Part I

QUESTIONS

HAVE ALL PROPHECIES OF OLD TESTAMENT BEEN FULFILLED?

1. Have all the prophecies of the Old Testament been fulfilled?—Beaumont

And I might ask: When is a prophecy fulfilled? Some prophecies are fulfilled in a simple act, or event. The prophecies concerning the birth of Christ were fulfilled when he was born, and the prophecies concerning his death were fulfilled when he was crucified. Other prophecies concerning single events will occur to the reader. But some prophecies spoke of conditions that were to prevail over a long period of time. Study the prophecies concerning Babylon and Tyre. (Isa. 13:17-22; Jer. 51:60-62; Ezek. 26:7-14.) These cities were destroyed, as foretold; but they were to remain in desolation forever. That part of the prophecy is still being fulfilled. Certain prophecies concerning Christ, which began to be fulfilled on the first Pentecost after his resurrection, will go on being fulfilled as long as time shall last. He was to establish a kingdom; that prophecy has been fulfilled. But the prophecy further says: “Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever.” (Isa. 9:7.) This prophecy began to be fulfilled when Jesus took his seat upon David’s throne and established his kingdom. But the prophecy says he was to reign upon that throne forever. That prophecy covers the whole period of time, from the time Jesus began to reign till he surrenders up the kingdom to his Father. And he is still saving the people, as the prophets foretold that he would.

But the prophecies concerning the Jews that the future-kingdom folks harp on so much have been fulfilled.

Pointed Paragraphs:

One fact is made to stand out clearly in the New Testament—namely, that the Law of Moses, with all its legal enactments, all its forms, ceremonies, and penalties, ended at the cross; and it is surprising that any one who professes to believe the New Testament should think otherwise. If interested, read Rom. 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:4-18; Gal. 3:11-22; 4:21-31; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14. A thoughtful reading of the letter to the Hebrews will convince any one that the old covenant passed away and that we now have a new and living way.

Christ loved the church, bought it with his own blood, and prayed for its oneness. So far as we can, we should love the church as he loved it.

GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON OLD TESTAMENT KINGDOM

It is some times difficult to determine just what information is wanted. There are, however, some things about “the Old Testament kingdom” that should be carefully considered.

When God called Israel out of Egypt, he said to them: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) For a long period of time after they settled in Canaan they had no king but Jehovah; they were, therefore, Jehovah’s kingdom. But there came a time when they wanted a change; they wanted a centralized government, with a man as their king. At that time they had an excuse for demanding a king. Read carefully the eighth chapter of First Samuel. Samuel was old, and his sons were corrupt. “Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But this thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them.” Samuel was commanded to show them the nature of the government they were demanding. When Samuel had done so, the people said: “Nay; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations.” Jehovah selected Saul as their first king. When the day of his anointing came, Samuel said to the people: “See ye him whom Jehovah hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people?... Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Jehovah.” (1 Sam. 10:24, 25.) Thus Israel became a kingdom among kingdoms, and was then reckoned as such.

Israel had not only sinned against Jehovah, but had rejected him as their king. The kingdom thus established was not Jehovah’s kingdom. While Saul reigned, it was the kingdom of Saul. (1 Chron. 12:23.) It was transferred to David because of Saul’s sins; it was then David’s kingdom. Any time thereafter it was the kingdom of the man who was king.

It is strange that some people yet look for that kingdom to be restored—a kingdom that was conceived in sin and brought forth in rebellion against Jehovah! On one occasion, when Israel was in great distress, Jehovah said to them: “Where now is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:10, 11.) With what emotions do they expect the Lord to restore that kingdom?

PROMISE TO ABRAHAM: GEN. 13:14, 15 AND ACTS 7:5

Since Abraham bought even a burying place for Sarah, and Stephen, in Acts 7:5, says, “He (God) gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on,” in what sense, if any, did he receive the promise contained in Gen. 13:14, 15?—Mrs. Mary B. Robins.

