Part II

DISCUSSIONS

PREDICTION OR PROPHECY

The word “predict” comes from a compound Latin word that means, “to say,” or “tell before”; hence, to prophesy. But many words in the course of time have somewhat changed in meaning; “predict” is such a word. In giving synonyms under “foretell” Webster says, “‘Foretell’ (Saxon) and ‘predict’ (Latin) are often interchangeable; but predict is now commonly used when inference from facts (rather than occult processes) is involved.” Hence when a man considers facts and trends and draws a conclusion as to what will be the outcome, that is prediction. Did Bible prophecies originate that way? No; “... knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet 1:19-21).

Verse 21 really explains verse 20. Prophecy was never a forecast of events based on conditions and trends of the times; it was not a private interpretation of the culmination of trends. It did not come (Greek, “was not brought”) by the will of man; “but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” Hence, no prophecy came as a result of a man’s own private interpretation of trends and events of the times. If a man should draw a conclusion from facts and trends, such conclusion could, in a loose sense, be called a prophecy, a prophecy of private interpretation, a prophecy that came by the will of man; but Peter speaks of the prophecy of scripture. Such prophecy is not of the private interpretation of facts and trends. Notice the contrast—“no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation ... but men spoke from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” The passage has no reference to what should be done about prophecy that had already been written, but to weave together a mass of prophecies, most of which have been fulfilled, and make a scheme for the future, practically amounts to a man-made prophecy—a prophecy that comes by the will of man. Even the prophets did not understand their own prophecies—did not know but that “the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow them, “was meant for themselves,” till God revealed to them “that not unto themselves, but unto you did they minister these things” (1 Pet. 1:10-12). But it seems that a host of preachers and editors today think they know more about the prophecies than did the prophets who uttered them.

Pointed Paragraphs:

A privilege is a right which we may exercise or not, as we choose. Attending the annual feasts of the Jews was a privilege with the women. They could stay at home or go, without guilt. To the men, attending these feasts was not a privilege, but a duty. To fail brought guilt. Christians should do some serious thinking to determine their privileges and their duties. To say that a certain thing is both a privilege and a duty is about as sensible as to say that a certain thing is both black and white. To be baptized, to attend the Lord’s-day worship, to give, to study God’s word, and to obey all other commands are duties, and are not privileges in any proper sense of the word.

PROPHECY

A prophecy is anything God reveals through an inspired spokesman. It might be concerning future events or present duties and warnings. But in this article I shall use the word in its common acceptation—namely, as a revelation of things future as to the time the prophecy was given.

It was no uncommon thing for prophecies to be delivered in highly figurative language. In such cases the prophecy was to be fulfilled in the sense conveyed by the figurative language. It is a common saying that the Bible means exactly what it says, but that is never true when things are spoken in figurative language. We all use figurative language. When Paul said, “Beware of the dogs,” no one thinks he referred to literal dogs. When Jesus called Herod a “fox,” he used figurative language, and no one thinks he meant that Herod was a literal fox.

In his recent book on prophecy a certain brother says: “Expect a literal fulfillment. This is God’s way of fulfilling prophecy. Every prophecy which the Bible says has been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally.” That is a broad statement. Can he make proof? Let him try his dictum on Isa. 40:3, 4: “The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places a plain.” A literal fulfillment of that prophecy would require mountains and hills to be torn down and valleys to be filled up. Now, Luke (3:4, 5) quotes this prophecy and applies it to the work of John the Baptist. And Matthew distinctly says that John the Baptist was the one of whom Isaiah prophesied. (Matt. 3:3). This one fulfillment of prophecy completely upsets his dictum, unless the author contends that John had a contract to construct a literal highway, and literally leveled mountains and hills and filled up valleys, as highway builders do. But we had never thought of John the Baptist as a road contractor!

Another highly figurative prophecy is the following: “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isa. 11:6-9). But we are told that this must have its literal fulfillment, and that the time will come when all beasts of prey shall be thoroughly changed and gentled. If all prophecies must be literally fulfilled, what about the first verse of this chapter? Will a literal shoot and branch come up from the literal stock and roots of Jesse? And Isaiah (55:12) spoke of a coming time when “the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing; and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” And we are gravely admonished to expect a literal fulfillment of all prophecies!

But what about the animals? The kings of Assyria and Babylon are called “lions.” (Jer. 4:7; 50:17.) The princes in Jerusalem were called “roaring lions,” and the judges “wolves.” (Zeph. 3:3.) The princes of Israel were called “whelps,” and their mother “a lioness”; and one of these whelps became a lion! (Ezek. 19:1-9.) David referred to certain of his enemies as “bulls” (Ps. 22:12), and Amos refers to certain people as the “kine of Bashan” (Amos 4:1). Jesus called certain people “wolves” (Matt. 7:15; 10:16), and Paul said to the elders of Ephesus: “Grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). Will the future-kingdom advocates contend that this prophecy of Paul’s was literally fulfilled? Had our brother been present, would he have looked for literal wolves to destroy that church? If so, he would have missed the force of Paul’s words entirely. If these elders had been guided by the above dictum, they would have gone out on a literal wolf hunt!

Men of ferocious disposition are to be tamed and gentled by the gospel of Christ; but even that will not be universal, so far as this prophecy indicates. The prophecy does not make any affirmation concerning the whole world. The key to a proper understanding of the prophecy which is quoted above is found in the last verse: “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” It is in Jehovah’s holy mountain where this gentleness shall be—where no hurt shall be done. The mountain of Jehovah, in Isaiah’s language, refers to Jehovah’s government: “And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.” (Isa. 2:2, 3.) It is in this holy mountain, this church, or house, of God, where “they shall not hurt nor destroy”; and the reason is given: “For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” Certainly no one will contend that wild beasts will be so full of the knowledge of God that they will not hurt nor destroy. But ferocious men do become gentle under the influence of the gospel; they must be thus gentled before they can enter Jehovah’s holy mountain.

One more thought. If, in studying prophecy, we are to expect a literal fulfillment, and if that is God’s way of fulfilling all prophecies, then what are we to do with Isa. 2:2, 3 and 40:3, 4? The mountains and hills are to be leveled down, and yet Jehovah’s mountain is to be established on the top of the mountains and exalted above the hills. How can both things take place literally? So it appears that their dictum on the literal fulfillment of prophecies makes it impossible for prophecies to be literally fulfilled.

SHALL WE LOOK FOR A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF ALL PROPHECY?

The future-kingdom advocates put great stress on the literal application of Old Testament prophecies. A Prophecy concerning Israel must be applied to Israel in the flesh, and Jerusalem means the Jerusalem in Palestine. Zion must have its literal application, and so with “throne” and “kingdom”, etc. With them, there must be no “spiritualizing.” The lamb and the lion must refer to literal lion and lamb. But will they stick to that line? Hardly. Isaiah said: “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places plain.” (Isa. 40:4.) Now, the inspired historians of the New Testament applied that Scripture to the work of John the Baptist; yet we are told by the future-kingdom advocates that every prophecy must have its plain, literal fulfillment. If so, the inspired New Testament writers were mistaken on this point, and that prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.

But we are told that the prophecies mean exactly what they say. Now, is that really so? Then, what about the four beasts in Daniel 7? “Four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other.” Yes, it is true that these matters were interpreted for us, but it is also true that the interpretation shows that the four beasts were not actually four beasts. It also shows, as do other passages, that many prophecies are couched in highly figurative language. The prophecy concerning the work of John (Isa. 40) shows how highly figurative some prophecies are. Or will the future-kingdom folks say that even this prophecy must yet have its literal fulfillment?

