 9). In his Forgotten Truths, speaking of the expression in the Apocalypse, “I come
quickly,”235 and the same Lord’s teaching in Matthew 24, Sir R. Anderson says: “(the mystery) becomes
overwhelming when we mark the care with which He warned His Jewish disciples in relation to His
returning as Son of Man, that he would not come quickly (p. 135, italics his). Very appropriately Sir R.
Anderson goes on to say, and he repeats it again and again in his works on prophecy, that “In His
234It is curious and disagreeable how Sir R. Anderson will take up with enthusiasm phrases about the
Second Coming used by men whose view of the Advent he despises, and who in turn would declare his
elaborate scheme of the End “a product of human subtlety.” Bengel’s phrase “the present hope of the
Church,” and Alford’s “in constant expectation of His return” are used again and again to pour criticism and
ridicule upon the very interpretation of Matthew 24: and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 that both Bengel and Alford
espoused. They were among the simpletons--there are hundreds more of such expositors --who “confused”
the two Comings, and thought that the Lord and Paul were in agreement. Yet their phrases are now used
against themselves.
235Of all people Sir R. Anderson is estopped from applying this expression to his pre-Seventieth Week
Advent, for in his Coming Prince he refers the whole Apocalypse dispensationally to the period after the
Rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. See pp. 171-72 (note), and p. 180, where the Seven Churches are referred
to “the transitional period following the close of the Christian dispensation.” Incontestably, therefore, the “I
come quickly” relates to the only Advent known to the author of the Apocalypse, namely: that of the
Redeemer in 1:6-7, that of the “Coming One” at the Last Trump (11:17, where ho erchomenos is for the first
time omitted: He here comes), and that of the Bridegroom and Field Marshal in 19:6-11. The scenes in 14 are
mostly results of the Coming in glory. This glorious Coming is the same as that in Matthew 24:27-30; but in
the Apocalypse the Lord is speaking almost two generations after the time in Matthew 24:3. Jerusalem,
whose fall, in the prophetic perspective, is linked with the Parousia, had fallen twenty-five years previously.
How fitting, therefore, to say, “I come quickly!”
Page: 191
teaching about His Coming as Son of Man, He warns His earthly people236 to look not for His coming,
but for ‘things that must come to pass’ before His Coming.”237
These are said against fellow- millenarians; of the growing and influential school of non-millenarians--
that is, those who reject all idea of a millennium at all--the author says that their idea of God’s relation to
the world, is that of “a pandemonium and a bonfire” at the end of it. And there are other things just as
extreme and just as inconsiderate. Let it be said, in passing, that people whose scheme of the End
involves a triumph of Antichrist after the Glorious Appearing of Titus 2:13, and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18,
ought to be chary of ridicule, and of talk about a pandemonium; the description that most theorists give of
Antichrist’s inter-regnum is not vitally different. For the world at least the Parousia of the Lord, on pre-
trib presuppositions, appears to be quite a successful calamity. See Life in the Future by H. R. King.
To a dispensationalist these trumpet blasts of Sir R. Anderson’s are like the “Marseillaise” to a Poilu;
they reveal the subtleties that require a growing number of Prophetic-magazine editors and lecturers, and
new editions of the Bible to safeguard either it or the new views, or both, and give the Apocalyptic public
what it wants for its reveries; they leave us, however, thinking of ourselves--and of Sir R. Anderson. We
feel as transmogrified as an Irish peasant who has been caught exercising the right of private judgment.
Mr. Winston Churchill tells us that the hero of the Marne, when under criticism, would pat himself on the
shoulder and say, “poor Joffre;” but we feel worse than that: we are of all men the most miserable; to
think that we by our contumacy, our wicked Jesuitism, our dull and prosaic orthodoxy, our simple wrong-
headedness, should be guilty of trying to make Paul and our Lord seem to agree, and of putting ourselves
and the whole New Testament to an open shame in doing it!
But on reflection the suspicion comes over one that all is not right; one seems to remember that in
defending truths of the central Christian tradition our dispensationalist mentor was accustomed to write
with unusual perception of truth, and a style of some distinction; with rare logical force in the
presentation of it, and not without calmness. His Human Destiny, in a more theological age, would have
received wider recognition from the theologians and the schools. It was hailed by Spurgeon238 as “the
236Note the use of this expression; it is vital to the whole campaign of Kelly, Anderson, and Gaebelein, to set
Paul against Christ the Lord. The hearers of the Parousia Sermon in Matthew 24–25 are made out to be “the
earthly people;” but the close of chapter 23 shows that our Lord had already taken farewell of them; and
24:3 says that “His disciples came unto him privately;” Mark. 13:3, says that an inner circle of the disciples--
Peter and James and John and Andrew--accompanied Him. Artifices such as that let one prove anything in
the interest of prophetic theories.
237Forgotten Truths, p. 79. We see, therefore, that none other than the Lord Himself “killed the hope” for the
very founders of His Church!
238When Sir R. (then Dr.) Anderson was introduced to Spurgeon by a common friend, the last mentioned
said to the great preacher: “Perhaps you have read some of Dr. Anderson’s books.” Mistaking his man,
Spurgeon said “Yes,” rather gruffly, and half turned away. Sir Robert, seeing there was something wrong,
asked which of his books he had read. “What is Man?” (by another Dr. Anderson). “I have written a work to
refute one of its principal errors,” said Sir Robert. “What is it called?” came the reply, and when Sir Robert
said, Human Destiny, the great preacher said: “Oh, I gave a dozen copies of that book last week to my
students.”
Page: 192
best book on the subject that he had ever seen,” and Bishop Handley Moule recommended it. It was
indeed a layman’s masterpiece on a difficult subject.
But of Forgotten Truths we are provoked to say: quantum mutates ab illo! So also of Unfulfilled
Prophecy. All has gone to pieces--reasoning, calmness, and the style itself--the author is giving us a lot of
flimsy exegesis in support of a set of innovations on the faith: wasting his acuteness on new-fangled
conceits of “dispensational truth.” He is strained and unhappy; the voice is less kindly; our feeling grows,
and we regret it, that we are confronted by an able lawyer with a bad case: that a trusted and admired
teacher, to whom we owe much, is pressing on us a set of fantastic ideas, and using extravagant language,
because reasoned proof is lacking.
It is not the New Testament that is in danger when we identify the Coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18,
and the Coming in Matthew 24:27-31, but only the pretentious prophetic charts, books, and programs of
men whose self-appointed role only begins, when they first make dark, what is clear: complicated, what
is simplicity itself; and contradictory, what is beautifully harmonious.
I suggest that the following table will convince the average reader that Paul and our Lord need no
reconciling, because they never were at variance.
I must acknowledge my indebtedness in preparing it to a note in Dr. Zahn’s Section on Thessalonians in

his INT, vol. 1, pp. 223-4; indeed, the latter inspired it, though I have put it in tabular form, and added
several points. He had limited the comparison to Thessalonians and the discourse of Matthew 24, etc. I
have brought in related points from other parts of the N.T. to make the comparison complete.
--Chart: The Second Coming Of Our Lord In The Gospels And Epistles
The Gospels The Epistles
The Coming of The Son of Man The Coming and Day of Christ
(= the Messiah, our Lord Jesus) (= the Messiah, our Lord Jesus)
Matthew 24-25 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:10
Mark 13 2 Thessalonians 1-2
Luke 12:35-48 2 Corinthians 15:23-54
Luke 17:30-37 James 5:7-8
Luke 21:7-38 (Cf. Rev. 1:7; 11:17; 14; 19:6-11
1. Preceded By: 1. Preceded By:
1. Mystery of lawlessness;
1. Abounding Iniquity;
Matt. 24:12, 5, 24 restraint removed; man of 2 Thess. 2:6-8 (R.V.)
false Christs
lawlessness
2. Delusion for protection of
2. Delusion for non-elect Matt. 24:11, 24 2 Thess. 2:10-11
the gospel
Page: 193
3. Great signs and wonders Matt. 24:24 3. Signs and Lying wonders 2 Thess. 2:9-10
4. The Antichrist in the 4. Man of Sin in the Temple 2 Thess. 2:4
Matt. 24:15
Temple
5. Declension Matt. 24:22,24 5. Apostasy 2 Thess. 2:3
6. Tribulation for the Elect 6. Tribulation for the
Matt. 24:21-22 2 Thess. 1:4-7
up to the Revelation Church up to the Revelation
7. Perilous times: creation 2 Tim. 3:1; Rom 8:20-
7.”Woes of Messiah” Matt. 24:6-12
groaning and travailing 23
8. Saying ”peace and 1 Thess. 5:3
8. False Security Matt. 24:37-51
safety”
9. Date incalculable 1 Thess. 5:1-2 (Acts
9. Date incalculable Matt. 24:36,42; 25:23
1:7)
10. Danger of sleep 1 Thess. 5:6; Rom.
10. Danger of Sleep Matt. 25:5
13:11-12
11. Loins girded to meet 11. Loins girded to meet
Luke 12:35-36,40 1 Pet. 1:13
Son of Man Jesus Christ
12. Travail Matt. 24:8 (R.V.) 12. Travail 1 Thess. 5:3
1. Accompanied By: 1. Accompanied By:
1. The”Parousia” in 1. The ”Parousia” in 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Thess.

Matt. 24:27-31,39
triumph triumph 4:14-18
Matt. 24:42;
2. The Lord’s Coming
2 Thess. 2:1,8; 1 Thess.
2. The Lord’s Coming
Luke 12:36-37=v. 40. 4:15
The Returning Lord
Coming of Son of Man
1 Cor. 1:7; 2 Thess.
3. The Revelation Luke 17:30 3. The Revelation 1:7; Rom. 8:18-19; 1
Pet 1:7,13; 5:13
4. The Coming of the Matt. 25:1:13; Luke 4. The Bride presented to Eph. 5:27; Rev. 19:7-9;
Bridgroom 12:36 her Head 2 Cor. 11:2
2 Thess. 2:8; 1Tim
5. The Appearing of the
Matt. 24:30 5. The Appearing 6:14; 2 Tim 4:1,8;
Sign
Titus 2:13
1 Cor. 1:8; Phil. 1:6,10;
6. The Day Luke 17:30 6. The Day 2 Cor. 1:14; Rom.
13:11-12
Luke 17:31; 21:34; Matt. 2 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim.
7. That Day 7. That Day
7:22; 24:36 1:12,18; 4:8
Page: 194
1 Cor. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:7;

Matt. 24:6,13-14;
8. The End 8. The End Heb. 3:6,14; 6:11; Rev
28:20;13:39-40,49
2:26
9. Clouds: 1 Thess. 4:17 Cf. Rev.
1:7
9. Clouds of heaven, Matt. 13:30; 36:64
In fire;
1 Cor. 3:13,15
fire, furnace of fire Matt 13:40,42,50
In flaming Fire
2 Thess. 1:8
10. Angels Matt. 24:31; Mark 8:38 10. Angels of his power 2 Thess 1:7 (R.V.)
11. Power Matt.34:30; Luke 21:27 11. Power 2 Thess. 1:9 2 Pet 1:16
12. Great Glory Matt. 24:30 12. Great Glory 2 Thess. 1:9
13. Great Sound Matt. 24:31 13. With a shout 1 Thess. 4:16
1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor.
14. The Last Trump Matt. 24:31 14. Last Trump
15:52; Rev. 11:15
15. Believers who survive Rev. 20:42; 1 Thess.
15. Believers who survive Matt. 16:28
4:15
16. Belivers who die Matt. 16:28 16. Believers who die 1 Thess. 4:14
1 Thess 4:17
17. Rapture of the Elect, Matt. 24:31,40-41 17. Rapture of the Saints,
2 Thess 4:17
the saved scattered Luke 17:34-36 the saved scattered over
2 Thess 2:1
over the world Matt. 13:30; Kark 13:27 the world
Rev. 14:14-16
Matt. 25:6; Luke 31:36; 18. Going to meet Him 1 Thess. 4:17
18. Going out to meet Him
12:35
19. Resurrection of just, 19. Resurrection of the 1 Cor. 15:23, 54; Rom
Luke 14:14-15; John
elect, children of saints, of these that are 11:15; 1 Thess. 4:14
6:39-54; Luke 20:35
resurrection Christ’s
20. Transfiguration of the 20. Transfiguration of 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Cor.
Matt. 13:43; (Dan. 12:3)
righteous believers 15:51-53
21. Release from trial Luke 21:28 21. Rest from tribulation 2 Thess. 1:7
22. Surprise for most Luke 21:34-35 22. Surprise for most 1 Thess. 5:3
23. Take heed! Luke 21:34 23. Sleep Not! 1 Thess 5:6
Readiness necessary Matt. 24:44 Readiness necessary 1 Thess 5:6
Page: 195
Matt. 24:49 24. They that be drunken 1 Thess. 5:7

24.With the drunken; To be
drunken
Luke 12:45
Matt. 8:11; 21:43; 22:10; 25. Fulness of Gentiles Rom. 11:25-26
25. Fulness of Gentiles 24:14; 28:19; Luke
13:25-30 Cf. Rev. 5:9-10; 7:9-17
26. Elect stand fast amid 26. Elect (v.13) stand fast
Matt. 24:24 2 Thess 2:9-15
delusions amid delusions
27. Days shortened Matt. 24:22 27. The time shortened 1 Cor. 7:29
28. Marriage a care Matt. 24:19 28. Marriage a care 1 Cor. 7:28-32
29. Let us watch! 1 Thess. 5:6
29. Watch Ye! Luke 21:36
Let us be sober! 1 Thess. 5:8
Watch therefore! Matt. 24:42; 25:13
Be watchful! Rev. 3:2-3
Found watching Luke 12:37
Found watching Rev. 16:15
30. Suddenness, as a thief Rev. 16:15; 1 Thess.
30. Suddenness, as a thief Luke 12:39; Matt. 24:43
5:4
31. Looking for the Lord
31. Looking for the Savior,
Luke 12:36 (R.V.) & 40 Phil 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:7
the Lord
(Son of Man)
32. No escape for careless Luke 21:36 32. No escape for careless 1 Thess. 5:3
33. Sudden destruction Matt. 24:39 33. Sudden destruction 1 Thess. 5:3
34. Universal judgment Luke 17:37; Matt. 25:31 34. Upon every soul of man Rom. 2:8-9, 16
1. Followed By: 1. Followed By:
1. Judgment of offenses Matt. 13:40-42 1. Judgment on Antichrist 2 Thess. 2:8

2 Thess. 1:5-10; Rom.
2. The Judgment of Matt. 13:40-42; 25:14-
2. Judgment of Christendom 2:6-16; 2 Tim 4:1; 1
Christendom 30; Luke 12:35-48
Cor. 4:5;
3. Reward for saints 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 2 Tim.
Luke 14:14; Matt. 16:27;
3. Reward for the disciples 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev.
25:19
11:18; 22
4. Participation in the Matt. 19:28; Luke 13:29; 1 Cor. 4:8; 6:2; 2

