The Landmark Missionary Baptist Church, of Rockford, is happy to yield to Pastor John L. Coleman, and the Calvary Cross MBC, of St. Louis, Missouri, the privilege of hosting a Fellowship Meeting over the Thanksgiving holiday this year. I am assuming that this meeting will begin with the Wednesday evening service and continue until sometime on Friday, November 21-23.
    Why not plan NOW to be a part of this fellowship experience? And Pray that the name of our Lord may be exalted throughout the meeting.


    On the third day following His crucifixion, Jesus appeared to two of His disciples as they travelled toward Emmaus - discouraged, despondent and hopeless because of the loss of Him whom they had expected to REDEEM ISRAEL. Their eyes being "holden" (Lk. 24:16), they did not recognize the Master. Yet, their hearts "burned" within them as, 'beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to

    No careful and honest student of the Scriptures should be surprised by the suggestion that the concept of BRIDEHOOD, in the Scriptures, is one associated with the KINGDOM; not a privilege reserved for New Testament church members alone.
    In a recent re-examination of John 3:29, I was made to wonder why anyone should "impute" to John the Baptist (on the basis of this passage) the recognition of a FUTURE New Testament church as the "Bride of Christ". (I do not mean to infer that the "nucleus" of the church has not already been called, by Jesus, in the fishermen-disciples.)
    At the time John spoke the concept of a New Testament church had not yet been clearly enunciated; it certainly was not the role of John the Baptist to introduce that concept - much less to identify it as the "Bride of Christ". I rather submit that the concept of associating "bridehood" and the church relationship finds no clear biblical enunciation until one reaches the Pauline epistles. It is important to understand that John the Baptist was a

faithful JEW - the son of a Jewish priest, after the course of Abia, and a godly Jewish mother "of the daughters of Aaron", (Lk. 1). He was divinely commissioned to "prepare the way" for Jesus, as the Messiah, and, by his baptism, to "make Him known" TO ISRAEL, (John 1:29-34) - His national "bride", since the initial introduction of the Theocracy at Mt. Sinai.
    Having rejected the proper headship of her divine husband, the nation had brought immeasurable misery upon herself - being "cast off" until she should learn from whence her help and sustenance came (see Hosea 2). Through prophets, calamities, captivities and severe afflictions, our Lord had called the nation BACK TO HIMSELF. Now, in human flesh, the divine Messiah has come to earth - calling the nation to repentance, and offering, upon the basis of that repentance, and loyal submission to her Bridegroom, to reestablish the Kingdom IN ISRAEL, and to reign as her

glorious King, (Matt. 21:4-16; comp. Matt. 3:2; 4:17, 23-25). Nor is it without deep significance that our Lord Himself declared: "I am NOT sent BUT UNTO the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL!" (Matt. 15:24).
    Fully recognizing Jesus as the "Bridegroom", and, being filled with the fulness of JOY at the very sound of His voice, John the Baptist heartily COMMENDS HIM TO THE NATION - the reluctant "bride". In fact, all the "companions of the Bridegroom" (Matt. 9:15, ASV footnote) found it appropriate to REJOICE, rather than fast, so long as the Bridegroom was with them!
    The nation as a whole (the bride who had once faithfully pledged herself in loyal devotion to this Divine Bridegroom) would have NO PART with Him! Unwilling to acknowledge His rightful authority over themselves, the nation said: "We will NOT HAVE THIS MAN to reign over us!" Thus, title to the kingdom was TAKEN FROM THEM and transferred to "a nation" that would bring forth the fruit of righteousness, (Matt. 21:43). I understand this "holy nation" to be the New Testament church established by our Lord; the "Israel of God", in this age, (I Pet. 2:9-12; Gal. 6:16 Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:7, 29; Phil. 3:3; comp. Rom. 2:28-29).