But it is contended that the throne of David means the rule over the fleshly house of Israel in the land of Palestine, and that unless Christ rules over the Jewish nation in the land of Palestine he does not occupy the throne of David. He must have a civil government, with Israelites as citizens and the land of Palestine as the territory; otherwise, he does not occupy the same throne David did. This would imply that the kingdom over which Christ rules must be an exact replica of the kingdom as it was in the days of David. If not, why not? If it can be changed in one particular, why not in others? It is argued that God’s oath to David (Ps. 89:34, 35) precludes the possibility of any change in the kingdom. But even after so arguing, do our future-kingdom advocates outline a kingdom just like the kingdom of David? They do not. Here are a few points wherein the kingdom of David differs from the future kingdom as outlined by its advocates:

David’s reign was local; Christ’s reign to be worldwide.

Every kind of Israelite, good and bad, citizens in David’s kingdom: only regenerated Israelites to be citizens in Christ’s kingdom.

Fleshly birth made citizens of David’s kingdom; a Jew must be born again to be a citizen of Christ’s kingdom.

Every child of Hebrew parents was in David’s kingdom; children must be old enough to voluntarily accept Christ to be in the future kingdom.

David was king, family of Aaron were priests then; Christ to be both King and Priest.

Some rather unruly men were helpers in David’s kingdom; only true and tried Christians are to reign with Christ. (Here the future kingdom as outlined by its advocates radically differs from David’s kingdom.)

David’s kingdom was constantly beset by its enemies; no enemies to the future kingdom.

David’s kingdom constantly organized for war; nothing like that in the future kingdom.

In David’s kingdom they learned war; in the future kingdom they shall learn war no more.

David reigned while the devil was loose and doing his worst; we are told that Christ cannot begin his reign till Satan is bound.

Moses was the lawgiver of the old kingdom; Christ is to be the lawgiver for the future kingdom.

And that is not all; but we grow weary of the task of enumerating the differences. Yet we are told that, if there is any alteration, the throne of the kingdom cannot be the throne of David.

When Jehovah called Israel out of Egypt, he told them that, if they would obey his voice, they would be unto him “a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But had not God always exercised universal dominion over all the works of his hands? Certainly, but now he was to rule in a special way over a special people. As this people were to have no earthly head, they were not to be like the nations around them, and were not to be reckoned among the Nations. God made their laws, and gave direction for their execution. This state of things continued till the days of Samuel. Then the people asked for a king that they might be like the nations around them. That was a rejection of Jehovah as their king. Saul was put on the throne, and the kingdom became his. He was rejected and the kingdom given to David. These men and the descendants of David occupied the throne that belonged peculiarly and specially to Jehovah. Jehovah occupied that throne before Saul or David, and that throne continued after the last son of David reigned. The royal family of David fell into decay, but did Jehovah’s rule over Israel cease? Did not his throne continue as it did before Saul became king? It is true that the Jews were rarely independent, but were they any less under the rule of Jehovah when they were subject to other nations? Did not the kingdom continue with them? Before becoming excited at these words, read Matt. 21:43: “Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” How could the kingdom be taken from them, if it was not then with them? The Lord was then developing that nation to whom the kingdom was to be given, and to whom it was given on the first Pentecost after his resurrection.

On Pentecost, Peter preached that God had raised up Jesus to sit on David’s throne. It has been argued that Peter does not say that he then sat upon that throne. If not, what point was there in mentioning it? After mentioning it, Peter says: “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted,” etc. If that is not a conclusion from what he said about the throne of David, why the “therefore”? Would Peter—would any speaker—make an argument about the throne of David, and conclude that “therefore” Jesus had been exalted to something else, something he had not even mentioned? Are we seriously expected to believe such absurdities?

Pointed Paragraphs:

By faith Noah built the ark. Faith only—that is, faith without works—is dead. Such faith never would have built the ark; neither does it ever accomplish anything nor bring any blessings. Faith prompted and guided Noah in building the ark, and so it is said that he built the ark by faith—a faith made perfect by works.

God has always tested man’s willingness to do his will. To be a real test, the thing commanded must be such that the person can see no connection between the thing commanded and the result to be obtained. Examples: The brazen serpent (Num. 21:4-9); Naaman’s dipping in the Jordan (2 Kings 5:1-19). Baptism is such a test.

“Religion” is a broad term. There are many religions, but only one true religion. It would be better now to speak of “The place of Christianity in a nation’s life.”

ABRAHAM AND THE LAND PROMISE

When God called Abraham out of the Chaldees, he made certain promises to him, one of which is this: “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:1-3). Then when Abraham stood the test about offering up Isaac, God added this to the other promises: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” That this promise refers to Christ is made clear by Paul: “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Gal. 3:16). Paul’s language shows clearly that the promised seed of Abraham was none other than Christ Jesus. It is a perversion of the promise to make it refer to all fleshly children of Abraham or to those who are children by faith. Christians are blessings to others only as they allow Christ to use them as his instruments.

Universalists use the promise to Abraham in an effort to prove that all people will be saved, but they ignore the conditionality of promises. It is not my purpose to discuss Universalism, but call attention to these statements: “Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.” (John 5:40). “He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). “And these shall go away into eternal punishment.” (Matt. 25:46). A person who will not believe these scriptures, and others that might be cited, will not believe anything he does not want to believe.

The future kingdom folks have twisted the land-promise in support of their future plans for the Lord. The land-promise to Abraham did not produce the speculation about the future return of the Jews to Palestine; but their return is an essential part of the future kingdom theory, and that made it necessary to claim that the land promise still holds good. Let us look into this matter briefly.

“And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land.” (Gen. 12:7). “And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.” (Gen. 15:7). But Abram did not believe Jehovah, and said, “O Lord Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” For that unbelief, God required him to prepare three animals and two birds for a sacrifice, and then Jehovah did not honor his sacrifice with fire from heaven; and Abram had to protect his sacrifices from birds of prey. Then he fell into a deep sleep; “And lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him.” Then Jehovah revealed to him the future bondage of his seed, and their deliverance. This showed Abram how God was displeased with Abram’s unbelief. It is significant that God left Abram out of his next promise: “In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land.” You see, Abram would have died long before they returned from Egypt. As we proceed it is well to remember the wording of this covenant-promise, and that Abraham is not included in it. Yet so long as Abraham lived, he was included in the land promise. (See Gen. 17:8). And of course, when the land-promise was made to Isaac and to Jacob after the death of Abraham, he was not included (Gen. 26:2, 3; 28:13).

It is urged by some that God promised the land to Abraham as an individual, yet Stephen says that God “gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:5). It is affirmed that this promise must yet be fulfilled; yet Abraham had all the grazing rights he needed. The land therefore was his to use. But the future kingdom advocates overlook another statement Stephen made: After mentioning Israel’s going down into Egypt, Stephen said, “But as the time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” (verse 17). This was the land promise which God made to Abraham—“God vouchsafed unto Abraham.” The time for the fulfilling of that promise to Abraham had drawn nigh. The language cannot be twisted to mean anything else: So the Lord led Israel out of the land of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. Was this land promise which was “vouchsafed to Abraham,” and which had drawn nigh fulfilled? Joshua answers that question. “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, 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). In his farewell address Joshua 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). Language could not be plainer; or more emphatic. And a man who will not believe what Joshua says will not believe anything he does not want to believe.

We have been told that the land promise was unconditional; but the fact that the Jews were carried into captivity because of their sins and the further fact that they are not now in Palestine, and also the fact that at the beginning they had to drive the nations out, show how foolish it is to say that the land promise was not conditional. The Jews increased in their wickedness till they crucified Christ and tried to destroy his church. For these crimes they lost the land and their national existence; and now they have no more right to Palestine than to Italy, or any other country.

