Characteristic of those who reject dispensational truth, Dr. Ladd rejects what to us seems quite patent; that is, the dispensational nature of Matthew's Gospel. Each of the four gospels has its own specialty, or distinctive mark; if this is not so, why then are there four? Matthew's Gospel clearly presents the Messiah to the Jews, and develops the consequences dispensationally, to a certain point, of their rejection of their Messiah.
In keeping with this design, the Lord Jesus is presented in Matthew as the son of David and Abraham, through whom the promised Messiah had to come. Consequently, more scriptures of the Old Testament are quoted in Matthew than in any other gospel. At the beginning, the gospel that the King was coming was announced. It was distinctly the gospel of a coming kingdom presented according to the prophecies. This was formally rejected by the mass of the Jews with their leaders, so that in the 12th chapter, they commit the unpardonable sin of attributing the power of the Holy Spirit, by whom the Lord wrought miracles, to the power of Satan. Thereupon, the Lord disclaims relationship with Israel and, in the 13th chapter, goes out to the seaside (which has a figurative bearing) where He gave the parable of the sower who introduces something new. New seed was sown which is the mystery of the kingdom of heaven—a time when the king who came to His own was rejected by them, while something new would grow in the world. A people would be on earth who claimed to honor an absent king. The kingdom of heaven in its mysterious form is Christendom of this age, or that which says, "In God we trust," and, "in the year of our Lord."
Then further on in Matthew, the 16th chapter, Christ announced that He would build His Church; in the 17th chapter, the three apostles were given a preview of the coming millennial kingdom. Chapters 24 and 25 (as we have already noticed) give the prophecy of His coming back in its threefold form.
And the Gospel closes with Him risen and present with His own on earth—figurative of a godly remnant of the Jews who will be waiting for Him when He comes to reign. In the first part of the book, He also gives the principles on which His kingdom will be established. While they refer to His earthly kingdom, yet a well-taught Christian is interested in those principles, and gathers profit from them. No such collection of principles is gathered together in any other gospel, and it should not be supposed that chapters 5 to 7 were all uttered at one time. We know they were not; but Matthew, writing by the Spirit, was led to bring these all together into a group for dispensational reasons. To reject the most evident arrangement of the Gospel of Matthew is to shut out the light and prefer darkness.
Dr. Ladd's statement that "Nowhere are we told to watch for the coming of Christ" (italics his) requires some examination. That may be literally correct and yet be basically wrong. Is there no implied need of watching for Him, whom our souls love, in those memorable words sent down from heaven, in which we are exhorted to remember Him in death? And it is given in a touching fashion when it says that "the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed" made such a request. In this message from the ascended and glorified Lord, He said, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." Here we are reminded of His death for us and of His coming again for us. Shall not we watch? Were not the Thessalonians watching for God's Son from heaven? And were they not commended for it? What is the proper response to His promised "I will come again, and receive you unto Myself"? Is it not an upturned eye, eagerly expecting Him? Should we be finding ways to "prove" something must first take place, hence we need not watch? Far be the thought! Furthermore, we dislike the phrase watching for His coming; it should be rather watching for Himself—a person, not something about Him.
Dr. Ladd reasons away the word in Rev. 3:3, "If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief." He makes use of other translations which say "wake up" or "be wide awake" to offset the force of watching; but the R.V., A.R.V., Confraternity, J.N.D., and W.K. versions stand by the word "watch" there. After all it is the same word in the Greek that is translated "watch" in Mark 13:33-37 and 14:34-38, where "be wide awake" would scarcely do. And if it is "wake up," wake up to what? Remember the sleeping virgins! And what about the last chapter of Revelation? After the prophecy is fully told, the Lord tells the Church that He is coming—He Himself, not another—and finally a hearty response is awakened, so that "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." 22:17. Maybe we are not commanded to watch for Him, but it is the only proper response of hearts which have heard His accents of promised coming. We greatly fear that dedication to an opposing view is parent to the thought advanced by anti-dispensationalists.
Furthermore, in regard to Rev. 3:3, attention should be called to the fact that failure to watch will bring down the same judgment that will overtake the world. This is borne out in another portion: "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they [the world] shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them,... and they shall not escape." If the professing Church lives with and like the world, it will reap the world's judgment—unbelievers, of course. (1 Thess. 5:1-8.) And a thief never comes for good.
Notice too that it is the "day of the Lord" which so comes, not the coming of the Lord for His own, or the day of Christ which has a heavenly aspect. But the book which we have reviewed more or less confuses the "day of the Lord" and the "day of Christ." They are not the same and never approximate each other. Even men do not confuse differing terms; is God less accurate than men?
Did not all of the ten virgins—the profession of Christianity—go forth to meet the Bridegroom? Was not that their mission? And did they not sin when they went to sleep and failed to watch? And anti-dispensationalists would put the Church back to sleep again. A play on Greek words will not avail in connection with the ten virgins, but of course the obvious can be rejected. Did not the evil servant sin for saying "in his heart," My lord delays his coming? He merely said to himself, "Oh, He will not come yet." It is no longer only said "in the heart," but taught openly.