Personally, Abraham did not receive actual title to the land of promise, though the Lord, in some sense, did give him the land, as will be seen by reading Gen. 28:4; 35:12. He enjoyed its productiveness as fully as if he had been its actual owner. His vast herds fattened on its grass and drank water from the wells which his servants digged. Had God driven out all the nations and turned the land over to Abraham, he could not have possessed it nor have made any more use of it than he did. Stephen certainly did not mean to say that God had failed in his promise to Abraham. It seems that Stephen’s point was that the promise was not to Abraham as an individual, but to him as the founder of a nation—to his seed. The time for the promise to be fulfilled would come when Abraham’s posterity became sufficiently numerous to possess the land. That was clearly Stephen’s point, for he adds: “But as the time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” (Acts 7:17.) This shows that the time for the fulfillment of that promise was when the people grew and multiplied, and that the time for its fulfillment was not in Abraham’s day, nor is it yet in the future. It was fulfilled when the nations were driven out of Canaan and the land divided between the tribes of Israel. “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel.” (Josh. 21:43, 45.)

Yet in the face of all this, it has been argued that the land promise to Abraham must yet be fulfilled, and that Abraham must be raised and the Jews restored to Palestine in order for this promise to be fulfilled. But the argument is mixed. It starts out to prove that the land must be given to Abraham, and winds up with his sharing it with the Jews. But Stephen’s language destroys that conclusion, for his language shows plainly that Abraham and his seed were not to possess it jointly at the same time. Notice the language: “He promised that he would give to him in possession, and to his seed after him.” Not with him, but “after him.” The future-kingdom folks will have a hard time showing how Abraham will possess the land of Canaan during a millennium and then his seed possess it after him.

Pointed Paragraphs:

There are only two things that a person can do with a command—he can obey it or disobey it. One whose heart is right toward God will do whatever God commands him to do.

THE JEWS AND THEIR KINGDOM

For some time I have had on hand some letters from an aged Texas brother, an ardent advocate of the future-kingdom theory and its allied theories. These letters contain seven closely written pages—too much for this page. In his last letter the brother says: “You answer questions for others, but it seems that my questions are a little too hard for you.... We recall that some months ago you said that the kingdom of David and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same kingdom, and that Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah. Solomon sat on the throne of David.” (1 Kings 2:12, 24.)

When a person asks for information, I give his question attention as soon as possible; but when a person is merely trying to flunk me on what he considers a hard examination, I take the examination when it suits me. Besides, those who ask for information should have first consideration. The editor assigned me the task of answering questions, and not to carry on debates; but I must break over this time and stand the examination, and also do a little debating.

But the brother’s memory seems to be at fault. I do not recall saying that the kingdom of David and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same. At least, that is not my idea at all. In a general sense God rules in all the universe, but in a special sense he ruled Israel for a time. At Mount Sinai, Jehovah said: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) Later they rejected Jehovah as their king. Jehovah said: “They have rejected me, that I should not be king over them.” (See 1 Samuel 8:4-22.) God permitted them to have a king. The resultant kingdom was conceived in sin and brought forth in rebellion against Jehovah. The people dethroned Jehovah, so to speak, and organized a kingdom of their own. “It is thy destruction, O Israel, that thou art against me, against thy help. Where now is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:9-11.) And yet all the time of that kingdom the right to rule the people was Jehovah’s. The king sat on Jehovah’s throne over Israel.

But our brother does not think Solomon sat on Jehovah’s throne, but on David’s throne. It is strange that these future-kingdom advocates can see 1 Kings 2:12, 24, but cannot see 1 Chron. 29:23: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” This language shows also that David had sat on the throne of Jehovah. It was really Jehovah’s throne, but was called David’s throne because he occupied it. And while Solomon occupied it, it was also his throne. Concerning Solomon, Jehovah said: “I will establish his throne forever.” It was Jehovah’s throne, David’s throne, and then Solomon’s throne. Hence, God had allowed the people to have their way and put a king on his throne. The management of the affairs of the kingdom was in the hands of the king. “Now when Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel.” (1 Sam. 14:47.) The whole organization of the kingdom was in the king’s hands. But enough of this. Here are the questions:

1. “Was the kingdom of David a material, visible kingdom, or an invisible spirit kingdom?”

It was a kingdom like other kingdoms. The people said: “We will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations.” And Jehovah said to Samuel: “Hearken unto their voice.” (1 Sam. 8:18-22.) That settles it. It was a kingdom patterned after other kingdoms. That kingdom was destroyed and how any sane person should expect God to restore a kingdom that was organized in rebellion against him is one of the mysteries.

