The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy
chapter nineteen it tells of things that will occur between the “two
stages” of the Lord’s coming; and that is at the time another angle of the theory has the Lord with his saints in the air surrounding the earth. If a man believes that Rev. 4:1 to chapter 19, inclusive, speaks of what is to occur between the two “stages” of their theory, he cannot believe that the Lord remains in the air with his saints during that time. Brother Boll himself does not so believe. “To see these future things John is called up to heaven. For it is in heaven that the plans and counsels of God are laid; and the things that transpire on the earth have their secret source and origin there.... So all the great events of which the book of Revelation tells come from above, first decreed and decided on in God’s council chamber in heaven.” John first saw God sitting upon his throne surrounded by twenty-four other thrones, upon which sat twenty-four elders. “That these are saints, representatives of all saints, seems perfectly evident.” And so there were saints in heaven, around the throne of God, while another angle of the theory has them in the air that surrounds the earth. Then John saw in the right hand of God as he sat on the throne a book, close-sealed with seven seals. None other than the Lord Jesus Christ was found that could open that book. He came and took the book out of the hand of him who sat on the throne. So Jesus was up in heaven, in the presence of the throne of God, at the very time one angle of the theory has him in the air. And Brother Boll believes he was there, for he says: “When John lifts up his eyes to see the mighty Lion, he discerns, for the first time, in the midst of the central glory of the Throne, the figure of ‘a lamb standing.’” From that time on we see Jesus taking an active part in all that transpires around the throne in heaven. And then we come to chapter 19. We here quote some comments made by Brother Boll on that chapter: “With him are armies—the armies which are in heaven.... But who are these ‘holy ones’ (that is, saints), and who are these armies of heaven that follow in his train ‘upon white horses clothed in fine linen, white and pure’? The answer is indicated to us a few verses above (1-9). In heaven, the saints previously taken up, have joined their Lord in an eternal wedlock.... It is in this ‘fine linen, white and pure,’ that we see the armies of heaven arrayed, who follow him as he comes forth. These armies are not angels; they are his saints composing His Bride, ‘the Lamb’s wife.’” Here, then, we have Jesus in heaven with his saints ready to come forth from heaven, but another angle of the theory has the Lord and his armies of saints in the air ready to make the second stage of his journey! Again: “So from heaven, riding forth for Israel’s help, comes their Messiah at the head of the heavenly host.”
I do not refer to these matters to provoke any controversy, but to show that we have not misrepresented any one, and also to show that one angle of the future-kingdom theory does not harmonize with another angle of the theory. If a theory contradicts itself, we should be excused if we contradict the theory. Both angles of this theory cannot be true, and no man can put these angles together in such a way as to make the theory look good to one who knows that God’s truth is in perfect harmony with itself.
But the theory has the marriage of Christ to his bride yet future. According to the theory, the church is only _engaged_ to Christ now. If that be so, in what sense is he now Lord of his bride?
Pointed Paragraphs:
The Bible does not idealize humanity—not even its heroes. It impartially records the good and the bad. It records the drunkenness of Noah and the falsehood of Abraham, and gives us a full picture of the awful sin of David. It tells of Peter’s denial of Christ and of his hypocrisy at Antioch. It tells how Moses tried to find a way to keep from carrying out God’s orders. No human productions are so impartial.
There is something radically wrong with a man’s religion when it drives out of his heart all sympathy, kindness, and mercy. The hatred of the lawyers and the Pharisees toward Jesus was greater than their desire to see a sufferer healed.
Forbearance is characteristic of a Christian. It is to be exercised toward those who in some way make themselves unpleasant in a personal way.
HOPE OF THE LORD’S COMING
Inspired men did teach that the Lord is coming again; but when men affirm that the Holy Spirit taught the early Christians to expect the Lord to come the second time in their day, they virtually accuse the Holy Spirit of raising hopes that they knew would not be realized. We would expect infidels to argue that inspired men taught things that turned out not to be true. But the idea is so abhorrent to any one who believes in the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the absolute truthfulness of everything he taught that it seems that no one could for a moment regard it as a harmless guess or as a matter about which we need not be concerned. However, if the apostles did teach such doctrine, we will have to acknowledge that they did, even though it leads us to discredit the certainty of their teaching. But did they teach it? Is there any justice, reason, or foundation for putting them under such a cloud of suspicion? Emphatically, no!