Notice the wording of God’s promise to Abraham: “I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.” (Gen. 17:8). “After thee”—does that preposition “after” mean any thing to you? The land was given to Abraham, and to his seed after him—a succession of ownership, first Abraham and after him his seed. So if that promise is yet to be fulfilled, then Abraham will first occupy the land, how long no one knows, then it passes to his seed. Look at the language carefully, and it will mean something to you. You cannot ignore that preposition “after.” It is clear enough if you recognize the fact that Abraham had full use of the land while he lived, and that after him his seed had the land.

THE TIME OF PROMISE

In the discussion about the land promise made to Abraham, one plain statement seems to have been overlooked. But, first, let us get before us an argument that some make on that promise. It is argued that the promise was made direct to Abraham and was meant to be fulfilled to him in person, and yet Stephen informs us that God “gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:5). Assuming that the promise to Abraham meant that he would have title and right to the land in his own person, it is therefore argued that he must yet have it in his possession. It is therefore argued that the Jews must return to Palestine, so that the promise to Abraham may be fulfilled. But in thus making Abraham and the nation of Israel joint-owners of the land at the same time—they overlook the promise as Stephen stated it: “and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him.” Notice that word _after_—first to Abraham, then to “his seed _after_ him.” Notice again this word _after_ in Gen. 17:8 “I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojourning, all the land of Canaan.” Abraham first, then his seed after him. I wonder how long these future kingdom folks think Abraham is to possess the land before it comes into the possession of his seed after him! The emphasis the future kingdom folks place on their idea that the land was to be given to Abraham in person will not allow them to concede the truth that the promise was made to him as the head or father of a nation to be possessed by the nation of whom he was the father. The head or father of a nation is sometimes put for the nation—is sometimes spoken of as a nation. Before Jacob and Esau were born, Jehovah said to Rebecca, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25:23). These statements or promises concerning these unborn sons were to be fulfilled centuries after they were born—fulfilled in their descendants. To rebellious King Saul, Samuel said, “Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine, that is better than thou.” (1 Sam. 15:28.) Yet that threat was never visited upon Saul in person, for he continued to be king so long as he lived. Now, that threat to Saul was as personal as was the land promise to Abraham. Why does not some wild scribe argue that Saul must be raised again and put on the throne of Israel, so God can fulfill his threat?!! The threat was fulfilled in the family of Saul just as the land promise to Abraham was fulfilled to his descendants. And that is exactly the way the land promise to Abraham was fulfilled. After Stephen spoke of this land promise, he said, “But as the time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” (Acts 7:17.) “The time of the promise” can mean nothing else than the _time for the fulfillment of the promise_. That time had drawn nigh, and things began to shape up for the fulfillment of that promise. Those who claim that the promise has not yet been fulfilled have a quarrel with Stephen.

At the proper time Moses was sent to lead Israel out of Egypt. In giving instructions concerning the passover, Moses said, “And it shall come to pass, when ye are come to the land which Jehovah will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.” (Ex. 12:25.) Hence when they should come into their possessions in Canaan, that was exactly what God had promised. Again Moses refers to Canaan as the land which Jehovah “sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” (Ex. 13:5.) This same promise is referred to many times in Deuteronomy. A few of the many passages: (6:3, 10, 18, 23; 8:1; 31:20.) These passages teach plainly that the possession of the land of Canaan by Israel would be the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Joshua so understood it; for when the tribes of Israel came into possession of the territories allotted them, 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. And it shall come to pass, that as all the good things are come upon you of which Jehovah your God spake unto you, so will Jehovah bring upon you all the evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which Jehovah your God hath given you.” (Josh. 23:14, 15.)

REBELLION OF ISRAEL—A KINGDOM BORN.

When Jehovah led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, he said to them, “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. 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. 19:4-6.) Of course, God, in a general way, ruled over all the works of his hands, but in a special sense he ruled over the nation of Israel. For a long time Jehovah was their only king. In emergencies he raised up judges to deliver them from their enemies. But in the course of time they became dissatisfied with that sort of thing. Their sins brought them into trouble, and they thought that it was the efficiency of the governments surrounding them.

“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 the 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.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7.) Nevertheless, Jehovah told Samuel to inform the people fully as to how the king which they desired would oppress them, and Samuel did so. “But the people refused to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.” (Verses 19, 20.) Saul was selected as king, though some were not pleased with the selection.

Soon after being made king, Saul smashed the armies of the Ammonites in a great battle. Then Samuel knew that it was an appropriate time to gather the people together and “renew the kingdom.” They were called together at Gilgal, and there Samuel resigned as judge in a solemn address to the people. He told them that, although they had asked for a king when Jehovah was their King, Jehovah would bless them and their king, if they and their king obeyed his voice. His speech and the rain that came at Samuel’s call so impressed the people that they said: “We have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” (1 Sam. 12:19.)

This kingdom, which was conceived in a desire to be like other nations, born in open rebellion against God, and tolerated through the forbearance of God, is the kingdom that some people would have us believe God yet intends to restore and enlarge. That kingdom restored is, we are told, the hope of Israel! That is the kingdom over which Jesus and the church will yet rule, and through which all the world will be blessed! Who can believe it?

I am aware that a question like this may occur to some one: If that kingdom was established in rebellion against God, how is it that Jehovah promised the throne of David to the Christ? But if we were unable to give a satisfactory answer to that question, it would not change what the Lord says as to the spirit that brought that kingdom into existence. But the question presents no real difficulty. Before the people called for a king so as to be like the nations, Jehovah was their king; he alone occupied the throne. Of course you understand that “throne” means authority to rule, rulership, kingly authority. When Saul, David, or Solomon ruled over God’s people, he occupied the throne of Jehovah. It was called David’s throne because he occupied it, and not because it was his by right. If people could ever get it settled in their minds that David really sat on Jehovah’s throne, it would save them from some confusion. But these two quotations show that the throne of David and the throne of Jehovah are the same: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father.” (1 Kings 2:12.) “Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” (1 Chron. 29:23.) It is plain that Jehovah’s throne was called David’s because he occupied it. He who rules over God’s people occupies the same throne that David occupied. No one will deny that Jesus now rules over God’s people or, if you like the expression better, rules in the hearts of God’s people. To acknowledge that he does so rule is to acknowledge that he sits on the throne on which David sat. This truth has nothing to do with the fact that the people of Israel sinned in wanting a king so as to be like the nations around them. “I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:11.)

NEITHER—NOR

In the May issue of Word and Work, Stanford Chambers writes under the above caption as follows:

One was recently heard to say publicly: “I am neither a premillennialist nor a postmillennialist.” I think I saw the same from the pen of some writer. It is difficult to see how one can avoid being one or the other. A man might say: “I am neither an immersionist nor a nonimmersionist.” How could that be, unless he disregards baptism entirely? Just so in regard to the return of our Lord; it is either before the millennium, that is, premillennial, or it is after it, that is, postmillennial. Whoever disavows the event of his coming until the close of the millennium, whoever puts the millennium anywhere preceding the coming, is a postmillennialist, whatever he disavows or denies.

Just because the Lord Jesus may come at any time, and because it is an event he has commanded us to watch for and to pray about, I dare not put a thousand years between me and the fulfillment. Hence, I am a premillennial, and can no more help it than I can help being an immersionist.

