Truth Magazine

By Dudley Ross Spears

In 1947 brother Otis Gatewood was drumming up support for the work of “evangelizing” Germany. World War II left Germany a beaten nation and the ravages of that war brought a once proud and prosperous people l o their knees. The Marshall plan to refurbish Europe was in effect and Gatewood and his team set out to refurbish Germany in a “Church of Christ” style.

Gatewood made a speech at the 1947 lectureship at David Lipscomb College and in it said, “We at least can say that we must work for fifteen or twenty years, in order to have what we would like to have in that country” (1947 Lipscomb Lectures, p. 83). The “fifteen or twenty years” have more than passed and what Gatewood and his team wanted then is not what they have now. The passing of time has seen many changes in the German society. No longer is Germany a war-ravaged nation that eagerly seeks hand-outs, second-hand clothing, surplus food and charity packages. But when Gatewood and his team went to Europe, that is what they went with. They sought to convert people to Christ by first feeding and clothing them, hoping to reach their souls through physical means.

Gatewood also said in that 1947 lecture that unless the people are fed and clothed, they are not disposed to hear the gospel of Christ. Here is the exact statement. “We will be confronted with the problem of feeding the people, and unless we do so we cannot reach them with the gospel of Christ, but that is a gigantic task” (Ibid., p. 32). With the purpose behind the relief work being the saving of souls, the Gatewood expedition launched a gigantic program of feeding, clothing and entertaining the German people they could reach. One report says that three million dollars worth of relief was distributed. Much of this came from individual Christians, but the greatest segment was from churches in America.

Senkenberganlage 17 is the address of what was once a meeting house for one of the congregations in Frankfurt, Germany. Gatewood found a piece of property which was part of the University of Frankfurt and with the help of the mayor of Frankfurt was able to purchase it. Gatewood later wrote, “We even gave the mayor of Frankfurt butter for his bread when he could not get it. These citizens have not forgotten what we did to help them, and Oberburgermeister Kolb, the mayor of Frankfurt, has expressed his appreciation in numbers of ways that have been a great help to the church. The present location of our building in Frankfurt, Senkenberg Anlage 17, was made possible on one of the best streets in Frankfurt because of relief work we did” (Preaching in the Footsteps of Hitler, Gatewood, p. 74).

One cannot argue with the immediate success of the Gatewood plan. There were over eight local churches in the Frankfurt area by 1950, just three years following Gatewood’s speech at Lipscomb. In the book cited above there is also a report of the membership of the church in the Frankfurt area. By January 14, 1951 there had been 945 baptisms in Frankfurt alone and that the membership of the Niederrad congregation was 90 members by March 7, 1951. 2500 were being taught weekly in Frankfurt. At this point, Gatewood and others came to the decision to build a building for the church in Frankfurt. They located a choice location near the University of Frankfurt and bought it. Gatewood returned to the United States and raised $200,000 to build the building. Gatewood wanted a large auditorium and got it.

If you travel to Germany today and look for a meeting house at Senkenberganlage 17, you will look in vain. It is no longer there. In fact, the University bought it from the brethren. There was a plan to provide another building across the street. Having just recently returned from Germany myself, I can give you a first-hand report. The building that cost so much money and that was so important to the German work has been torn down and a huge high-rise office building is standing where it was. At one time there were congregations in Bornheim, Niederrad, Sachsenhausen and other locations in the greater Frankfurt area. Now, there is one small handfull of Germans meeting in the Frankfurt area.

One has to be somewhat. curious about the scripturalness and expediency of the Gatewood method of evangelism. It is the procedure that many churches of Christ seem intent on taking. Currently (May 1983) the liberal brethren are undertaking a similar effort in Ghana. They say, we will attempt to follow the pattern of the New Testament and that of the Poland Food Relief work in an effort to feed our brethren and others in Ghana. With God’s blessings we will use this terrible tragedy to also feed the souls of that most receptive people” (World Radio News, March-April 1983). There is nothing in the word of God that teaches churches to try and reach the lost through relief programs. In the pattern for the church, there is nothing that authorizes a general program of benevolence among those who are not Christians. Yet, the empty words of the liberal brethren continues, “. . . we will use this tragedy to also feed the souls of that most receptive people.” A Methodist preacher once told my father, that when you convert people to hamburgers and cokes, you have to keep them converted with hamburgers and cokes.

