 |  |
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to
this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matt. 24: 21).
"There shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to
that same time" (Dan. 12: 1).
We cannot conceive that any reader with these passages before him, would wish to
read into Mark 13: 19 a reference back to Gen. 1: 1, the words `Since there was a
nation' being the earliest statement, out of which the others have grown.
We are therefore certain that the words quoted by Peter `from the beginning of the
creation' are limited to the Adamic Earth. The context moreover of any expression has a
part to play in deciding its meaning, so we must now observe the way in which it is
introduced and with what other terms it is associated.
"Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of
the creation."
It is strange enough to think of linking up the death of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the
fathers) with the six days creation; it is unthinkable when we attempt to link such events
with the remote period of Gen. 1: 1.
The argument of these opposers appears to be that just as the `fathers' died one after
the other, and no interference with `nature' has yet broken the hold of death, so, from the
beginning of the world all things have continued without break, and ever will, so
rendering either the hope of resurrection, the Second Coming or the Day of Judgment,
unreasonable.
Peter, however, has already met this argument. Did all things continue as they were in
the days of Noah? Was there no Divine intervention in the days of Sodom? Is there no
import in the use of the two distinctive words katastrophe and katakluzo?
Further, we must not forget that the words in question were spoken by the `scoffers'.
What did they know of the `overthrow of the world'? Not one of them so far as there is
any record had ever seen the skeleton of a brontosaurus or a fossilized ichthyosaurus.
The science of their day made creation originate from chaos (see Hislop's Two
Babylons), and these scoffers most certainly did not know more of ancient history than
the inspired Apostle.
In his opening rejoinder Peter says "For this they willingly are ignorant of" a sentence
that does not do justice to either the English language or the inspired original. The R.V.
read "For this they willfully forget" and Dr. Weymouth renders the passage "For they are
willfully blind to the fact". No person can be charged with `willful forgetfulness' if the
matter lies beyond his ken. The heathen world was without excuse in their idolatry
because of the witness of creation around them, but not even the scoffers could `wilfully
neglect' the evidences of the primal creation because they were unrevealed and
unattainable by human search at that time. These scoffers, however, could be charged
with willful neglect of the Divine record of Genesis which shows how the selfsame water
that played so prominent a part in the six days creation was actually used to bring about