4. Sharing in the kingdom
Kingdom 12:32 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:12
1 Cor. 15:25 (“He must
Matt. 25:31; Luke 19:15;
5. Kingly Rule of Christ 5. Reign of Christ reign.”)
21:31; Matt. 29:28
Page: 196
2 Tim. 4:1
Rom. 11:26-27; Rev.
6. Conversion of Israel Matt. 23:39 6. Conversion of Israel
1:7 (Darby’s version).
7. The Marriage Feast Rev. 19:7
Matt. 22:2 25:10; 8:11;
7. The Marriage Feast
Luke 12:36,40
Cf. Eph. 5:32
(See Appendix IV)
XVI. Conclusion
In the brilliant debates that took place in England a generation ago on the subject of Tariff Reform, Mr.
Asquith related an amusing story from his student days at Balliol, which even the orthodox can enjoy. An
Oxford master observed that there were three lessons to be learned from the difference between the two
genealogies of our Lord as related by Matthew and Luke. Where they were in agreement, it was meant to
be a confirmation of our faith; where they were in open contradiction, it was meant to be a test of our
faith; and where they were only seemingly at variance it was meant to be a test of our ingenuity in
reconciling them. And what tests of our faith, what tests of our ingenuity there are in considering the
mass of conflicting interpretations among pre-tribs about our Lord’s Return!
There is great harmony in proclaiming that the Rapture of the saints must and shall precede the revelation
of Antichrist: but there is a perfect medley of voices when one seeks the grounds for this conclusion--for
the conclusion is first drawn, and then its advocates cast about for proof-texts and arguments. In days
when I was a convinced advocate of the theories examined in this volume, I believed that the leaders
differed among themselves on only one or two texts of Scripture; but, when I began to investigate, I
found that they were all hopelessly at sixes and sevens on scores of texts or points that it was vital for
them to be agreed upon. Their conclusion was clear and brave; but it was built on interpretations that half
the school repudiated.
Take, for example, the important point concerning the length of the interval that is to elapse, on pre-trib
presuppositions, between the Rapture of the saints and the Day of the Lord. Seiss and one or two others
located the Rapture of the saints at the beginning of the Great Tribulation, or about three and a half years
from the End of the Age. Newberry, one of Brethren’s finest scholars, and a few others, placed the
Rapture seven years from the Day of the Lord; but almost all advocates prefer to place it about thirty-
five, fifty, or seventy years this side of that Day. Darby had given some encouragement to the view that
the Rapture of the Church would take place at the beginning of the Great Tribulation, for in his Second
Coming (p. 61), he interpreted the translation of the Man-child to heaven (Rev. 12:5) as embracing the
Rapture of both Christ and His Church; but nearly all advocates of the new theories refuse to touch it
with a barge-pole. Such a rapture is not good enough, for it would still leave the Church in danger of
looking the Man of Sin in the face, which is the crowning infamy in the province of prophetic study. But
as if to show that all this is the veriest guesswork, Sir R: Anderson, in many respects the ablest of their
writers, steps in to inform us that “if a thousand years should intervene between” the taking up of the
Church in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, “and the Coming to the Mount of Olives, not a single word of
Scripture would be broken,” (The Coming Prince, p. 289).
Page: 197
The sensible conclusion is that the supposed interval is an amiable effort of the imagination; the writers
cannot agree on the length of the interval, because the Scripture has been so disobliging as to furnish no
hint or suggestion that there is one at all. There was ample opportunity for introducing it; the prophecy of
the Seventy Weeks only had to mention that Israel’s holy dead were to be raised at the beginning of the
apocalyptic Week, and the trick was done, for pre-tribs teach that they share in the Rapture. Instead of
that, Daniel locates their resurrection and transfiguration at the destruction of Antichrist, on the
inauguration of the kingly rule of God (12:1-3).
Another point on which the leaders differed was the identity of the Bride of Christ. Who is it? Darby, and
nearly all pre-trib advocates, said it was the Church of this dispensation; but Anderson and several others
insisted that it referred to Israel. The point had a decisive bearing on the interpretation of the Parable of
the Ten Virgins. With extraordinary inconsistency pre-tribs deprived the Remnant of this parable, and
applied it to the Christian Church, the midnight cry, “Behold the Bridegroom,” being Brethren testimony
in the nineteenth century to the supposed imminent Second Coming; whereas Anderson and others,
seeing its indissoluble connection239 with the preceding parable of judgment, declared that it is Jewish
and refers to Israel, and they referred the midnight cry to the Glorious Appearing of Christ.
Several pre-trib teachers, including Scofield and Newberry explain Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:1-3, by a
literal resurrection of Israel’s holy Dead: Kelly and Gaebelein, joining hands with the Sadducees, explain
them away by referring them to a national resurrection of Israel at the End-time.
Darby, Kelly, Bellett, and all other expositors of the Parable of the Tares, declare emphatically that it sets
before us the present Dispensation, the gathering of the wheat signifying the Rapture of the saints at the
End of the Age. But Dr. Gaebelein, taking alarm, boldly refers the whole thing to his half-converted and
half-Christian Jewish Remnant, after the Rapture of the Church. Darbyists teach us that the Remnant
presupposed in Matthew 25 has the most nebulous spiritual standing and experience, and the haziest
knowledge of Christ’s person and work: Anderson says openly that they are “Jews, and yet Christians”
(Coming Prince, p. 170).
Darby, Anderson, Gaebelein, and others, refer the Missionary Commission in Matthew 28 to the Jewish
Remnant and its preaching tour of the world, after the Rapture of the Church. Open Brethren to a man
repudiate the suggestion as a scandalous vagary. C. H. M. and a host of others dogmatically refer Acts
1:11 to their Secret Rapture before the coming of Antichrist: Darby refers it to the Glorious Appearing at
the Day of the Lord (Synopsis); Anderson to a special appearing for the Remnant on Mount
Olivet.240 Darby and his associates interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 as referring to a coming that our
Lord had spoken of in the Gospels, notably in John 14:3, and Matthew 24:45 through 25:30. But
Anderson and others assert that it was a special coming of Christ for the Church, the Body of Christ,
specially revealed to the Apostle Paul, about A.D. 53. Bullinger, as we saw, excluded from it any
reference to Israel’s holy dead; before his end he assigned 1 Thessalonians 4 to a time after a prior
rapture that he invented at Philippians 3:14. This “sorting” and “dividing” of Scripture was too much for
Anderson, and he rejected it in his Forgotten Truths (p. 146).
239Matthew 25:1; then, at that time (Coming Prince, p. 188). I hope to deal fully with the Parable in a future
volume on Matthew 24 and 25, in which I shall examine Anderson’s reasoning on the subject.
240 Coming Prince, pp. 186, 288, 20.
Page: 198
As I write, there comes an amazing suggestion241 that the Coming of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4:15
actually takes place some years after the Rapture!
Darby and his colleagues all referred the Appearing, the Day, and the Revelation of Christ to the Day of
the Lord, succeeding, and distinct from, the Coming or Rapture, which, they taught, is the Blessed Hope
of the Church. Such distinctions were held to be absolutely vital to a clear comprehension of Scripture,
and severe epithets were sometimes hurled at those who questioned them. But they have all been kicked
downstairs in the dispensational edifice; half their successors now refer the Appearing, Revelation, and
Day of Christ to the hope of the Church, whilst others--it seems quite incredible, but it is true--are
referring “the Blessed Hope” (Titus 2:13), to the Day of the Lord, seven or more years after a Rapture of
the saints! On Titus 2:13, Anderson says, “Will anyone dare to refer this Appearing to the Day of the
Lord?” C. F. Hogg dares anyone to refer it to the Rapture. 242
How fleeting is fame in the province of prophetic study and speculation! But yesterday Darby and his
associates had earned the gratitude of the whole school for their nice and comforting distinctions in
interpreting the terminology of the End; but a strange thing has happened in Israel: laymen are teaching
the Bishops the Paternoster, and describing their distinctive message on the Rapture as “a common con-
fusion.”243
Pre-tribs generally refer the resurrection of those “that are Christ’s” (1 Cor. 15:23) to the Church, at the
Rapture; Bullinger and Miss Habershon to the resurrection of “Tribulation” saints at the Day of the Lord,
some years later. Most advocates refer the covering messages to the Seven Angels in Asia (Rev. 2-3) to a
subtle and wonderful interpretation of nineteen centuries of Church history; Anderson and Bullinger,
entirely unconvinced, refer them to Churches arising after the Rapture; F. C. Bland admits frankly that he
has no “definite light” that the addresses to the Angels are “subjects for prophetic interpretation,” or
“come under the head of unfulfilled prophecy” at all.
Some will think that such a variety of interpretations of scores of texts gives greater resourcefulness to
the advocates of the new views, since if they are persecuted in one exegetical city, they can flee to the
next; but most sensible readers will feel that all the ringing of the changes in the premises is necessary
because their conclusions are false, and nothing can make them true. As at Babel the Lord has
confounded their speech.
It is a sentimental delusion that a secret Rapture, or a pre-tribulation Rapture, is the hope of the Church.
Scripture, on the contrary, asserts in the clearest manner that the Glorious Appearing of Christ is the
definite hope of Christians (Titus 2:13) and with terrible inconvenience for theorists, locates it at the Day
of Lord. From Matthew to the Book of Revelation the Lord and His Apostles set no other hope before the
Church. The Rapture is a mere incident of the Appearing, spoken of in order to show the relation of the
sleeping to the living saints at the one Advent in glory, and especially that the saints who survive till the
Advent will have no advantage at all over the dead in Christ. It is a stupid obsession to make the Rapture
241 C. F. Hogg; see below for the citation.

242 C. F. Hogg, “The Morning Star,” August 1st, 1912; W. E. Vine, Rapture and The Great Tribulation, pp. 33-4.
243 C. F. Hogg, see below.
Page: 199
the touchstone of everything. Yet this is what is universally done. 244 “Think of the beautiful English word
‘cellar-door’” said a foreigner who was struggling with our language. Think of the beautiful word
“Rapture!”
I cited earlier the case of an American Brother who admitted that too much prominence had been given to
the Rapture in the thought and writing of pre-tribs. If anyone has any doubt about the necessity of this
confession, it will disappear after reading the following astonishing words from a present-day teacher of
authority among pre-tribs. They are taken from “The Witness” for June, 1932: Replying to a corre-
spondent who had the wit to see that the theory of an interval of some years between the Rapture and the
Judgment furnished a second chance 245 of repentance for the impenitent, at the time of the Rapture, Mr.
C. F. Hogg of London gave a reply from which I extract the following:246 --
It is a common confusion to speak of the Rapture of I Thessalonians 4:17 as “the Coming of the Lord.”
The Rapture ushers the saints into the Parousia or Presence of the Lord, shortly before His appearing in
glory, which is properly His Coming. The Rapture does not close this age, but is an event in it, the first of
the series that bring in the new, or Millennial age, the Second Advent, or Coming, of the Lord is His
Coming to the earth in power and great glory for the overthrow of His enemies and the establishment of
His Kingdom. As I read, at that time those who have shared in the Rapture, God will bring with Him
(Col. 3:3-4; 2 Thess. 2:7-10). We rightly reason that the death of the individual believer cannot be His
Coming, as that is our going. So neither can the Rapture of the saints be His Coming, for that also is our
going to be with Him. The shutting of the door, then, is not the Rapture but the appearing of the glory of
our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).
Shades of Darby, Kelly, and C. H. M.!
My experience of the difficulty that many have in grasping the intricac ies of pre-trib teaching on
prophecy leads me to ask the reader to note the drift of all this. This writer agrees with us in contending
that the Coming, the Appearing, the Revelation, and the Day of the Lord all occur simultaneously, at the
close of the Great Tribulation. Each and all constitute “the blessed hope” of Christians today, as they did
when Paul wrote Titus 2:13.
But the Rapture, according to Mr. Hogg, so far from being a mere incident at the Arrival of our Lord
according to 1 Thessalonians 4:6, is now brought forward in front of the Coming of the Lord by a period
of time that may be seven years, but may also be a thousand, according to Anderson. The proximate hope
of the believer, therefore, is not the Lord’s Coming at all, but the Church’s going--at the Rapture, which
may take place any moment, probably in secret; after some years, at the Day of the Lord, the “Blessed
Hope” proper (Titus 2:13) is fulfilled; it is the Lord’s Coming.247 There is truth here, but not enough; it
244I have not yet had leisure to make a count of the times that the words “Rapture,” “raptured,” and “rapt”
are used in the work of an able and eloquent writer, Mr. D. M. Panton, author of Rapture. But it is
astonishingly great.
245Gaebelein is horrified at the very thought of this (Olivet Discourse, pp.125-26); Anderson rather welcomes
the prospect (Unfulfilled Prophecy, pp. 61-62). Once again we meet it--their agreeing to differ.
246 I omit only the parts about the second chance, which cannot occupy us here.
247 See chap. 1, where I quote the author’s exegesis of Titus 2:13.
Page: 200
looks as if the respected author, after retiring from a platform of error, suddenly decides to hang on to it
by the eyelids.
I have no fear that the latest adaptation of the new program will gain adherents, even from the simple and
careless. Very obviously it parts company from the Scripture. At John 14:3, the Lord said: “I will come
again and receive you unto myself.” The Rapture follows the Coming. It is the same at Matthew 24:30-
31; the Lord comes, and the Elect saints are assembled from every land under heaven; so also at Luke
17:24, 34-35. Nor does Paul teach differently. After mentioning those who survive till the Coming of the
Lord (1 Thess. 4:15) he goes on: “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout . . . then
we which are alive and remain shall be caught up.” Then at 2 Thessalonians 2:1, the Apostle writes
“Touching the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him,” (R.V.).
In all five passages the Coming and the Rapture are linked indissolubly: both occur at the Day of the
Lord.
One welcomes the admission, however, from an able and devout expositor, and the outstanding teacher
among Brethren today, that the true hope of the Church, the glorious Coming of our Lord, will take place,
as he says, “At the overthrow of His enemies and the establishment of His Kingdom.” Such an admission
ought to go far to end the controversy. But the writer, if he wishes to end the “common confusion” that he
complains of, must give a wholly good example of coherent thinking and courageous acceptance of the
plain meaning of Scripture.
All these advances and changes, with the variations in the interpretation of proof-texts--changes within
the school that are enough to make the early leaders turn in their graves--remind one of an acute saying of
Provost Salmon’s: “Truth is uniform, but it is the very nature of error to be continually assuming new
shapes,” (Infallibility, p. 150).
Admitting that on some points of unfulfilled prophecy there is room for differences of opinion, it is yet to
be said that theorists, for very appearances’ sake, ought to have done something to compose such disarray
of interpretation, before making high and confident claims to a new understanding. From Lord
Melbourne’s famous dictum on preserving in public an air of unanimity, when there are differences in
private, they might have drawn the useful application to generalize more and particularize less on the
prophetic future. Speaking of Cabinet government, and the revelation of Cabinet secrets, he said: “I don’t
care what we say, but we had better all say the same thing.”
When pre-tribs are expounding doctrines like the deity and the humanity of our Lord, His atoning death
on the cross, His bodily resurrection, His session at the right hand of God, His priestly ministry in the
heavenly sanctuary, the justification of the sinner by grace, and his complete deliverance through union
with the risen Christ, there is gratifying unanimity among them. With one voice they set forth the truth of
Scripture magnificently; Kelly’s Notes on Romans drew praise from the authors of the most notable
exegetical work in fifty years.248 The explanation of this unanimity is that they were expounding the
central truths of the Christian revelation. Then some truths of the Christian faith--the law-free gospel, the
believer’s union with Christ, and his complete deliverance from the old nature--which were sometimes
248 Sanday and Headlam in the Introduction to their volume on Romans in ICC.
Page: 201
not sufficiently emphasized by systems of theology--were now expounded by Darby, Kelly and a
thousand laymen, with unsurpassed lucidity and fervor. 249
But when they came to the teaching of prophecy the unanimity forsook them. Why? Because their
exegesis now, instead of adhering to the main emphasis of Scripture, and basing itself on careful and
obvious deductions from clear texts, was shot to pieces by idle speculation, by the adoption of
innovations like the Secret Rapture, and the prodigious missionary tour of the world in 1,260 days, by an
army of half-converted Jews, still in their sins. Preachers without life, without forgiveness, and without
the Holy Ghost in the soul, will do in 1,260 days what the whole Christian Church has been unable to do
in 1,900 years--evangelize the world, and convert the “overwhelming majority” of the inhabitants of the
world to God. This declaration of Scofield’s works out at about a million converts a day; and this at a
time when, ex hypothesi, the Holy Spirit is in heaven, Antichrist is raging here below, and the elect
evangelists are torn between the Imprecatory Psalms and the Sermon on the Mount!
And this is not an unessential excrescence on the system; it is absolutely vital to its existence. The
Church, the Body of Christ, is raptured to heaven years and years before the End; so it was given out;
well, somebody had to fulfill those rugged texts in the Gospels and Apocalypse about the Elect’s and the
Saints’ suffering, and about the evangelization of the world right on to the End (Matt. 28:18-20). They
must not be full Christians to claim membership of the Church, nor be totally unchristian to leave the
world without preachers: half-Christian and half-converted--that filled the bill.
All that can be said now of this piece of prophetic speculation is--to adapt some words of Abraham
Lincoln’s--that it may fool some students all the time, and all students some of the time; but it is totally
impossible that it should fool all students, all the time. For it is not expounding Scripture, but innovating
on it after the very manner of the Rabbis in Israel: with the very same results--God’s word made of none
effect by the traditions of men.
Again, seizing on the long neglected truth that for Christians it is the Savior who is coming at the Last
Day, Darbyists thought that, on the analogy of the forty days after the Resurrection, it would be
appropriate if the Coming of the Savior and Bridegroom of the Church took place secretly, and apart
from the awe-inspiring phenomena and judgments of the Day of the Lord. Soon they were persuading
themselves that Paul really taught this; his outstanding words--Coming, Appearing, Revelation, and Day-
-were made to agree with a secret Rapture some time before the Day. Then from the revival of Julius
Africanus’ view of the Apocalyptic character of Daniel’s Seventieth Week, the further inference was
drawn that the Rapture would fittingly take place at its beginning, when Antichrist makes his covenant
with the multitude of Jews in Palestine, and before the horrible tribulation under him. But having gone so
far, it was natural to go a little farther and make the hope even more “heavenly.” How fitting to have the
Church right off the scene before ever the Man of Sin should be born! And so the new unwritten tradition
settled down at a secret Rapture “about a generation” before the End, with Sir R. Anderson entering
a caveat that the period might be a thousand years! And all was a succession of surmises and inferences,
larded with sentiment, ad libitum (at one’s pleasure).
249One may take at random a plain work by one of the lesser lights--God’s Salvation, by John Fort. For giving
the argument of Romans it loses little by comparison with Gifford, Godet, and the other masters. It is
recorded of the author that he was once asked what book had influenced him in writing it; he replied
“Romans;” and on being asked even more directly, replied, “Romans.”
Page: 202
When I think of the extraordinary vogue of this Secret Rapture theory, with the comforting invention that
the saints will be raptured away before the coming of Antichrist, and of a mere incident having
substituted the Apostolic hope of the triumphant Appearing of our Savior, an illustration will come to
mind from Lucian of Samosata’s dialogue on “The Rival Philosophies:”250 --
Hermotimus, I cannot show what truth is, so well as wise people like you and your professor; but one
thing I do know about it, and that is that it is not pleasant to the ear; fiction is far more esteemed; it is
prettier, and therefore pleasanter; while Truth, conscious of its purity, blurts out downright remarks, and
offends people. Here is a case of it: even you are offended with me for having discovered (with your
assistance) how this matter really stands, and shown that our common object is hard of attainment.
Suppose you had been in love with a statue and hoped to win it, under the impression that it was human,
and I had realized that it was only bronze or marble, and given you a friendly warning that your passion
was hopeless--you might just as well have thought I was your enemy then, because I would not leave you
a prey to extravagant and impracticable delusions.
How modern it all seems! If Lucian had not been a Pagan ironist who lived eighteen hundred years ago,
we might have supposed that he had in mind the unchristian ostracizing of B. W. Newton, S. P. Tregelles,
George Mailer, and Frank White in England, and W. G. Moorehead, W. J. Erdman, Nathaniel West, J. M.
Stifler, and R. Cameron in America, because they gave “friendly warnings” to the saints against
becoming “a prey to extravagant and impracticable delusions,” among them the choice theory, that in the
last great crisis of the world, not only shall the Church’s feet be like hinds’ feet, wending their way
among the mountains, far above the dust and din of the conflict below, but the Church shall even be
raptured clean off the scene before ever the dread Enemy appears. If only it were revealed Truth, and not
an elegant elaboration of a human theory!
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written in vain for pre-tribs. The view had got about in the
Church at Thessalonica that the Day of the Lord, 251 which was to be characterized and introduced by two
events--the Lord’s Parousia in triumph (as shown in 1 Thessalonians 4:16) and the muster of the Elect
(verse 17)--had actually arrived: but, says Paul, “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall
not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is worshipped.” And then the Apostle refers to
Antichrist’s own Parousia252 and success, and his complete overthrow by our Lord at His “Appearing and
Arrival”--employing the two words that are used again and again for the Church’s hope: Appearing,
250 Works, Vol. 2, p. 70; one word altered.

