was now due, would make a bond between these two epistles which no objection or

argument could shake, these words being found in no epistles other than these two.

One pair we have omitted because they constitute the case in point:--

It was objected by one friend that, had the apostle intended a reference to Phil. 3: 11,

he would have said, " `the out-resurrection' is past already". We have already learned

that the resurrection of Christ Himself was an "out-resurrection" (Acts 26: 23), yet in

Phil. 3: 10 Paul does not feel under any necessity to say, "That I may know Him, and

the power of His out-resurrection", the simple, covering, term being quite sufficient, and

the same is true of the reference in II Tim. 2: 18.

Let us ask ourselves just what resurrection could have been taught by these false

teachers as having taken place already. Observe, they did not deny the resurrection, but

asserted that it had taken place already.  They could not have meant the personal

resurrection of the Lord, for it is most surely the foundation of our faith that His

resurrection is past already, blessed be God!  They must then have referred to the

resurrection of His people. But who? It might have been said that the resurrection of

those who had died had passed already, but how would that have ate as a gangrene, or

have overthrow the faith of some? There appears to be but one solution.

Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that because the Lord Jesus rose, and His people are

said to have been "raised with" Him (although, as we have shown, the epistles never use

anistemi, but always egeiro, when teaching this blessed fact), therefore resurrection is a

thing of the past with us; that at death we go immediately to glory, by reason of the fact

that we are already raised together with Him.

When one reads an article in which it is stated that the resurrection of I Cor. 15:, or

I Thess 4:, is, of course, not past but future, and this fact is contrasted with the

"out-resurrection" and the believer's intimate association with the resurrection of the

Lord; and when many have openly and plainly asserted that such is what they believe the

"out-resurrection" and being raised together with Christ mean, surely it is not only

kindly, but imperative, that Paul's warning should be sounded. Virtually such teaching is

saying that the resurrection is past already, and, seeing that it is in exact correspondence

with the "out-resurrection" teaching of Philippians, there is no room for doubt but that

this new error that is spoiling some of Christ's members, is as old as the times of Paul

himself. We omit names, and only those who have imbibed the doctrine we seek to

expose will know to whom reference is made. We are not attacking any child of God, but

we are seeking to defend the faith and protect those who have not sufficient means to test

the accuracy of many assertions put forward as being the teaching of the original.

We  believe, as our articles on The Hope and the Prize  show,  that  this

"out-resurrection" is a most sacred and unique thing. We have left the question as to

whether it is entered separately, one at a time,  collectively, some time before the