2. “God destroyed it, but said he would restore it as in the days of old. (Amos 9:11-15.) Has it been restored as it was?”

God did not say that he would restore that rebellious kingdom as it was. The tabernacle of David was the royal family of David. The royal house, or family, of David fell. It was set up again when Jesus, of the royal family of David, was exalted at God’s right hand and made both Lord and Messiah. (Acts 2:29-36.) According to James, this had to be done before the gospel could be preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:13-19.) That prophecy of Amos has been fulfilled.

3. “Have all Israel been gathered from the nations and given possession of their land, with David as their king, as prophesied in Ezek. 37:10-24?”

Ezekiel uttered that prophecy while Israel was in captivity. Any Israelite who heard or read that prophecy would understand him to be referring to their then existing captivity. Our brother does not believe that the same David of old would be again their king, but that one of the seed of David would be king. Jesus was of the seed of David, and is now king. Neither are the Jews now in captivity. It is strange that any one would take a passage that speaks of delivering the Jews from captivity and apply it to the Jews of today or of tomorrow. In the prophecy referred to, Jehovah said: “I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone.” They were among the nations at that time, and from that condition Jehovah would deliver them. As to whether they then became a glorious nation would be determined by their own conduct. “And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then will I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jer. 18:9, 10.) This prophecy was spoken direct to Israel as a warning to them.

4. “If the kingdom was restored at Pentecost, why did every apostle after Pentecost that spoke of the return of Christ put it in the future?”

The old kingdom was not restored, but the kingdom of God was set up on Pentecost. Christ is on the throne, where he will sit till all his enemies are subdued. (Acts 2:35.) The last enemy to be abolished is death. (1 Cor. 15:26.) Death will be destroyed when the whole human family is raised from the dead. Jesus will occupy his present throne till that event is consummated. He will deliver up the kingdom to the Father. (1 Cor. 15:26-28.) That leaves no room for Jesus to reign on another throne before all the dead are raised. Yes, the apostles spoke of the return of Christ as future; but, unfortunately for the future-kingdom theory, they did not put the establishment of his kingdom in the future. Neither did these ambassadors for Christ tell us that the Jews would yet be restored to Palestine.

Pointed Paragraphs:

Instead of recognizing that God was working out through them his plan for the redemption of the world, the Jews concluded God cared for no other people. The promise to Abraham and their own prophets should have taught them the truth, but they were too much wrapped up in themselves to see the truth.

From the things we learn from God’s dealings with nations, it can be safely said that no nation falls so long as it serves a purpose in God’s plans. That was true anciently, and it is true today.

WILL JEWS RETURN TO JERUSALEM?

From Tennessee comes this question: “Do the Scriptures teach that the Jews will return to Jerusalem and then Christ will come and rebuild the temple there?”

We learn from a note accompanying the question that a Holy Roller or some similar kind of preacher is creating a little confusion by teaching that the Jews will return to Jerusalem and Christ will soon come and rebuild the temple.

There is no way to keep fanatics from making wild guesses, nor to keep speculators from perverting the word of God. But if people studied the Bible as they should, such fellows would create very little confusion. It is hard to tell just why such a high fever has lately developed about the future of the Jews. Some preachers seem not to have much thought for any one but the Jews.

God promised Abraham to make of his seed a great nation and to give to them the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17.) After Israel came out of Egypt, God entered into a covenant with them, promising to make of them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, on condition that they obeyed his voice and kept his covenant. (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But as they neared Canaan, Jehovah said to them: “And it shall be, if thou shalt forget Jehovah thy God, and walk after other Gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations that Jehovah maketh to perish before you, so shall ye perish; because ye would not hearken unto the voice of Jehovah your God.” (Deut. 8:19, 20.) The nations spoken of perished permanently, never to inhabit Canaan again. Israel was to perish as they did, if they turned from Jehovah in rebellion against him. I think one can safely say that not a future-kingdom advocate believes that Scripture just as it reads.

Some, at least, of those who look for the return of the Jews to Palestine and the restoration of their old kingdom tell us that the land promise to Abraham and his seed was an unconditional promise. If so, why have the Jews been deprived of their land for eighteen and a half centuries? If the Jews were driven out because of their conduct, then the land covenant, or promise, was conditional. It seems to me that their theory virtually charges God with a failure to carry out an unconditional promise. Just here the interested reader should read carefully Deut. 27 and 28. But some will tell us that the land promise and the national promises have not yet been fulfilled to the Jews; but in so contending they run squarely against plain statements of Scripture.