251 At this time in our inquiry it is assumed as proved that the Coming (parousia) of the Son of Man (Matt.
24:39) and the Day of the Son of Man (Luke 17:30) coincide; that the Coming (parousia) of Christ (Messiah)
according to 1 Corinthians 15:23, coincides with the Day of Christ (Phil. 1:10, etc.); and the Coming
(parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 2:1) with the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:8). Most
emphatically, therefore, the Coming (parousia) of Use Lord (1 Thess. 4:15, Jam. 5:7-8) coincides with the Day
of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2, R.V.).
It is well pointed out by Zahn and others that Antichrist, in Paul’s view, will have a dazzling Paroussa,
252
when he comes on the scene.
Page: 203
which in Titus 2:13 is emphatically said to be “the blessed hope,” and Coming, which all pre-tribs apply
to it.
But note the deciding sense of all this: according to pre-tribs, the Day of the Lord’s Parousia precedes
the arrival of Antichrist. Paul says that men who teach such a thing are deceivers. “Let no man deceive
you by any means”--neither by his familiarity with the Bible, his piety, personal prestige, dogmatism, nor
even by his having been used of God to teach much truth--be not deceived; the Apostasy and the
Antichrist must come first. This is Paul’s doctrine, yet to-day it is abominated and cast off as “Jewish” or
utter confusion.
This will be painful and shocking to those who in their heart of hearts think that their leaders of last
century could not, or would not go wrong, but, as Jerome said long ago about objectors who squirmed
under his application of Divine truth: “let them not lay it to our account; it is the apostle who says
this.”253 But there is even worse, and, though it will be hailed with an indignant and passionate outcry, the
time has now come to say that our Lord Himself taught the founders of His Church (in a privates (Mark
13:3; Matt. 24:3) discourse, after He had said good-bye to the City, the Nation, and the Remnant; Matt.
23:37-39), to beware of men who taught
o that His Coming would be secret (Matt. 24:26-27);

o that His Coming was imminent, or unrelated to prophetic events (Matt. 24:6, 8, 14);
o that it would precede the coming of Antichrist (Matt. 24:55; cf. 2 Thess. 2:3);
o that it would precede the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21, 23-25; Mark 13:23-24).
Yet today the bold denial of all four warnings has been exalted by spiritual men into a new tradition, and
a new orthodoxy; “extravagant and impracticable delusions” are given out as truths from heaven, and a
man who solemnly heeds what the Lord said is looked upon as cracked or past praying for. In the interest
of fantastic innovations on the faith, large portions of our Lord’s teaching are pushed aside as
inapplicable to and even unsuitable for, Christians
I will quote some words by the editor of an influential American prophetic magazine called “Our
Hope.”254 This magazine is of outstanding merit for some beautiful meditations, month by month, on the
person and work of our Lord, and for some admirable instruction on the prophetic future; it is also
outstanding for its complete identification of the opinions of its editor, Dr. Gaebelein, and his principal
teacher, William Kelly, with Truth itself, and for the unending slaughter of the Philistines who teach
differently from them on the events preceding and accompanying the Day of the Lord: there is coldness,
with aloofness, even for those of the Pure school who say “tweedledum” on some detail of the prophetic
future, when it was only permitted to them to say tweedledee.”
When writing on Christian truth, Dr. Gaebelein, in several works, exercises great gifts of exposition;
when he is advocating error or elucidating novel prophetic theories, reasoned proof gives place to
253 Quoted by C. D. Maitland.

254I am referring to the magazine as I knew it up to the outbreak of war, when the present MS. was first
prepared for the press (1914).
Page: 204
extraordinary dogmatism, sweeping and unchristian condemnation255 of Churches and Church usages,
and of writers whose chief sin consists in seeing through the grotesque fable of the Remnant that he
espouses, and in accepting the guidance of our Lord on the End of the Age. Dr. Gaebelein could write
some magnificent books, but in the opinion of the present writer his Gospel of Matthew is a disaster for
the truth.
I spoke just now of the sweeping condemnation of Church customs; even when they are based upon the
command of our Saviour, and have been observed always and everywhere since the very time of the
Apostles, they were not spared. In condemning the excessive and wrong use of The Lord’s Prayer by
Christians in times of sickness and danger, Dr. Gaebelein goes on to condemn its use at all by Christians:-
-
It is one of the rags which Luther brought away from the old Roman sepulchre. Yet it is not much better
in other denominations. ... All this practice, the use of this model for prayer, as the Lord’s prayer given to
the Church, to be used by the Church, is wrong, decidedly unchristian, nor can it be proven from the New
Testament that it is intended for Christians. . . . Centuries passed before it became a settled custom to
make the prayer the King gave to His Jewish disciples the prayer for Christians and to use it in the form
and in the way it is used now”256
He then goes on to quote approvingly some words of Kelly’s, where he performs the congenial task of
sitting in judgment on the whole of Christendom, except Brethren, since they do not use the Prayer:257 “Is
there a soul using the Lord’s prayer as a form that has a real understanding of what it is to ask the Father
in the name of Christ. I believe they have never entered into that great truth.”
The above extracts illustrate the kind of browbeating and judaizing exegesis that is used to impose freak
theories on the faithful. Admitting a later date for the doxology of the prayer, we yet affirm that the rest is
a tissue of misstatements from beginning to end.
255I am referring particularly to his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, in his Matthew, and to his Olivet
Discourse, where he accommodates the teaching of the Son of God to the requirements of his and Kelly’s
dispensational system.
256Gospel of Matthew, pp. 139-40. On page 543, Dr. Gaebelein says: “We wish only to say that this prayer
will be heard once more in the earth and will then be used as it once was used by the Jewish disciples when
they were sent forth by our Lord. When the Church is taken from the earth a believing Jewish Remnant will
give the witness and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom once more. They will undoubtedly use this prayer
during the great tribulation.”
This explains much! It is easy to criticize Luther; but despite his faults, he was a wise master-builder, and
nowhere did he show it so clearly as in refusing to scrap all that he found in Rome, particularly some helpful
usages and practices that go back nearly to the Apostolic Age, or well within it: in refusing to treat the
Church as having been forsaken when the last of the Apostles died.
In the course of thirty odd years I have met only one of the Brethren Community who felt he could
257
conscientiously use the Lord’s Prayer.
Page: 205
Take the slur on Dr. Gaebelein’s own heroic countryman, Martin Luther, whom Adolph Saphir, of
blessed memory, declared to be God’s greatest gift to the Church since Paul. Saphir, a Calvinist who
knew the writings of the Reformers thoroughly, says in his own magnificent Lectures on the Lord’s
Prayer,258 that Luther gave rich and spiritual expositions of the Prayer, and he then continues: “Martin
Luther said once of the Lord’s Prayer that it was the greatest martyr on earth, because it was used so
frequently without thought and feeling, without reverence and faith. This quaint remark, as true as it is
sad, applies with still greater force to the word ‘Amen.’”
And the unkindest martyrdom of all for the Lord’s Prayer has been at the hands of ultra-evangelicals in
the past hundred years. Having a system of prophetic interpretation, and a heavenly secret Rapture to
commend, they found the Prayer too earthly, too Jewish, and linked to a rugged view of the End; hence
unsuitable for saints of the blessed heavenly calling. It must be set aside.
Let not the reader think that the reference to the Lord’s Prayer is a deviation; on the contrary, it is
a watershed in the controversy. Dr. James Moffatt in his INT made use of a striking illustration from Sir
Walter Scott’s Fair Maid of Perth. “Discussing the magnificent view of the Tay valley which may be
gained from the Wicks of Baiglie, Scott quotes what a local guide said, on reaching a bold projecting
rock on Craig Vinean, ‘Ah, sirs, this is the decisive point.’”259
So here at Matthew 6:9; as we survey the landscape of pre-trib interpretation, and especially of the
judaizing of much of our Lord’s teaching in the interests of a theory, we say confidently to our readers:
“this is the decisive point!”
In boldly, energetically, and resolutely attacking the use of the Lord’s Prayer by Christians, Dr.
Gaebelein and Mr. Kelly know what they are about: their aggressive sophistry must win here, or their
whole system is lost. So long as Christians in childlike simplicity use the Lord’s Prayer, they will hold on
to the Four Gospels--including the great Parousia Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25, and the other in Luke
17, as containing teaching that is eminently suitable for those who love the Saviour: suitable--now for
Jewish Christians in the land of Israel, now for the Elect scattered over the earth from one horizon to the
other. And, that being so, Gentile conceits of the nineteenth century will wither before the flood of light
emanating from Matthew 24 and 25. But let the unwary Christian be once persuaded that the Lord’s
Prayer is merely “Jewish,” and for Jews; let him be off his guard here; let him only daily here with the
258Page 404. Concerning the little word “as” in the petition, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,”
Saphir says that it is not a measure of the Divine forgiveness; it means “since,” and simply signifies that we
are not coming to prayer in an unforgiving spirit. This disposes of Dr. Gaebelein’s captious reasoning on the
point. See his Matthew, 1, p. 143. And one should by all means see the whole rich exposition by Saphir.
Cited by Sir William Ramsay in The First Christian Century, p. 16, where he reviewed Dr. Moffatt’s work,
259
and criticized his use of the illustration in regard to the origin of the N.T. writings.
Page: 206
word “ dispensational,”260 then the Four Gospels will go the same way as the Lord’s Prayer. And he will
descend a slippery slope with no stop till he reaches an edifice called “Dispensational House,” pleasant to
look upon, but inside a house of bondage. Hence the energy and persistency of Kelly and his disciple in
America to keep Christians from using the Lord’s Prayer; they can make no progress in commending
their wild notion that the Lord frequently addressed the Apostles as the representatives of a half-
converted, half-Christian company of Jews in the End-time, who are going to do unparalleled miracles in
the very times of Antichrist: no progress in commending the Remnant fable, and the Secret-Rapture fable
until they have seduced Christians from a loyal acceptance of the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 5-7, 24-25,
and other parts of the Four Gospels. It must all be proved “Jewish;” hence the slur on Luther, the
distortion of history to make the use of the Lord’s Prayer by Christians an invention of
ecclesiastics,261 and the totally unchristian sitting- in-judgment on the whole of Christendom, which, to its
credit, observes the command of its Lord and Saviour: “After this manner pray ye.”262 The Lord’s Prayer,
I repeat, is a watershed; here it is decided whether one is a plain, ingenuous Christian, subject to the
teaching of one’s Lord, and amenable to His solemn commands, or whether one is a Christian who plays
fast and loose with the Lord’s teaching, accepting it for himself in homeopathic doses, and calling the rest
“Jewish,” in order to bolster up a set of Remnant theories that are a travesty of Scripture teaching.
260I have no quarrel with sane “dispensational truth;” properly understood it helps to explain much in
Scripture; but one must resolutely resist any system that conflicts with the decisive example of our Lord in
Luke 4:18-9; He inaugurates “the acceptable year of the Lord,” which will end with “the Day of Vengeance of
our God,” (Isa. 61:2); Matthew 22:14-14--the conclusion to the most “dispensational” of all parables--shows
the testing of hypocrites and the Elect at the same crisis, exactly as in the Parable of the Tares, (Matt. 13:40-
43).
261In his Apostles Creed (E.T., p. 145) Zahn, referring to N.T. critics who claim that Christianity first
circulated without a belief in the Virgin Birth of our Lord, says it “is a fiction of which surely no one need be
proud;” and when Dr. Gaebelein dogmatically tells us that the early Church did not use the Lord’s Prayer, we
will tell him the same thing. We know that at the Last Supper the Lord and His Apostles used the ordinary
Jewish Psalm for such an occasion (see Edersheim); we know also that the Apostolic Church frequented the
Temple and used the “prayers” in use there (Acts 2:42-47). It is totally unlikely that they omitted the Lord’s
Prayer, which was Jewish in a good sense, and had been given to the Apostles by the Lord. The use of the
Lord’s Prayer in the Apostolic Age is clearly certified by the Didache, a Church Manual almost certainly
composed well within the Apostolic Age. The article on the Didache in Hasting’s Dictionary of The Apostolic
Church says that “the larger number of scholars favor a date between 80 and 100.” And Dr. Vernon Bartlet in
Hasting’s D.B. (extra volume) says we may “with confidence” date it before 100, rather than after; and “with
diffidence” A.D. 80-100 “is the most likely decade known to us” (p. 449). Well, we learn from
the Didache that Christians used the Lord’s Prayer three times a day, substantially as we have it in the R.V.
Unhappily, as Dr. Nestle points out in Hastings’ DCG, the mechanical use of the prayer entered early. See his
article, also Dr. Plummer’s, in Hasting’s DB (vol. and for a defense of its use as a form, the article in The
Protestant Dictionary. I am happy to draw attention to some excellent remarks by Messrs. Hogg and Vine in
their Touching the Corning (p. 150), where its use is recommended.
262Matthew 6:9. Obviously, as Zahn points out in his commentary on Matthew, the Lord sometimes in the
Sermon on the Mount presupposed that his disciples were under the Law; they could not be otherwise in
Palestine. He spoke to them as an Israelite to Israelites. But with this qualification the whole of the Lord’s
teaching is for Christians; all of it.
Page: 207
What kind of Christians were the Apostolic disciples? Had they learned this recent shift of setting Paul’s
Epistles above the Lord’s oral teaching? Of making Christ’s teaching of none effect by dispensational
traditions?
Let us listen to Paul, and to Paul in the very act of claiming that special revelations came through him to
the saints:--
Now to him that is able to stablish you according to my gospel and the preaching (kērugma) of Jesus
Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal,
but now is manifested (Rom. 16:25-26, R.V.).
Zahn proves conclusively263 that in both cases it is the subjective genitive that is used: the gospel
of me, my gospel; that is, not the gospel about me, but the gospel that I preach; and Jesus Christ’s
preaching: the proclamation that He made when on earth, not the proclamation made about Him by the
Apostle. Decisive, as Zahn shows, is the exactly parallel expression: “They repented at the
preaching (kerugma) of Jonah” (Matt. 12:41); not the preaching about Jonah, but “Jonah’s preaching.”
The Gospel of Christ that Paul glories in is the Gospel of Christ “as its author and its first herald” (Zahn).
Absolutely decisive is Hebrews 2:3, where our Lord is shown to be the pioneer preacher of the gospel:--
In the same way, too, are we to understand “the word of Christ,” (Col. 3:16), and the similar plural term,
(1 Tim. 6:3). It is evident that this can as little signify “the word about Christ” as can “the word of the
Lord,” where it denotes the gospel, or a single word of Jesus (Acts 20:35; 1 Thess. 4:15). It is rather the
content of that which Jesus first proclaimed, and which has since lived on in the Christian community--
gospel and commandment, promise and teaching. 264
It will do us good to hear those two texts of the Apostle’s in the new light:--
Colossians 3:16: “Let Christ’s word dwell in you richly in all wisdom.”
1 Timothy 6:3: “If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even our
Lord Jesus Christ’s words, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is puffed up, knowing
nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words.”
Zahn concludes a powerful study as follows:--
In view of all this, it should be self-evident--and may be mentioned here--that “the testimony of Jesus” in
Revelation is primarily the testimony that Jesus Himself, the true Witness (Rev. 1:5; 3:14), gave during
263INT, 2, pp. 278-9. In a long study of “Gospel” in his Constitution and Law of The Church, Harnack takes the
same view. He gives five reasons why it is “almost certain” that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel He
preached, and not the Gospel concerning Him. He then refutes five arguments used by Dobschiitz to prove
the contrary (pp. 298-300). Harnack takes the same view of Hebrews 2:3 as Zahn, whom he quotes on the
section.
264 Zahn: op. cit., 2, p. 378; the Greek replaced by English.
Page: 208
His life on earth (cf. John 3:11; 5:31; 7:7; 18:37; 1 Tim. 6:13). This fundamental meaning occurs in
Revelation 19:10; in 1:2 it is transferred to that which the exalted Jesus testifies to the Churches through
John. . . . Just as one may not translate ho logos tou theou (Rev. 1:9; 20:4; cf. 1:2), “the word or doctrine
concerning God,” so marturia tou Jesou may not be rendered “the testimony concerning Jesus.”265 The
derivation of all Christian preaching from the lips of Jesus Himself is very clearly affirmed in the
Johannine Epistles (1 John 1:5; cf. 1:1, 3). The Christian teaching is the teaching of Christ Himself (2
John 9). The one all-inclusive command of God (1 John 3:22-23, 5:2 ff.) is the command and word of
Christ (2:3-8) (pp. 378-379).
With this new light let us hear the sentence on those who disparage putting Christians under the Lord’s
oral teaching:--
Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in Christ’s teaching hath not God: he that abideth in the
teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If anyone cometh unto you, and bringeth not this
teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting (2 John 9).
Clearly in the Apostolic Church it was a vital question as it is today with us, whether Christ’s teaching is
absolutely binding on Christians. Paul and John decided that it is. “To keep God’s word and have Jesus
Christ’s testimony:” this described Christians in the Apostolic Age.
Important is another text from John: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and
his commandments are not grievous,” (1 John 5:3). It links up with the beautiful saying in Matthew
11:28-29: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke
upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For
my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
And the yoke of Christ is simply the yoke of our gracious Teacher, Jesus Christ, who gives
commandments and the inward power to observe them:--
The saying forms a fine contrast with what precedes.
The “babes” receive the revelation--a real revelation of the relation that subsists between the Father and
the Son: here the toilers and “heavy laden” are invited to accept Christ’s easy yoke. . . . Those who are
burdened by the Pharisaic yoke of the Law are addressed--those upon whom their religious leaders “bind
heavy burdens,” (23:4).
“The Yoke” (of the Law, commandments, etc.) is a common expression in Rabbinic; cf. ex. gr., Pirhe
Aboth 3:6: “Whoso receives upon him the yoke of the Law.” Here a deliberate contrast with the yoke of
the Law is suggested. And learn of me: cf. Ecclus. 51:26 (“Put your neck under the yoke, and let your
soul receive instruction”).
265On Revelation 12:17, Darby writes in his Apocalypse “It appears to me certain, that the testimony of Jesus
Christ is the testimony that He has rendered Himself, not the testimony that is rendered unto Him,” (p. 61).
Page: 209
The “gentleness” of Christ determines the character of his yoke. The Burden of the Jewish Law was due
to its external character as something imposed from without; the yoke of Christ is “gentle” because it
ceases to be something external and becomes an inward experience. 266
Dr. A. H. McNeile in his commentary says that the words “of Matthew 11:28 ff. form a beautiful
introduction to 12:1-13, where two typical instances are given of the ‘kindliness’267 of Christ’s yoke as
compared with the law of the Sabbath.” And Plummer says: “The Pharisees had made the sabbath an
institution so burdensome that its Divine character was lost sight of; this could best be restored by
showing that it was a blessing and not a burden. The Son of Man vindicates man’s freedom.” He
connected it with benevolence and so fulfilled its fundamental purpose (Plummer).
All this proves that the oral teaching of our Lord during “the days of His Flesh” was of supreme and
decisive importance in fixing the beliefs and customs of the Apostolic Church in all lands, whether about
righteousness, repentance, love, divorce, riches, or His Second Coming. One word of His was decisive.
And on His Parousia our Lord taught us not by sentences, but by whole chapters (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13;
Luke 17:20-37; 21:5-38). He described the signs both remote and near; gave with some detail the
situation in Judaea in the End-time, with instructions to the Israelitish Church how to act (Matt. 24:15-
27); set forth the events preceding and accompanying His Return, and the triumphant establishment of
God’s kingly rule. He remembered also in a series of solemn parables the community of believers that
would be won for Him from all Nations, through the preaching of the gospel (Matt. 24:32–25:30). There
is here no reference to the local conditions in Judaea, because He needed to teach truth applicable to
every land under heaven.
Shall we thankfully receive His teaching? or shall we allow judaizing Gentiles, under a specious plea of
esoteric understanding, to set His teaching aside?--prating of “harmonizing” Paul and the Lord when they
never differed, and, in reality setting them at variance.
Canon Liddon268 I remarked once on the finality that our Lord presupposed for His teaching, when
commissioning the Apostles to evangelize the Nations (Matt. 28:18-20): “This is not the least noteworthy
feature of our Lord’s words, that he does not foresee a time or circumstance when any part of his teaching
will become antiquated or untrue, inappropriate or needless.”
But if the great preacher had had occasion to study the works of Gentile writers who accommodate our
Lord’s teaching to their theories of the End--calling this parable, this precept, this sermon “Jewish,” and,
therefore, not suitable for Christians, and this promise to those who pray in faith, and this very
Missionary Commission to preachers, “dispensational”--he would have found that even Fundamentalists
have a way of making the Lord’s teaching of none effect, when seeming to respect it.
266Canon Box, Century Bible, in loco (abridged). There is an ample note on the “yoke” in the comments of K.
Lake and H. J. Cadbury in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 4 (pp. 173-4), on Acts 15:10, where the same
view is taken.
McNeile gives the Greek word here (chrēstotēs); I have supplied the translation of Moffatt, which is
267
emphatically endorsed by A. T. Robertson, in loco.

