Making The Word Of None Effect

The apostle Peter has warned against "scoffers" (mockers - R.V.) who would arise in the last days. Their challenge to the Truth would be one which fomented doubt and scepticism: "Where is the promise of his coming?" (2 Peter 3:3,4).

The "sure word of prophecy" (Chap. 1: 19) was in this way to be undermined and neutralized by these "false teachers" (Chap. 2:1). But Peter assures his readers that "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise" and that "the day of the Lord will come as a thief" (3:9, 10). Any apparent delay was due, not to slackness, but because God "is longsuffering to us-ward."

Jesus also makes reference to evil servants who will say in their hearts "My Lord delayeth his coming" (Matt. 24:48). The context would strongly suggest that this spirit would find expression immediately prior to the call to judgment. It is quite likely that both Jesus and Peter refer to the same thing.

"Where is the promise of his coming . . . The Lord delayeth his coming" are sentiments which are reminiscent of Israel's attitude during the time of Ezekiel:

"The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth . . . The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." Ezekiel 12:22,27.

In Ezekiel's day there was an attempt to divorce the prophetic vision from the contemporary scene by giving it a Futuristic interpretation. This tactic made the word of none effect in that it removed the need for obedience - thus the people were able to avoid taking courses of action which might evoke the hostility of the world.

The Futuristic interpretations of the Apocalypse which are being offered today have this same effect. The beast, the false prophet, the image etc., are all seen as systems not yet fully developed. We are being "coaxed" to forsake the old view (says Bro. Harry Whittaker in his book Revelation: A Biblical Approach, page 215, para. 2) - coaxed to forsake the old view which identifies European political and ecclesiastical bodies with the symbols of Revelation. We are thus relieved of the responsibility of having to stand as witnesses against principalities, powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world - against the spiritual wickedness that exists in high places (Eph. 6:12). We are told that instead, our witnessing against the Beast is to take place during a period of 3-1/2 years which is yet future (Exploring The Apocalypse by P. Watkins, page 123, items 8 and 10; Apocalypse For Everyman by A. D. Norris, part xi, page 100 etc). Thus, the relevance of the prophecy for Christadelphians today is neutralized - and the word of God is made of none effect.

Prophecy Not "A Fundamental"?

It is sometimes suggested that we should tolerate alternative interpretations of the Apocalypse because prophecy has not been included in the Statement of Faith (or B.A.S.F.).
This assumption is not strictly accurate. Whilst there was no substantial threat to the Faith in the area of prophetic interpretation at the time our Statement of Faith was being framed, item No. 33 under Doctrines To Be Rejected does concern prophecy. It concerns the British-Israelite theory - a view still promoted among some sects (e.g.: The Plain Truth). This was a fairly prominent issue before the minds of the brethren and sisters following the Roberts/Hine Debate in Exeter Hall, London, in 1879. The doctrine of the Millenium (Christ's 1000 year reign on earth), which is based mainly upon the book of Revelation, also forms Article 26 of the B.A.S.F.

But any doubt as to the mind of Brother Robert Roberts on this point can be cleared by reference to what he wrote in The Christadelphian magazine in 1897 (page 467) under the heading THE APOCALYPSE ON THE QUESTION OF FELLOWSHIP: The piece is reproduced in full.

"The question is raised by dissensions in some quarters leading to division. An ecclesia tolerates wrong teaching: a few men of understanding cannot bear it, and retire. Those who remain think the matter unimportant and are inclined to find fault with the others as sticklers. How stands the matter?

When a professed brother avows the belief that the visions of the Apocalypse have no application to the accomplished history of Europe but are of a future significance, he raises a question of more serious moment than may at first sight be apparent. A man confessing ignorance of the meaning of the Apocalypse is a man who might grow in knowledge, and therefore a man to be borne with and helped; but a man denying it's meaning is a man to be antagonized on the following serious grounds:

Over a dozen times, it is written in the Apocalypse: "He that hath ears, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Jesus says, "My sheep hear my voice." He identifies the Apocalypse with his voice in saying in it: "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify these things in the churches" (Rev. xxii. 16). Thus the Apocalypse is an important part of the Shepherd's voice which Jesus says the sheep will hear. He goes further than this. He says "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life" (verse 19). On the other hand, he says "Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophecy and keep those things that are written therein."