“But what difference does it make whether I am ‘pre’ or ‘Post’?” I should say not enough in and of itself, merely, for it to be made a test of fellowship as has been attempted even by some “Neither ... Nor’s.” But it might make a great deal of difference for a man to put a thousand years between him and the coming of Jesus. Our Saviour himself shows the likely effect for one to say: “My Lord delays his coming.” Again, it might make a great deal of difference for him to teach men so. It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s quoting, “The Lord is at hand,” or “The Judge standeth before the door,” or “The end of all things is at hand,” or “When ye see these things, know that he is near.” Too much store is being set by this “what difference does it make?” The postmillennial error has many attendant malinterpretations it were well to avoid. As every truth of God’s word is helpful, so every error is harmful, and _any_ error _may_ lead to fatality. “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”

Yes, I have said publicly, both orally and in print, that I am neither a premillennialist nor a postmillenialist. The Gospel Advocate has been all along making a heroic effort to steer clear of all party, or class, names. But Brother Chambers thinks it cannot be done. He does not see how a man can keep from being a premillennialist or a postmillennialist. In his estimation a man cannot be simply a Christian; he must have some sort of a descriptive term to designate what sort of Christian he is. And so we have premillennial Christians and postmillennial Christians. Here, then, is partyism in religion, the beginning of new denominations. It will not help the situation any to say that these are merely descriptive words, and not party names. Why the need of these descriptive terms, if they are not intended to describe different parties? _Methodist_ was first a descriptive term, and then a party name. Premillennial Christian, postmillennial Christian, and Baptist Christian; in principle, what is the difference? And herein we see one of the evils of preaching speculative theories that create groups, classes, or parties in the church. What right has any man or set of men to create two parties, and then tell me that I must belong to one of them? That these brethren of Word and Work have created conditions that make it necessary in their judgment to use descriptive terms to designate groups of brethren condemns the whole movement as divisive in nature and sectarian in principle. If they think they have created conditions in the church that make it necessary for the Gospel Advocate to line up with one of these parties and be labeled, they are decidedly mistaken. If, as Brother Chambers says, he cannot help wearing a party label, he needs the help the Gospel Advocate is trying to give him. But if he is just bound to be what he is, and cannot help it, what will he do about it when the Lord comes, if the Lord does not follow the program these brethren have marked out for him? And herein is another danger to these brethren. Before Jesus came to earth, the learned Jews had things mapped out; and because Jesus did not follow their program, they believed him to be an imposter. Yes, there were program makers for his first coming, and there are program makers for his second coming; and the fatal blunder of the first program makers should be a warning to the present program makers.

But Brother Chambers thinks that neither “pre” nor “post” should be made a test of fellowship. There is something pitiful and shaky about a plea that one’s teaching or practice be not made a test of fellowship. The plea itself is a confession of divergence. We have often heard that same plea from the “progressives.” No matter from whom it comes, it sounds like a plea for forbearance and mercy. The Gospel Advocate has never, in its long history, felt the least need of making such a plea. Can you imagine J. C. McQuiddy, T. B. Larimore, E. G. Sewell, or David Lipscomb begging the brethren not to make some theory or practice of theirs a test of fellowship?

There has been a good deal of loose talk about tests of fellowship. To raise the question as to an opinion or theory without giving any attention to what is done with the opinion or theory does not meet the issue. An opinion or practice might be very innocent, and yet a man might make a great deal of trouble with it. It is not then his opinion you must consider, but the use he makes of it. Suppose some man should decide that dark clothing is conducive to piety and sober-mindedness, and that light clothing makes the wearer light-hearted and gay, and that flashy dress makes the wearer frivolous and giddy. Would you feel disposed to make his notion or his practice a test of fellowship? But suppose that peculiar notion of his becomes such an obsession with him that he feels that he must advocate it everywhere? He becomes so carried away with the idea that he becomes a nuisance, a trouble maker, and a divider of churches; what then? What would Brother Chambers do about it? Suppose he, while dividing churches with his peculiar theory, pleads that the sort of dress a fellow wears should not be made a test of fellowship; how would Brother Chambers answer him? It is supposed, of course, that Brother Chambers cares enough for the peace and unity of churches to do something about such a situation, but what would he do? Would he fellowship the fellow, bid him Godspeed, and call him to hold meetings? And it would be much worse if the fellow divided churches by preaching hurtful and untrue theories.

If brethren press a theory to the dividing of churches and then tell us that we must let them alone, else they will have no fellowship with us, what can we do about it? They have drawn the line, and issued a “manifesto.” And yet they keep talking about tests of fellowship.

What is their object in talking so much about tests of fellowship? Do they live up to their plea? When has a church which indorses whole-heartedly the Word and Work theory ever called one who opposed such theory to hold their meeting? What fellowship do they extend to preachers who do not indorse them? Why do they not call Foy E. Wallace, Jr., C. R. Nichol, or men like these, to assist them in meetings? No longer ago than last year some friends of mine wanted me to teach a Bible class of nights in their meetinghouse. Two of the elders are ardent admirers of Brother Boll and his teaching; they refused to allow the class to be taught in the meetinghouse. Look at the matter any way you please, and it was worse than a refusal to fellowship me. And the only grounds of refusal was the fact that I was not a “pre.” Now, until they show some fellowship toward those who oppose their theories, all clear-thinking brethren will conclude that their talk about “tests of fellowship” is indulged in merely to create prejudice in their favor. Such a thing is cheap politics.

“Our Savior himself shows the likely effect for one to say: ‘My Lord delays his coming.’” Brother Chambers here quotes from the parable found in Luke 12:42-48. These brethren quote, “My Lord delays his coming,” as if that was the real crime of that wicked servant; whereas he merely took advantage of his lord’s delay to give expression to the villainy that was already in him. The use these brethren make of this seems to indicate that they think the only thing that keeps people out of all meanness is the expectation that the Lord might come any moment. But I have never said that the Lord delays his coming, and, therefore, do not belong in the class with that wicked servant. The word translated _delayeth_ means “_to linger_, _delay_, _tarry_.”—Thayer. “_To spend time_; _to continue_ or _last long_, _hold out_; _to persevere_ in doing; especially, _to tarry_, _linger_, _delay_, _be slow_; _to prolong_, _put off_.”—Liddell and Scott. This word would not be used concerning an event that was not delayed beyond the time it was expected. Now, these future-kingdom advocates tell us that the first Christians were taught to expect Jesus to come again while they lived. But he did not come then. According to their teaching, the Lord has delayed his coming several hundred years beyond the time expected. Who is it that says the Lord did not come at the time he was expected? They are the ones, according to their own teaching, who say: “My Lord delays his coming.”

Brother Chambers says: “It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s quoting, ‘The Lord is at hand,’ or ‘The Judge standeth before the door,’ or ‘The end of all things is at hand,’ or ‘When ye see these things, know that the end is near.’” Who opposes his quoting the Scriptures referred to? When a man makes an implied charge of that nature, he is honor bound to name the parties, when called on to do so. Will Brother Chambers give the name of the person to whom he refers, or is he merely insinuating things to create prejudice?

Pointed Paragraphs:

To write the word of Christ upon the heart, or, what is essentially the same, to let it dwell in us richly, means more than to commit it to memory. It is to make it the dominant factor in our thinking and in our plans and purposes.

FUTURE KINGDOM DOCTRINE—REFLECTS ON INTEGRITY OF GOD

Sometimes a wrong theory does not look so bad till you begin to examine its consequences and the side issues that are its necessary supports. And sometimes theories so warp our thinking as to develop in us a wrong conception of Jehovah and of his attitude toward man. Such theories are extremely hurtful. There are some things about this future-kingdom theory that are hurtful in more ways than one.

The Theory Reflects on the Integrity of God.

In his tract, “The Kingdom of Heaven,” page 13, Arthur W. Pink says: “From a number of reasons which we shall state we are compelled to believe that our Lord’s message, ‘Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ signifies that _an offer of the Messianic kingdom_, as foretold by the Old Testament prophets, _was then being made to the Jews_. Let us remark that it is of the utmost importance that we pay careful attention to the word ‘repent’ here. In this call to repentance, our Lord, as the Baptist before him had done, _laid down the fundamental terms on which the kingdom was being offered to Israel_.” Others make the same plea. If they are correct, then God offered them the kingdom on condition that they repent. Thousands of them did repent; but we are told that God deferred the establishment of the kingdom because not all repented. But what about his promise to them who did repent? God made them a promise on condition; they performed that condition, but God did not give them what he promised! It does not help any to say that the nation rejected him. What about his promise to those who accepted him? It will not do to say God dealt falsely with some because others dealt falsely with him. We are told that the offer of the kingdom was made in good faith. Some accepted the offer in good faith, but we are told that they did not get what God had promised them. There is a serious defect in a man’s faith who can thus reflect on the integrity of Jehovah.

Pointed Paragraphs:

Grubbing up false doctrines and unscriptural practices is as essential as grubbing up noxious growths in the field, but a farmer can impoverish himself by putting in all his time grubbing. And the man who puts in all his time in opposing false doctrine and exposing wrong practices will impoverish his character. The fundamental doctrine, or teaching, is the framework around which the Christian character is built. The framework must be there, or the character will not stand up; the gentler graces must be built around the framework, or the person is harsh and unattractive.

Every time we judge a doctrine or another person, we judge ourselves. In condemning evil, we declare ourselves righteous. In condemning righteousness, we declare our sinfulness. In other words, every judgment we deliver shows what sort of person we are. Our judgments on others reveal our own standards. The character of the Jews was revealed in their blaspheming the gospel.

THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND CHRISTIANITY

In his kingdom tract, page 15, Mr. Arthur W. Pink says: “The Old Testament _knows nothing whatever of Christianity_!” So, then, there is not a type or a prophecy in the Old Testament that points to the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ! But that idea is not peculiar to Mr. Pink; it is a part of the future-kingdom doctrine. To the ordinary reader of the New Testament it sounds strange to hear some one argue that the prophets of the Old Testament tell us nothing of the gospel of Christ, the New Covenant (or New Testament), the kingdom as it now is, or anything else that pertains to the present plan of salvation through Christ. But such teaching is one of the necessary supports to the future-kingdom theory. It must be made to appear that the entire plan of God for the world’s redemption centered in a material kingdom, in which the Jews would be the citizens and over which Jesus would rule on the throne of David in Jerusalem. It would be the kingdom of David literally restored. Other nations would be blessed only through Israel and in subservience to them. Of course the theory contemplates the return of the Jews to Palestine and their conversion to Christ. And we are taught by the future-kingdom advocates that the Old Testament prophets speak only of that sort of thing.

Let the reader think closely as he reads the following quotation: “About the middle of Acts occurs an event of first importance. The acceptance of the Gentiles into the church—into the favor of God as joint sharers of the blessings of Israel’s Christ—was a most terrible perplexity to all believing Jews. It was, in fact, a _mystery_. It had never been revealed that such a thing would happen. (Eph. 3:4-6.) That the Gentiles were to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery; _that_ had been previously revealed. But the observant reader of the prophets will notice that it is always after the national restoration and exaltation of Israel, and always through restored Israel and in subservience to Israel that the Gentiles were to be so blessed.” (“The Kingdom of God,” by R. H. Boll, page 63.) So they would have us believe that the Old Testament prophets said nothing of the gospel as revealed in the New Testament, nothing of the new covenant of which the apostles are ministers and of which Christ is mediator, and that the covenant of which Jeremiah prophesied (chapter 31) has not yet been made. Yet Paul quotes that prophecy in the eighth chapter of Hebrews, and informs us that Christ is now the mediator of that covenant.

But the theory is wrong, absurdly wrong. In Luke’s record of the great commission (24:46, 47) Jesus said: “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Here Jesus plainly declares that it had been written that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations. Paul declares that he had been “separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom. 1:1, 2.) Here Paul plainly declares that the gospel which he preached had been promised through the prophets. In reporting Paul’s preaching at Berea, Luke says: “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11.) How could they determine that Paul was preaching in harmony with the prophets, if the prophets said nothing of the gospel which he preached? In that case, would not their searching the Scriptures cause them to reject his preaching? If Paul had held to the future-kingdom theory, his honesty would have led him to tell these honest-hearted Bereans that they could not find anything in the Scriptures about the gospel which he was preaching. At the house of Cornelius, Peter said: “To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43.) Peter (1 Pet. 1:10-12) tells us that the prophets searched diligently to understand their prophecies concerning this salvation, “To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.” Paul preached the gospel—preached Christianity in its fullness, and yet he affirmed that he said “nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (Acts 26:22, 23.) He preached salvation through faith in Christ, and that there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile: “But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.” (Rom. 3:21, 22.) So this very plan of salvation which Paul preached, in which there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile, was foretold in both the Law and the prophets. Paul quotes Moses as prophesying that disobedient Israel would be provoked to jealousy by the obedience of a people other than the Jews. (Rom. 10:19.) Paul applies that prophecy to the obedience of the Gentiles. And then he shows that Isaiah foretold that the Gentiles would be blessed while Israel remained rebellious: “And Isaiah is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me. But as to Israel he saith, All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.” And yet we are told that the prophets foretold that only through restored Israel were the Gentiles to be blessed.

Pointed Paragraphs:

We can know that Deity united with humanity in the person of Jesus, though we cannot understand just how the two natures were united. But we can believe what the Bible says and adjust our lives to its teaching. Herein lies our salvation.

We can know that there are three persons in the Godhead, though we cannot comprehend their nature and unity. The finite cannot understand the infinite.

THE FUTURE-KINGDOM PERVERSIONS AND DISLOCATIONS OF PROPHECY

Much is said these days about modernism and fundamentalism. I hope to be allowed to live in a modern world without being called a “modernist” and to hold to fundamental truths without being dubbed a “fundamentalist.” These “fundamentalists” have formed a program for the Lord, mixed in a few truths, and named the mixture “fundamentalism,” and its advocates “fundamentalists.” If their theory is as old as the Bible, why the new names for it and its advocates? Old ideas and doctrines do not require new names: anything new requires a new name. Now, “modernism” and “modernist” are older words than “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist.” Religiously, I am no “modernist”; and the term “fundamentalism” is too new for a Bible lover to accept. It is even newer than the term “modernism.” It would be interesting to hear Mr. Rice explain how his doctrine is so ancient, since the name of it is more modern than is the term “modernism.” In name, they out modern the modernists! When a doctrine is more modern than modernism, it is too modern for me.

In Mr. Rice’s tract, “Christ’s Literal Reign on Earth from David’s Throne at Jerusalem,” he claims to prove “from the Scriptures the premillennial coming of Christ; that he has not yet set up his kingdom on earth, but that he will reign from a literal throne at Jerusalem, in his literal human body, over the entire earth.” He assumes much, argues little, and makes many scattering assertions. It would be easier to review his tract, if more care and thought had gone into its making.

The trouble with him and his future-kingdom advocates, is not speculating about unfulfilled prophecies, but a perversion and dislocation of prophecies that have been fulfilled. When a man takes prophecies that have been fulfilled and makes them do service in some future program, he is not speculating about unfulfilled prophecies. To call such perversion “speculation about unfulfilled prophecies” is to yield to him his claim that they have not been fulfilled. This is not, therefore, a discussion on “unfulfilled prophecies,” but an effort to show that Mr. Rice and others have, in the interest of a theory, dislocated promises and prophecies, some of which have been fulfilled.

Mr. Rice quotes Gen. 13:14, 15; 17:8, and comments: “You will notice from the context that it was the literal land over which Abraham walked and which he saw, called by the name, ‘the land of Canaan.’ The promise is unconditional, and utterly without time limit. It is ‘for an everlasting possession’.” And if Mr. Rice will read Josh. 21:43-45; 23:14, he will notice both from the text and the context that God fulfilled this promise to the letter—not one thing failed of all that God had promised. Yet the Jews are not in that land now. Why? Mr. Rice says the promise of the land to Abram’s seed was unconditional and without time limit. Who broke the covenant? If Mr. Rice is correct, the seed of Abraham did not break the land covenant, for there were no conditions for them to break. If Mr. Rice is correct, God was the only one that could break the covenant. God promised them unconditional possession of the land, and then dispossessed them of it. That is a reflection on the integrity of Jehovah.

Mr. Rice says: “The Lord foretold in Deut. 28:63-68 the dispersion of Israel ‘among all the peoples, from one end of the earth even unto the other;’ but in Deut. 30:1-6, the regathering of Israel to their own land to possess it is plainly foretold.” Why did Mr. Rice refer to so small a part of each of these chapters? Was he afraid the reader might discover something in the rest of these chapters that would upset his theory? Their dispersion was one of the curses that would come upon them if they disobeyed the law Moses gave them. (See Deut. 28:15.) Read Deut. 30:8, 10, and you will see that their return was conditioned on their keeping the commandments which Moses commanded them, and that after their return they were to keep all the commandments of the law of Moses. This condition is now impossible of fulfillment, for the law of Moses is not in force. If Mr. Rice will read Neh. 1:8, 9, he will find that the regathering here spoken of took place when the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. Surely he will not take issue with Nehemiah. The other passages relied on to prove the future gathering of the Jews to Palestine refer to the same event.

Moses plainly told the Israelites that if they forgot God and turned from his commandments, they would as surely perish as that the nations whom they drove out of Palestine perished. (Deut. 8:19, 20.) These nations perished utterly as nations, and Moses said the nation of Israel would perish as they did. Because of their sins they were carried into captivity. Later, all who desired to return to Palestine were permitted to do so. They again fell into sin; and in John’s day they had again grown so corrupt that he told them the ax then lay at the root of the tree. (Matt. 3:10.) Then the Jewish nation murdered the Son of God—that is, the high court of the nation procured his murder. Under God’s law the penalty for murder was death. As this was murder by the nation, nothing but national death would satisfy divine justice. The tree had become wholly bad, and God used the Roman armies as the ax with which to cut down that tree. According to these future-kingdom advocates, the most glorious period of Jewish history is yet to be; but Jesus tells us that the last state of that race will be worse than the first. (See Matt. 12:43-45.)

The Jews were broken off from God’s favor because of sin—unbelief. Now both Jew and Gentile stand on an equal footing before God. God is not a respecter of persons. Religiously, we know no man after the flesh. These future-kingdom folks seek to keep up this racial distinction which Christianity was meant to destroy. In Paul’s allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) the handmaid and her son represented Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and Paul uses that allegory to show that the handmaid and her son were cast out. Christians are children of the free woman. Paul then affirms: “The son of the handmaid (Jewish nation) shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.” Hence, the Jewish nation, as such, is left out of any further inheritance. Jesus plainly told the Jews: “Therefore say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matt. 21:43.) Believers in Christ are now “sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) “and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). The Jewish nation, as such, is not now an heir of anything. By unbelief the Jews were broken off from God’s favor. (Rom. 11:20.) Gentiles were grafted in by faith. “And so”—in the same manner—“all Israel shall be saved.”

There is not a hint in the New Testament that the Jews will be restored to Palestine and be the only citizens of this fantastic future kingdom, with other people subject to them. That would be fleshly distinction with a vengeance. “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. 6:2.) Think of the nature of this kingdom these men set forth as the object of our highest hope: “The kingdom of Christ is to be as literal as David’s kingdom.... It is to be as literal and earthly as Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, and Rome.” So says Mr. Rice. That would please well the carnal nature of man. It is a pitiful thing to see men delude themselves with such false hopes.

Mr. Rice says: “Jesus, David’s son, is to restore David’s kingdom.” Yet he says: “The present world system will have to be destroyed before Christ can have his kingdom on this earth.” David ruled without having the present world system destroyed. If Christ is to have the same kingdom, why cannot he do the same? Is it possible that Mr. Rice thinks David could do a thing that Christ will be unable to do? The theory belittles Christ.

Here are two statements from Mr. Rice: “Jesus will restore all Israel to their own land, the land of Canaan, and will rule over them from David’s throne.” “Jesus is not now sitting in his throne, but in his Father’s throne, according to Rev. 3:21.” His idea is that when Jesus comes again he will descend from that universal throne which he now occupies with the father and sit on David’s throne as king of the Jews, thus exchanging a higher for a lower. And they call that exaltation of Christ! Exalted to a lower place! “Throne” means kingly authority. David’s throne and Jehovah’s throne are the same. In I Kings it is said that “Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father.” In 1 Chron. 29:23 it is said that “Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king instead of his father.” That which was called David’s throne was Jehovah’s throne. It was called David’s throne simply because he ruled over God’s people. The effort to make a distinction between God’s throne and David’s throne is a miserable perversion of Bible truth. As Jesus now rules over God’s people, he occupies the same position that David occupied.

When did Jesus begin his reign? On Pentecost, Peter reminded his hearers that God had promised David to place one of his seed upon his throne, and that David, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ. Jesus was therefore raised up to sit on David’s throne. Read Acts 2:29-38. Verse 33: “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.” To Peter the coming of the Holy Spirit on that day was proof that Jesus had been exalted to David’s throne. From John 7:37-39 we learn that the Holy Spirit would be given when Jesus was glorified. Read Mat. 20:20, 21 and Mark 10:35-37, and you will see that sitting with Jesus in his kingdom and sitting with him in his glory mean the same thing. As the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was proof that he had entered into his glory, it is also proof that he had been exalted to rulership in his kingdom.

But it has been said that Jesus was then anointed, but did not then begin to reign, just as David was anointed some time before he began his reign. But here is a fatal defect in that illustration: Not one thing was done in the name of David as king till he actually assumed the reins of government. Acts were to begin to be performed in the name of Christ at Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came. (Luke 24:46-49.) On that day Peter commanded the people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38.) Was Peter guilty of forging the name of Christ to a pardon proclamation? He had no right to so do, and his act was forgery, if Jesus had not authorized him to do so. And Jesus could not have authorized him to proclaim pardon in his name, if Jesus was not then occupying the throne. Not one future-kingdom advocate, nor all of them together, can answer this one argument, neglected or overlooked though it has been. It settles the whole matter as to the fact of his reigning now and as to when his reign began.

Mr. Rice says: “John the Baptist came preaching ‘Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ (Matt. 3:2.) Jesus began to preach from the same text in his early ministry. (Matt. 4:17.) We find that the command to repent is repeated many times on through the rest of the New Testament, but the statement, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ was dropped and not repeated any more, though the kingdom is mentioned dozens of times. The reason is that the Jews rejected Christ, their King, and the kingdom was postponed. (Luke 13:34, 35.)” “At hand” means “near.” In the third year of his public ministry Christ sent the seventy out to preach, “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” (Luke 10:1-10.) That was during the last year of his ministry. Certainly, after the first Pentecost after the resurrection the kingdom was not preached as “at hand” any more, for the simple reason that it had come. Paul says that Christians have been “delivered out of the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” (Col. 1:13.) Christ is now “The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.” (1 Tim. 6:15.) As he is the “only Potentate,” he alone rules in this kingdom. Hence, it is his kingdom, and the throne is his throne.