Dr. Ladd asks, "Is not the Blessed Hope the hope of deliverance from tribulation?" If that is so, then a poor suffering saint might just as well say that death would be the blessed hope. "He [Himself] is our hope." Do we only desire Him to fulfill His word and take us to be with Himself when we suffer tribulation? We trust not!
We have not selected just the points in Dr. Ladd's book that are easy for rebuttal, but have merely picked out things at random. The whole work indicates a lack of spiritual perception of the dispensational line of truth; hence reasoning against it becomes easy for him. And when the whole is read, we say, "They have taken away the hope that we may see Him today, and given us no substitute"—what a loss! And the effect can be disastrous in the tone of Christian life.
Dr. Ladd would have all of us who have tenaciously held and happily enjoyed the prospect of seeing our Lord at any moment to re-examine and re-think the whole matter, and gives us his deductions and conclusions from which to think. This would lead to confusion and a giving up of a well-charted course in exchange for speculation, although Dr. Ladd assures us that our blessed hope is an unjustified inference. The burden of proof is his.
He has not discovered the beauty of Peter's reference to Joel's prophecy in Acts 2. When Peter defended the Christians, who were speaking the gospel in various tongues, from the charge of intoxication, he merely said, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." It was not the fulfillment of Joel 2, but merely a part of what Joel prophesied for the future. Peter, like his Lord before him, knew where to close the book (Luke 4:16-20), for he did not read the rest of what Joel said. What took place there was not intoxication, but merely evidence of the power of the Spirit; and Joel is only used to that end. The prophecy of Joel will yet be fulfilled in the day of Israel's restoration.
Dr. Ladd's claim that "the new covenant, promised in Jer. 31, was made by our Lord with the Church, and is now in effect," is gratuitous to say the least. There is no scriptural support for this statement. It is to be made with the houses of Israel and Judah, and with none else. Paul did not infer in Hebrews that it was made with the Church; he merely brought in the subject to prove to the converted Jews that it was folly to cling to the old covenant, for it was to be superseded. Paul drops the subject as soon as his point is made. Even the Lord Himself said, "This is My blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:28. It is the blood on which the new covenant will be established with the houses of Israel; and, through it, we who believe now, get the blessing of having our sins forgiven. Even dispensationalists may mistakenly say that we are under the new covenant, but a search will prove we are not.
On pages 89 and 90 of Dr. Ladd's book, he quarrels with the differentiation between the Lord's coming for and coming with His saints. But that should certainly present no problem, for the Old Testament foretold His coming with His saints; for instance, "The LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee"; and Enoch prophesied that the Lord would come with His saints. It was no unrevealed mystery that Christ would come with His saints, but that He should come for them was not revealed until Paul received it from the Lord (see 1 Thess. 4:15-17).
Dr. Ladd uses Titus 2:13 for the title to his book; and quite characteristically he sees only one thing in it, while there are in reality two things. This verse is fully capable, without distention or abuse, of bringing before us both Christ's coming for and with His saints. Let us notice it: "Looking for that blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." A.R.V. We will quote the words of a staunch defender of the faith, William Kelly:
"We need... to look for 'the blessed hope and appearing of the glory.' These are two parts which comprise the revealed object God would have before our souls.
"The one article given to the two objects brackets them together, not at all as if they were identical, but as here expressly associated to convey the complex and combined outlook. `The blessed hope' is that which alone can satisfy the heart; it is to be in the presence of Christ on high, changed at His coming into His likeness and with Him forever. 'The appearing of the' divine 'glory' is bound up with it, and follows in due time, as that display or the divine manifestation in power, which our renewed souls cannot but desire to the utter exclusion of moral and physical evil and of Satan's guileful energy." Thus Titus 2:13 is not what Dr. Ladd avers, a "proof-text."
Dr. Ladd makes a considerable play on the Greek words for the Lord's coming, revelation, and manifestation; but those who hold the opposite view use the same words to disprove what he seeks to prove by them. God has used each word in perfect wisdom, and there is nothing in their use that will disprove the Lord's pretribulation coming for His saints. It rests on the matter of the correct understanding of the truth, and not on some quick turn of Greek words. Christ's coming for and with His saints are surely both His coming, but at separate times and under different circumstances.
The book of Revelation is a hopeless muddle in Dr. Ladd's book. By putting the Church in the world to go through the tribulation period, we have a book applied to Christians where their proper relationship with God as their Father is unknown. The fact that the Old Testament names by which God revealed Himself to the fathers and to the people of Israel should be used in Revelation is enough to settle the problem he creates. God was in old time revealed as Lord, God, Almighty; and these names are again seen in Revelation -not Father. Furthermore, there are cries for vengeance from the saints in Revelation, but such cries never belong to Christians. We are followers of One "Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not." Not once in the New Testament is there a reference to a Christian's taking vengeance, or even of his desiring it. Paul's reference to Alexander the coppersmith may seem like an exception, but a better translation will prove otherwise. Paul merely expressed his knowledge that God would reward him according to his works, not that he (Paul) desired it. See 2 Tim. 4:14.