268 Cited by J. A. Broadus
Page: 210
A German Prince was once visiting a certain City. When waited upon by a deputation from the Town
Council he expressed great surprise that his arrival had not been heralded by salvoes of cannon. The
Burgomaster, who had a sense of humor, replied that there were a hundred reasons for the omission;
asked by the Prince what they were, he began: “In the first place we have no cannon; in the second we
“Now,” broke in the Prince, “your first reason is so good that I don’t want to hear the other ninety- nine.”
That apposite answer comes to mind as one reflects on the pre-trib advocacy of a secret Parousia of our
Lord, before the times of Antichrist. We wait in vain for one strong argument that simply compels us to
adopt their view of the End. Instead, we get the distortion of scores of texts whose obvious and frank
interpretation is ruinous to their system; dozens more are given far-fetched meanings that would have
staggered the Apostolic writers; and then we get a theory of the Jewish Remnant pour faire rire, for no
other purpose than to keep Christians from applying the teaching of our Lord on His Advent to Jewish
Christians in the land of Israel, or to the Elect won by the missionary crusade presupposed in Matthew
24:14; 22:1-14 and 28:18-20.
They have not a single text of Scripture that is even remotely conclusive.
Sir R. Anderson, when once challenged by an American writer269 to name a single text that taught the
Rapture of the Church out of the world before the times of Antichrist, replied: “ There it is; 1
Thessalonians 4:14-17.”
But his American interlocutor had no difficulty in showing that the text could not be made to teach any
such thing, because neither Antichrist, nor Seventieth Week, nor tribulation, nor “seal” is mentioned; the
question at issue for Paul was simply: are the holy dead at a disadvantage when the Lord comes? All else
he left in abeyance as not affected by the Thessalonians’ request for light. The American writer might
have answered even more devastatingly that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 could not be made to teach a pre-
Antichrist Rapture because it associates the Coming of the Lord with the First Resurrection, and
everywhere in Scripture that resurrection is indissolubly linked with the inauguration of God’s Kingdom,
and the conversion and renewal of Israel at the very End of the Age. Sir R. Anderson’s dogmatic
assertion in his writings that 1 Thessalonians 4 gives a “mystery” coming--one now revealed for the first
time--is sheer imagination. It refers back to the Lord’s Coming in Matthew 25:1-13 and 24:30-31), which
he rightly located at the Day of the Lord, as verse 1 demands.
On any plain doctrine of Scripture the least taught pre-trib will find a dozen unequivocal proof-texts; on
the Secret, pre-Antichrist Rapture, the most learned cannot find even one.
As direct texts fail them, most theorists, challenged for a conclusive argument for the Rapture of the
Church before the times of Antichrist, reply: “The Church must be raptured first; otherwise she will
undergo the wrath of God in the Great Tribulation; and the Scripture asserts positively that she is
delivered from the wrath to come.” Here at last we have an argument that enjoys the unique distinction of
being pressed unanimously by every man in the school. It is their trump card; and we on our part know
perfectly that it does its work for the new theories more effectively than all others combined. It is
269 Dr. Robert Cameron: Scriptural Truth about the Lord’s Return, p. 140.
Page: 211
employed with unwearying zeal by Darbyists who, in presenting it, dwell on the perfectness of the
Church’s redemption: Christ shed His blood to deliver His heavenly people from the wrath to come; how,
therefore, can the Church go through the wrath of God in the Great Tribulation?
Sentiment on this point is amazingly strong. It is not a question of courage or the like, but simply again--
as on the “heavenly” Rapture--their sense of the fitness of things. In spite of our Lord’s leaving the Elect
on earth till the Glorious Appearing in Matthew 24:31, Paul’s leaving them in tribulation till the same
event in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, and John’s leaving them, either to fall in the Great Tribulation, or
survive till the Coming and Resurrection in Revelation 11:18, and 19:6-20:6, pre-tribs think that the
general consideration just stated overrides all else. The character of God and the work of Christ are at
stake. Hence the deeply-rooted aversion to the old view. Preachers would be removed from the preaching
plan, and evangelists would be left in a precarious position, if they taught openly and fearlessly Christ’s
doctrine on this subject as applicable to Christians. For better or for worse ordinary pre-tribs have a
horror of the view; it is a doctrinal leprosy that must be avoided. It goes back to the finished work of
Christ and the origin of the Tribulation in the Last Days. Careless readers and others’ who believe what
pleases their fancy, are misled by specious reasoning, since they do not stop to examine it and test its
validity.
In one of the greatest controversial masterpieces of our language, a work that every student who cares for
the intellectual position of Protestantism will endeavor to keep in print, a great theologian and
mathematician expressed himself thus on the art of presenting a bad case:--
It is a common rhetorical artifice with a man who has to commend a false conclusion deduced from a
syllogism of which one premise is true, and the other false, to spend an immensity of time in proving the
premise which nobody denies. If he devotes a sufficient amount of argument and declamation to this
topic, the chances are that his hearers will never ask for proof of the other premise (p. 63).270
Any general election furnishes many examples of the truth of this; here is one taken at random:--
All arrangements that make for Imperial unity are worthy of acceptance.
Empire Free Trade makes for Imperial unity.
Therefore Empire Free Trade is worthy of acceptance.
By brilliant argument and declamation the major premise, which no one disputed, was easily
demonstrated; the minor premise was dismissed with a wave of the hand and a casual remark that its truth
was “sell-evident;” the conclusion was then pressed home with easy success, for most people are easily
persuaded into believing what they want to believe. But orthodox Free Traders, and many Tariff
Reformers, had no difficulty in showing that Empire Free Trade’s conduciveness to Imperial unity, far
270Infallibility of the Church, by Provost Salmon, of Dublin (London, John Murray). A half century ago law
students were recommended in “Black-wood’s Magazine” to go over Chillingworth’s Religion of
Protestants for drilling in its logical processes. Salmon’s work loses nothing by comparison. Another
masterpiece that Protestants should keep in print is Karl V. Hase’s Handbook to the Controversy with Rome.
Both works are unrefuted and irrefutable.
Page: 212
from being self-evidently true, was utterly false, since it would rend the Empire from top to bottom: not a
single Dominion would stand for it. The syllogism, therefore, was false, since “if doubt attaches to any
one step in the argument; that doubt will attach to the conclusion; if doubt attaches to more steps than
one, the conclusion is affected by multiplied doubt.”271
How does the case stand with pre-tribs’ reasoning on the Church and the Great Tribulation? They do just
as the Empire Free Traders did:272 they spend an immensity of time in proving that there is no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus: in pointing out that the Church by the blood of Jesus is
delivered from the wrath to come. And from this premise--the truth of which no one disputes--they
proceed to commend to their readers the conclusion that the Church must escape the Great Tribulation.
But, even at the risk of seeming irksome or slow-witted, we wish to remind them of something that has
escaped their notice. Why not give some attention to the minor premise, and prove to us that the Great
Tribulation is the wrath of God? This, however, is the last thing that pre-tribs can be brought to do.
Scores of tracts pass it by. And naturally; because that part of their syllogism which they adroitly hurry
over is completely false. It is a blunder that the Great Tribulation consists in God’s wrath; their
conclusion, therefore, that the Church will escape the Great Tribulation, is false, since if falsity attaches
to one of the premises, it attaches to the conclusion.
An amusing illustration of this logical fallacy is given by Dr. H. L. Goudge of Oxford in his refutation of
the legend of the Lost Ten Tribes: he begins his British Israel Theory thus:--
There is a story of King Charles II, that he once puzzled the Royal Society by propounding the question,
Why is a dead fish heavier than a live one? The men of science debated this question with much acumen,
and offered various solutions of it. It however occurred to one of them to make sure by experiment that
the dead fish was in fact the heavier; and it was found that it was not. Now this trick of the Merry
Monarch is often played upon us by our own minds. We assume for one reason or another the reality of
some alleged fact, and then embark upon inquiries based upon it.
I propose to examine “the alleged fact” that the Great Tribulation of the End-time is God’s wrath against
those who go through it.
In some remarks on that Tribulation Darby stated 273 that he knew of only six texts dealing with the
matter. (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21; Mark 13:19; Rev. 3:10; 7:14). Similarly Kelly in his Second
Coming (p. 235).
But I can suggest two others that they leave alone; and I do not wonder that Darby and Kelly should have
omitted them, for they smash their whole case on the Great Tribula tion. I refer to “And it was given unto
271 Salmon, op. cit., p. 58.

272 Here is their syllogism:--
The Church of God is saved from the wrath to come.
The Great Tribulation consists in God’s wrath.
Therefore the Church of God will be saved from the Great Tribulation.
273 Collected Writings, vol. 11 (Prophetic), p. 251.
Page: 213
him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and authority was given him over all kindreds
and tongues and nations,” (Rev. 13:7). And Revelation 12:12-17, of which I quote the twelfth verse: “The
devil is come down unto you, having great wrath.”274
According to Darby and his followers, the Great Tribulation is the wrath of God against the Jewish
people for their rejection of Christ. According to Scripture, it is the Devil’s wrath against the saints for
their rejection of Antichrist, and adherence to Christ.
Let the reader once see the Scripture truth on this point and the whole pre-trib case will be exposed as a
campaign of assumptions, misstatements, and sentiment.
Take the second Scripture that I have quoted--(Rev. 12:12-17); undoubtedly we are transported to the
Last Days. Satan, cast down from the heavenly sphere, rushes in his fury on the Israelitish Church of the
End-time; she is marvelously spared, escaping to the wilderness (cf. Matt. 24:15-16, which gives the
same event), where she is protected during the three and a half years of the Great Tribulation. Foiled in
his purpose to destroy Christianity in its original home, Satan turns to the Woman’s remaining seed (v.
17), those which “keep God’s commandments and hold the testimony of Jesus;” that is, as this book of
Revelation, and John’s other Epistles show to Christians, who give content to the Divine commands, who
fulfill all righteousness (Rom. 8:4,275 and 1 Cor. 7:19276 ) and adhere unswervingly to Jesus Christ’s oral
testimony. Foiled twice in Judaea, Satan turns to persecute Christians all over the world. Chapter 13 gives
the instruments for this purpose.
Out of the restless sea of nations, Antichrist, at the head of an ancient kingdom, is called up from the
Abyss to fulfill his course (cf. 11:7). Wounded, apparently unto death, in a campaign against the saints,
his miraculous and satanic healing evokes the wonder of the world (13:3, 12, 14). With this recovery he
develops an astonishing activity, assuming openly the direction of operations, where hitherto Satan,
always invisible, had been the inspiring mind. Out of the land (v. 11)--figure of the ordered society of the
world-- “a fresh and undefeated” helper comes to his aid. It is the False Prophet. At first sight he seems
not to have the ferocious characteristics of the Antichrist (v. 2); his only weapons are the two horns of a
lamb; for like our Saviour, the true Lamb of God, who won his Community on earth by word and deed,
this prophet gains adherents and worshippers for the World-ruler by preaching and by miracles. His
ministry is also a caricature of that of Elijah and the two Prophets of the End-time (Rev. 11:1), all of
whom called, or will call, down fire from heaven to the glory of God, and the discomforture of His
enemies. This wonder-working Prophet, who comes with the meekness and harmlessness of a lamb, is
274In striking confirmation is Revelation 2:10, which reads: “Fear not the things which thou art about to
suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have
tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life,” (R.V.). How similar
to Revelation 3:10; 12:12, and 13:7. Past, present and future tribulation comes from the Devil.
275 “That the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us” (Darby’s translation).
“To secure the fulfillment of the Law’s requirements in our lives“ (Moffatt).
“The keeping of God’s commands was the whole matter” (F. W. Grant in loco), “Obedience to God’s
276
commands is everything” (Moffatt).
Page: 214
really “a wild beast prepared for offence and defense” in the campaign against the saints. His success in
the service of the Antichrist is as dazzling as that of the Antichrist in the service of Satan (vv. 1-8). The
world’s traffic and the world’s commerce contribute to the spread of this short-lived triumph of the
powers of darkness; a mark of distinction is given to all their adherents--on their right hand or their
forehead.277
Christendom is at their mercy--all except the saints in Christ Jesus, the Elect of the Christian confession
(Matt. 24: 11, 21-24; 2 Thess. 2:9-13; Rev. 14:12). Such shall be the signs and wonders and dangers that,
“if possible,” says the Lord, the Elect would yield.” And what does that mean,” said Adolph Saphir,
“except that it is not possible. The saints have patience, have wisdom, have faith (13:10, 18; 14:12).
Neither menace nor delusion can seduce them from their loyalty to Christ. By God’s grace they see
through the whole conspiracy of those dazzling thousand days, and resist till the End, or dying, pass into
the presence of the Lamb,” (Rev. 7:9-17).
Here then we have two chapters (Rev. 12-13) that were actually written to describe the origin, nature, and
course of the Great Tribulation--chapter 14:1 to 15:4 gives the issue. It is Satan through the Antichrist
and the False Prophet falling on the saints of the Last Days, who will follow the Lamb at all costs, and
will not do homage to the powers of darkness. Those two chapters, however, were written in vain for
William Kelly. In his Second Coming he has a very long chapter of fifty-two pages devoted to this
subject278 --“The Great Tribulation and Those Who Will Pass Through It;” in another work, Christ’s
277The previous two paragraphs owe much to the exposition, and even the language, of Zahn in his
remarkable discussion of these two chapters of the Apocalypse (12 and 13) in his Offenbarung des Johannes,
vol. 2. I have tried to give in a few lines the gist of several pages. Zahn takes the “Man-child” of chapter 12 as
a company of Jewish Christians of the End-time. This may be compared with some good remarks of Sir R.
Anderson’s Coming Prince, pp. 179-80, where he tentatively suggests that a Jewish prince of the End-time is
in view. The subject is very difficult, and it is not easy to get away from Alford’s exegesis, “the Man-Child is
the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other.”
278The spirit of the chapter is deplorable; the sophistry is serious enough, and the extreme ill-feeling
towards his opponents (“brayings of ignorance,” “antagonists of the truth,” p. 154, etc.) can be passed over.
But there is worse; for he comes nigh to unscrupulousness in his arguing. On pp. 198-99 he argues as if we
who find Jewish Christians in Palestine at the End-time really believe that “all the Christians in the world
will gather at that spot above all others”--Judaea. What yokel among his opponents ever proposed this?
Again, without drawing distinctions, he fastens on opponents the crude and offensive interpretation of some
of the Fathers and Reformers, as well as Erasmus, that in the Parable of the Carcass and the Vultures (Matt.
24:28; Luke 17:37) the Carcass represents our Lord, and the Vultures the Raptured saints. Why did he not
give chapter and verse for the interpretations instead of leaving the reader to believe that they came from
anti-Darbyist writers? Dr. Harold Smith, in his monumental work The Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels (6
vols.) gives no instance of Patristic (Ante-Nicene) interpretation.
Plummer in ICC on Luke gives St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Ambrose of Milan as adopting it. He naturally
rejects it as unsuitable. Meyer, on Matthew 24:28, gives a list of several fathers and Reformers and Catholics
who also adopted it. He strongly condemns it. I doubt very much whether a single expositor of this age of
scientific exegesis (say, since Winer, De Wette, Meyer and Lightfoot) has adopted it. It is not fair to leave the
impression that opponents of the pre-tribulation Rapture, opponents of Kelly and Darby, accepted it.
Since writing the above I have found full reference to the interpretation in Seiss’s Apocalypse, 2, pp. 67-70,
where he gives a long list of expositors from Origen to Wordsworth who accepted it. Seiss admits that it is
Page: 215
Coming Again he has another chapter of thirty-four pages given up to the same subject. He ranges over
the O.T. and various parts of the New. At the end of the lecture in the former volume he says, “I should
be obliged to anyone who will produce me other passages that refer to it; but I am not aware of them,” (p.
235). I have obliged him by producing two whole chapters, or nearly so, that describe the nature and
course of the Great Tribulation. Symbols apart, a child can understand them. But nothing will induce Mr.
Kelly to look at them.
By aggressive sophistry, and fantastic exegesis, he transforms the, Great Tribulation in Matthew 24:21,
into “a deadly scourge upon the ungodly and apostate Jews,” into desolation by “the Assyrian scourge,”
into “chastisement for the Jewish Nation,” into an instrument of God to afflict the apostate Jews (pp. 222,
etc.). One can grant that scourging and chastisement explain some things in the Apocalypse and in
Palestine in the Last Days, but most emphatically it is to be said that they do not explain Revelation 12-
13 and Matthew 24:4-28. Neither Assyrian, nor scourge of God, nor apostate Jews, nor judicial
chastisement, nor desolater, nor Jewish Nation, nor godly Remnant, is mentioned from beginning to end
of those passages of Scripture. The Great Tribulation of Matthew 24:21-24, is fully explained in
Revelation 7:9-17 and Revelation 13. The reason of it all is simply that the days are terribly evil; Anti-
christ and his Prophet will be in the ascendant. The saints will all be “Nonconformists.” That will be their
peril; for it will bring on them the wrath of the Man of Sin. Hence, the Great Tribulation.
And that persecution by the Antichrist will be but the climax of all the persecutions of the Church at the
hands of the world-power. Our Lord Himself made reference to the cause and motive of the Great
Tribulation. After speaking of the signs of the End-time He says: “And ye shall be hated of all men for
my Name’s sake” (Luke 21:17; cf. vv. 12-13). Again: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my Name’s
sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved,” (Matt. 10:22).
Yes, the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the devotion of Christians to it are what bring on the last
great trial; and we know that this has been the cause of tribulation all down the centuries.
To be sure, there will be desolating judgments upon the Jews for their acceptance of Antichrist, but they
are distinct from the wrath of Antichrist against the saints. The providential judgments upon the mass of
unbelieving Jews are to be seen in the plagues, which, many believe, will be executed instrumentally
through the Two Witnesses. But it is an unintelligent position to confuse the persecution of believers by
the Man of Sin, with the judgment of his followers by the hand of God.
repellent that our Lord should be represented as a dead body and His saints as birds of prey; yet he accepts
it! But it is to be pointed out that Seiss was substantially a pre-trib, holding to a pretribulation rapture of
Christians found watching. It is hard to omit saying that with great exegetes like Godet, Zahn, and others, the
carcass represents apostate humanity at the End, and the vultures the angels of judgment.
Then again (p. 227) Kelly seems totally unwilling to see that it is not essential to his opponents’ case to
assert that the multitude of Revelation 7:9-17 is the whole Church of all ages since Pentecost. Up to the time
of R.V. of verse 14 that inference was natural. Since then all that is vital to our case is that the victorious
multitude there is the Christian martyrs of the Great Tribulation, seen in heaven in a disembodied state,
after falling in that trial. Not the whole Church, but a glorious part of it. The relation of this multitude to the
blessed dead of all generations is discussed by Zahn and others, but cannot be dealt with here.
Page: 216
One other line of argument used to free the Church from the Great Tribulation is an unabashed appeal to
ignorance and prejudice. “The Church is a heavenly people in union with Christ; how horrible and
unfitting, therefore, that she should be exposed to the dreadful hour of trial under the Devil.”
Yes, “how horrible and unfitting” that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Body, should have
been spat upon, nailed to the gibbet as a malefactor, and have suffered at the hands of the Devil! “How
horrible and unfitting” that the very founders of the Church should have been beheaded and crucified at
the instigation of the Devil, through the sixth head of the world-power, which, in the Apocalypse, is
called “the Beast.” Moreover, all the objections that pre-tribs urge as necessitating the exemption of the
Church from the Great Tribulation, apply with equal force to securing the exemption of the saints of
Revelation 7:9-17 from the same trial. They are a heavenly people, an election of Jews and Gentiles out
of all tribes and nations, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and saved by grace; they, too, are precious to
the Saviour. If it is too horrible to think of the Church in the last crisis, then why is it not too horrible to
conceive of the multitude of Revelation 7:9-17 in the same trial? Why cannot theorists spare some pity
for the martyrs of the End-time, and free them also from affliction?
Again, did not the Lord have a tender regard for His Church? If there was some compelling reason why
His people should be exempt from the last fiery trial, why did not He convey some indication of it?
Instead, in a long discourse to the Apostles on the consummation of this evil Age, He used language that
not only presupposed that His beloved saints would be in that trial, but He actually gave them instructions
concerning their conduct in it. He even promised the Church His spiritual presence until the End of that
Age of which the Great Tribulation is a consummation (Matt. 28:20). Yet it is this very teaching that is
cast off as “Jewish” and “unsuitable” for the Church. Darbyists, I am very sure, would not knowingly say
one word derogatory to Christ, yet their devotion to a theory often leads them to say unwittingly things
that are terribly irreverent.
All this prejudice against the truth in question springs from two causes; first, a misconception of the
nature of the tribulation; this I have dealt with; secondly, from the Church’s having forgotten what
persecution is. Hence it is that even Christians who, we may be sure, would gladly die for the Name of
the Lord Jesus, are the very ones who are now so horrified at what they call “the hideous nightmare of the
tribulation,”279 and gravely inform us that they would “rather die than embrace such teaching:” rather die
than embrace a truth taught by the Lord Himself: rather die than abandon their precious theories of the
Rapture!
* * * *
May I, before closing, offer a few words of explanation in regard to the circumstances leading to the
production of this volume? I do so with reluctance, but others have urged it upon me as an obligation I
owe to the reader.
It is related that, in the eighteenth century, two English Deists met and agreed to write treatises to
overthrow the narratives of the resurrection of Christ, and the conversion of Paul. They agreed to study
the subjects and write their respective treatises. When they met later, each was astonished to find that
279 Sir R. Anderson.