Time has demonstrated that people who are converted by the social gospel methods of feeding the hungry in order to teach them the gospel will not work. The experience of the Gatewood expedition in Germany, Austria and Switzerland has demonstrated this. Even if one could find some scriptural precedent for such a thing, would it be expedient? All who have engaged in such a method of reaching the lost admit that it is dangerous and likely to attract those who are more interested in the “fishes and loaves” than in salvation.

Senkenberganlage 17 is a good example of how the works of men come to naught when they are not founded on solid scriptural truth. Indeed, “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psa. 127:1). “Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13). The gospel is the power of God to save the lost (Rom. 1:16). Until men are convinced they are lost is sin and in need of God’s saving power, they are really not subjects of the gospel. You may feed them, doctor them, entertain them and provide every physical benefit they want and possibly interest them in the gospel, but the only enduring work in evangelism comes through simple gospel preaching, good Christian living and persistent prayer for the strength that God supplies.

Germany is now an industrial giant. The German people do not now need care packages, but they do need the gospel. Truly, not many will obey the simple call of the gospel in Germany now, but those who are reached with the gospel alone will remain. We plead with all to return to the biblical pattern of evangelism for the church. May God help each of us to lay aside our own ideas and accept only what we know will be pleasing and acceptable to God. The social gospel concept has shown its own weakness and failure – the pure gospel concept remains the only way that a lasting work can be accomplished. Senkenberganlage 17 is a prime example.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 13, pp. 399-400
July 7, 1983

By Ron Halbrook

As soon as sin entered the world, the promise of salvation entered. God promised to send the seed of woman to crush the head of Satan (Gen. 3:15). In Genesis 12:1-3, God promised Adam (1) “a land,” and (2) to “make of thee a great nation.” God revealed that in this prepared land and out of this prepared people He would bring salvation for all men: (3) “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

When God’s people suffered in Babylonian captivity “for all her sins,” Israel was comforted by the assurance that even in this God was working out the purpose of salvation. “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God . . . . And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (Isa. 40:3; this prophecy was given before the captivity, but served its purpose of comforting Israel during her captivity). In closing the Old Testament revelation, God reminded Israel of this great promise: “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare that way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 3:1). The last admonition of that revelation is: Remember the Old, “the law of Moses” – and Prepare for the New. “I will send you Elijah” to prepare the heart of Israel for her long-awaited salvation.

“The Time Is Fulfilled”

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mk. 1:1-5).

“Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14-15). Jesus did not have to begin by telling the Jews about the true and living God; they had known Him since the days of Abraham. They only needed to turn their hearts back to God and hear the message of The Messiah.

“I Am Come Not to Destroy, But to Fulfill”

In Christ, the promise to Abraham was fulfilled. Why then was the Law of Moses “added” to divine revelation, over 400 years after “the promise”? “It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:15-19). Had the prepared people of God been engulfed in the rampant sin of their day, the Savior could not have been born of a prepared people in a prepared land – God’s promise of salvation would have ended! God never planned to make “the inheritance of the law,” for He “gave it to Abraham by promise” (Gal. 3:18). But the law made God’s people conscious of sin and guided them through a world of sin, until the promise could be fulfilled.

When the Law of Moses was given, murder was very common, life was cheap. Adultery was widely practiced, morals were shameless. Unlimited divorce of wives by men was accepted; women were unprotected from the selfish and lustful whims of men. Profuse swearing with breaking of oaths was widespread, the word of men was unreliable. Blind, heartless retaliation for the smallest injuries was practiced – the absence of justice, mercy, and equity. The Law of Moses accordingly dealt with all these (Ex. 20:13, 14; Deut. 24:1-4; Lev. 19:12 and Num. 31, cf. Deut. 23:21-23; Lev. 24:17-22, cf. Ex. 21:24). God’s holiness was reflected in His holy law. His people were taught to be holy as He is holy.

But now Jesus began in His ministry to teach principles of the gospel which were higher and holier than even the great Law of Moses. Not that He wishes to destroy the principles of truth the Law contained nor its types, promises, and prophecies; but, He does underscore the temporary nature of that Law. Further, He began to show Himself, His gospel, and His kingdom to be the fulfillment of all the good embodied in the Law.

