2 Timothy he said the time for his departure had come. In Philippians he had expressed his willingness to be poured

out like a drink offering, in 2 Timothy he knew that the hour had come when he should be so poured out or `offered'.

In the presence of this witness it becomes impossible to translate analuo in Philippians 1:23 of the `return' of the

Lord, it can have but one meaning `the return' if you will, but the return of the body to the dust; in fact, the ordinary

or accepted meaning of the word analusis, `analysis'.

To round the subject off and not leave any essential feature unexplained we turn once again to Luke 12:36. This

verse actually speaks of the `coming' of the Lord, as something subsequent to His `departing'. The servants will not

open the door when He departs from the wedding, but when He `cometh and knocketh'. This passage is in no sense

a contradiction of the Authorized Version translation of Philippians 1:23, rather it is a confirmation.

CHAPTER 4

Philippians 1:24-30

We have seen sufficient evidence to compel us to retain the word `depart' in Philippians 1:23 and to reject the

idea that Paul intended by the word analuo `the return' of the Lord. There is another reason why the hope of the

apostle could not be expressed in these terms which we must note before passing on.

During the Acts of the Apostles, the hope that was before the believer was `the hope of Israel' (Acts 28:20), and

the believers at Rome were instructed that their hope (A.V. trust) was embodied in the promise `there shall be a root

of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in Him shall the Gentiles trust' (or hope) (Rom. 15:12).

This hope was to take place `at the last trump' (1 Cor. 15:52) and the descent of the Lord was to be accompanied by

the voice of the archangel, (1 Thess. 4:16), which links this aspect of the Lord's return with the prophecy and the

people of Daniel (Dan. 10:21; 12:1). Had the unique character of the dispensation of the mystery, and the hope of

its calling been perceived, no one could have put into the mind of the apostle, at the time when he wrote the epistle

to the Philippians, the idea of the Lord's `return'.

For the Lord to `return' implies that He is coming back `the second time' to the place and people of His rejection,

which of course is blessedly true. The hope and constitution of the church of the mystery is however distinct from

the promise made to Israel, from the setting up of a kingdom, the throne of David, the New Jerusalem, because it is

blessed in a new sphere `far above all', and the hope of this church is not so much to wait for the Lord `to come' as

to receive the call that shall make them `manifest with Him in glory' (Col. 3:4). This will be the first movement of

the second advent, but will in no sense be `a return'. By the time Paul wrote the epistle to the Philippians the hope of

the Lord's `return' had been temporarily set aside, while the new dispensation of the mystery had its own special

`hope' of its calling.

Let us now re-read Philippians 1:21-26 in the light we have acquired :

`For to me living (is) Christ and dying (is) gain. But if living in the flesh (is Christ) this to me is the fruit of (my)

work, and what I shall choose I do not make known. But (i.e. instead of making known) I am held in constraint

(colloquially, `I am in a fix') by reason of the two: (1) having an earnest desire to depart, and to be with Christ,

for it were far better, but (2) the abiding in the flesh is more needful for you, and having this confidence, I

perceive that I shall abide and continue beside you for your furtherance and joy of faith; that your rejoicing may

be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again' (Phil. 1:21-26).

`To depart and to be with Christ'. How are we to understand these words? Do they teach that there is an

intermediate state? or do they teach that at death the believer goes straight to glory? We must remember that the

apostle is not, in this passage setting out doctrine, he is expressing an ardent wish. He does not say `to depart IS TO

BE with Christ', he simply says he would choose if he had his own way `to depart; and be with Christ', without

dealing with the question of the passing of time or of a conscious or unconscious interval.

Let us illustrate this point. Years ago it was our privilege to travel to Canada, and there to testify to the wonders

of the Dispensation of the Mystery. Every moment of the time was a joy, and the time spent away from home was