Page: 217
careful study of the subject had changed the views of both, and that the treatises they had written
maintained the truth that each had agreed to assail, instead of overthrowing it.
My experience in the writing of the present volume has been somewhat similar; the course of study that
led to the writing of it began when I was a sincere supporter of the new theories on the prophetic future.
In my early Christian life I had been thrown into circles where not only the Lord’s Coming, but also the
new views on it were firmly held. The joy of learning the truth of Christ’s coming again, coupled with the
light that an understanding of Israel’s position in the counsels of God shed upon the prophetic page, was
such that I did not stop to examine all the presuppositions underlying the theories that I accepted. Hence,
in accepting the ideas that the Coming is for the Church, and the Appearing for Israel and the world: that
Matthew 24 is “Jewish” in such a sense that it cannot concern the Church, or any portion of it: that the
Elect in the Great Tribulation are Jews, and that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, is a special Coming for the
Church before the Seventieth Week of Daniel, and different from the Coming of the Son of Man, I
thought I was accepting truths as well established in Scripture as the main fact of Christ’s return, the
seeing of which had been extremely helpful.
My mentor, then an Anglican Christian, now a noble Brethren missionary in Mongolia, did not make it
clear when giving me valuable instruction, that the correlative term of “Jew” is not “Christian,” but
“Gentile:” that a man may be both Jew and Christian, and both Gentile and Christian: but not both Jew
and Gentile. So that when we say of the “coloring” in Matthew 24: “It is all Jewish,” we ought to mean
“it belongs to the land of Israel: it cannot possibly apply to Maoriland, New York or Timbuktu.” But in
fact what happens always is this: the mentor, admiringly following William Kelly and Dr. Gaebelein, or
carried away by their gifts as expositors and by their sophistry, says to his pupil: “This is all Jewish: it
has nothing to do with the Church; to introduce the Church is utter confusion.” And, since Logic is not a
fruit of the Spirit, the trick is done. Careful mentors must learn to say: “this is Jewish; the Lord in His
grace remembered the peculiar situation of His saints in the thick of the trial; He instructed His Church in
Judaea how to act when the Man of Sin seats himself as God in the Temple, (Matt. 24:15; cf. 2 Thess.
2:3-8); it must flee to the mountains, for the day of witness for them has passed. God is now to do a new
work in Israel. The Two Witnesses, by prayer, by power, by a new testimony, will gather out the 144,000
pious Israelites to be a nucleus of the Nation when the Son of Righteousness arises with healing in His
wings.”280
Another legend that is totally inadequate to distinguish things that differ is: “the Jew, the Gentile and the
280
Church of God.” John in the Apocalypse gives us:--

o Local congregations at Ephesus, etc. (2-3).
o The Bride, the Church of the Elect (19:7-9).
o Apostate Israel (signified by the part of the Temple trodden under foot; 11:2).
o The 144,000 pious Israelites in the Land of Israel (=the measured part of the Temple, 11:1);
7:1-8; and probably 14:1-5.
o The Israelitish Church or the Sun-clad Woman (12; cf. Matt. 24:15-26).
o The Rest of her seed: Gentile Christians among the Nations (12:17- 13).
o The Martyrs of the present period (6:9-11); of the End-time (7:9-17;
15:2-5); of all time (20:4).
Page: 218
Being young and inexperienced I supposed also that the new views were a return to those held by
Christians in Apostolic times and by the sub-Apostolic Church; and that people who taught that the
Church would pass through the Great Tribulation under Antichrist were singular persons, and much
misled. Such at any rate was my position on entering the Divinity School for further preparation for the
ministry. And here my first shock was to find that the saintly scholar who presided over the School,
whilst looking for the Saviour’s Return, believed that Antichrist would come first, and that the Church of
the Last Days would be exposed to the Great Tribulation. Being thoroughly grounded in the new theories,
I concluded that my teacher was neither “clear” nor “sound” on the subject! My mortification was greater
when I learned that our professor had, earlier in life, held to the pre-trib theories, but, after careful study,
had subsequently abandoned them as unscriptural; this, I thought, was lamentable. And even although the
scholar in question wrote a volume on the Book of Revelation, embodying his ideas, I left the Divinity
School unconvinced, and unimpressed by the scheme.
During my divinity course I had made urgent representations to Sir Robert Anderson, whose Gospel and
Its Ministry, Coming Prince and Human Destiny I thought highly of, that he should write a volume,
similar to his Human Destiny, refuting the principal errors on the Lord’s Coming; he sent word to me that
he would keep the matter in mind, and Miss Habershon wrote to me that she had suggested to Sir Robert
a list of the necessary chapters for the book. In due time, it appeared--Forgotten Truths, which I have
unfortunately had to criticize unfavorably in this volume.
The activities of missionary work kept the subject in the background for some time, until I found that
much interest prevailed on the subject among the people to whom I minis tered. They were especially
interested in the subject of the Apocalypse and the predictions concerning Antichrist. Some of this
interest was wholesome; some was not; all of it needed direction. One thing was evident: I myself needed
to be sure of my own position, before teaching others. Something made me willing to admit that if the
pre-trib views that I believed in were Scriptural, they could stand the test of a searching and impartial
inquiry to find out the truth. Hence I began to search the Scriptures afresh; but, after reading Anderson’s
admirable volume, The Coming Prince, and Kelly’s Lectures on The Second Coming and Kingdom,281 I
became more than ever confirmed in my old position; the inquiry was dropped in the press of work.
Sometime later, I was reading Tregelles’ volume Remarks on The Prophetic Visions of Daniel; great was
my embarrassment on reading his exposition of the resurrection in chapter 12:1-3, to find that his case in
insisting on a literal resurrection of the saints at the time of Antichrist’s destruction could not be easily
Zahn, Nathaniel West, Dr. G. Moorehead and many German exegetes, combine (d) and (e) to give a Christian
Jewish Church of the End; this agrees with Sir R. Anderson’s view. But, following Tregelles and Dr. W. J.
Erdman, I find less difficulty in taking (e) as the Christian Church of Judæa, which is sheltered in the
wilderness during the 1,260 days of the Great Tribulation, and (d) as pious Israelites in the Land protected
against death and apostasy, but only converted at 14:1-5; in other words, it is a Jewish National Remnant.
But the “sealing” of chapter 7 is widely taken as conversion to Christ, effected by the ministry of the Two
Witnesses of 11. The exigencies of controversy, I fear, hinder us all in taking an impartial view. There is a
remarkable chapter on the 144,000 in West’s Thousand Years.
I did not see then that Kelly, to great gifts as an expositor, added the same defect in logical reasoning as
281
Canon A. C. Deane remarked in J. H. Newman’s Apologia: the author made the unproved assertion of one
page the presupposition of his reasoning in the next. Kelly’s powerful advocacy contained other
controversial artifices, but his aggressive sophistry was the most pronounced.
Page: 219
disposed of. It seemed, in fact, unanswerable; I turned to Kelly’s Notes on Daniel, but such was the
distortion of Scripture employed that doubts began to arise in my mind about the case that needed it. A
thorough study of the Scriptures in regard to the resurrection soon showed me that the pre-trib position of
a resurrection seven years or more before the conversion of Israel, the destruction of Antichrist, and the
inauguration of the Kingdom, was nowhere taught in Scripture, since everywhere the resurrection was
located at the Day of the Lord. This consideration convinced me that there were fundamental errors in the
pre-trib school, and a careful study of all the passages on the Rapture, and allied themes, also convinced
me that the new scheme can only be maintained by swallowing at the outset some presuppositions on
Matthew 24 that are incapable of proof, and by dexterously smoothing over a thousand inconsistencies
and difficulties. The study that began in the hope that it might eventually lead to a modest contribution in
support of the Darbyist scheme of the prophetic future, ended in one that aims at supplanting it by “the
faith that once he destroyed.”
I am not wishing to lord my experience over the reader; I merely wish to show him that the assertion of
pre-trib writers that those who differ from them are lacking in light and knowledge of dispensational
truth, is unfounded. Some of us were thoroughly initiated into all the intricacies of dispensational truth,
and could give points and a beating perhaps too many; we held just as firmly as they do to their dispensa-
tional method, but, whilst we still hold, as Augustine is alleged to have said, that if we “distinguish the
dispensations the Scriptures harmonize,” and rejoice in seeing the distinction between the position and
blessedness of Israel and that of the Church, we quite deliberately reject the dispensational theories,
propounded first about 1830, as innovations that a careful and unbiased study of the Scriptures not only
does not sustain, but exposes at every turn.
It is told of an ancient king of Athens that he was able to emerge from a vast labyrinth by winding up a
reel of cotton that he had unwound as he entered it. And the present writer had a similar experience on
alighting from a train in the tropics, and facing a journey of two hundred miles inland from the railhead:
bypaths and crossroads abounded to puzzle even experienced travelers. When I asked a teamster to
instruct me about the roads he replied: “there are too many wrong roads to explain to you; but if you
follow the streak of cotton across the hinterland you cannot go wrong.” And surely enough, the tufts of
cotton at the roadside, which the brambles and thorns had seized from bales of cotton as they passed on
the mules going to the railway, formed a perfect clue, and the goal was reached without mishap.
In the labyrinth of prophetic facts and theories I confidently recommend to the honest enquirer a shining
clue that will not fail him: it is the resurrection of the saints let him courageously and impartially examine
the setting of Isaiah 25:8; 26:19; Daniel 12:13; Matthew 13:43; Luke 14:14; John 6:39-54; Romans
11:15; 1 Corinthians 15:54, 23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 11:15-18; 20:4-6; and he will shed
forever the pleasing delusion that the saints are raised and raptured out of the world before the coming of
Antichrist; shed forever the fiction that Antichrist arises after Messiah’s Parousia and Day.
A hard saying that: yet there is not the slightest doubt that the substitution of a secret rapture of the
Church (providing a delectable escape for the saints in the Last Days) for the Blessed Hope, which, Paul
tells us, is the Glorious Appearing of our Lord, is “a fond thing, vainly invented.” It would be a very
comforting truth if it were true; as it is not, we are safe in discarding it. If the Lord’s Coming is as
“imminent” as pre-tribs have been assuring us for a hundred years, the theory is a dangerous innovation
that ought to be exposed; it has had too long a vogue already.
Page: 220
In addition to the satisfaction of looking for Christ in a Scriptural, and not a sentimental, way, there are
important advantages from accepting the primitive attitude towards Christ’s Second Coming.
(1) The writings of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels and Apocalypse, possess now a
greater simplicity than under the theorists’ schemes. We now read in the Gospels the words of Him who
addressed members of the Church of God, and prepared them for the task of evangelizing the world. We
are delivered now from the Judaizing system of interpreting the discourses of Christ: instead of handing
them over to the semi-converted Jews, ignorant of Christ and redemption, we shall apply them to
Christians who know and love Christ, always remembering that there are many passages that presuppose
the existence of a Jewish Christian Church in Palestine, at a past or future epoch of its history: a Church
necessarily under the Law of the land, yet rejoicing only in Christ Jesus as the Saviour and Shepherd of
Israel.
The Scripture doctrine of Christ’s Return delivers us from the house of bondage in which the
dispensationalists would lock us. We do not say now in reading the New Testament, “that is for the
Jews:” “that is in Matthew’s Gospel.” We say rather: “that was spoken to the Apostles by the Lord Jesus:
therefore it deeply concerns me or my brethren in Christ.” The Lord Himself bade the Apostles teach
their converts “to observe all things whatsoever” He had commanded them (Matt. 28:20).
(2) I think that the Scriptural view of Christ’s Return is more calculated to gain the assent of thoughtful
Christians than the nineteenth-century scheme we have examined. Premillennialism never had a greater
millstone round its neck than the mass of vagaries that the new scheme propounds to us. Think of having
to defend theories that are associated in many minds with propositions like these, sponsored by eminent
names: --
 “The approaching Advent of Christ will be secret, and all Christians will be secretly
snatched away to Heaven.”
 “Matthew’s Gospel was written for the Jews”--its unsuitability for Gentile Christians being
taken for granted.
 “The Church is not in Acts before Paul.”
 “The Four Gospels do not contain ‘Church’ teaching.”
 “The Body of Christ is not in the Apocalypse.”
 “The Great Commission refers to the witness of the Jewish Remnant in the End-time,
before its own regeneration.”
 “The use of the Lord’s Prayer by Christians is unchristian.”
 “Israel’s deepest blindness will happen after the approaching Day of Messiah: after the
Glorious Appearing of Jehovah-Jesus in Titus 2:13.” “The First Resurrection is not the first--
but the second.”
 “The vision of Revelation 7:9-17 gives an earthly scene.”
 “The twelve Apostles are not in the Body.”
 “The Church cannot be the Bride, because she is the Body.” “Antichrist rises and triumphs
after the Parousia of Christ.”
Page: 221
 “The New Jerusalem is ‘Jewish.’”
I do not wonder now that the subject of the Second Coming is avoided in some quarters, when assertions
such as these are given forth as “subjects of Divine revelation,” (Dr. Bullinger).
(3) The doctrine of the Lord’s Coming becomes a much less intricate and speculative subject than it is in
pre-trib literature. The simple Christian will not now approach the N.T. with paste and scissors to
“divide” the word of truth into fragments--this beatitude for the Remnant, that for the Church: this
Scripture to the second, that to the third, and that to the fourth Coming of Christ. He will take up the New
Testament, and find there some hundreds of references to the Second Coming of Christ at the Day of the
Lord, which will be preceded, accompanied, and succeeded by many events in relation to Israel, the
Church and the Nations.
There will not be lacking many to rail at him for his slow wit and wrong-headedness. But let him not
waver, nor be afraid! “Simplex veri sigillum”--Simplicity is the seal of the truth.
In the Hibbert Lectures for 1934 Dr. Albert Schweitzer, the famous scholar, musician, and medical
missionary, uttered some striking words on the spirit of the age: “The spirit of the age dislikes what is
simple; it no longer believes that what is simple can be profound. It loves what is complicated, and
regards it as profound.”282
This is a perfect description of the attitude of pre-tribs to prophetic interpretation--and speculation: they
revel in the complicated, the uncommon, and the marvelous. An explanation that is far-fetched and
beneath the surface takes precedence over one that is simple, obvious, and pedestrian. We meet it
everywhere--in the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The ordinary interpretation of the Parable
of the Good Samaritan, with its lesson of neighborly concern and loving service for the wreckage of
society, was too prosaic and humdrum; the presence of a Levite and a Priest passing coldly by on the
other side of the road, was too great a temptation for Evangelicals to miss; they must make the Parable
say that Sacerdotalism cannot save, and that the Good Samaritan typifies the Saviour, who can. Sound
truths these--but not taught and not implied in this parable. So also with the “Parable” of the Sheep and
the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46; for one who comes to it to drink deeper of the Saviour’s spirit of
philanthropy toward the hungry, the sick, the ill-clad, and the imprisoned, a thousand come to it as a
problem in dispensationalism; and we all want to fit it into our scheme of the End, and especially, to
“dish” the foes of Chiliasm.
Ask Sir R. Anderson,283 Dr. Gaebelein,284 or Andrew Jukes285 to explain the difference between the
“gospel of God” and the “gospel of the kingdom,” the “word of God” (Luke 8:12) and the “word of the
kingdom” (Matt. 13:19), the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of heaven” (Matt. passim) and we are
treated to an astonishing display of exegetical hairsplitting “rightly dividing the word of truth.” In reality
282 Reported in the “British Weekly,” October 25th, 1934.