In Matthew 5, Jesus shows the spirit or attitude necessary for the reception of Himself, His gospel, and His kingdom (vv. 3-12). Notice that He is laying down principles applicable to His own kingdom; He refers to the willingness to suffer “for my sake” (v. 11), not for the sake of Moses and His law. Next, He shows the impact for good to be exerted by those in His kingdom (vv. 13-16). Then, He shows the superiority of His law and rule over that of Moses (vv. 17-48). Notice He begins this latter section, not by saying He will teach Moses’ Law, but that He will teach things to which Moses’ Law pointed or look forward: I am come to fulfill Moses’ Law!

No wonder that when He finished developing this lesson on the mount, “the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28-29). Remember the scribes were skilled in explaining Moses’ Law, and in that regard Jesus said, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do” (Matt. 23:2-3). But the teaching of Jesus went further and deeper than the Law of Moses, manifested the fulfillment of that Law, and prepared the hearts of men for His own kingdom.

The very things Jesus taught then, preparing hearts for His kingdom, are applicable now in molding our hearts for faithfulness in His kingdom. At times He taught those under the Law to obey the Law (Matt. 23:2-3), but at other times He taught principles and precepts which were higher and mightier than anything contained in the Law alone. This latter work was not only done on the mount when the lilies and birds could be seen, but also at night in private when men like Nicodemus came inquiring, drawn by the force of One Who spoke with divine authority (Jn. 3; notice what He taught applies today, as vv. 3-5).

With these things in mind, notice now that Jesus protects Himself from the charge of hatred for, or abuse and destruction of, the Law in Matthew 5:17-20. He urges no one to break even the smallest part of the Law, and, further, condemns the hypocrisy of those who can so easily explain the Law but who do not obey it themselves (cf. chap. 23). Jesus is not about to destroy the Law as an angry rebel, but is about to present Himself and His teaching as its fulfillment. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill,” he explains.

Now the importance of that introductory explanation is seen in what follows. Jesus is about to speak, not merely as the scribe who explains the Law, but as one possessing supreme authority – authority greater than Moses!

Authority above and beyond the Law! “. . . He spoke as if He Himself were an authority . . .” (Alfred Plummer, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 75-76). He spoke not merely as the messenger of God, but as the very Son of God. He spoke as only the Messiah Himself could speak – as the one to whom the Law pointed and for whom it awaited for fulfillment! “Could any one else speak in this quiet majestic way of `fulfilling the Law,’ or side by side with the Law place His own declarations: `But I say unto you”‘ (Ibid.). Six times Jesus states something the multitudes had heard read from the Law (w. 21,27, 31, 33, 38, 43), and six times He asserts His own majestic authority with these words: “But I say unto you” (vv. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44).

“It Hath Been Said”

In the series of teachings from the Law which Jesus discusses, is this one: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” Deuteronomy 24:1-5 restrained the practice of unlimited divorce enjoyed by men who made women expendable on the least excuse. Divorce required under the Law:

(1) A legal document, thus precluding oral divorce which pushed the woman out of her home on the basis of sudden anger, changing moods, and the selfish whims of her husband.

(2) A rational, stated reason – “a deliberate statement of the grounds,” a requirement which in itself puts brakes on the frequency of divorce by forcing the man to meditate upon the serious question of whether he is acting intelligently or capriciously.

(3) Finality of separation, thus offering the woman one form of protection from “man’s caprice; she was not to be lightly sent away, and,, when sent away by the husband after deliberately writing her divorce,” she could never be called back again after her marriage to another. Among other things, this also protects her second marriage necessitated by her first husband’s action – from destruction by the first husband who might decide on a whim to try to regain her.

(4) She was further protected by a prohibition of civil interference with the first year of marriage, i.e., the husband could not be called into military service during this time. Here, the new wife’s interests are set before those of the State. She is guaranteed both the joys of her husband in the early months of marriage, and, therefore, the time to secure her husband’s affections, “so preventing inconstancy” (quotations from homilies by J. Orr and R.M. Edgar, Deuteronomy in The Pulpit Commentary, pp. 383-386).

