Both cannot be true. We must either explain away the Old

combination of three words: the preposition εις eis (unto), and

Testament passages, or we must see whether these four passages

the definite article το to (the), with the aorist inference αναλυσαι

admit of other renderings, which remove their apparent

analusai (to return); so that the verb must be translated as a noun

opposition. We have suggested these other renderings, based on

-- "having a strong desire unto THE RETURN"; i.e. of Christ, as

ample evidence; which, not only deprive them of such

in Luke 12:36. These words must be interpreted by the context,

opposition, but show that their teaching is in exact accordance

and from this it is clear that the Apostle's whole argument is that

with those other passages.

the Gospel might be furthered (v. 12); and that Christ might be

magnified (v. 20). To this end he cared not whether he lived or

(5) There remains a fifth passage, Luke 16:19-31, commonly

died; for, he says, "to me, living (is) Christ, and dying (would

called "the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus", or of "Dives

be) gain. But if living in the flesh (would be Christ), this (dying)

and Lazarus". (If we speak of it sometimes as a Parable, it is not

for me, (would be) the fruit of (my) labour. Yet, what I shall

because we hold it to be one of Christ's Parables, specially so

called, but because it partakes of the nature of parabolic

choose I wot not, for I am being PRESSED OUT OF these two

[i.e. living or dying (vv. 20, 21), by a third thing (v. 23), viz.],

It is absolutely impossible that the Traditional interpretation

having a strong desire unto THE RETURN (i.e. of Christ), and

of this can be correct, because if it were, it would be directly

to be with Christ, which is a far, far better thing". (The word εκ

opposed to all other teaching of Scripture. And the Lord's words

ek occurs 857 times, and is never once translated "betwixt"

cannot and must not be so interpreted. If if be Bible truth (as it

except in this place. It is translated "out of" 165 times).

is) that "the dead know not anything", how could the Lord have

Paul's imprisonment had made many brethren "more

taught, and how can we believe that they do know a very great

abundantly bold" (v. 12 R.V.) to preach the gospel. His death

deal? If it be that fact that when man's "breath goeth forth, in that

might produce still more abundant fruit of his labor; for these

very day his thoughts perish", how can we believe that he goes

brethren were the fruit of his labor (v. 11; 4:17. Romans 1:13).

on thinking? and not only thinking without a brain, but putting

Christ would thus be magnified in his body whether Paul lived

his "thoughts" into words, and speaking them without a tongue?

or died. That was why he did not know what to choose of these

When the great subject of Resurrection is in question, one of

three things: Living would be good; for he could himself preach

the most solemn arguments employed is that, if there be no such

Christ. Dying might be even better, and further the preaching of

thing as resurrection, then not only all the dead, but "they also

Christ more abundantly, judging by the result of his

which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished" (I Cor. 15:18).

imprisonment. But there was a third thing, which was far, far

This is also the argument which immediately follows in verse 29

better than either; and that was the return of Christ, which he so

(after the parenthesis in verses 20-28), and is based upon verse

earnestly desired.

18. "Else, what are they doing who are being baptized? It is for

It is for the Traditionalists to show how they deal with these

dead (corpses) if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then being

facts. It is not sufficient to say they do not believe in this our

baptized for corpses?" Which is, of course, the case, if they are

understanding of these passage: they must show how they

not going to rise again. We render this as Romans 8:10, 11 is

dispose of our evidence, and must produce their own support of

rendered, by supplying the ellipsis of the verb "to be", as in both

their own conclusions. Here we have four passages which seem

the A.V. and the R.V. The word νεκροι nekroi with the article

to be opposed to those we have quoted from the Old Testament.