See the Distinction Between the Kingdom of Heaven, The Kingdom of God, and The Church, Forgotten
283
Truths, and Unfulfilled Prophecy.

284 See The Gospel of Matthew, 2 Vols., passim.
285 See Characteristic Differences in the Four Gospels.
Page: 222
it is like nothing so much as the incident that Dr. James Robertson tells of in his Early Religion of Israel:
an Oriental was asked where his ear was; he stretched out his right arm, wheeled it gracefully over his
head, and pulled at his left ear. Simplicity came to him unnaturally.
I have already passed on some dispensational truths that are hidden from the ordinary pre-trib through his
devotion to a theory, or his ignoring the works of giants like Deissmann, Dalman, Zahn and others. I
propose to pass on another. In spite of Dr. Gaebelein and Sir R. Anderson, there is nothing fiery subtle or
marvelous in Matthew’s use of the expressions “kingdom of heaven” instead of “kingdom of God” and
“word of the kingdom” instead of “word of God.” Each pair of phrases is identical in meaning with the
other, but Dr. Dalman, in his great work, The Words of Jesus, has shown that Matthew, writing for Jews,
who detested the excessive use of the Divine Name, fell in with the national predilection for using evasive
terms. “Heaven” and “Kingdom” were used instead of “God.” Dr. Dalman shows that there were many
such evasive terms in use, and employed throughout the Gospels, especially by Matthew. Like a wise
missionary he considered the susceptibilities of his constituency. We see the same thing in translating
works from continental languages into English. The flippant and irreverent use of God’s Name in scores
of exclamations is mostly spared us in the translations; they are toned down to suit a different attitude on
such things. The third commandment still runs.
Dalman’s explanation is as simple as it is satisfactory. Yet it can only be disappointing to

dispensationalists, with their love of the complicated, which they think is profound.286
Similarly when we see the Israelitish Church in Judaea in Matthew 24:16 and Revelation 12, and see that
the Elect of Matthew 24:21-31 are the same as the Elect (chosen) in Matthew 22:14--the saved of this
Dispensation, independent of all nationality--how clear the discourse on the Last Things becomes! All
that happens is that a delectable theory of the End gives place to one that is rugged and scriptural; one
that is complicated, and dependent on prophetic lecturers and experts to explain, yields to another that our
Lord Himself made so clear and simple for the whole of His flock, “that he may run that readeth it,”
(Hab. 2:2).
(4) I am well aware that the conclusions reached in this volume will cause grief to many whose good
opinion I greatly value, but the interests of the truth demand that, where we see a wrong doctrine held, it
should be refuted and replaced by the true one. The fact that the wrong theory is held by multitudes of
godly people, renders the need of correcting it all the more clamant, for others may be led into worse
error by the logical application of principles that led the more godly ones astray. Indeed, this has already
happened. And one must maintain that the main error of pre-tribs’ central position is sufficiently serious
to warrant an exposure of it.
It has not been a congenial task to deal with the hope of Christ’s Return in a controversial tone; it has
been distasteful to hurt the feelings of some to whom, on other subjects, I am indebted. I should have
preferred to deal with the subject in a less argumentative way; but the extent to which an erroneous
theory has been accepted--a theory, moreover, that has become derogatory to the authority of Christ and
286In Judaism in the N. T. Period R. Travers Herford, a high authority on Judaism, takes the same view: he
gives examples (the avoidance of Jahveh, etc.) and adds: “The modes of address just mentioned were
intended to avoid the necessity of directly naming God. With the same intention the word ‘Heaven’ was
substituted for ‘God’ in such phrases as ‘The Kingdom of Heaven’ (=God)” (p. 90).
Page: 223
His word--renders a pretty exhaustive exposure of it necessary. Peaceful pamphlets having been ignored,
it has been necessary to get down into the trenches of error and dig it out. If the present volume should
lead some to reexamine a scheme to which they have given an all too hasty acquiescence, and to embrace
the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the subject, the time spent in its preparation will have been
amply repaid.
(5) In looking for our Lord according to His word--after the fulfillment of certain signs and events--we do
not postpone the Lord’s Return. The signs help us to watch more intelligently; they quicken our hopes
that the Lord, who comes to relieve the sorrow of the world, and establish the kingly rule of Christ,
which, as Zahn beautifully puts it,287 “is limited in time, but broadens out into eternity,” may be near. In
truth, it is the accusers who, by putting off the fulfillment of the predicted signs until after an imaginary
any-moment Coming, which never eventuates, postpone the Advent. The Scriptures hold out the Glorious
Appearing of Christ as a present hope to Christians. Darby admitted that it was to the Early Church: how
much more may it be to us upon whom the ends of the Age would seem to have come: for the very signs
that our Lord Jesus Christ held out as beacon lights to guide us, indicate that this Coming has drawn nigh,
and that our salvation is nearer than when we believed. The following words of Mr. Spurgeon’s, written
nearly two generations ago, bear eloquent testimony to this, and will be welcome to many:--
Our Lord may come right soon; certain signs raise our hopes very high. The love of many waxes cold,
and the devil is doubly busy; and this last is no doubtful sign. When you see a farmer beginning to burn
the gates and break down the hedges, and unroof the barns, and so on, you say, “That fellow’s lease is run
out.” Satan has great wrath when he knows that his time is short. In the case of the demoniac child, we
read, “As he was yet a-coming the devil threw him down and tare him.” He knew that he was about to be
expelled, and so did his worst. The double veiling of the heavens only brings on that darkest part of the
night which precedes the dawn of day. When the tale of bricks is doubled Moses appears, and the same is
true of our still greater Deliverer. Let us take courage and be of good heart; for while we lift Christ on
high, and glorify His name, He is on the way to take up the quarrel of His covenant and rout His foes. 288
Equally beautiful and inspiring are the following words of one of the greatest Hebrew preachers in the
history of the Church. They may fitly close the volume:-- 289
Christians “see the day approaching,” for they love Christ’s Appearing, and to them the day of light is not
far off. Jesus said, “I come quickly.” The long delay of centuries does not contradict this “Quickly.”
Christ is looking forward unto His return, and unto nothing else. All events only prepare and further this
great consummation. And the Christians of every period recognize that the mystery of ungodliness is
already working, and that our only hope is the return of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Let this hope
separate us from the evil which is in the world, and strengthen and gladden us in all our sorrows and
difficulties; let it bind us together in the fellowship and ministry of love. Let us exhort one another daily
by word and example.
287 INT, Vol. 3, p. 401.

288 Cited by A. J. Gordon, “Things to Come,” 3, p. 7.
289 Adolph Saphir: Hebrews, 2, p. 236.
Page: 224
Appendix I. An Explanation
[July, 1937]
Should the reader of my work happen to have read a book entitled, The King’s Own Honors
Roll,290 published in 1933, or should he come to read it after reading mine, he would hardly fail to notice
many and striking resemblances between pp. 361-70 and 455-58 of Dr. Rolls’s work, and portions of
chapters 1 and 4, and most of chapter 2 of my own. Some scores of references to, or quotations from,
exegetical and theological works of A. B. Davidson, P. Fairbairn, C. D. Maitland, H. C. Orelli, G. F.
Oehler, J. Skinner, S. D. F. Salmond, R. Sinker, Sir G. A. Smith, S. P. Tregelles, and others were
adduced by Dr. Rolls; and all in reference to the hope of immortality as found in Isaiah 26:19, and Daniel
12:2-3. All are reproduced by me in reference to the same texts and the same hope; and without
acknowledgement. I am put in the position of using the same authorities as Dr. Rolls, and of repeating
and amplifying the arguments employed by him and it would even appear that I have appropriated his
language.
The similarities are so great that the reader who compares the one with the other will conclude, either that
both writers are drawing from a common source, or, that I am borrowing from Dr. Rolls, for the
possibility that two minds not only thought alike, but expressed themselves in the same arguments and in
similar words, and drew on the same numerous quotations and references, is quite incredible. In any
event I must clear myself of any suspicion that I have borrowed without acknowledgement, seeing that
my work comes out four years after Dr. Rolls’s.
My MS. was completed for the publisher in December, 1914, at the end of a missionary furlough in New
Zealand. According to the laws of that country I have held the copyright ever since. The intention was to
publish it in London in 1915, but the MS. was much too long, and I could not take the time from my
work to revise it. The project was put aside for eighteen years. I was in New Zealand again on furlough in
1932, when an outbreak of civil war in South America delayed my return, and gave me three months of
unexpected leisure. The MS. was remodeled, made into two MSS., and rewritten, before Dr. Rolls’s book
was published in 1933. The verification of my references was all that was lacking. Even this proved to be
too much in the life of a circuit-rider.
In December 1914 I had lent a carbon-copy of the MS. to an old and revered friend in New Zealand. He
was repeatedly asked to lend it to a Bible teacher in that country; he long hesitated, even demurred, but
finally released it at the end of 1929, receiving satisfactory assurances. He wrote his name and address on
the first page of the MS. This teacher saw fit to put it on the desk of a young and enthusiastic colleague at
the same institution, Mr. C. J. Rolls, as he then was.
When visiting New Zealand in 1932 I was told of the loan of the MS., but did not anticipate any trouble,
since the person most concerned was a Fundamentalist on the Keswick “platform,” and a Brethren
teacher. I took no steps to protect my interests.
By Charles J. Rolls. D.D., formerly of Auckland, New Zealand, Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A., and Toronto,
290
Canada.
Page: 225
Emigrating to Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A., Dr. Rolls, as he now became, published the first of two or
three volumes on the Apocalypse. A year later a friend of mine, who knew my MS. thoroughly, was
astonished in reading Dr. Rolls’s book to come on several pages (361-70) that were almost a replica of
corresponding material of mine, and four more (445-48) that showed dependence on an important
section. He forwarded me a copy of the first section, and I saw at once that the author had done me--I
cannot say paid me--the compliment of adapting and incorporating material of mine, but without a word
of acknowledgement. He even repeated slips in my MS., and several times used the word “pre-trib,”
which I coined, but did not publish, in 1914.
I hold autograph letters from Dr. Rolls wherein he admits that literary work of mine (“notes” and
“quotations” he called it), came into his hands--he supposed to be reviewed by him; that he glanced
rapidly, almost indifferently, through it, for the subject did not interest him. But a section on the
resurrection, having copious quotations from other writers, awakened his interest. Having little leisure to
read the dozen pages then (he later reduced the number to six), he asked his typist to copy the section for
future perusal. He did not even read it then. The material got into his files, which followed him to Kansas
City, Missouri. When later he was about to forward the MS. of his large work, The King’s Own Honors
Roll, to his publisher, he turned to his files for help on a section where there was room for more material.
He found typed copy of several pages without name or address, or any circumstance to indicate its origin.
He included it in his MS. for the publisher, exactly as he found it in his files. He was precluded from
making acknowledgement only by the anonymity of the section included, and by his inability to trace the
author. He assured me that he was able to verify my quotations, and had even consulted someone on the
right use of another’s authorities and quotations. He confidently asked my representatives and me to
believe that he had acted in good faith, and that it would have been easy to avoid detection of his use of
another’s work, if he had been disposed to arrange it.
The above is a fair and accurate statement of Dr. Rolls’s explanation. No favorable circumstance has
been omitted.
Now, my object in this Appendix is not to accuse Dr. Rolls at all, but to prevent the making of unjust
accusations against me by readers of my book who may have read his, and put two and two together. And
my best defense is to indicate that I hold letters from Dr. Rolls wherein he gives a version that clears me
completely.
Appendix II. Millenarians And Non-Millenarians
I have spoken in the Preface of periodical outbreaks of excitement about the approaching End; one
wishes that people who never tire proclaiming that the Second Coming is just round the corner, or just
behind the clouds, could study similar excitement in the past history of the Church, if only during the last
two or three hundred years. Daniel Defoe tells us in his Journal of the Plague Year that, in the midst of
the calamities of that time, a woman on a square gained a hearing for her prognostications that the
Coming of the Lord was right near; a few gathered, then many, then a crowd, as she pointed excitedly
toward the heavens to “A Horseman in the Sky.” The Son of Man was coming; could they not see Him?
Some thought that they could.
And during the Napoleonic wars, when the Man of Destiny was bestriding Europe and the Near East like
a colossus, what an innings the prophecy-mongers in England had, with the Book of Daniel and the
Page: 226
Apocalypse in one hand, and the latest mail from Egypt in the other! They were all cocksure that the
Antichrist had come, and some of them actually prophesied what Napoleon would do next, just as the
same fussy people are eyeing Mussolini and Hitler today. I refer the interested reader to the tracts by Dr.
S. R. Maitland, librarian at Lambeth Palace some ninety years ago: The Prophecies of Antichrist, First
and Second Inquiries into the Prophetic Periods of Daniel and The Revelation, with replies to critics. He
was a competent scholar, and rendered priceless service by exposing the extravagances and fanaticism of
the movement, and of the “Protestant” and “Historical” interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and the
Apocalypse. Maitland’s labors were seconded by Dr. S. P. Tregelles, who, if not a great O.T. scholar, had
deep discernment of Daniel’s prophecies. It is in great part owing to these two men that the “Year-Day”
theory of the prophetic periods was scrapped: and now the whole body of scientific exegetes on both
sides of the Atlantic has done the same; not only that, one never meets now in the scientific
commentaries the notion that the Pope or the Papacy fulfils the prophecies of Antichrist.
Unfortunately the World War, and the passage of Jerusalem from the dominion of Turkey to another
Gentile Power have led to a recrudescence of fanaticism along the old, discredited lines. If anyone
prophesied that in 1917 Palestine or Jerusalem would be freed from Gentile dominion, he was a false
prophet, for Gentiles are in charge and will continue so until the End, according to a very definite
prophecy of Our Lord’s (Luke 21:24; Cf. Matt. 23:39).
A decade or two after the Napoleonic Wars, when extremely valuable features of the Lord’s Coming
were revived through J. N. Darby, the mistake was again made of asserting that the Lord was really just
at hand to rapture away faithful Philadelphia; the saints were encouraged to be on the tip-toe of
expectation. In Sir Edmund Gosse’s Father and Son one sees the ennobling influence of waiting for the
Lord’s Coming;291 but one also sees the mistaken over-confidence that the Lord was just at hand. And
there are people who learn nothing from the events of one hundred years ago.
Millenarianism has need to pray frequently to be saved from its friends; for every cranky sect in
Christendom--the Christadelphians and the Philadelphians, the Russellites and the Crowdyites, the
Sabbatists and the Pentecostalists, the Winebrennarians and Muggletonians (of whom even Lytton
Strachey had time to write for our pleasure and profit): all the mosquito sects that take themselves so
seriously, and pester what they choose to call “the Apostate Church” (usually all Christendom except a
tiny sect): they all have their doctrine of the millennium, and do their utmost to discredit the vision of
Scripture292
291 In her review of The Life and Letters of Sir Edmund Gosse Miss Jane T. Stoddart, of “The British Weekly,”
quoted a letter of Gosse’s about his saintly father, who belonged to the Brethren: “In these last months of
Philip Gosse’s life the great expectation, surpassing for him all else in its wonder and significance, flamed up,
illuminating the darkness which was closing round him. When it became evident that he could not long
survive, he said, turning to his wife in her distress, ‘Oh, darling, do not trouble. It’s not too late; even now the
Blessed Lord may come and take us both up together.’”
292In his study of “Constantine the Great” in Skizzen aus dem Leben d. Alien Kirche (chap. 4) Zahn mentions,
in order to refute, the idea of many that Church history till Constantine was that of a pure bride, and after
that of the Lewd Woman of Revelation 17. And he does justice to one of the most misunderstood men in
history.
Page: 227
In 1928 the American people rejected a Roman Catholic candidate for the Presidency; on the morrow it
was given out the world over that the great Republic of the West had given way to bigoted feeling. The
best answer to this came from Edison, the famous inventor and scientist. He said: “Governor Smith stood
for too many things that the American people don’t like.” Perhaps he meant that, under given conditions,
a Roman Catholic could govern as patriotically in America as Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Canada, Sir Edmund
Barton and others in Australia, and Sir Joseph Ward in New Zealand; but a politician who stood for
Tammany, and liquor, and the Democratic party, and the Roman Church, hadn’t the ghost of a chance of
being elected in 1928; and he was right.
Millenarians should learn that one reason why their cause is unpopular in most thoughtful circles is that it
has almost always stood, at least since the third and fourth centuries, for too many things that the average,
level-headed man of education has disliked. He points out that millenarians, from the Montanists to the
Anabaptists, and Edward Irving and J. N. Darby, have too often stood for Little Church against Big
Church, for excitement against the orderly pursuit of one’s duties, for pessimism against orderly progress,
and for dogmatic and bizarre exegesis of types, parables, and the Apocalypse, as against the full and
sober explanation of the central truths, which make for peace and edification. And he points to the man
(or woman) whom we all have met, who, with a certain Reference Bible in his hand can thrash the
mountains of tradition, and the theologians of tradition; yes, and oust harmony from a Church in no time.
The indictment is one-sided, doubtless, and fails to take notice of the panics that Post-millennialism
provoked in the Middle Ages through its wrong theories of the End. And it admits of the retort that Zahn
makes in his notes on Matthew 19:28: that it is only “a crass Chiliasm” that the Church need be afraid of:
a Chiliasm that “serves up the millennium,” as someone has said, “for breakfast, dinner, and tea,” and
makes its adherents narrow in their outlook on life, and in their attitude to the great movements of God in
history.
It is easy to ridicule millenarians, and many of them have deserved it; but it is impossible for any
thoughtful man to ridicule the sublime prophecy of the millennium in Revelation 20:1-6, and 21:9 to
22:5--for the opinion of Darby and Kelly, and now of Dr. Charles and Theodor Zahn, that the second
description of the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem, as given in the latter section, has reference to the
millennium, is certainly to be accepted.
I have had to lay aside a plan dealing with the complete victory in modern exegesis of the plain, literal
interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6; even an abridgement of it has had to be omitted. I can only hope for
leisure to write a tract showing the revolutionary change of attitude in the exegetes of Germany, Britain,
and America to the vision of the millennium. Here one can but make the arbitrary statement that the post-
millennial interpretation of Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and the majority of the Church’s theologians ever
since, is now as dead as Queen Anne, and just as honorably buried. Though one remembers seeing an
American theologian, clad in medieval armor, contending valiantly for the faith--“on the grave thereof.”
Peake’s commentary on the Bible says that the figurative or allegorical interpretation is “dishonest
trifling,” and “playing with terms,” which is excessively severe. Dr. Beckwith, in a commentary that
reminds one again and again of Alford’s great work, says of the non-literal interpretations: “Recent
scholars are very generally agreed in rejecting such interpretations as impossible” (p. 738). The voice of
modern scholarship is fairly represented in the verdict of Dr. S. D. F. Salmond in his great work, The
Christian Doctrine of Immortality (p. 352):--
Page: 228
However the circumstance is to be accounted for, and however it is to be related to the general teaching
of the New Testament, it must be admitted that this remarkable paragraph in John’s Apocalypse speaks of
a real millennial reign of Christ on earth together with certain of His saints, which comes in between a
first resurrection and the final judgment.
Dr. Salmond’s testimony gains in weight from the consideration that he resists the millennial
interpretation all through his exposition of the Scriptures. But when he comes to the classic passage he
lays down his arms.
The same setting-aside of the figurative or allegorical interpretations from the hoary past is to be found
in The Century Bible, The Cambridge Bible, The Cambridge Greek Testament, The Expositor’s Greek
Testament, The International Critical Commentary, and in Peake’s Hartley Lecture series. In Germany it
is the same story; Bousset in the Meyer series; Holtzmann-Bauer in the Handkommentar, Lohmeyer in
the Handbuch, Weiss-Heitmiiller in the Schriften, Theodor Zahn in his own series, and Adolph Schlatter
in his Erlauterungen--all proceed upon the presupposition that the figurative interpretations have passed
away. So also the N.T. Theologies there. (Feine, Holtzmann, Schlatter, and Zahn )
In one or two cases the writers rationalize; but the argument is unaffected. It is conceded that the
Apocalypse presupposes that the Lord will begin to reign in power at His Coming.
Not only that; the world’s scholarship is telling us that Paul has the doctrine of a kingly rule of Christ on
earth between the resurrection of the dead in Christ and the absolute End, when the Son gives up the
sovereignty to God; there is agreement between Paul and John, except that Paul is silent on the length of
the Messianic reign. This is substantially the position taken by Johannes Weiss, Schmiedel293 Lietzmann,
Bousset, Bachmann, and Schlatter respectively, in the series mentioned above. There is no space even to
quote the verdict of H. J. Holtzmann to the same effect, after surveying German and foreign exegesis and
theology on the great passage in 1 Corinthians 15:22-2 294 (Lehrbuch der Neatest. Theologie, vol. 2, p.
228). There is less need to do this since there are two or three works in English that give the gist of
German exegesis; first, The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul, by Dr. Albert Schweitzer (chap. 4
“Eschatology”); the second is Peake’s paraphrase of that passage in Paul, in his Commentary. Cf.
Thackeray’s The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought. Dr. Peake, it may be said, was
quite frigid on programs of the End; indeed, in his Plain Thoughts on Great Subjects (pp. 118-21) he
discusses the necessity of surrendering (to the Anthropologists) the whole conception of the Second
Coining; though he makes the valuable admission that “the reappearance of Christ in bodily presence on
earth involves no more difficulties than His departure from it.”
Today’s and tomorrow’s debate, as in the third and fourth centuries, will be between the millenarians and
the non-millenarians; between those who accept Revelation 19:11-20:1-6 as inspired Scripture, and,
therefore, will be millenarians, and those who, if they cannot, like the Greek Fathers (on whom see
Harnack’s classic article on “Millennium” in the Encyclopedia Britannica) keep the inconvenient
I owe the reference to Schmiedel’s position to Dr. Geerhardus Vos’s Pauline Eschatology. Schmiedel’s
293
work is seemingly unobtainable, even in Germany.

