455 this interpretation upon the words of Christ it is difficult to say, as there cannot be the slightest honest question that Christ was talking about physical death and not a child of God’s dying to sin. His explanation of his being carried into Abraham’s bosom, to use his own words, is, “ To make it mean anything other than that the one-time beggar who died to sin, thereby obtained the place and privilege of a beloved son of Abraham, the Father of the faithful would be fanciful indeed.” To this would say that to make it mean what Dr. Milligan does is not merely “ fanci ful indeed” but imagination gone mad. Furthermore, he says “Hades” in this parable does not refer to Hades or Sheol, the receptacle of the disembodied spirits or; persons; rather it refers to the Hades of the spiritually dead nations and not of dead men.’V It is sufficient to say to this that there is not a single in stance in Scripture where Hades or Sheol is used for anything but the place where disembodied spirits of persons go. We need not follow this fanciful interpretation any further. The writer gives seven pages to it. All that needs to be said about the theory of the book as a whole is, that a theory that is driven to such utter follies of interpre tation to defend itself is .thereby utter ly discredited. I BS1%8 I Mi? ii? AGNOSTICISM The inhabitants of a quiet village were once alarmed by the cry of wolves! They rush to the town hall. They de bate, discuss, deliberate. At last they decide that each go home and get his gun. But as they rushed out they were met at the door by the wolves. They had all been honest agnostics.
THE K I N G ’ S B US I NE S S and be with Christ would be very far better” than to continue to live in the body, is even more irrational and ab surd. The substance of his explanation is that it was better for Paul to die, because Paul’s case was entirely excep tional, and while believers as a rule would depart into unconsciousness, Paul, because of his exceptional service, would get his resurrection body imme diately after death, but we could not apply this to others. Such evident sophistry needs no refutation. Dr. Mil ligan takes up no less than five pages in his attempt to explain away the plain meaning of God’s Word which does not fit his theory; which, in fact, absolutely contradicts his theory. But the most complete breakdown in his argument is in his explanation of Luke 16:19-31. His explanation is substantially that given by Pastor Rus sell and other errorists who teach soul sleep. He starts out by assuming that Luke 16:19-31 is “ a parable” of which there is no indication in Scripture. Then he goes on to attempt to show that the “ certain rich man” does not repre sent an individual but the Jewish Na tion. His words are “Under this figure (i. e., ‘the certain rich man’ ) Jesus evi dently represented the Jewish nation.” To any man who is trying to find.out what Scripture means, it is evident He represented nothing of the kind. Con tinuing, he says, “ ‘A certain beggar named Lazarus’ represents the outcasts of the Jewish people, the publicans and harlots, who heard Christ gladly.” He says furthermore that “ the dogs” who “ came and licked the sores” represent the Gentiles who by nature showed a liking for the moral leprosy. He says, “ The beggar died” means not physical death, but “ death to sin.” His words are, immediately after quoting “ the beg gar- died,” “ every sinner who comes to Christ and repents of sin, by that very act at once dies to sin, dies by faith in Christ.” How any sane man could put
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker