Post by Lee on Aug 11, 2014 0:21:42 GMT
In the 1916's there was an Ex Christadelphian (pastor Russell) who was arguing that Christ was a Ransom FOR ALL, and that all would recieve a benefit from his action. One of the arguments he used was Jer 31:15-16.
Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Jer 31:16 Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
From this he argued that these children would be resurrected. The following is the editor of the Christadelphian's response:
Matt. 2:18 with Jer. 31:15–16.—Herod’s slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem. The Russellite interpretation is that by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ these babes must be resurrected to a renewal of the Adamic nature for “another opportunity.” But “this is all moonshine,” as Dr. Thomas truly says. The prophet in ch. 31. is speaking, not of the resurrection of the slaughtered babes of Bethlehem, but of the Restoration of Israel from the land of their captivity, including, of course, the resurrection of the saints. Matthew takes hold of a particular part of the prophecy as receiving a typical fulfilment in the sad experience of Bethlehem under Herod. But he does not say the babes will be raised. He stops with the words, “they are not.” And that will be their condition for ever, like David’s first child by Bathsheba, of whom he said, “I shall go to him; but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). By the way, this one passage completely explodes Russellism and its doctrine that “every descendant of Adam must be ‘ransomed,’ as he calls it, to ‘another opportunity.’” Jer. 31. proves too much and too little for Russellism. It proves too much because it shows that “ransom” involves that the “ransomed” (verse 11) “Shall not sorrow any more at all” (verse 12), a thing that Russell will by no means allow. It proves too little, because it says nothing about resurrection to “another opportunity,” but speaks of Rachel’s children “coming again to their own border,” that is being gathered from among the nations into the land of Israel—see context (verses 5–10).
1916 Christadelphian p 107
Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Jer 31:16 Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
From this he argued that these children would be resurrected. The following is the editor of the Christadelphian's response:
Matt. 2:18 with Jer. 31:15–16.—Herod’s slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem. The Russellite interpretation is that by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ these babes must be resurrected to a renewal of the Adamic nature for “another opportunity.” But “this is all moonshine,” as Dr. Thomas truly says. The prophet in ch. 31. is speaking, not of the resurrection of the slaughtered babes of Bethlehem, but of the Restoration of Israel from the land of their captivity, including, of course, the resurrection of the saints. Matthew takes hold of a particular part of the prophecy as receiving a typical fulfilment in the sad experience of Bethlehem under Herod. But he does not say the babes will be raised. He stops with the words, “they are not.” And that will be their condition for ever, like David’s first child by Bathsheba, of whom he said, “I shall go to him; but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). By the way, this one passage completely explodes Russellism and its doctrine that “every descendant of Adam must be ‘ransomed,’ as he calls it, to ‘another opportunity.’” Jer. 31. proves too much and too little for Russellism. It proves too much because it shows that “ransom” involves that the “ransomed” (verse 11) “Shall not sorrow any more at all” (verse 12), a thing that Russell will by no means allow. It proves too little, because it says nothing about resurrection to “another opportunity,” but speaks of Rachel’s children “coming again to their own border,” that is being gathered from among the nations into the land of Israel—see context (verses 5–10).
1916 Christadelphian p 107