The Age-to-Come Doctrine
By J. O. CORLISS
Do Old Covenant Subjects Need a Second Probation?
THE hope of a post-mortem probation is the basis of every element of the Russell age-to-come theory. Underlying this doctrine, however, and in fact its mainstay, is the advocacy that no salvation is possible outside of new covenant provisions. Another step in the argument is that, inasmuch as those living prior to the first advent of Christ had not the benefit of new covenant provisions, which rightfully belonged to them, justice demands that the second coming of Christ must give them, through a second probation, the kind offices of his grace. The proof of this assumption must, of course, rest in the evidence of Scripture statements as to the nature, design, and compass of new covenant relations. Very much is said, and in various ways, about a “due time” reserved for those who were kept in ignorance of the saving provisions of the new covenant, on account of not having lived during its reign. Upon this single expression is hung nearly every conclusion drawn for the edification of people in the age-to-come belief. But the Bible use of this utterance in connection with the work of Christ for humanity is not that those who lived in the Mosaic age are entitled to a second probation, to be awarded at the second coming of Christ, but that the ransom for man, as provided in the original plan, and pledged in Eden, that the “seed of the woman” should finally bruise the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15), would be testified to the world in “due time.” 1 Tim. 2:6. This was done at different times, through all the prophets, whose words of saving comfort were dictated by the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, and which led them in their earthly life walks. 1 Peter 1:10-12. These were “due times” (plural) when Christ was testified of through the divine word (Titus 1:3); and in the due time predicted for his appearance at these previous times, the Lord himself appeared and testified for himself of his mission to the world. Then again, referring to the “fullness of the time” in which the Saviour should come to earth, which was the “due time” for Christ to testify personally to the original plan, it will be seen that his testimony covered the needs of every age. He really did redeem those who had lived under the law. So also did he provide the way for those to become sons of God who should live at a later period. Gal. 4:4, 5; John 1:12. Having positively redeemed those faithful ones of a former age, the best of evidence is in the fact that they had the benefit of a covenant which could save them, and embraced its provisions; for we have the positive statement that there is no other name under heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Christ. Acts 4:12. But did the people of that remote age really believe in Christ as a Saviour?—Most assuredly. Abraham actually saw the “due time” of Christ’s testimony to God’s plan of salvation, and was made glad by the sight. John 8:56. It was this which strengthened him to forgo the experience of a temporal, earthly abode and willingly to wait for that heavenly city to descend, in complete fulfillment of Christ’s mission for the lost. Heb. 11:10; Rev. 21:3-5. God being no respecter of persons, the same faith which stimulated Abraham, could not justly have been withheld from others of his day. This being true, they could have no ground for hope in a second probation for a better knowledge of the ways of the Lord. Moses also acted by faith in his choice of a life course. That faith, too, centered in Christ, and in the reward that only he can bestow. Moses chose rather to suffer affliction with God’s people than to enjoy the pleasures of Egyptian popularity for a brief period, because he esteemed, or accounted, the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward. Heb. 11:24-26. At the time indicated by the foregoing Scripture reference, Egypt was the prominent nation of earth; and being accounted the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, Moses was at least a member of the royal family, and entitled to all the honors attending that high position. His hope in Christ must have loomed large indeed, to give up such splendid earthly prospects for a reward discovered only by faith. But his faith had a sure foundation; for day by day he and the whole house of Israel drank of the spiritual and eternal rock that went with them in their journeyings, and that rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 10:1-4. It is true that in the atonement services of that time, probably the brightest emblem of heavenly glory was seen within the most holy apartment of the sanctuary, and by the high priest alone. But for the benefit of the multitude this same Shekinah was held aloft by night over the camp, as an assurance that the people therein were held under the watchful eye of the Lord Jesus, who was their leader and protector. By day the moving cloud intelligently directing the marching course of the multitude, was plainly visible to every eye which might be turned toward it. As the cloud and pillar were not hidden from any, neither were the blessings that followed in their wake. With all these things displayed in the world’s presence, would it be strange if aliens were attracted to the standard of Israel? And if some took their place under that standard, would not all others have the same privilege? Could an impartial Creator refuse relief to any such?—No, indeed: on the contrary, in view of such possible contingencies, the infinite plan of redemption, provided at the very beginning, and that by an omniscient Being capable of discerning the minutest contingency of a5needy race, included ample stipulations for the admittance of “strangers” to a place in God’s earthly family. Not only so, but “one manner of law” was to govern both these and the house of Israel. Ex. 12: 19; Lev. 16: 29; 19: 34. Read these texts carefully, and then say candidly whether these needed a second probation in order to learn the ways of God. How could they need it after being granted the privilege of God’s household members, and being treated exactly as God’s own chosen people had been treated? Besides these, time and space would fail to tell of Gideon, of Barak, of Samson, of Jephthah, of David, of Samuel, and of all the prophets, “who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises.” Some of God’s witnesses were scourged, others stoned, and a few, at least, sawn asunder. Such were obliged to wander about covered with the skins of animals to avoid being tormented with cruel imprisonment. Did these have the faith of martyrs? Indeed, they were as loyal to God as ever were Christians of the Dark Ages, and have left a record in heaven of “good report,” to meet them at the reception of the eternal promise to all of Christ’s followers. Heb. 11: 32-40. But one may say, All these cases were Old Testament history characters, and lived under what Pastor Russell and his followers claim to have been the old covenant. If his contention be true that none but those having the benefit of new covenant promises can be accepted of God, how could these have been saved without a second probation? Such a question is pertinent in view of the age-to-come theories, and must be clearly answered. Only the limits of space for this study forbid taking up that point now, but it must be reserved for another study. It is enough to say now that the expressions old testament and old covenant do not always mean the same thing. It is true that they both have the one derivation, but technically they differ, on occasions. For instance, the old covenant, so called, was a local arrangement made with the Hebrew people, by which they were to become a peculiar nation, while all the books of the Bible relating to happenings prior to Christ’s first advent are placed under the title of the Old Testament. Very many of these events, therefore, took place in the period of the two thousand five hundred years which preceded the making of the old covenant at Sinai. It follows from this that most of those events, at least, were on record long before the old covenant was in operation, and do not belong under the jurisdiction of that instrument. The question then arises, Under what arrangement did God regulate the doings of his people during those first twenty-five hundred years of the world’s history? This is an interesting point of inquiry which must wait for another study.