 |  |
selection of his first great proof, that Christ as Son of David came not to reign as King
but first of all to found the Church.
After this "clear proof", on page 28 and 29 the writer pursues his theme until he
reaches page 181, and then he exhibits one of the weirdest pieces of self-deception one
can well imagine. The footnote of thanks, printed at the end of the chapter (page 182),
makes one wonder whether this is the clutch of the drowning man at a straw. He says:--
"For this valuable suggestion as to the significance of the omission from Matthew of
part of Zechariah's prophecy I am indebted to a brother, a servant of the Lord, who once
held the postponement theory, but was convinced of its unscripturalness by the writer's
booklet on the Kingdom of Heaven."
Let us see what the "significance of the omission" is. "M." is still on the subject as to
Christ coming as King. He contends that Christ came first as SAVIOUR, and will not
come as KING until He comes the second time with power. Matthew therefore, we can
imagine will omit any reference to kingship, but will insert any reference in Zechariah's
prophecy to salvation. We will quote from G.P.K.:--
"It is a noticeable and significant fact that but part of Zechariah's prophecy is quoted
by the evangelists as having its fulfillment at the Lord's entry into Jerusalem immediately
before His betrayal and crucifixion. The whole verse reads, `Rejoice greatly, O daughter
of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy King cometh unto thee. He is just
and having salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass'."
When we do turn to Matt. 21: 5 this is what we read:--
"Tell ye the daughter of Sion, BEHOLD THY KING COMETH unto thee, meek, and
sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass."
What is therefore the "noticeable and significant FACT"? It is that Christ presented
Himself as KING at this entry into Jerusalem. Kingship is inserted and Salvation is
omitted, yet the logic peculiar to "M." and the brother who was convinced by the writer's
booklet leads them to deny that Christ had any thought of kingship during His earthly
ministry, but was all the time and without break intent upon building the Church. We
wonder what "M." would say should any one deduce from the "noticeable and significant
fact" of the omission of "salvation", that Christ had no intention of becoming the Saviour
at all?
There is no need to examine publicly all the details of the edifice when we see how
unsound the foundations are. We can only deplore the mental state of those who may be
so misled by such "significant facts" and alterations in God's own written "order".
We must take up the positive teaching of Scripture concerning the questions raised as
to Matthew's Gospel, David's Throne, and the House, when we have considered the
teaching of "M." on one or two other related themes.