Among the "words of the book of this prophecy" is a heavy warning against participation with a system described under the symbol of a beast and his image: "If any man worship the beast and his image and receive his mark on his forehead, or on his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation."

Now, if these things relate to institutions now current among men (which they undoubtedly do, as can be and has been many times shown), how serious is the doctrine which would say they do not relate to anything now upon earth, but to something in some future age with which we have nothing to do. Such a doctrine, where received, would prevent a man from "hearing what the Spirit saith unto the churches": it would prevent him from "keeping those things which are written in this book"; and worse than all, it would practically cause him to "take away from the words of the book of this prophecy," since to take away the meaning is to take away the words in making them of none effect. It is impossible, therefore, to agree with those who would make light of the subject and it is impossible not to sympathize with faithful men who cannot remain in any community where such nullifying doctrines are tolerated."

Brother Roberts wrote in similar vein on this subject in The Christadelphian for 1872, page 380. Suffice it to say that brethren who are today teaching false interpretations of the Apocalypse would not have been able to enjoy the fellowship of the Christadelphian community in Brother Roberts' day.

Where Alternatives Are Leading

As difficult and unpleasant as it might be, it is important for us to recognize where today's alternative interpretations of prophecy are leading. It is right for us to show understanding and patience with those who experience difficulties ("For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" - Matt. 7:2), nonetheless there has to be a responsible attitude towards the precious truths with which we have been entrusted and which constitute the Lord's message to the ecclesias.

Interpretations which deny the true identity of the Beast, of the image of the Beast, of the Great Whore and her harlot daughters, and of the False Prophet, cause brethren and sisters to drop their guard against the great Deceiver, of whom Jesus said: "if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24). Can we accept that the Scriptures have foretold dangers of this kind?

The principles which separate Christadelphians from apostate Christendom (the Beast system) are becoming more and more hazy - and this is because the true nature of contemporary political and ecclesiastical bodies are not perceived. It is surely incredible that a Christadelphian writer can comment: "Does the Pope speak great words against the most High? At least, he honours Christ, after a fashion . . ." (H. A. Whittaker, The Time Of The End, page 40). Such a statement indicates that the true Christ is being confused with "another Jesus," and that Satan himself is being taken for an angel of light! (2 Cor. 11:4, and verses 13 - 15). Any Christadelphian should know that the Christ recognized by Rome is not the Jewish Messiah; the second person of the Roman triune god is not "the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Or has this become a mere technicality?

The new interpretations correspond to the general pattern of those which are current in the ecclesiastical world. They are not Christadelphian in character. Revelation: A Biblical Approach, Apocalypse For Everyman, and Exploring The Apocalypse (three prominent "alternatives") all teach the Future Antichrist theory in common with both Rome and her harlot-daughters. Indeed, Peter Watkins and A. D. Norris have both identified this future Anti-christ as being Israelitish. They describe the circumstances of Antichrist's appearance in the Middle East in much the same way as Brother Thomas describes those of Christ's coming! (compare the bottom 3 paragraphs on page 93 of Exploring The Apocalypse, with Eureka Vol. 3, page 602).

We must find the courage to recognize what is happening to the Christadelphian community today (or to a certain section of it), and not be afraid to recognize that perilous times are overtaking us. Because some do not recognize the harlotdaughters of the mother, they are slowly being drawn towards the Evangelical movement - literature by Evangelical writers is being read on an ever-increasing scale by brethren and sisters; Evangelical films are being used by some ecclesias for preaching the Truth (!); their music is being sung by our young people and their ways are being found attractive and novel; Christadelphians are using badges, bumper-stickers, wall plaques, and all the trinkery with which the Apostasy makes her merchandise. Our separation (and separation means holiness) is being eroded. As a correspondent in The Christadelphian magazine recently put it (Sept., 1981, page 346) "Very few nowadays would assert that only Christadelphians will be saved . . ." This expresses an approach that strikes at the very roots of the Truth - the original reasons for preserving our independent identity have been lost by people who think in harmony with such statements.

This is where "alternatives" to the Truth are leading, and the responsibility to contend for the Faith now falls heavily upon those few who remember how our community has received and heard (Rev. 3:3). Christadelphia is in a state of crisis; the Truth that we have known and loved is in danger of being submerged under a mass of sentimentalism and shallow reasoning.

Go to: Chapter 3: Unshakeable Foundations Of The Truth