After Israel had conquered the land of Palestine and each tribe had entered into its inheritance, Joshua called the people together and made an address to them, in which he said: “And behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14.) Joshua had already declared: “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” (Josh. 21:43-45.) Hence, they had come into possession of all that God had sworn to their fathers to give them. All of God’s promises to them have been fulfilled, even though they never again see the land of Palestine.

Some centuries after they came into possession of Palestine the Israelites became so corrupt and rebellious that they were carried into captivity. Many of the prophets foretold this carrying away into captivity, and there were numerous prophecies that they would be brought back into their own land. These prophecies, long ago fulfilled, are now brought forward to prove that the Jews will again be brought back into their own land. It is a miserable perversion of prophecies that have had their fulfillment in the restoration of the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. Why should any one call it speculation about unfulfilled prophecy?

The contention that the Jews are yet God’s chosen people, and that he yet has in store for them special blessings that are not obtainable by other people, is in direct contradiction to God’s whole plan of salvation through Christ. The plain teaching of the New Testament is against such an idea, and yet it is God’s final revelation to man, and shows the full development and perfection of all the plans and purposes which God began in the Old Testament to outline in promise, prophecy, and type. Hence, if God has yet in store some special blessings for the Jews, he certainly would have told us about it in the New Testament; but instead of giving us such information, the New Testament distinctly and emphatically teaches that now fleshly relations count for nothing. Although Paul was “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” he counted such fleshly relations as but refuse, and declared that he had no confidence in the flesh—that is, in any fleshly relations. (Phil. 3:2-8.) In 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, Paul declares that Christ died for all, and because of that fact he adds, “Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh”—we give no distinction to any man because of his nationality. “Even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.” (verse 16.) No one thinks of Christ as a Jew with a Jew’s narrow nationalistic traits, but as a world savior. That he so often referred to himself as the _Son of man_, and not as a Jew, is more significant than many think. It sets him before us as equally related to all men and as equally interested in all men. Jehovah is not a tribal God and Jesus is not a tribal king, as most of the future-kingdom folks seem to believe.

Jesus himself gives us a picture of the latter end of the Jews. Read Matt. 12:43-45. The unclean spirit, having been driven out of the man, returns to the man with seven other spirits worse than himself. “And the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.” If the word here translated _generation_ means _race_, as it often does, the future of the Jewish race is dark indeed.

In applying the lesson of the parable of the householder, Jesus said: “Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (See Matt. 21:33-43.) This nation is the new Israel of God, the church. Christians are now the circumcision. (Phil. 3:3.) Christians are now “Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” (Gal. 3:29.) The promises and prophecies that have not been fulfilled to fleshly Israel are to be fulfilled to the church, which is now God’s Israel.

It has already been shown that there is no ground for expecting the Jews to return to Palestine. Instead of finding any teaching to that effect in the New Testament, as we would expect to find if such is to take place, we find the weight of New Testament teaching to be against such an event.

The return of the Jews to Palestine, the rebuilding of the temple, and the restoration of the Jewish kingdom are all so interwoven in the program of the future-kingdom advocates that they stand or fall together. It is a significant fact that the prophecies relied on to prove the fore-going propositions were all uttered before the Babylonian captivity or during that captivity. The Babylonian captivity had often been foretold. Therefore, when any prophet spoke of the regathering of the Jews to Palestine and the rebuilding of their temple, every Jew of that time would understand the prophet to be speaking of their return from Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of their temple then. Ezekiel prophesied during the captivity, being himself one of the early captives. Of course, anything he said about the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the temple would be understood by every Jew of that time as referring to their deliverance from their present captivity. Without some special words of explanation they could not have understood it otherwise. But no such words of explanation were given. The prophets knew how the Jews would understand them, and yet they let it go at that. Are we to understand that God, through his prophets, deceived the Jews? Surely not. The prophets foretold the return of the Jews from captivity. The Jews would understand them to refer to their return from Babylonian captivity. What then? Sound principles of exegesis demand that these circumstances and conditions be taken into consideration in the application of these prophecies. This the future-kingdom advocates fail to do. But they tell us that some of the promises in these prophecies concerning the return of the Jews from captivity have not yet been fulfilled. But such an affirmation ignores the conditionality of God’s promises. It is the same blunder that is made by the advocates of the impossibility of apostasy. Even if it could be shown that some things promised to the Jews on their return to Palestine were never fulfilled, that would not prove that they will yet be fulfilled. The human side must be taken into consideration. Hear the Lord through Jeremiah: “Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.... And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jer. 18:5-10.) This is God’s warning to Israel, but it has no weight with the future-kingdom advocates.