But Mr. Rice would have us believe that when John and Jesus announced that the kingdom had come nigh they missed it a long way. Jesus also preached “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mark 1:15.) If Mr. Rice is correct, the kingdom was not at hand—the time for it to come was not fulfilled. He would have us believe that Jesus did not know what he was talking about. But that is not the worst reflection on Jesus that this theory makes. They were assured of the kingdom on condition that they repent and believe the gospel—that is, that they repent and accept Christ. Some of them, in good faith, trusting the words of John and Jesus, did repent, and accepted Christ. But, according to the adherents of the future-kingdom theory, they did not get what God had promised them. It will not relieve the situation to say that most of them rejected him. What about his word to those who did accept him? They did their part; did God do his? Mr. Rice says he did not. I am unalterably opposed to any theory that thus makes out God a liar to those who faithfully do his commands and trust his promises.

The postponement theory belittles the church and makes it an afterthought, a sort of emergency measure. According to Mr. Rice, God meant to establish a material kingdom just like other world kingdoms, but the Jews did not make it possible for him to do so. The church was then established to continue till the time was ripe for the kingdom, according to the theory. The church, then, was not God’s original plan. But what saith the Scriptures? Was that God’s original intent? “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph. 3:10, 11.) Thus we see that it was the eternal purpose of God to make known his wisdom through the church. And how long will this continue? “Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations forever and ever.” (Eph. 3:21.) The church, then, will not be superseded by another institution so long as generations come and go.

Mr. Rice quotes Acts 15:13-16 to prove that “the restoration of the kingdom of David is to be after this Gentile church age.” Had he given the full quotation James made from Amos, it would have proved the very opposite of what he claims. James was justifying the acceptance of the Gentiles, and quoted Amos to prove that since the royal family of David was re-established the Gentiles might come into the church. Read verses 17 and 18 and see how miserably Mr. Rice perverts the argument of James.

Pointed Paragraphs:

A life spent in entertaining and being entertained is an empty and useless life. The satisfaction that comes from knowing that one is of help to his fellow man is some reward within itself. How useless must a person feel who never does anything useful! How boresome such a life must be!

People sometimes say that this plan or that plan will not work. Certainly not; no plan will work. But people may work a plan, or work according to a plan, or they may work without any prearranged plan. A plan is not as necessary as a purpose.

YOUR FAITH AND YOUR CONFESSION

The promises and prophecies recorded in God’s revelation to the Jews led them to confidently expect the coming of a Deliverer, the Messiah. They have planted that expectation in the hearts of many Gentiles. (Of course the reader understands that “Messiah” in Hebrew is the same as “Christ” in Greek.) But the Jews had no clear conception as to what the Christ would be and do. In fact they had many very erroneous ideas about the promised Christ. Hence, when Jesus appeared in their midst, they were so blinded by their theories that they rejected him as the Christ—that is, the majority of the Jews would not accept him as the Christ, while many of them believed on him as the Christ. To the most of them Jesus was a puzzle, a stone of stumbling. They could not deny his mighty miracles nor controvert successfully his teaching. Denying the only truth that would have explained him, they dealt in many conjectures as to who he was. Some said he was Elijah; some John the Baptist; others, that he was Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. But when Jesus put the question direct to his disciples, “But who say ye that I am?” Peter unhesitatingly answered: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.” But the majority of the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the Christ, and looked forward to the coming of the Christ.

Upon the great truth that Jesus is the Christ the church is built; upon that truth the whole system of Christianity rests. If he be not the Christ, the gospel is a baseless fabrication and the church is without excuse for existence. It is this foundation truth that we believe and confess.

There was no controversy among the Jews as to whether the expected Christ would be called “the Son of God.” Any Jew would confess that he believed the expected Christ to be the Son of God. But they deny that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Any of those Jews who rejected and crucified Jesus would have readily said: “I believe the Christ is the Son of God.” I was startled to hear a preacher ask a number of candidates for baptism this question: “Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God?” Now that question misses the point entirely. Any orthodox Jew could give an affirmative answer to that question; but ask him if he believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and he will answer with an emphatic “No.” The great question is: “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?” The great answer, the great confession of faith is: “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

That confession should not be so abridged as to leave any doubt as to who you believe is the Christ, the Son of God. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, say so. To say that you believe that Christ is the Son of God is really no confession at all.

The confession should not be extended so as to include more than this great truth. Mr. Russell extended that confession. He taught that the Christ is Jesus and the church; with him, Jesus was only the head of a body that is called “the Christ.” With him, it took both the head and the body to constitute the Christ. Some gospel preachers took up with that idea and thus weakened their faith by extending their confession. Certainly, if a man believes that theory, his confession is not full and complete when he says: “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.” That is really not what he believes. If he makes his confession as broad as his faith, he will say: “I believe that Jesus and the church is the Christ.”

Do the foregoing points seem to you to be matters of small import? If so, I envy not your discernment. Notice carefully the purpose for which John wrote: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.” (John 20:30, 31.)

Pointed Paragraphs:

“For ye were going astray like sheep.” The idea expressed in the original Greek is not that they were going astray, but they were astray. When a living thing is astray, it is lost; at least, it is not in its proper place, not where it belongs. Sin is not the proper element for people; they do not rightly belong there; it is not their natural habitat. Righteousness is man’s natural habitat; that is where God originally placed him. When he wanders off into sin, he is on foreign soil.

The Hebrew kingdom never would have been divided if all had adhered strictly to the law of God. People do not divide when all are determined to do right. When churches divide, there is unrighteousness somewhere.

THE CHRIST OF THE FUTURE-KINGDOM ADVOCATES

One of the great evils of the future-kingdom advocates is their idea as to the Christ. When I first read Pastor Russell’s idea of the Christ, I was astonished, but later I found that others had adopted his idea. Mr. Russell says: “Thus the saints of the gospel age are an anointed company—anointed to be kings and priests unto God (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Pet. 2:9); and together with Jesus, their chief and Lord, they constitute Jehovah’s Anointed—the Christ.” (“The Divine Plan of the Ages,” pages 81, 82.) Also “The Christ includes all anointed of the Spirit.” Now note the following from “The Book of Revelation,” by R. H. Boll: “That the man-child of chapter 12:5 is none other than the Christ; but not the individual Christ alone, but his body, the church, also, seen as connected with him.” Page 44: “This mystic man-child is not simply the Child that was born at Bethlehem, but the Christ as including both himself, the head, and the church, his spiritual body, which is one with him.” In the estimation of these writers the Christ is composed of Jesus and the church. If a person espouses that theory, he should make his confession as comprehensive and extensive as his faith. If he says, “I believe that Jesus is the Christ,” his confession is not full. To fully confess his faith in the Christ, he must say: “I believe that Jesus and his church is the Christ.” That is evident to any one who will read carefully what these writers say. Read the quotation again. Now, shall we revise our confession to make it fit this future-kingdom idea?

IS SALVATION NOW OFFERED TO ALL?