Some people argue that Moses allowed divorce only on grounds of adultery; this error is exposed by passages like Leviticus 18 which require the death of the adulteress. Deuteronomy 24 envisions cases of divorce on grounds which do not require the women’s death.

“But I Say Unto You”

In spite of the striking advances in respect for marriage and for woman guaranteed by the Law, Jesus claims divine authority and speaks as only the Messiah could in further elevating the sanctity of marriage. “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

The necessity of answering extremists who would obliterate the exception – “saving for the cause of fornication” -forces us at times to stress the exception. “Saving for the cause of fornication” means, “Whosoever shall put away his wife for the cause of fornication on her part is not responsible for her subsequent adultery.” In other words, he is free to put away an adulteress. When she goes to another man, the original husband bears no guilt in her pattern of sin.

But to dwell on the exception exclusively obscures another rich, important point. Against the backdrop of Moses’ time, the Law God gave Israel was a wonderful protection of marriage. But against the backdrop of that progress, the law of Jesus Christ is higher and holier still. Moses elevated the sanctity of marriage in His time, but Jesus Christ elevated it more abundantly! We may omit the exception for a moment, in order to stress the normal rule required under the reign of Christ: “Whosoever shall put away his wife . . . causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

True vs. False Liberation

Marriage, the home, and woman are all exalted under the reign of Jesus Christ! In stark and cruel contrast to the holy power of His law, the world degrades the woman by destroying the home through allowing easy dissolution of marriage. Christ said He would send the Spirit of truth to convict the world of just such sin as this. The Spirit guided the apostles in writing such passages as Matthew 5. That testimony of the Spirit to the teaching of Christ truly convicts “the world of sin” – the sin of disobeying Christ (Jn. 14:26; 16:8, 13).

Yes, the easy and unlimited divorce of today is sinful. “The world” is held accountable for such, must be rebuked for it, and must be convicted of such sin . . . in order to be converted to Christ. Yes, brethren, the world is accountable for sin – contrary to the theory that the unconverted cannot be convicted of sin on the marriage law of the Monarch of the Gospel Age.

Sadly, what is popular in the world spills over into the church. The increasing divorce and remarriages on the part of saints, not for the cause of adultery, are sinful! Such is sinful and shameful, a blot upon the church. Let us hold high the high and holy law of Jesus Christ. This will exalt and protect both man and woman. It will exalt and protect the married life, making the home a healthy haven, as God intended, for husband, for wife, and for children alike.

When Satan’s servants appeal to men, “they promise them liberty,” but, “they themselves are the servants of corruption” (2 Pet. 2:19). But when we seek freedom from sin through obedience to the Son of God, “ye shall be free indeed” (Jn. 8:36). Much that is called “liberation” today is simply bondage to sin.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 13, pp. 397-399
July 7, 1983

By Lewis Willis

Gospel preachers have, for years, sought to establish that there are scriptural limitations on what the Church can and cannot do. Great care has been used to show that what the Church does must be authorized by the Lord (Col. 3:17). Furthermore, because the church is a divine institution, it must engage itself only in divinely prescribed activities. The New Testament identifies what the mission of the Church is (Eph. 4:12). It is limited by the authority under which it functions to being active in the fields of edification, evangelism and benevolence. Though most of the teaching on this subject during my lifetime has been directed to the church, some instruction has been given to the religious world in general through various avenues of teaching in use by local congregations. It appears that people in denominations have difficulty agreeing with the Scriptures on this subject.

It should not come as too great a surprise that members do not understand what the mission of the church is. You see, the preachers at whose feet they receive instruction do not understand the mission of the church either! Have you ever considered some of the things being done by churches in this world?

The Roman Catholic “Christian (?) Brothers” have a winery that competes with Ernest and Julio Gallo. A Catholic bank in Italy hit the headlines not too long ago when they lost around $1 billion in a swindler’s scheme. They were competing with the world’s banking industry. Locally, Catholics involve themselves in competition with the gambling interests of the country, conducting bingo and Las Vegas Nights. Rex Humbard’s operation owned an office complex for awhile and they are in the cafeteria and apartment business, in competition with these industries locally. Pat Robertson’s religious operation formed an entire television network. Jim Baker’s PTL Club has built a camping resort with all the trapping’s. Several years ago, some of our own brethren proposed building a meeting house on Manhattan Island, with apartments overhead which they planned to sell. I don’t remember how that idea turned out. But, the world’s preachers apparently haven’t the foggiest idea what the mission of the Church is. That is why they lead people in the banking, wine-making, gambling, cafeteria, office/apartment, television and camping business. And, that is exactly what it is – business! Business is not the business of the Church! You would think preachers would know this.