The Lord brought the Jews back from captivity and planted them in their land. They would have had God’s choicest blessings had they obeyed his voice; but they failed him, and plunged into the grossest sins. This criminality culminated in their murdering the Son of God and many of his saints. It was not the crimes of individuals here and there, but the deliberate crimes of the nation. Death is the punishment for deliberate murder. National murder demanded national death. The Jewish nation suffered that death in the destruction of Jerusalem.

When God sent his Son into the world, he did not send him to reorganize the Jewish kingdom, but to open up a way of salvation for sinners. He did not fail to accomplish what he was sent to do, as the future-kingdom advocates claim. Hear his own words: “I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.” (John 17:4.) That statement should settle a lot of speculation about the rejected king and the postponed kingdom.

When Jesus comes again, he will not come to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, but to render judgment. (Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:6-10.) His temple is here now. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matt. 16:18.) That church is his temple. “Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye.” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17.) “Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:20-22.) In the old material temple, animal sacrifices and other material sacrifices were offered; in this new spiritual temple, spiritual sacrifices are offered. “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 2:5.) Can any one believe that we are to give up this glorious spiritual temple for the old material temple? this spiritual worship for the carnal ordinances of the material temple? If so, he has poor taste for the spiritual.

The temple in Jerusalem was but a type, a shadow, of this glorious spiritual temple. (Heb. 9:1-10.) This spiritual house is a “greater and more perfect tabernacle.” (Heb. 9:11.) Now, we are gravely told that in the millennium we will exchange this glorious spiritual temple for the material temple with its animal sacrifices, give up the substance for the shadow, give up the gospel of grace for the law of the temple, which means the law of Moses. That temple, we are informed, will be again sanctified by the blood of animals. Such material conceptions as this whole future-kingdom idea suits very well such materialists as the Russellites, but has no place in the thinking of one who glories in the cross of Christ and in his blood-bought church.

As a sample of the passages relied on to prove that the Jews are yet to be restored to Palestine and their temple rebuilt, read Ezek. 34:11-31; also chapters 37; 39:21-29, and to the close of Ezekiel. Remember, as you read, that Ezekiel prophesied while he and his nation were in captivity. In the temple of which Ezekiel speaks there were to be all the offerings and ceremonies required by the law of Moses. The blood of the animal sacrifices served the same purposes as the law specified. The priests were of the tribe of Levi. This cannot refer to the future, for no Jew now knows to what tribe he belongs. With the blood of animals atonement was to be made for the people. If a man can believe all this is yet future, he can believe anything that suits his fancy; facts will be no barrier to anything he wants to believe.

Pointed Paragraphs:

From Alabama comes this request: “Explain Ezek. 37, concerning the dry bones and sticks. When did this take place?”

The children of Israel were then in captivity; from that captivity they were to be delivered. (See verses 21, 22.) The dry bones coming to life represented their return from captivity. Their return would be as if they were coming alive from the dead. Their captivity was their burial; their return would be as if they were coming from their graves. They had been divided into two kingdoms. Joining the two sticks into one stick represented the joining of the two peoples into one nation after their return. Their return is told in Ezra and Nehemiah. After that return they were one people. And they would have had a glorious kingdom had they obeyed Jehovah. The prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the fate of the Jews in their disobedience are being fulfilled all down the ages.

PROPHECY OF AMOS 9:13-15

Has the prophecy in Amos 9:13-15 been fulfilled?—Mrs. X, Detroit.

Amos 9:13-15: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land, which I have given them, saith Jehovah thy God.”