    Instead of BEING A KINGDOM, in any sense of the word, it is the role of the New Testament church, in this ONE AGE (out of all the ages), to:
    1) Take out from among the Gentiles a people for Christ's "name"

and "kingdom" - a SPECIAL people for His own POSSESSION! (Acts 15:13-18), and to train them in the principles by which the Kingdom is to be governed when it is established on earth, (Matt. 5-7).
    2) To PRAY for the Kingdom TO COME - that the will of God may THEN be done on earth as it is already being done in heaven, (Matt. 6:10).
    3) To PROCLAIM the KINGDOM-GOSPEL to all nations, (Matt. 24:14); to make, baptize and instruct DISCIPLES; and to await, expectantly, the coming and kingdom of our dear Lord, (Matt. 29:18-20; I Cor. 1:7-8; 2 Tim. 4:1); for TO THEM it IS GIVEN! (Luke 12:31-32)     When the Kingdom COMES, the role of the church, as a divine institution, WILL HAVE BEEN FULFILLED! But, faithful church members, with faithful saints under ALL the divine covenants, (children of Abraham by means of a faith that is faithful; Gal. 3:26-29; 5:24), will constitute a covenant-community of king-priests who shall stand in actual BRIDAL RELATIONSHIP to our dear Lord. As joint-heirs of His Kingdom, these will be permitted to share His rule over the nations of a renovated, renewed and regenerated earth. Of these, the faithful harbinger of the Christ, John the Baptist, will surely have a role that is NOT INSIGNIFICANT! True greatness, and the prospect of INHERITING the Kingdom, is ever dependent on one's FIDELITY to the divine order - in whatever era one may live. And no higher commendation was ever given ANY "man born of women" than that Jesus gave to

John the Baptist! (Matt. 11:7-15).
    Finally, permit me to submit that, whatever may be implied by the gracious broadness of Jesus' declaration "that many shall come from the east and west" (also from the north and south) "and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, IN THE KINGDOM", (Matt. 8:11; comp. Luke 13:28-29); it CANNOT consistently be taken to infer the INFERIORITY of those ancient patriarchs, TO ANYONE, in the coming Messianic Kingdom!      E.G.


them IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES the things concerning himself", (Lk. 24:27). But, it was only in the breaking of bread with them that "their eyes were opened, and they knew Him", (Lk. 24:31).
    It was on that same day that, in Jerusalem, He appeared to the eleven, and others that were with them, (Lk. 24:33). Though they were terrified - thinking they had seen a ghost; He showed them His hands, side and feet (that bore the marks of Calvary). Being hungry, He ate a piece of broiled fish which they provided. Then, according to Luke 24:44, He pointed them to the things recorded in "the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms" concerning Himself. "THEN OPENED HE THEIR MIND, THAT THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES", (Lk. 24:45).
    I submit that, to take this passage, from such a context, and to use it as a proof-text for APOSTOLIC INFALLIBILITY IN UNDERSTANDING

ALL THE SCRIPTURES is to do severe injustice to the Word! There is a vast difference between: 1) the concept of divine inspiration, in moving an apostle to rightly interpret an Old Testament passage while writing under the direct counsel and movement of the Holy Spirit, and 2) the assumption that ANY apostle was given PERFECT UNDERSTAND of everything in the Scriptures - apart from such instrumentality in completing the divine revelation of God to men.
    This "perfect understanding" concept would immediately disqualify PETER (and perhaps others) from true apostleship - and for a number of reasons.
    1) Can it be doubted that Peter was in the forefront of those who, following 40 days of intense instruction by the Master-Teacher

concerning the Kingdom, still eagerly inquired: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)
    2) Can it be imagined that an apostle, with perfect understanding of ALL the Scriptures, would require a special, instructive VISION before he could recognize that God did not hold a Jewish contempt for the "unclean" Gentile? (Acts 10-11)
    3) Is it possible to believe that a man with PERFECT UNDERSTANDING of all the Scriptures would play the part of a turncoat and hypocrite, as Peter did at Antioch - to the humiliation and disgrace of the gentile brethren there? (Galatians 2:11-18) Is it not obvious that Paul not only REBUKED, but actually INSTRUCTED Peter on this occasion?
    4) And, what can a man WITH PERFECT UNDERSTANDING of all the Scriptures possibly mean by referring to the writings of his beloved brother Paul, who "in all his epistles" speaks "of these things; in which are some things HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD"? (2 Pet. 3:15-16)
    In conclusion, may I suggest that Jesus, in Luke 24:45, has done for the group assembled in Jerusalem the same thing that, earlier in the day, He had done for the Emmaus disciples; He opened the eyes of their understanding to THE MESSIANIC SECRET - showing that the Christ must suffer and die BEFORE His enthronement to rule over the re-established Theocratic Davidic Messianic Kingdom in righteousness justice and equity - and FOREVER!      E.G.