I Cor. 1: 3-7, that as the Lord has not come, we must still "come behind in no gift:

waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

In the second instance the fallacy of the argument is more manifest, for we do not

possess the gifts. In the first instance, however, the gathering round the Lord's table

would appear to fulfil all the requirements, but, when we take into account the solemn

statements of the closing verses of this chapter, it is manifest that the mere observance of

the ordinance may only be an apparent obedience.

Again, in I Cor. 10: 16, 17, a vital connection is established between the "one body"

and the "one loaf". As this "one body" is clearly the one church possessed of the varied

spiritual gifts (I Cor. 12: 12, 13, 27), it is clear that the continuation of the Lord's Supper

by those who have not spiritual gifts, is as lacking in scriptural justification as the

observance of the Supper based upon the argument that the words "Till He come" cover

the present dispensation. When the hope of Israel passed away from the immediate

horizon, gifts passed with it.

The connection between the Lord's Supper and the new covenant is another feature

linking this coming with the restoration of Israel. The reader is referred to the series

"Studies in the Prophets" in  Volume XVIII, page 37,  for an article showing the

connection of the restoration of Israel with the new covenant. The church of the mystery

is so far removed from the restoration of Israel, that it has its place during the very period

when Israel are set aside. The phase of the Lord's coming that constitutes the hope of

that church differs in many respects from the hope of the church during the Acts. It is

connected neither with spiritual gifts to confirm, nor with symbolical rites to remember,

nor with the new covenant (which cannot be severed from the hope of Israel--see

Jer. 31: 31-37). The "new testament" of Matt. 26: 28 is exactly the same as the

"new covenant" of Heb. 8: 8.

The parousia, or "personal presence" aspect of the Lord's coming occurs in

I Cor. 15: 23: "Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's in His parousia.

Then the end." The reader is referred to Volume XX, page 188, for the connection

between firstfruits and the second coming.  While much else must be said in the

exposition of this passage as a whole, in its reference to the second coming of the Lord, it

is but one of a series of passages that present an unbroken testimony. It is evident that

the particular resurrection of those who are in Christ at His parousia, that is in view here,

is described with fuller detail in verses 51-58. In so doing the apostle is not inspired to

add anything to prevent his readers associating the "last trump" here with the last trump

of which John subsequently writes in the Apocalypse; neither does he see anything in the

coming of the Lord as then taught and expected that would prevent him from intimately

connecting that coming with Israel's restoration, as witness the "When . . . . . then" of

I Cor. 15: 52, and Isa. 25: 1-9. In Matt. 24: the Lord associates His coming with,