The Second Coming of Christ
The time and circumstances of Christ’s return are the subject of much dispute among Christians. There can be no doubt, however, that His return is the hope of all who love Him and who have received salvation from Him.
His return means that we shall see Him whom we love above all, face to face. For nearly 2,000 years He has been away, and only then shall we see Him again.
When He comes, our relationship with Him will be consummated. Then the great wedding supper of the Lamb and His bride, the church, will begin, and He will take His church to Himself (Rev. 19:6-9).
At that time the church will be perfectly united, with no divisions and no sea (Rev. 21:1) to separate us one from another. All things shall be gathered together in one in Him (Eph. 1:10).
In that day all things will be renewed and changed. At Christ’s return there will be a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (II Pet. 3:13). The effects of sin and the curse will be removed, and we shall have Paradise once again—yet now a heavenly Paradise.
Then, too, God’s covenant with His people will be realized fully and for ever. In Christ, the tabernacle of God will be with men; He will dwell with them, they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them and be their God (Rev. 21:3). Perfect covenant life!
When Christ returns, all our present sorrows and trials will be finished. “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Rev. 21:4).
More importantly, there will be no more sin. The devil and all who serve him will be cast out, and all our present sinning will come to an end. What a great day that shall be!
Not only that, but even the possibility of sin will be removed for God’s people. “When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (I John 3:2). Even our vile bodies shall be changed and fashioned like unto His glorious body (Phil. 3:21).
Nor is it a lesser reason for joy and hope that, when Christ comes, God’s purpose to glorify Himself in all the works of His hands will be realized. Those who love God think not only of their own glory when they consider Christ’s return, but also of the glory of God. When Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father, then God shall be all in all (I Cor. 15:24, 28).
What a hope! Is it yours? Rev. Ron Hanko
Denying the Lord That Bought Them (2)
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (II Pet. 2:1).
Because several readers have sent in questions and texts concerning the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, we have decided to treat these in a series of articles.
You will recall that I asked you to keep the article from the last issue of the News close at hand for easy reference. This was because that article set forth the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Now is the time to take that article and read it again.
A reader, referring to the text quoted above, asked: “Can these false teachers in any way have been bought by the Lord?” The difficulty arises from the statement that these false teachers “deny the Lord that bought them.”
The argument appears straightforward. The text says that the Lord “bought” these false teachers—that is, that He purchased them with His blood shed on Calvary. If He bought them with His precious blood, then they are saved. Yet these same teachers deny that they were bought and introduce damnable heresies, thereby revealing that they are not saved.
That they are not men who later repented is clear from Peter’s statement at the end of the verse: “They bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Before explaining the text, a few preliminary observations are necessary.
1) When Peter says that “there were false prophets also among the people,” he most likely refers to Israel in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 speaks explicitly of such prophets and presupposes their continued presence among the nation.
2) Peter also says that there were such prophets in his own day. Indeed, this is always the case. The church is never free from them. Wherever Christ speaks His word, the devil raises up false prophets to contradict it, and through them many are led astray (II Pet. 2:2).
3) When Peter says that these false prophets deny the Lord who bought them, he identifies this as one of their damnable heresies. Though they introduce many errors, this denial stands among them: “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.”
4) The meaning, therefore, is that among their heresies is one of particular gravity—a denial of the blood of atonement. They deny that Christ died to pay for sin and that His perfect sacrifice satisfies the justice of God. Like many today, they reduce Christ to a mere example, a man who died for his principles, but whose death has no atoning significance. In this way they deny the very validity of the atonement.
This may seem remote, as though such an error lies on the fringe of the church. Yet it is not so. The same error is present implicitly in the teaching of a universal atonement. If Christ died for all head for head, and yet many are not saved, then His death is not truly atoning for many for whom He died. How then can it be of atoning value for anyone?
Let us be clear: a Christ for all is a Christ for no one.
What, then, is the meaning of the text?
These false teachers are not outwardly separate from the church. From one point of view, they profess what the church confesses. Central to that confession is this truth: “We are bought with the blood of Christ.” At one time, these teachers also made that confession. But now, within the church, they deny the blood of atonement and present that denial as truth. They reject what they once professed. In reality, they were never bought with Christ’s blood, though they claimed to be.
