 |  |
In attacking the "postponement theory" you may say that it does not pretend to claim
the support of the Scriptures; then you can face about, and say that you have patiently
examined every Scripture and deduction, and that "it has been a matter of surprise that
such arguments as HAVE BEEN ADVANCED (forgetting the statement about
`pretending'), and have been repeated OVER and OVER (forgetting the other statement
about no Scripture proofs) should ever have been put forth at all".
Another statement equally emphatic, but speedily revoked, is the following:--
"From first to last there is no sign of any break in the purpose of God se clearly
indicated in Matt. 1: 1."
This is not sound argument. Matt. 1: 1 simply says:--
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham."
and others beside our brother may think that they can discern God's purpose therein,
which differs very much from that of the author of G.P.K.
Following on from this statement, and within four pages of it, our attention is called to
the "enlightening comments" in a letter written by one for whom the "postponement
theory" has been shattered. The "enlightening comments" deal with the quotation of
Zech. 9: 9 in Matt. 21: 5, where the words concerning the King are given, but the
words concerning salvation are omitted. These are the words:--
"The Holy Spirit purposely leaves out these words from the record in Matt. 21: 5;
for Christ came the first time as the Meek One; and He is coming the second time as the
Just One. Between the first and second comings of Christ there is the age of grace, `the
acceptable year of the Lord'."
This is "enlightening" and true. Surely here is a confession that Scripture teaches a
"break", a "dispensational change", and that the novel "postponement theory" is proved
by its opponent to be as old as Zechariah! Let us read on. "M." seems to lose some of
his certainty as he proceeds:--
"The opposition of the Kings of the earth and its rulers against Him is foretold in
Psalm 2:; and this, according to Acts 4: 26, 27, WAS FULFILLED."
Adherence to the "no break" theory would necessitate that "M." stopped here, but
cannot. In spite of all his strong words to the contrary, he is obliged to adopt the despised
"postponement theory", for he says, "was fulfilled, partially at least". If it was only
fulfilled "partially", the complete fulfillment is yet future, which is all the postponement
theory demands. Even "M." cannot misinterpret Psa. 2: of the church, it is too evidently
future and earthly. We shall see this more clearly still when we return to the subject.
One more reference, and we can leave the question. On page 48 the writer is dealing
with the subject of Malachi's prophecy of Elijah. He says:--
"The words `before the day of the Lord' are not to be taken to mean `immediately
before' the coming of that day."