294 There is a further reference to this passage in chapter iv.
Page: 229
Apocalypse out of the Canon, can undermine it by making it (in Zahn’s tart phrase) “an artificial
patchwork of a seer who saw nothing.”
Allegorical exegesis from Alexandria having been driven out of the modern Church by the new age of
exegesis introduced by Winer’s Greek Grammar, and the resultant scientific commentaries everywhere,
the issue is narrowed delightfully: inspiration and anthropology, faith and unbelief, will measure their
distance on the whole conception of the consummation of history, as given by the two greatest teachers
among the Apostles.
I expect my views on prophecy to be criticized; to aid this criticism I may say that I have no particular
theory of inspiration to espouse. I believe that Prophets and Apocalyptists were inspired by the Holy
Ghost, or had inspired visions, and that their predictions and visions of the End are highly important and
worthy of trust. “We need add no adjective to the word ‘Inspiration,’” said Adolph Saphir, who had a
high view of the Bible, and I agree with him again when he said that none of us could frame a theory of
the Holy Spirit’s working in us at conversion and renewal, and that we should do well to refrain from
framing one about how He worked in Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles when they wrote the
Scriptures.
In a recent number of the “Expository Times” the late Dr. James Hastings is quoted as saying that on the
Second Coming people are divided into three classes: “Those who think it is everything, those who think
it is something, and those who think it is nothing” (Oct. 1936). On this classifica tion some of us rank
ourselves, in President Roosevelt’s phrase, “a little left of centre.” We think it important, and an aid to
faith; and we regret that most instruction on the subject comes from enthusiasts with “half-baked
theories” to espouse, and showing little acquaintance with great exegesis.
To students who question, and some who ridicule, the possibility that saints like Paul and John, who
sometimes had visions of the exalted Lord, and lived in intimate communion with Him, could make
credible prophecies about Rome, Antichrist, Israel, and the End, I commend the astonishing and authentic
prophecy by Metternich, a consummate European diplomat, one hundred years ago, and a thoroughgoing
man of the world. As it does not come to us in the name of God, is not found in the Bible, and does not
claim to be inspired, I think that even negative writers will give the prophecy a hearing. The prediction is
taken from a notable leader in a special number of “The Times Literary Supplement,” devoted to German
literature (April 18, 1929). After a remark about those who scoff at “an indwelling righteousness of
things” that frees enslaved peoples, the writer of the leader continues:
They might have scoffed, too, at Metternich’s prophetic vision--had they known it--which the Director of
the Austrian War Archives, Herr Glaise-Horstenau, recorded in the Neue Freie Presse of July 3rd, 1926,
on the sixtieth anniversary of the battle of Koniggratz. Writing from exile in Brussels in 1851, fifteen
years before Bismarck ejected Austria from Germany “with blood and iron,” Metternich predicted that
Austria would be turned out of Germany and that Germany would be absorbed in an aggrandized Prussia:
that between Prussia-Germany and Austria there would of necessity be formed a mid-European Alliance,
against which a world-coalition would presently wage a war of annihilation: and that in this war Austria
would go to pieces, the Hohenzollern Throne would fall, and Prussia would be absorbed in a German
Republic.
Page: 230
Few political prophecies have been more remarkable than this. And it is curious that Metternich should
have said sooth only after his fall from power.
Metternich’s prophecy was remarkable also for its omissions he said nothing of Austria’s relation to the
new Germany. Therein he showed his sagacity. Few statesmen on the spot today would risk their
reputations by expressing their opinion on the fate of Austria. Yet Metternich made seven distinct
predictions that were fulfilled295
Metternich’s prophecy may serve to illustrate why we believe that holy men of God, who often spoke as
they were moved by the Holy Spirit, were quite capable of making detailed and credible prophecies about
the End, which, in Scripture, is always viewed as near. That Antichrist shall arise out of the unrest and
disbelief of the peoples, that Israel shall return to her own land, that the Gospel shall be preached to all
nations, and that Jesus the Lord shall assume the sovereignty of the world--these are as real and vivid to a
believer as yesterday’s history: Bousset and David Smith notwithstanding.
Appendix III. On Brethrenism296
I should like to have had time to do justice to aspects of the Brethren movement that might seem to be
impugned by an examination of their views of the Last Things. I may refer the reader to Appendix IV,
where I have said something on Darby’s merits and limitations as a teacher. But I may mention here that
one of his greatest services is rarely remembered: he and his writings fired Henry Moorhouse, who fired
D. L. Moody, one of the three or four religious geniuses of America, and Moody moved the world.
It is worth recalling for a new generation the story of Henry Moorhouse 297 one of the greatest evangelists
of his day. There is some doubt whether he actually belonged to the Brethren, but it is certain that he
moved among them, and that his preaching was acceptable to them. In early life he had been trium
litterarum homo, (A Latin euphemism for “fur”), but after conversion became an extraordinary witness of
the love of God, in the ‘seventies of last century. He took literally the saying of John that “God is love,”
and that it is God’s goodness that leads men to repentance (Rom. 2:4). All roads in the Scriptures led to
the proclamation of that truth. When still a very young man he told Moody with fresh confidence that he
planned to go to America and preach in his Church. Moody was not a bit enthusiastic; to his surprise the
young man turned up in Chicago at the great man’s Church. He was permitted to take a mid-week service
whilst Moody went away. When the latter returned he found the Church crowded with audiences that had
295Metternich’s prediction was well worthy of inclusion in Mr. H. J. Forman’s Story of Prophecy (Farrar and
Rinehart, N.Y., 1936), an extremely interesting volume on prophets and predictions during the Christian era.
296I have used here Mr. W. B. Neatby’s term, and elsewhere “Darbyist.” Without some such terms one can
make no progress, unless one used intolerable circumlocutions. I may say that, although the term appeared
in print some few years ago, it was coined by me in 1914 so as to avoid “Darbyite,” which had offensive
associations. I hope that this will be sufficient to persuade Brethren that the new term is not used churlishly.
People are not offended at being called Calvinists or Arminians, and people, in or out of the Churches, who
accept J. N. Darby’s ideas on the Second Advent, should not take it amiss if they are called “Darbyists.” This
word, I may explain, is the anglicized form of the Portuguese “Darbystas.”
297 The essential facts are given in Mr. W. R. Moody’s Life of his father.
Page: 231
listened enthralled, night after night, to expositions of John 3:16, by a plain preacher with no preparation
in the Schools.
On the last night--the seventh--Moody was present, and Moorhouse arose to announce his text. He said
that he had thought of changing his text for the last night, but on reflection had decided to keep to the
same theme and the same text; and beginning at Moses and the prophets he unfolded his theme with
overwhelming glow, and pressed repentance on the people. Moody, who had been prepared by his Elders
for something unusual, was profoundly moved. He saw that his preaching, as Dale of Birmingham had
said, had been too ethical and that it lacked a mother-note; and from that day the great evangelist
cultivated a note of tenderness and sympathy, with the happiest results to the world. For, he too, went
everywhere preaching that God is good, and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. This he owed
under God to Henry Moorhouse and John Nelson Darby; and it would do the ministry great good today to
lay aside its prejudice, and take up some of Darby’s less controversial works, like his expositions of the
Gospels and Epistles, and the central truths of the Gospel.
Returning to Moorhouse I may say that one of the profoundest preachers in the Southern Hemisphere--
the late Rev. Dr. Robert Erwin, M.A., D.D., for a generation pastor of Knox Church, Christchurch, New
Zealand, remarked twice to the present writer that Henry Moorhouse was “the greatest preacher of
salvation that he had ever heard.” And shortly before his lamented death in 1932, he remarked that
Moorhouse was once asked to appear before the Presbytery of Belfast, Ireland 298 to explain his doctrine
of repentance, which to them seemed unsatisfactory. They expected him to harrow his audiences with the
Law, and bring his converts through deep remorse to saving faith. Moorhouse arose and made the
original observation: “Gentleman, I won’t put even a tear between the sinner and the Saviour.” It
behooved men to come to Him just as they were, just as they felt, just as they needed, irrespective of any
lack of a profound emotional experience. God would receive them. Such was his gospel299
One is glad to testify that the Pauline doctrines of grace, and the evangelistic urgency and tenderness of
men like Moor-house, are well represented today among the Open Brethren. If anyone wishes to see how
fine the Brethren Gospel is, he has only to read Moody’s sermons, Mackay’s Grace and Truth (of which
a Brethren evangelist once said exaggeratingly to the present writer: “He stole it all from Brethren”), and
Sir Robert Anderson’s fine work, The Gospel and Its Ministry, which has taught hundreds how to preach
the Gospel, and owed much to Darby.
Moorhouse had been telling Guinness of some sleight of hand performance; the latter was a bit
incredulous, and said so. Greatly venturing, he made reference to Moorhouse’s past: “They say that you--
er--have had experience with--er--this pick-pocket business; well, you can’t--er--take my watch off me.”
“No,” said Moorhouse, “it’s not likely when you’re forearmed.” They travelled along in the train,
conversing and reading, and Moorhouse turned to his companion and said: “What’s the time please, Dr.
Guinness?” The latter felt for his watch everywhere, but vainly, and then exclaimed in his anguish:
“They’ve robbed me!” After a minute or two Moorhouse reached out his hand and said: “Here’s your
watch, Dr. Guinness.”
298 Moorhouse, though among Brethren, would preach anywhere.

299No harm can be done telling in lighter vein of a journey that Moorhouse made, on one of his evangelistic
tours, with the Rev. Dr. H. Grattan Guinness.
Page: 232
Appendix IV. We Know In Part, And We Prophesy In Part
An additional objection to the view of the Lord’s Coming advocated in these pages, but not relevant
enough to include in the text, is universally felt, seldom expressed; it is more or less this:-
“It is impossible to believe that Brethren would be allowed to go wrong on the subject of the Second
Coming, when they were used to revive so much truth concerning it and other doctrines.”
This claims too much; if true it would lead practically to a doctrine of infallibility for all the spiritual,
Puritan movements in the Church. History teaches, on the contrary, that all down the ages even the
greatest men of the Church have known only in part, and prophesied in part. Augustine rendered priceless
service to the truth with doctrines of grace based on his own deep experience and his study of Paul, which
were to give impetus, after a thousand years, to the glorious Reformation; yet to Cyprian’s Church of
sacerdotal and heaven-sent bishops he added elements from the framework of Society and Empire that
gave us the imposing Catholic Church and Catholic sentiment, “with its undue dependence upon the
Church and the Church’s sacraments” (Dr. Bartlet: Early Church History, p. 240).
Luther preached a glorious gospel of free grace for the chief of sinners, but committed errors, as on the
Peasants’ War, that no one excuses, whilst vistas of truth were unsurveyed. Calvin, like Luther,
expounded the Scriptures and formulated truth with extraordinary insight and power, but his doctrine of
the sovereignty, though embodying the ultimate explanation of deep mysteries, just lacked, when
systematized, the warmth, the glow, that suffuses every page of the New Testament. Calvin himself
would have rejoiced in the warmth imparted to his system by illustrious disciples like Jonathan Edwards,
George Whitefield, Chalmers, Charles Hodge, “Rabbi” Duncan, and Adolph Saphir. And Calvin made
mistakes that no one thinks it necessary to condone: there was one Servetus. Moreover, the meaning of
the fundamental phrase, “the kingdom of heaven,” Zahn asserts 300 disappeared from theology in the
fourth century. Gratifyingly it has reappeared in the past few decades; earlier in Germany. Calvin too saw
in part, and prophesied in part.
In his great commentary on the Apocalypse in the Zahn Kommentar series Theodore Zahn deals
particularly with Calvin’s views on some of the Last Things; he refers to his not undertaking a
commentary on the Apocalypse after expounding so much else, and cites some contemptuous remarks of
his about Millenarians of all schools and their beliefs. Zahn then quotes Calvin’s judgment that people
who look for an individual Antichrist are crazy. As the greatest scholar that Millenarianism has produced,
and, in Dr. A. S. Peake’s generous words, “perhaps the greatest scholar of the age,” Zahn had
qualifications to reply. He says (vol. 1, pp. 121-22):--
“That man judging thus was not called to discover the key to the understanding of the Apocalypse is
quite evident. What kept the Genevan reformer from setting about his exposition of the Apocalypse was
not this judgment, but his ideal of the Theocracy. Instead of animating his fellow-Christians by preaching
and instruction to await patiently and in faith the establishment of the kingly rule that Jesus had promised
in connection with His Parousia (Rev. 1:9; 2:26-28; 13:10; 14:12), he considered it his task to make the
secular authorities submissive to his interpretation of the Divine Commandments, and by all coercive
300 Zahn-Kommentar; Matthaus, p. 552.