Others interpret the text in this same way. S. Kistemaker writes: “We notice that at one time these false teachers professed the name of Christ, for they said that they knew him and the way of righteousness (2:20-21). They made it known that Jesus had bought them, but they eventually rejected Christ and left the Christian community” (Exposition of Peter and Jude).
Homer C. Hoeksema writes: “[These] false teachers belonged to the church outwardly, though they never truly were of the church. They outwardly belonged to the church, and in that same sense outwardly (by their name and by their profession) belonged to those that were saved by the blood of Christ. But now according to their false teaching they deny that Lord Who bought them, that is, the very Lord of Whom they once professed that He bought them. And thus it also becomes evident that actually and objectively the Lord had never really bought them, and they did not belong to His sheep: for then they would not fall away” (Standard Bearer, vol. 46, no. 21).
Two conclusions follow.
First, those who are preserved by God are the elect, chosen from eternity and truly purchased with the precious blood of Christ.
Second, the church always contains those who profess this truth, but who reveal by their apostasy that they were never purchased by Christ’s blood. Indeed, they themselves deny that blood as one of the heresies they introduce into the church.
It is therefore necessary that the church remain vigilant, always on her guard against such false teachers who oppose the truth from within. Prof. Herman Hanko
Might Women Speak in Tongues?
In a recent article we expressed the view that I Corinthians 14:34 teaches, among other things, that women were not permitted to exercise the gifts of tongue-speaking in the apostolic church (Vol. IV, Issue 12). One reader responded: “This does not accord with I Corinthians 11:5, 13, which speaks of women praying and prophesying with their heads covered; and does Acts 2:17 mean that they could exercise the gift of prophecy only in private?”
It would be very strange if the apostle Paul contradicted himself within the space of a few chapters. Nor can it be maintained that the Holy Spirit, who inspired Paul, contradicts Himself. To find contradiction in Scripture is to find error, and to admit error is to deny Scripture’s infallibility.
How, then, are I Corinthians 11:5, 13 and I Corinthians 14:34-37 to be reconciled?
First, I Corinthians 14:34 cannot mean that a woman is forbidden to speak at all within the church building. Rather, it must be understood in the same sense as I Timothy 2:12: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” That is, women are not to speak in a way that involves teaching or exercising authority in the life and government of the church.
Second, this accords with the subject of I Corinthians 14 itself. Throughout the chapter, in its discussion of tongues, prophecy, edification, exhortation, teaching, peace and order, the emphasis lies on the public life and work of the church as it worships God, proclaims the gospel, and grows up into Christ.
In that context the apostle writes, “Let your women keep silence in the churches.” This can only mean that they are not permitted to speak in these authoritative ways within the church’s official life.
Nor is it valid to argue that this command applies only to preaching or teaching, but not to prophesying or tongues. It is precisely these activities that are under discussion. Therefore, it is especially these forms of speaking in the church that Paul forbids.
How, then, do we understand I Corinthians 11:5, 13? If Scripture does not contradict itself, these verses must refer either to private praying and prophesying, to silent participation, or to a non-speaking participation in the church’s prayers and prophetic activity. The third is to be preferred, though the others may also be included.
When one person offers prayer in the public worship of the church, the whole congregation ought to be praying, though only one speaks. Likewise, when one prophesies or preaches, the whole church listens and is edified. This is precisely Paul’s point in I Corinthians 14—that all things be done decently and in good order, and that speaking be regulated so that the church may be built up.
This was also Calvin’s explanation. On I Corinthians 11:5 he writes: “But it may seem superfluous [i.e., unnecessary] for Paul to forbid a woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, since in 1 Tim. 2:12 he forbids women to speak in the Church. … The answer is, that when he reproves one fault, he does not give his sanction to the opposite [i.e., he is not thereby permitting women to prophesy publicly in the church merely because he regulates the manner of it]. For when he says that it is unseemly for a man to be covered while prophesying [v. 4], he does not thereby allow him to prophesy in any way whatever, but reserves the condemnation of that vice for another place (1 Cor. 14:34).”
With Calvin we agree. “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Rev. Ron Hanko