A man does not always realize fully the consequences of his doctrine. It seems to me that a person cannot believe the future-kingdom theory as now advocated and also believe that God now seeks the salvation of all men. If I understand this theory, and I think I do, the faithful Christians are to be rulers with Christ, and that to each one will be given territory commensurate with his development as a servant of God. Some, at least, seem to take the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:13-27) in a very literal sense. “Have thou authority over ten cities”; “Be thou also over five cities.” As there will be a limit to the number of cities, there will, of necessity, be a limit to the number of rulers needed. Mr. Russell was consistent and bold enough to plainly and openly declare that God is not now seeking to convert the mass of mankind, but is only getting a ruling class ready. His position on this point is so well known that I shall not here take space to quote from him. Some do not speak so plainly on this point as Mr. Russell, and yet they speak plainly enough to be understood, as the following from Brother R. H. Boll will show: “That the ‘new song’ of Rev. 5:9, 10 views the work of purchasing unto God with his own blood men out of every nation as finished. The selection is seen as completed; the full number of the chosen ones seen as constituting a kingdom of priests unto God, as reigning on earth. This then prophetically foreviews the time when God shall have done visiting ‘the Gentiles’ (the nations) to _take out of them_ a people for his name. (Acts 15:14.) The church is an election, _called out_.” Again: “He has a mystery—that is, a secret—to tell us: to wit, that Israel’s hardening is limited as to extent and as to time: as to extent, for it is ‘in part;’ as to time, for it is ‘until’ something is accomplished—namely, until the full count of the elect Gentiles shall have come in. Then Israel’s tide shall turn.” So it seems that the Lord has a certain number of Gentiles to be called, and the present order must continue till the “full count of the elect Gentiles shall have come in.” But all such teaching is essential to the future-kingdom theory as now advocated. The theory necessitates the doctrine that now is the time of salvation for only the needed number of rulers.

Pointed Paragraphs:

That the gospel succeeded so well in superstitious Ephesus need not surprise anyone. In superstition there is reverence for supernatural things. In fact, superstition is ignorant reverence. By teaching these people the gospel, Paul guided their reverence to the right objectives. Superstition is reverence without reason; rationalism is reason without reverence. It is easier to enlighten ignorant reverence than it is to reestablish reverence in a heart from which it has been banished.

With some religionists of today custom and tradition have greater weight than the plain word of God. Assail baptism, a thing positively commanded, and they applaud; assail their unscriptural teachings and practices, and they become greatly offended. Some churches of Christ have had troubles over customs and traditions.

THE COMING OF THE LORD

In the Christian Standard of March 19, 1932, Brother H. H. Peters, secretary of the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, says: “As already intimated, the plan of the Millenial Harbinger was different from that of its predecessor. It was unique in the journalism of America, religious or otherwise. Its very name indicates that its editor partook somewhat of the spirit that was abroad in the land, which expected the immediate return of the Lord and the establishment of his millenial reign. Mr. Campbell never became a dogmatist on this point, nor did the brotherhood ever take up any of the fantastic views of Miller and others, but it was impossible in that day to do any kind of religious work without partaking somewhat of the spirit that expected the immediate return of the Lord.” It would be hard to crowd into fewer words more historic errors than the foregoing extract contains. Mr. Campbell did not believe that Jesus would return to earth and then reign a thousand years. He did believe that, before the coming of the Lord, there would be a thousand years of universal peace and righteousness. Mr. Campbell was not a premillennialist; neither did he believe the Lord would return immediately. On these matters he wrote extensively. He cited a number of prophecies which he believed had not been fulfilled, but must be fulfilled before the coming of the Lord. One wonders where Mr. Peters got authority for his statements. However, when a person gets intoxicated with the future-kingdom idea, he can see authority for statements that no sober-minded person can discover. They even tell us that the apostles taught the early Christians to expect the immediate return of the Lord.

Because some do not hold to the theories propagated by the premillennialists, they are charged with not believing in the second coming of the Lord at all. From one writer we have the following: “The thought of his coming has faded out of the minds of men.” Again: “In the eighteenth century, however, there came a man named ‘Daniel Whitby.’... He taught that the gospel would spread and spread until the whole world would be converted; then would follow a thousand years of blessedness and peace, and after all this Jesus would come and wind things up. Then the hope of his coming died again everywhere as this doctrine became the general teaching.” That is such a manifest misrepresentation of the great body of Christians that I shall make no attempt to disprove it. As Mr. Campbell was accused of holding the same views as Whitby, it will be seen that Mr. Peters misrepresents him in the quotation at the beginning of this article.

We are told that “they were hoping for him, and they were looking for his return in the days of the apostles.” We are asked to believe that the Christians began to expect his return any moment after he went away, and that they were taught by the apostles to do so. They think they find such teaching in what the apostles said about looking for his coming and hoping for his coming; but the theory discredits the inspiration of the apostles. Jesus did not come again during that period. If the apostles were mistaken on that point, how can we be sure they taught the truth on anything? If the infidel were to point to this as evidence that the apostles were not infallible in their teaching, how would these men meet the argument? On this point the learned commentator, James McKnight, says: “Grotius, Locke, and others, have affirmed that the apostles of Christ believed the end of the world was to happen in their time, and that they have declared this to be their belief, in various passages of their epistles. But these learned men and all who join them in that opinion have fallen into a most pernicious error. For thereby they destroy the authority of the gospel revelation, at least so far as it is contained in the discourses and writings of the apostles; because, if they have erred in a matter of such importance, and which they affirm was revealed to them by Christ, they may have been mistaken in other matters also, where their inspiration is not more strongly asserted by them than in this instance. In imputing this mistake to the apostles, the deists have heartily joined the learned men above mentioned, because a mistake of this sort effectually overthrows the apostle’s pretensions to inspiration. It is therefore necessary to clear them from so injurious an imputation.”

Such use has been made of the parable recorded in Luke 12:42-48 as to make it appear that the servant was unfaithful, in that he said: “My Lord delayeth his coming.” But they miss the point. As a matter of fact, the Lord has delayed his coming far beyond the time they tell us the inspired apostles said he might come. There was certainly nothing sinful in what the servant said, when it was true that his lord had delayed his coming. There could be no unfaithfulness in his saying what was actually true. But his unfaithfulness consisted in his taking advantage of that delay to do wrong. His wrong doing was his unfaithfulness. Not what he said about that delay, but what he did during that delay, constituted his unfaithfulness. But their use of this parable illustrates the strained interpretations men will put upon the Scripture to propagate a theory.

But another statement in that parable has some bearing on the matter under discussion: “The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.” This statement applies to all unfaithful servants, and not simply those who will be alive when the Lord comes again. To make this apply only to those who are alive at the Lord’s second coming would leave many unfaithful servants that would not suffer the fate that this one did, for more shall have died before the Lord comes again than will be alive when he does come. It can apply to all unfaithful servants only in the sense that the Lord comes to all at death.

Pointed Paragraphs:

Instead of being afraid of our enemies, let us trust in Jehovah. Why worry overmuch about the evils that we cannot possibly remedy? “Fret not thyself because of evil-doers, neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness.” (Ps. 37:1.)

THE “TWO STAGES” THEORY EXAMINED

It would not be fair to myself nor to the reader to charge that any Christian does not believe that the Lord will come again. That event is so plainly taught in the Bible that no one who believes the Book thinks otherwise. But some have engaged in so much speculation about what will occur when the Lord does come that, so it seems to me, their theories virtually deny much of what has already taken place. In some respects the various angles of their theory fail to connect, or even to harmonize.

I have a rather artistic diagram, prepared by a Baptist preacher of some ability, in Houston, Texas. In this diagram the Lord is represented as coming to the air surrounding the earth, where he is met by the living saints, now changed, and the dead saints, now raised from the dead; and there the diagram represents them as remaining some years, or during the time of the “great tribulation” on earth, after which they come on to the earth. Brother R. H. Boll has a diagram in which he sets forth the same idea. The coming of the Lord is thus represented as composed of two “stages”—coming for his saints, and then coming on to earth with his saints. But another angle to the theory does not fit into this, as will be seen.

The theory has the Lord with his saints back in heaven between the two “stages” of his coming. Because we so represent matters, some, who do not consider all the angles of the theory, say we are guilty of serious misrepresentation. Let us not be too hasty. There is another angle to this theory.

The theory represents the whole of the book of Revelation from the beginning of the fourth chapter to the close as dealing with things yet future, and that from the beginning of chapter four to the end of