Most recently, religion has gotten some help in defining what its mission is. Dr. Robert Schuller, of the “Hour Of Prayer” television program in Garden Grove, California has gotten into some trouble over his church’s activities. He is the “father” of the Crystal Cathedral that has attracted national attention from the news media. Recently, his operation has attracted media attention of another kind. All of the major networks have reported that Schuller has been billed by the California Tax Agency for $400,000 for taxes incurred due to some of the activities he conducts at the ,Crystal Cathedral. You see, he has concerts, aerobics, etc., for which he charges admittance. The tax department reasoned that if they assessed tax on such entertainment conducted by private enterprise, consistency demanded assessing tax on the same activities even if a church (?) provided it. And, by what authority does a church charge for its services? Perhaps these religious (?) operations could increase revenues by charging admission to their worship services! I think I’ll get a patent on that idea before one of them thinks of it. I should make enough to buy me a pair of alligator boots and a couple of new dresses for my wife. Why not?

Schuller mildly protested that action of the State. But, he also stated in several interviews that he intends to pay the tax. No need to worry – he will just appeal to all his supporters to help him pay the bill. It should not take more than three or four weekly appeals to get that small amount of cash into his coffers. My, if he gets more than that maybe he could get Frank Sinatra for his next concert! Or, if his begging is especially effective and enough money comes in he might go into competition with General Motors and start building cars – ” in the name of the Lord,” of course! These fellows have tried almost everything else, why not try building cars? You know, if your “ministry” is going to be unique, you have to do something dramatic.

Schuller and the others may not be able to tell you what the mission of the Church is, but, thankfully, the tax man can! Maybe there is still some hope. In the meantime, they will continue to come up with and promote their moneymaking schemes and gullible people will continue to enrich them. The Apostle Peter warned that “. . . through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2 Pet. 2:3). I was just thinkin’ – I wonder if these promoters have ever run across any of those religious operators that Peter talked about? If so, I suspect they would identify them as those who oppose their moneygrubbing and begging. Meanwhile, thank the Lord for the tax man. He will at least make it a little more difficult for these extortioners. And, what he does not take care of now, the Lord will take care of at the Judgment!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 13, p. 395
July 7, 1983

By Dan King

The Signless Second Coming: Watch!

“What shall be the sign of the end of the world?” had been the final question addressed to Jesus. The section from 24:36 to 25:46 represents His reply to that question. Appearance of the statement of verse 36 at Mark 13:32 where only the destruction of the Temple in 70 is under consideration is evidence Christ meant to imply that the fall of the city had also its own element of intrinsic mystery. None could know with absolute certainty when the appointed time for that event should be either, viz. the “day or hour.”

Some today ask, “How could the disciples understand the second coming if they did not truly understand the crucifixion?” The answer is: they probably did not. Their inquiry was most likely based on the common Jewish notion that their Messiah would lead the armies of Israel in a final eschatological battle of world conquest, which would be followed by the Messianic reign and world peace. When the Temple fell, we know that many of the religious rebels saw its fall only as the “birth pangs” of the Messianic era. The revolt actually lasted until 135 AD, since pockets of freedom-fighters held out in the caves and desert country until the final pacification in that year.