Dr. Ladd says on page 80, "The doctrine of the resurrection had been long taught (cf. Dan. 12:2)." Let us examine this verse which he says taught the resurrection: "And many of them [Daniel's people, the Jews of verse 1] that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." We are bold to say that this verse says nothing about the resurrection, but of the bringing back Jews that have been sleeping among the nations. This will take place at Messiah's coming. (Isa. 26:19-21 and Eze. 37 deal with the same subject.) But suppose we try to make this a resurrection. Confusion is the only result, for it would be only a partial resurrection of both just and unjust. It plainly says that "many," not "all," shall awake; and these fall into two classes.
Another statement of this book is, "The Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation is an assumptions it is not taught in the Olivet Discourse." p. 73. Why did the writer look for the pretribulation rapture of the saints in Matt. 24 and 25? The first intimation of such a coming was in John 14 (which was spoken on the night of His agony in Gethsemane) where the Lord said, "I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." v. 3. This was an unequivocal promise of His personal coming for His saints. The truth of this is later detailed in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. At that time those who had been converted from idols to "wait" for God's Son to come back (let some say that we are not called to watch for Him—these people knew the reality of watching and waiting) became discouraged when some of their number fell asleep. To correct their misapprehension, the Apostle wrote instructions which he received from the Lord. They feared that those who died would miss out on His coming, but the Apostle says that when He comes back to reign He will bring them with Him (v. 14). Then in a parenthesis of verses 15 through 18 he explains a special revelation of how the sleeping saints would get to be with Him in order to come back with Him. In the beginning of chapter 5, the Apostle reverts to the subject of His appearing with His saints. The Christians of this age do not belong to the night, but to the coming day. We shall be off the scene before the awful tribulation breaks.
But Dr. Ladd continues: "The only verse in this discourse [Matt. 24 and 25] which can possibly be construed to refer to the Rapture is verse 31 [of Matt. 24], 'And He shall send forth His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other!'
"There are elements of striking similarity between this verse and Paul's teaching about the Rapture of the Church. `For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God' (1. Thess. 4:16)."
Need we call our reader's attention to the fact that there is much contrast and little or no similarity between the passages in Matthew and 1 Thess. 4? In the former, the Lord tells of His coming back as regards the Jewish people. In that case, He will use the instrumentality of angels to gather the elect Jews. For the Church, He will come and shout the shout that assembles them. This He will do personally. Of what use would angels be to gather the Church when He Himself will assemble the believers from the earth and the grave in such a short time that the transformation will take place "in the twinkling of an eye"? No, He will not send angels to gather the Church, but will do that Himself.
Of course there is the mention of the trumpet in both instances, but will not the trumpet be used to gather the elect of Israel? Verily, it will be the fulfillment of the feast of trumpets (Lev. 23:24); and then "the great trumpet shall be blown," and the dispersed Jews will come from Assyria and Egypt, and "shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem." Isa. 27:13. Can we by any stretch of imagination apply this trumpet blowing to the rapture of the Church, and assume that it will then assemble at Jerusalem to worship the Lord?
Dr. Ladd further states that the presence of angels is found in both the passage in Matt. 24:31 and in 1 Thess. 4, but this is very inaccurate; for in Matt. 24 He will send angels to gather elect Jews, but angels are not mentioned in the epistle, except that He will come with the "voice of the archangel"—where are angels spoken of? To mix these two unrelated verses is to compound confusion.
The author works hard to put the Church in the tribulation period, and applies the sealed 144,000 in Revelation to "the true Israel," as though that meant the Church. Let it be clearly stated that the Church is never called Israel in any sense. The one verse that is often quoted from Galatians (6:16), to prove this contention, is grossly misunderstood. It says: "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, AND UPON THE ISRAEL OF Goo." Those who walked according to the rule were saved Gentiles, and "the Israel of God" were saved Jews, and nothing more or less.
(To be continued)
The United States Navy announced that there would be no more medals attached to Vanguard missiles. Their spokesman further said that the St. Christopher medal which was attached to the gyroscopic guidance system of an earlier Vanguard vehicle (see Christian Truth, April issue, page 190) was not officially sanctioned. We did not suppose that it had been, but, that it was possible for such a superstitious thing to happen did indicate a trend that is at work. In this age when man is boasting of his enlightenment, superstition is growing apace; and in this country where the foundations were deeply laid in Protestantism (with its early abhorrence of images), religious charms and medals and statuettes are now affixed to quite a number of automobiles and used increasingly in many places. The trend is one which will culminate in that false religious system called in Rev. 17, "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." "ABOMINATIONS" here means "idols."
As we pointed out before, running concurrently with advancing superstition is infidelity, atheism, and the deification of marl, which will reach the terrible climax of man's day in the bold, brazen, and violent head of the coming revived Roman Empire. When once the Lord has called home to Himself the saved from among all nations, then man's superstition and daring will quickly come to their peaks. May the Lord guard His saints from drifting toward either the one or the other, and keep His coming as the bright prospect before our souls.