First, the word `trust', being the Greek verb elpizo should be translated `hope' so that the connection with the

word `hope' (elpis) in the next verse shall be made clear. This correction has been made in the R.V., yet some

so-called literal Versions still veil the truth by variant renderings. The article is used with the word, and a due

recognition of the usage of the article here justifies the translation of the Emphatic Diaglott Version, which reads:

`And may the God of that hope', specifically referring back to the hope already mentioned in verse 12. This hope

was something very personal to the saints addressed, for they were to be filled `with all joy and peace in believing',

and were to `abound' in this hope through the power of the Holy Ghost. No words are more explicit in any epistle.

Now what was this hope entertained by the church of the Acts? (1) It had to do with a prophecy of Isaiah; (2) It is

associated with Christ as a root of Jesse; (3) It is related to His reign over the Gentiles. Any of these three

characteristics is enough to indicate that this hope could not be connected with the `one hope' of Ephesians 1:18, but

all three together make it impossible of application except to a company intimately connected with the hope of

We `open the book' at the passage quoted in Romans 15, and there we find ourselves in millennial surroundings:

`And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots ... The wolf

also shall dwell with the lamb ... and a little child shall lead them ... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My

holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. And in that

day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and

His rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set His hand again the second

time to recover the remnant of His people' (Isa. 11:1,6,9-11).

Words cannot make more plain the fact that this hope of Romans 15 is intimately associated with the restoration

and the hope of Israel. Nor can words more plainly forbid any attempt to make the hope of this church the same as

the hope of the church of the mystery. To do so is misleading. To the same effect is the association in Romans

8:19-25 of the hope of the church there addressed, with the day when creation's groan shall cease. To the same

effect also are the words of Romans 16:20: `And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly'.

We have already examined the references to the second coming of the Lord in a series of articles in The Berean

Expositor, Vols. 19 to 22, where every passage is given consideration, and the conclusion is justified that there is not

a reference to the second coming of the Lord, outside the revelation of the mystery, that is not either a fulfilment of

some Old Testament prophecy, or allied to one by the context. While therefore there is much doctrine in Romans

that is fundamental both to the church of the Acts, and to the new company called after Israel were set aside in Acts

28, it nevertheless stands to reason that while Israel are set aside their hope would remain in abeyance. Ephesians

speaks of `one hope of His calling', and `one hope of your calling', and seeing that each calling has its associated

hope, it follows that it is a vital principle of interpretation that different callings with their appropriate hopes be kept

separate and distinct from each other.

In our last section we considered the fact that the hope that runs throughout the Acts, and the hope that the

epistles of the same period entertain, is the hope of Israel. It is true that this hope has its heavenly, as well as its

earthly sphere, but that is no justification for making that heavenly sphere of Israel's hope the same as the `one

hope' of the mystery. Further light upon the hope of this Acts period is found in the verses that follow Acts 1:6, and

to the consideration of this testimony we now address ourselves:

`And He said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father appointed by His

own Authority' (Acts 1:7 Author's translation).

One of the most natural things to do, whenever the second coming of Christ is before the mind, is to conjecture

whether it is possible to forecast the date of its advent. While this may be natural, it is unscriptural, and

consequently wrong.  The servant who concluded that the Lord's coming was delayed, began to smite his

fellowservant and to drink with the drunken. The salutary attitude in view of the Lord's return is, surely, to carry