Jesus explained that “that day,” i.e. His eventual second coming at the conclusion of history, would come entirely devoid of signs. This is one of the most apparent indications there is a break in the chapter and a change in subject. If there is only the destruction of Jerusalem under consideration here as some contend, .then an internal discrepancy is present: earlier Jesus said there would be signs, here he says there will be no signs. It cannot be both ways and have reference to one and the same event! Actually, the signs are the portents of the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple, while the return of Christ at the end of the age is not to be announced by signs. Note the following indications from the latter part of the dialogue: (a) Verse 36: “But of that day and hour Knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only”; (b) The people of Noah’s time were taken without warning (vv. 37-39). Noah preached to them, but there were no signs and they were taken unawares; (c) A thief comes without warning (vv. 42-44). If there had been signs, then the householder would have seen them and known he was about to break in. “Watch, therefore, for ye know not on what day your Lord comes… therefore be ye also ready; for in an hour that ye think not the Son of Man cometh.” (d) The parable of the faithful and wise servant (w. 45-51) shows one servant who becomes unfaithful because he says, “My Lord tarrieth.” This fits the second coming of Christ, but not the destruction of Jerusalem. When the Lord comes He does so, “in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not. . .” If there had been signs for him to watch for in the events of the day, as with the fall of Jerusalem, he should not have been caught off guard; (e) The twenty-fifth chapter continues this dialogue, beginning with the word “The. . .” (25:1), translated from tote, “at that time, then,” used regularly of “a concomitant event” (Thayer, p. 629). There is no break in thought or context from the last portion of Matthew 24, it is merely a continuation of the same discussion. The parable of the foolish and wise virgins starts the chapter off (25:1-13), emphasizing that while the bridegroom tarried he did finally come. Moreover, he did so suddenly and without warning, surprising some of the virgins who awaited his arrival. The moral is this: “Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour.” (f) In the parable of the talents (25:14-30), the Lord came back to make a reckoning “after a long time.” The judgment under consideration is that applied to individuals, not to nations, as would be the case if this referred to the decline and fall of Israel.” (g) The description of the last judgment, of the sheep and the goats (25:31-46) deals a potent blow to any view which tries to see the destruction of Jerusalem as the subject of the last part of Matthew 24. Who would attempt to apply this to the judgment of the Jews alone? “Before him shall be gathered all the nations,” said Jesus. The punishment is eternal punishment and the righteous are issued into eternal life. The Son of Man comes in His glory with His angels (v. 31), and there are no signs to herald His coming or forewarn even His dedicated disciples. This portion of Scripture clearly speaks of the end of the world, a time when time is no more, and of the concluding events of human history. If this is not so, then where is there a passage which does speak of the end of the world? I suggest that if these passages from the end of Matthew 24 and the 25th chapter may be made to refer to something besides the consummation, the same may be done with every single passage in the New Testament that talks about the “last things.” We are beginning to hear of men who say the “man of sin” of 2 Thessalonians 2 fits into the “fall of Jerusalem” scheme, and even of some who claim 2 Peter 2 is a mere symbolic representation of God’s rejection of the Jewish people. I fear that a few of us may be on the verge of suggesting “the resurrection is past already” (2 Tim. 2:18)! If this line of reasoning is followed to its logical consequences, I am afraid that is exactly where some of us are going to end up!

Conclusion

We have seen the speculative history theory of premillennialism melt away before our eyes when exposed to the light of God’s word. While all scriptural interpreters will happily admit Matthew 24 is not an easy chapter, it is easy to determine that these speculators have misused it in order to force it into the mold of their theories. It only proves to us anew that premillennialism is a noxious weed which befouls every scriptural idea it touches, a cancerous growth that sends its destructive tentacles into every text its promoters attempt to interpret. The historical fulfillment of Christ’s signs of the fall of Jerusalem must be utterly ignored by them in order to prop up their fanciful system.

We have also taken a look at the view held by some of late which perceives all of Matthew 24 as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. In our estimation it is – at this stage – much like the quaint theory that holds the Revelation to have been written with the same event as its main focus (represented by Foy E. Wallace, The Book of Revelation) -it is probably harmless, but it is certainly wrong.

One who is tempted to go overboard in embracing this method of interpretation would do well to study with discernment the views of Max R. King. He has taken this hermeneutical principle and gone to an almost incomprehensible extreme (cf. Nichols-King Debate, and the McGuiggan-King Debate). Conservative brethren have, up until now, rested secure that they would not be bothered by this faction and its heterodox way of thinking. Consequently we have not educated ourselves about it or taken time to make the brethren aware of its dangers. We have not written about it or preached on it. As a result, a few younger preachers are falling prey to some of its allurements. I surely hope we are not making a fatal mistake.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 13, pp. 393-394
July 7, 1983