Amos had gone from his home at Tekoa to Bethel to prophesy against the kingdom of Israel, which had become very corrupt, and to warn the people of their coming doom. (Amos 1:1; 7:7-17.) They were to be sifted, scattered, among the nations. As Amos was speaking of their captivity, which they later suffered, it seems reasonable to conclude that the verses in question referred to their return from that captivity. All who wanted to return from that captivity to their own land had abundant opportunity. There is no evidence that the Jews will again be carried out of their own land into captivity, so as to be brought out of captivity in the future. All the prophecies that speak of a return of the Jews out of captivity have been fulfilled. One thing is sure: they are not now in captivity; therefore, they could not now be brought out of captivity, unless again carried into captivity.

Pointed Paragraphs:

ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN

“Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue.” (2 Pet. 1:3.) We are in the habit of saying that God has given us in the gospel everything that is essential to life and godliness; but Peter goes a little farther than that and affirms that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. There is a difference. To illustrate: There are certain things that are essential to an automobile; and there are other things that pertain to an automobile; but are not essential to it. When you have all things that are essential to an automobile, you can go to a supply house and purchase a lot of extras that pertain to an automobile. But suppose you have all the essentials of an automobile, and then you add all the things that pertain to an automobile, nothing else could be added that would make it any more complete. God has not only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but he has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.

But do religious people believe it? If so, why all these flummeries that God has said nothing about? If you will read the verse again, you will notice that he has given us all these things through the knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of Christ means the knowledge that has been revealed about him—the gospel of Christ. Hence, through the gospel God has not only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but all things that pertain to life and godliness. If there is, therefore, anything in your religion that did not come to you through the gospel, it does not so much as pertain to life and godliness. Is it not time to check up on our religion and see if we have anything that we cannot find in the New Testament? Any person of intelligence can do that for himself.

MATTHEW 16:28 EXPLAINED

Please explain Matt. 16:28. I have to contend with the Boll theory. What I want to know is how the disciples were to “see” the Son of man coming in his kingdom.—W. C. Anderson.

Matthew 16:28.

“Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

In this verse it is stated that some would _taste_ of death—some of them would _see_ the Son of man coming in his kingdom. _Taste_ and _see_—are these terms used literally? A little study of both words will help. “Oh taste and see that Jehovah is good.” (Ps. 34:8.) “Sweet are thy words unto my taste.” (Ps. 119:103.) “Tasted of the heavenly gift”; “tasted the good word of God.” (Heb. 6:4, 5.) If you make _see_ represent the actual functioning of one of the five senses, why not make _taste_ do the same? No man actually tastes death as he tastes food. The future-kingdom folks stress giving words their literal meaning, but even they will not say that a man tastes Jehovah, his word, or death, as he tastes food. So also the word _see_ has a variety of meanings, or uses. To see often means to know. “Taste and see (know) that Jehovah is good.” To see often means to experience. We see joy and we see a good time; we see trouble and sorrow. Taste death—experience death, or suffer death. The parallel passages, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, say: “Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” “But I tell you of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.” To see the Son of man coming in his kingdom and to see the kingdom of God come with power and to see the kingdom of God are different expressions of the same idea. When the kingdom of God came with power, it was Christ coming in his kingdom. Just as certain as some of those standing by would die before the kingdom came, or the Son of man came in his kingdom, just that certain some would live till that event occurred. Ye—those standing by, not those of some future date—shall see the Son of man coming in his kingdom, or see the kingdom of God come with power, and they would see it before they died. The future-kingdom folks do not see that part of what Jesus said; they see only “see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” And yet no man literally sees a kingdom, as he sees a material object; for the “kingdom of God cometh not with observation”—that is, not in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes; i. e., in a visible manner. (Luke 17:20.) Jesus made that statement in answer to the Pharisees’ question as to when the kingdom of God would come. Hence, some of the disciples to whom Jesus was talking would see Jesus coming in his kingdom; yet they would not see with their eyes. Jesus himself declared that his kingdom would not come in that manner.

The future-kingdom folks put stress on the statement: “They shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” But notice the change in pronouns—“ye shall see,” “they shall see.” They tell us that this coming on the clouds will be when he comes in his kingdom. They also tell us that when he thus comes the wicked dead will not see him, for they will not be raised till the end of a thousand years. But there is a hitch in that. Certainly the high priest who condemned Jesus to death belongs in the class of the wicked dead yet Jesus said to him and to the court: “Ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Notice the word _henceforth_—from now on. Notice, too that this wicked court was henceforth to see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power. No man sees him sitting with his natural eye. The word _see_ here has two objects, _sitting_ and _coming_; or, rather, the same persons shall see Jesus sitting and coming. Even a child should be able to see that the word _see_ could not here mean a mental conception as to one of its objects and an actual seeing with the eyes as to the other object. A word may have several meanings, but it cannot have two meanings at one and the same time. As some of the disciples then living were to see Jesus coming in his kingdom and the Sanhedrin were to see him sitting on the right hand of power, the Lord came in his kingdom during the lifetime of these people.