Page: 233
means, and the criminal jurisdiction at the disposal of these authorities, to compel even the unconverted
to the same obedience. The result that Calvin and his followers achieved was not essentially different
from that which the Papal Church through the Inquisition, and later through the Jesuits’ Order, with
greater worldly wisdom, pursued. See H. Preuss Luther, Calvin, Loyala (1922), especially pp. 29-37.”
There is truth in this, but not the whole truth. Dr. George Jackson has recently (“Manchester Guardian
Weekly,” November 27th, 1936) drawn attention to Calvin’s imperishable contribution to truth and
civilization. He gives noble testimonies from Lord Morley to Calvin’s place in history, and then cites
Mark Pattison and Morley as being in agreement that Calvin “saved Europe in the sixteenth century.” His
mistaken exegesis on the Millennium, Antichrist, and the Commandments, was a small price to pay for
this301 and his controversial method was the product of a rugged age. Yet there is enough truth in Zahn’s
strictures to warrant the conclusion that Calvin too knew in part, and prophesied in part.
It is always the same, and the moment men think that they have found a teacher full-orbed, and
thoroughly furnished--be it Schleiermarber, Rothe, Hofmann, Ritschl or Barth--they soon find that he has
bad spots somewhere302
His doctrine of the incarnation, the atonement, or the resurrection is unsatisfactory, or he falls down
elsewhere on the faith. It was so with Darby: he was used to revive many aspects of truth that are now the
possession of parts of the Church. The wonder is that Darby, having thrown over Churches, creeds,
bishops, ministers, pastors, the Lord’s Prayer, laying on of hands, missions to the heathen, and other
Scriptural institutions, still retained the essentials of the Catholic faith, and even developed aspects that
Christendom had neglected303
301What should we not forgive in a leader who would save Europe from the tyrants (“bright and complete”
as Mr. H. G. Wells might say) who have her by the throat today?
302 The limitations of teachers are well brought out by an incident recorded by Theodore Zahn in his
autobiographical sketch in Stange’s Die Religionstvissenschaft der Gegenivart in Selbstdarstellungen (vol. 1).
He tells of discussing --at eighteen years of age--the Apocalypse with Auberlen, when studying under him
during his year at Basle, and then of the unforgettable impression made on his youthful mind by Auberlen’s
remark that “the ideal theologian” should be three men made into one--Richard Rothe, Tobias Beck, and J. C.
K. Hofmann--later Zahn’s teacher at Erlangen: Rothe doubtless for uncommon philosophical gifts, Beck for a
fullness and insight on Christology and Soteriology, and Hofmann (of whom H. J. Holtzmann says in
his Lehrbuch der N.T. Theologie that he was the most original expositor that the N.T. ever had) for a grasp of
the Scriptures, including unfulfilled prophecy, as comprehensive as it was profound. Unfortunately we only
know him in English through Meyer’s fire of criticism in his N T commentary. (I should add my obligations
here to Auberlen’s sketches in his still valuable work The Divine Revelation, and to a centenary lecture of
Zahn’s on Hofmann Zahn says that the flocking of students to Erlangen to sit at Hofmann’s feet reminded one
of the prestige of masters in the Middle Ages). Dr. Zahn was not vain enough to attempt to become the ideal
theologian on Auberlen’s terms, but he does seem to have accomplished three men’s work in his ninety-six
years.
303If not from Acts and the Pastoral Epistles, and, indeed, the whole of the N.T., Darby might have learned
from the village cricket team the truth of Bishop Lightfoot’s words: “It must be evident that no society of
men could hold together without officers, without rules, without institutions of any kind; and the Church of
Christ is not exempt from this universal law” (Essay on The Christian Ministry, p. 1). The last hundred years
Page: 234
On union with Christ, the believer’s deliverance, and the high priestly work of Christ he was admirable.
Let us go further. On the Second Coming itself Darby saw dearly the position of Israel, the kingly rule of
Christ, and the association of the saints with Him in the Kingdom of glory. The Church Fathers, in their
noble efforts to define and safeguard the Deity of our Lord, almost imperceptibly understated His
humanity; this had two effects: the Virgin Mary was gradually exalted to supply the missing element in
our Lord’s mediation, and the Coming of the Lord was viewed too narrowly for centuries as the arrival of
the Judge and Avenger. The Reformers corrected these errors, and Darby, emphasizing powerfully the
believer’s perfection in Christ Jesus, brought out helpfully the Apostolic note of joy: “Our conversation is
in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 3:20). This was an
immense gain, and the mainspring of the movement.
Again, Darby emphasized the Lord’s Coming as a present hope, which might be realized in the lifetime
of that generation; and he taught the doctrine of the millennium in a pretty sound way. Then he and his
movement filled Evangelical Christendom with the new hope. That was Darby’s contribution, and it was
valuable and important.
But it is foolish to ignore Darby’s serious defects and limitations; foolish to suppose that he was inspired,
and a veritable Apostle, though he did become the Apostle of his movement.
As the Mayflower Pilgrims were about to sail for the New World in 1620, John Robinson in his address
to them lamented that the Reformed Churches could go no further than the instruments of their
Reformation, Luther and Calvin. He urged them “to receive whatever light or truth” should be made
known from God’s written Word. It was not possible, he added, “that the Christian world should come so
lately out of such thick Antichristian darkness, and that full perfection of knowledge should break forth at
once,” (cited by G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, pp. 463-4304
Darby had his place in causing fresh light to break forth from God’s Word; but before and after him
scores of names deserve honorable remembrance for the flood of light let forth in fulfillment of
Robinson’s vision; in Germany those of Bengel, Meyer, Hofmann, Delitzsch, Zahn, Deissmann, Dalman,
and many others; and in Britain Mede, Alford, Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, Plummer, Marcus Dods, Sir G.
A. Smith, Sir W. M. Ramsay, A. B. Davidson, Dr. Moffatt, and preachers like McLaren, Spurgeon,
Parker, Saphir, Dean Church, Bishop Paget, F. D. Maurice and Bishop Gore. In America, the Princeton
Divines, Philip Schaff, A. T. Robertson, and many more. And the great work goes on: fresh light always
have given the most signal proof of the truth of Lightfoot’s words. It was not spirituality, nor scholarship, but
something else, that made Kelly declare the appointment of Elders “sinful” (Gal. p. 14). Not to “Apostolic
delegates” (a phrase of men), but to evangelists (2 Tim. 4:5) Paul gave command to appoint Elders in every
city (Titus 1:5), and gave detailed information about their necessary qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1).
Evangelists, under God, win believers and organize them into a community, with a congregational life, and
officers sanctioned by Apostolic precept and practice. It appears neither wise nor humble to suppose that
Apostolic congregations needed Elders or Bishops to rule, and Deacons to serve, the congregation, but that
twentieth-century Churches need neither.
The authenticity of the words attributed to Robinson is questioned by H. J. Cadbury in The Beginnings of
304
Christianity, vol. 5, p. 406.

Page: 235
breaking from God’s Word, in all sections of the Church, not excluding the Roman Catholic, with
eminent exegetes and scholars like Legrange.
Then it must be said that Darby experienced the danger that comes to every teacher of the Bible: the
temptation to be original; to discover and give out things not previously seen; to be wise above what is
written; to speculate and be fanciful. We all do it--Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Higher Critics; we try
to impress the saints with our ability to discover new turns and meanings to God’s word; the old
explanations seem too prosaic; we all fall. Darby was no exception. He sponsored a doctrine of a secret,
pre-tribulation Rapture, brought from the West Indies by a godly clergyman This has been attributed to
demoniac influence. I think Christians would be well advised to abstain from such accusations. They are
quite gratuitous, and generally based on misconceptions. The imperfection of the human mind, and its
tendency to err or be fanciful, are a sufficient explanation.
From a masterpiece that has been drawn on much in the writing of this volume I give an extract that goes
right to the heart of all claims to infallibility, whether covertly or openly expressed, at Rome or
Powerscourt. After citing Roman Catholic testimony to the foulness of the Roman Church in the Dark
Ages, Dr. Salmon goes on: --
Thus, with respect to Christ’s promises that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church, that
He would be with it always, even to the end of the world, and so forth, we see what they do not mean.
We see that they contained no pledge that ungodliness should never assault His Church; that overflowing
wickedness should not abound in her; nay, that monsters of impiety and immorality should not be seen
sitting in her highest places. The question is, therefore, whether God hates error so very much more than
he hates sin, that he has taken precautions against the entrance of the one which he has not seen fit to use
in order to guard against the other. We hold that what He has done in both cases is strikingly parallel.
First, His great gift to His people that of the Holy Spirit is equally their safeguard against sin and against
error. He is equally the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Holiness. It is His office to inform our
understandings, by taking of the things of Christ and showing them to us; and to direct our wills, and
make them conformed to that of Christ. And the means He uses for both ends are the same. The
Scriptures are equally guides to truth and to holiness. They make us wise unto salvation. They are “a light
unto our Feet, and a lamp unto our paths.” “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking
heed thereto according to Thy word.” And the Church also is used by the Holy Ghost, both as a witness
and guardian of Christian truth and an instructor in Christian morality. She has been called (and we shall
afterwards see what good claim she has to the title) the “pillar and ground of the truth.” And she has
certainly been in the world a preacher of righteousness. And yet the use of all these means has not
banished either sin or error from the world. Even those “who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit,”
are still not impeccable. Signs of human frailty betray themselves in the conduct of men whom we must
own to be good men--not merely good with natural amiability, but really sanctified by the Spirit of God.
And those who have so been guided are no more infallible than they are impeccable. In proportion,
indeed, as they live close to God, and seek by prayer for the Spirit’s guidance, so will their spiritual
discernment increase. They whose will it is to do His will are made by Him to know of the doctrine
whether it be of Him. But yet, as their holiness falls short of perfection, so also does their knowledge.
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves;” and if we say that we have no error, we deceive
ourselves no less. And since not only may individuals fall into sin, but, as is owned in the extract I have
Page: 236
read from Baronius, ungodliness may overspread the Church widely; so we see no reason to doubt that
not only individuals may err, but Christians collectively, or large bodies of them may make doctrinal
mistakes. The analogy I have been insisting on between the understanding and the will, and the operation
of God’s Spirit on both, is of the utmost importance in this controversy305
Brethren today would only gain from realizing that the movement of a hundred years ago was over
confident that the Lord would certainly come for them: wrong in thinking that the midnight cry, “Behold
the Bridegroom,” was then being fulfilled in their testimony. They were wrong also in seeing themselves
in Philadelphia. William Kelly interpreted the letter to the Angel of Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13), in terms
of the little strength, the faithfulness to Christ’s Name, the keeping of His word, the looking for His
Return, the open door, found among Brethren306
When the Lord was taking up Philadelphia and spuing Christendom out of His mouth, how near the End
was. Yes, and how near also was a certain parable that told of two men who went up into the Temple to
pray, one of whom said: “God, I thank thee.” Darby was a great and good man307 but far from infallible
on ethics and truth. There was a man named B. W. Newton, who erred grievously (like the rest of them)
in his speculations about the Jewish Remnant of the End-time. He was treated with loathing and ferocity.
There was also a man named Cronin, who likewise was treated iniquitously. One of the moments of
moral grandeur in the whole Brethren movement was that memorable day in July, 1849, when Darby
went to Bristol to see Mϋller, and enlist his name and prestige for a united front. With Newton knocked
out, and the offending tracts judged by Mϋller’s congregation, there seemed to be no barrier to renewed
fellowship. So he thought, reckoning without his man. Mr. W. B. Neatby describes the meeting thus:
“They shook hands, and Darby said, ‘As you have judged Newton’s tracts, there is no longer any reason
why we should be separated.’ Muller answered, ‘I have this moment only ten minutes time, having an
important engagement before me; and as you have acted so wickedly in this matter, I cannot now enter
upon it, as I have no time.’” Darby rose and left. They never saw one another again. (A History of the
Plymouth Brethren, p. 176.)
So Mϋller remained captain of his soul, preferring a split Church with righteousness, decency, and honor,
to one that secured unity by conniving at cruelty and dictatorship in the Name of Christ.
305 Infallibility, pp. 103-4.

306The Revelation Expounded, pp. 66-72. I have counted not fewer than twelve points where Kelly interprets
the Philadelphian message in terms of Brethren testimony, principles, ideals, and conflict. They of the
“Synagogue of Satan” are actually interpreted as the Tractarians under Pusey (p. 68). Laodicea’s sad case is
interpreted as “largely the result of dislike and contempt for the testimony that the Lord had previously
raised up”--of course in the people of little strength and much faithfulness. Such exegesis is worthy of
Russellism’s finding Pastor Russell in “the faithful and wise servant” of Matthew 24:45. It roundly discredits
the whole Darbyist allegorizing of Revelation 2–3, and shakes one’s confidence in their treatment of the
whole Book of Revelation.
307 The late Sir Robert Anderson, whose duties at Scotland Yard, and association with successive statesmen
at the Home Office between 1876 and 1901 brought him into contact with many of the great ones of the land
in Church and State--Lord Rosebery, Gladstone, Balfour, Asquith, Chamberlain, Salisbury, etc.--remarked to
the present writer in 1906, that “Darby was the greatest man he ever met.”
Page: 237
And does any reader of Mr. W. Collingwood’s The Brethren; a History, really believe that Darby’s
influence on the movement was in line with the first leading? Before him it was an inclusive movement;
Christians, including clergymen from many Churches, met as brethren in Christ to have fellowship in
Divine things, and then went off two hours later to Divine Service in their respective Churches. It was a
union movement like Mildmay, Keswick, Northfield, and the Group Movement today. The principle of
unity was Christian love, arising from a common life in the Lord. Darby superimposed a thoroughly
Jewish principle--“Separation from Evil: God’s Principle of Unity.” It led to an endless measuring with a
yardstick of their own creation, of moral contamination--in others. It proved--this is not said unkindly--
man’s principle of splitting. There took place the change that Sir Robert Anderson, an admirer of much in
the movement, and of the leaders, lamented: “a movement which might have proved a blessing to all the
churches ended in adding another to their number” (The Way, p. 164)
Yes, it was only too possible that the great and masterful personality who erred in the ethical and
ecclesiastical spheres might err also in the realm of ideas. History seems to be giving its verdict: whilst
all sections of Exclusive Brethren, with private individual exceptions, await an any-moment Coming, and
the then any-moment arrival of 144,000 evangelists from Palestine, who can be trusted to evangelize the
world, themselves going on quibbling without end about tremendous trifles in the meantime 308
Open Brethren, as a body, endeavoring to fulfill the Lord’s last command, are going out in increasing
numbers, and, with increasing attention to efficiency, are bearing the word of life to the non-Christian
world; the world’s sorrow and the world’s burden have laid necessity upon them, and the discharge of it
has become the major concern of a united Community. They are finding their life in losing it.
Two mountaineers were descending the Alps in a blizzard; their situation was one of great peril, the cold
threatening to overpower them; presently they came upon another traveler lying helpless at the roadside.
“We dare not stay,” said one, “else we shall perish.” “Nay, but I will stay and help,” replied the other, as
the first moved on. The good Samaritan found that his great exertions to revive the fallen traveler not
only began to succeed, but brought warmth and increasing energy to his own body as well. They stood
upon their feet and journeyed; when lo: they came upon a form cold and stiff at the roadside. In saving
his life he had lost it. Which things are an allegory.
The happy orientation of Open Brethren on Missions they owe in part to the labors of noble missionaries
of their own like F. S. Amot, D. Crawford, and A. J. Clarke in Central Africa, and Reginald W. Sturt in
Manchuria and Mongolia; but they owe it even more, under God, to the emphasis and zeal of their own
great saint, George Mϋller, whom God made a teacher on some things to the whole of Christendom. He
pressed the Great Commission on the Assemblies, believing doubtless that the preaching of an army of
half-regenerate and half-converted Jews in the End-time, would not be one whit more useful than the
preaching of an army of half-regenerate and half-converted Gentiles would be today.
Let leaders of Brethren today--let Messrs. Hogg, Hoste, Pickering and Vine--think it possible that, if the
truth was with Mϋller on Prayer, Faith, Missions and Exclusivism, it was also with him, not Darby, on
the truth of Christ’s Second Coming. Questioned by an American student, Mϋller said: “My brother, I am
308Mr. Neatby mentions that, if any young man among the Exclusives thought of going out to evangelize the
non-Christian peoples, he would probably be told that it was of more importance to read Darby’s Synopsis of
the Books of The Bible.
Page: 238
a constant reader of my Bible, and I soon found that what I was taught to believe did not always agree
with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company with John Darby, or my precious
Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby” (cited by Dr. R. Cameron, op. cit., pp.
146-47).
It will not mean that Brethren must relinquish all that Darby taught for their and our good. They may
retain it, and lay aside only what was not derived from Scripture, but from reasoning too often from his
sense of the fitness of things; from refining what the Bible left rugged, and meant to remain rugged.
END
Page: 239

El Cercano Advenimiento de Cristo Alexander Reese

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

El Cercano Advenimiento de Cristo Alexander Reese

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

El Cercano Advenimiento de Cristo Alexander Reese

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Approaching Advent Of Christ

About the author:

On a particular point in Appendix I, I am indebted for suggestions to Mr. Andrew R. Kirk, of

American Presbyterian Mission,

I. The Question Stated

C.H.M. says (Charles Henry Mackintosh):

Again, the same writer says:

On the same passage Darby writes in his Second Coming:

--Excursus On The Seventy Weeks Of Daniel

II. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Old Testament

(1) Isaiah 26:19 (R.V.).

Thy dead shall live; my dead bodies shall arise.

Eloquent and beautiful are the words of Sir G. A. Smith:

Dead men come to life

Dead bodies arise

Dwellers in the dust awake and sing

The earth casts forth the dead

9 Herewith I append additional comments by modern scholars and theologians:--

(2) Isaiah 25:7-8 (R.V.).

(3) Daniel 12:1-3.

11 See chapter 4 on 1 Corinthians 15:54.

In his Daniel Tregelles writes:

13 Zechariah 12-14; Matthew 23:39; Revelation 14:1-5; Romans 11:25-7.

14 I append herewith brief additional comments of other scholars:

15 Second Coming, p. 132.

And in a note West adds:

(4) Daniel 12:13 (R.V.).

It remains only to summarize the results arrived at in this chapter.

The Resurrection in Ezekiel 37:1-14

17 The passage in Hosea 6:2 stands or falls with Ezekiel 37.

III. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Gospels

22 In reference to the pre-Messianic period the following terms are used:

23 See References above.

(2) Luke 20:34-36.

(3) Matthew 13:43.

(4) Luke 14:14-15.

IV. The Resurrection Of The Saints In St. Paul’s Epistles

(a) Romans 11:15.

(b) 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.

34 Zahn, Sanday and Headlam, and many others.

This is the very point that we are contending for!

(c) 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (R.V.).

Admirably does Canon Faussett say in his commentary (Second Advent):--

(d) 1 Corinthians 15:21-26.

1. Christ the first-fruits.

2. The redeemed, at Christ’s Coming to establish His kingly rule.

--Excursus To Chapter IV: Dr. E.W. Bullinger’s Scheme Of The Saints’

A moment’s consideration will show that the positron is utterly untenable;

V. The Resurrection Of The Saints In The Apocalypse

(1) Revelation 11:15-18 (R.V.).

39 On the 24 Elders see the section at the end of this chapter.

43 See Kelly’s Revelation Expounded, p. 133.

46 Matthew 11:3 Darby’s translation. So also Moffatt, Wade, and Weymouth.

So also Canon Faussett:49

(a) Revelation 10:4-6 (R.V.).

One more passage in the Revelation remains to be considered. It reads as follows:

48 Theodore Zahn: Int., iii., p. 398.

On Revelation 1:5, Abp. Trench remarks:52

well-known, and needs only to be stated.