Pointed Paragraphs:

The apostles were practical men. Some were fishermen; one, a tax collector. Both callings teach a person not to believe all he hears.

MATTHEW 19:28; 25:31; LUKE 22:28-30; 1 COR. 6:2 EXPLAINED

Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. Please explain—Owen W. Smith.

1. Matt. 19:28: “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read the context. The rich young man had refused to follow Jesus. Peter said: “We have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?” The reply of Jesus does not mean that they had followed him in the regeneration, for Jesus had passed through no regeneration. Luke says they had followed him in his temptation. Jesus was telling his apostles what they would have in the regeneration. The regeneration is that period of time in which people are being regenerated. The other passage in which the word “regeneration” occurs shows that people are being regenerated in this dispensation. (Tit. 3:5.) But it was during this time of regeneration that Christ was to sit on the throne of his glory and the apostles were to sit on thrones. Hence, both Jesus and his apostles are now on their thrones, for all were to sit on thrones at the same time. On Pentecost, Peter declared that God had raised up Jesus to sit on David’s throne and had made him both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:30-36.) Jesus himself declared that all authority had been given to him. Those who say that he has all authority, but is not exercising it, overlook the _therefore_ in the next verse. Suppose Jesus had expressed that idea, it would have read something like this: “All authority has been given me, but I am not exercising it; and because I am not exercising it, go into all the world and make disciples of all the nations.” The command was based on his having all authority. Some have overlooked the _therefore_. As Jesus is on his throne, so are the apostles on their thrones. But how are they judging? McGarvey says on this point:

This statement of Paul that “the saints shall judge the world” (1 Cor. 6:2) has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the sitting on the thrones are declared to be contemporaneous with the regeneration and with Christ’s sitting on his throne; and, therefore, they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this, of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom, and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones, because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all are the judgments of the entire bench.

On the _twelve tribes_ he remarks:

The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh; consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve tribes representing the church of God of which they were a type.

In judging, the apostles declare who is free from guilt and who is condemned. This is made plain in John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

2. Matt. 25:31: “But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.” This verse is incomplete, and is really explained by the rest of the chapter. He shall sit on the throne of judgment, and before him will be gathered all nations for judgment; but the people will be judged as individuals and not as nations. It is not a judgment of nations, or governments, as has sometimes been said. Even a little attention to the gender of the Greek words of the passage will show how ill-founded is that assumption. “Nations” is neuter in the Greek; it cannot, therefore, be the antecedent of _them_ in verse 32, for it is masculine. And so is _ye blessed_ in verse 34, and _ye cursed_ in verse 41. Both _these_ and _the righteous_ in verse 46 are masculine. It is, therefore, not a judgment of nations, as such, but of the people. The passage is in perfect harmony with 2 Thess. 1:6-10. Here he comes to take vengeance on the wicked and to be glorified in his saints. It is, therefore, the judgment at the last day.

3. Luke 22:28-30: “But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read the context. They had just eaten the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. A contention had arisen between the disciples as to who would be accounted the greatest; and Jesus had told them that there was to be no one among them exercising lordship over the others, but that service would be the thing that counted. The apostles had faithfully followed him in his temptation; he would, therefore, appoint them a kingdom, and they would eat and drink at his table in his kingdom. On account of the fact that they had just eaten the Lord’s Supper we naturally associate the Lord’s table with the Lord’s Supper. They, therefore, would eat the Lord’s Supper in his kingdom. But the Lord’s Supper will not be eaten after he comes again. But as they were to eat it in his kingdom, it is certain that they ate it in his kingdom while they lived. The kingdom now in existence is, therefore, the kingdom he appointed them. In Luke 12:32, Jesus said: “Fear not little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” The Father was to give this kingdom to the “little flock.” This cannot mean that he will give his kingdom to his followers at the end of this dispensation, when the little flock shall have swelled into “a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues.” (Rev. 7:9.) No; it was to be given to a little flock and not to a numberless host, and the language clearly shows that it was to be given to those who were then present. And that was the kingdom which he appointed to them, and in which they sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. On this last point, see comments above on Matt. 19:28.

4. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3: “Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?”

Commentators have had no end of trouble over these verses, and there is little agreement among them. In some sense saints judge the world and angels, but how? and when? It is a hazardous and foolish thing to build a theory on a difficult passage, especially when little, if any, light on the point can be gained from other Scriptures. But it does not seem possible that Christians will be judges in the last day, when all shall be judged. From Matt. 25:31-46 we learn that the righteous will be judged along with the wicked. Saints will not then occupy judgment thrones, but will be gathered before the judgment throne. They cannot be judges while being judged. After that they cannot judge the world, for the world will already have been judged. And there is no Scripture that teaches that the heavenly angels will then be judged by any one. But the gospel is God’s law, and every time it is preached sinners are judged as guilty, as are also the devil and his angels. And saints have this same law by which to judge among themselves. These are facts, whether the passage in question has that meaning or not. This view has the merit of not being out of harmony with the general teaching of the New Testament. But let us be sure not to build a theory on a difficult passage of Scripture, nor use it in support of a theory. We might be found wresting the Scripture to our own destruction.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JEWS, THE KINGDOM AND SALVATION

Tell me: When, or how, did Christ offer the Jews the kingdom? What passage, or passages, or teaching as a whole do you think the earth-kingdom advocates rely on to prove the statement that the kingdom was offered the Jews?

Was the kingdom offered the Jews in any sense that _salvation_ was not offered them?

Did they reject the kingdom in any sense they did not reject salvation?

If the kingdom was offered the Jews, and they rejected it, and the Lord for that reason postponed the kingdom, why is it he did not also postpone the salvation offered?—X

Perhaps I might as well answer the foregoing questions as a whole as to answer each one separately. The querist has been doing some close thinking, and his questions open up a field for some profitable investigation.

The querist evidently refers to the Jews as a nation, and not as individuals. It is claimed by the kingdom speculators that Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jewish nation on condition that the rulers and people alike repent, but the assertion is not backed up by any definite proof. The advocates of that notion arrive at such a conclusion by assumptions and deductions. They assume that the prophets foretold the restoration of the old kingdom of Israel, a kingdom that was born in rebellion against God and in rejection of him as King! They assume that Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jews as a nation, but they gave no proof that Jesus offered that kingdom or anything else to a national Israel. But as such a kingdom did not come into being, they conclude that both the king and his kingdom were rejected. Matt. 3:2 is quoted in this connection, but they do not show how that Scripture proves their contention. John was preaching to individuals, and not to the nation as such. The fact is that he never did go and preach to the rulers, nor did they come to him. They did send a committee to inquire into his work.

I see no way to separate the kingdom from salvation, nor can I see how one can exist apart from the other. Of course the old kingdom had citizens who were not in a saved state, but I do not see how that could be true of the kingdom of Christ. However, we are told that only Jews who are born again will be citizens of the kingdom which they suppose Christ will set up when he comes again. In that respect, as well as in many others, this supposed kingdom will not be like the old kingdom.

That the future-kingdom advocates realize they have no certain proof of their rejection and postponement theory is shown by the fact that they do not agree on any certain Scripture, nor as to the time of this supposed rejection and postponement. John R. Rice puts it in the tenth chapter of Matthew; Scofield, in the eleventh; R. H. Boll, in the twelfth. John R. Rice says the kingdom at hand was never preached after the tenth chapter; the offer was then withdrawn. He should have read what Jesus a year later instructed the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:11.) In a note on Matt. 11:20-24 Scofield says: “The kingdom of heaven announced ‘at hand’ by John the Baptist, by the King himself, and by the twelve, and attended by mighty works, has been _morally_ rejected. The places chosen for the testing of the nation—Chorazin, Bethsaida, etc.—having rejected both John and Jesus, the rejected King now speaks of judgment. The final official rejection is later. (Matt. 27:31-37).” On verses 28-30 he says: “The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting _nation_ and offers not the _kingdom_, but _rest_ and _service_ to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivotal point in the ministry of Jesus.” R. H. Boll says: “In