An argument to support the theory is built on a misunderstanding of the word “hope.” We are told that the apostles taught the early Christians to hope for the Lord’s coming, and that hope is made up of desire and expectation, all of which is true. But they assume that to hope for a thing is to expect it immediately, or at any moment. Their own contention on the word “hope” robs them of any hope of a millenial kingdom; for they all contend that the Jews must return to Palestine, Rome be developed again into a great empire, and then some years of great tribulation must pass before the millenial kingdom is set up. With their idea of hope, they can hope for nothing except that which may occur at any moment. But they are wrong in their contention on hope. We plant a crop, hoping for a good harvest; but no one is simple enough to think the harvest may come at any moment. The man who gives a large sum of money to build a college or hospital hopes to benefit generations unborn. We may lend, hoping to receive. Certainly no one makes a loan expecting the return at any moment. They are, therefore, wrong in assuming that imminency inheres in expectancy. And they are wrong also as to the basis of expectation. Expectation must have more than conjecture, more than mere probability, for a basis. I earnestly desire the Lord to come while I live, but I do not expect him to do so, for I have nothing on which to base such an expectation. But you ask, “Do you not think that the Lord might come while you live?” Certainly, but expectation must be based on something more substantial than what may or may not be. If the Lord should plainly tell me that he would come while I live, I would have grounds for expecting him to come before I die. But the Lord has never told any generation that he would come during the life of that generation, and for that reason no one has ever expected the Lord to come while he lived. If the apostles had taught the early Christians that the Lord would come in their day, then they could have expected him to come. But if the apostles had so taught, they would have taught falsely, for the Lord did not come then. But they did not so teach, and therefore the early Christians did not expect his return in their day. And yet they did, as do all Christians today, expect him to come at some period, for he said he would. They may have desired that he come in their day, and we may desire him to come in our day; but they had no grounds upon which to expect him to come then, neither have we any grounds for expecting him to come in our day.
The coming of the Lord is to be earnestly desired, and yet the thought of his coming fills one with dread and awe. Yet we are told that such feelings indicate that there is something wrong with us, just as there is something wrong with a wife if she feels uneasy at the home-coming of a good husband. We are reminded that the faithful wife gladly meets the devoted husband when he returns from a journey, and that children joyfully run to meet their father when he comes home, and this should be our attitude and feeling when the Lord comes. If we tremble at his presence, there is something wrong! Is it possible that any one so thinks? Does any one really think that we can meet the Lord on the same basis that one human being meets another? To teach that we should have such feeling of familiarity as a wife has toward her husband or as children have toward their father is hurtful to piety and reverence. If the author of the foregoing illustrations does not mean all this, his illustrations do not mean anything. For years I have had an earnest desire that the Lord come while I live, and yet I know that when I appear before him in his majesty and glory, I shall, like the beloved John, fall at his feet as one dead. (Rev. 1:17.) I cannot think that any Christian will feel otherwise. When Jehovah spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, “Moses trembled, and durst not behold.” (Acts 7:32.) Was there something wrong with Moses and the beloved John? But the author who presented the aforementioned illustrations is wrong, as he himself will learn when he appears in the presence of the Judge of all the earth.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Perhaps you have wondered what people do in heaven. The redeemed are before God’s throne, ready always to do his bidding. In teaching his disciples how to pray, Jesus put in this petition: “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.” Heaven is not, therefore, a place of idleness. But obedience is a thing that must be learned. “Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” The service of God in this life is the school in which we learn obedience; we must learn to serve here, or we will not have the joy of service over there. “He that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them.” They will be secure in his service—have his constant care.
Are all people subject to their environs in the development of their character? Yes and no. Environment makes some people what they are; others, like Asa, get busy, and make their environment.
PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS ON THE LORD’S RETURN
These Thessalonians had “turned unto God from idols, to serve a living God, and to wait for his Son from heaven.” To wait for the coming of the Lord does not mean that we are to remain in idleness till he comes. To wait on the Lord in any matter is to remain steadfast in the hope that he will fulfill that which he promised. It is a forward-looking attitude of mind and heart, with confidence that God will fulfill his word, whether soon or late.
In reading the Bible, we frequently allow the chapter divisions to influence our conclusions. We forget for the time that writers of the Bible made no division into chapters and verses. In our study we should absolutely disregard the chapter divisions, for the discussion of a point begun in one chapter frequently runs into the next. In the first Thessalonian letter Paul’s discussion of the events connected with the Lord’s return begins with the thirteenth verse of the fourth chapter and ends with the eleventh verse of the fifth chapter. If we ignore this fact, we deal unfairly with Paul.
When Paul planted the church at Thessalonica, he did not have time to fully instruct the new converts, for he was soon driven away by fierce persecution. Before he wrote his first letter to them, some of their number had died. They did not know what would become of these at the Lord’s coming. Concerning them, they had no hope; for they had no information upon which to base any hope. Paul’s purpose in writing the section under consideration was to teach them that they would “sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope.” Through or by Jesus, God would bring these dead saints to heaven; for the dead saints would be raised from the dead, and, together with the living saints, would be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. “Wherefore comfort ye one another with these words.”
Then Paul says that it is not necessary to say anything to them about the times and seasons. “The times and the seasons” of what? Of that concerning which he had just told them about—namely, the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead saints, and the ascension of all saints to meet him in the air. But that day would come as a thief in the night; then what? “When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape.” So, then, in that day in which the Lord comes to gather to himself his saints, sudden destruction will come upon the rest of mankind. “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” What day? The day of which he was speaking, the day in which the saints shall be taken up and the wicked shall suddenly be destroyed. Some would have us believe that the saints will be secure in the day when sudden destruction is visited upon the wicked, because they shall have already been taken up to meet the Lord in the air some years before that day of destruction of the ungodly. But Paul tells us that that day of destruction will not come upon them as a thief, for they are all sons of light—they are ready and watching. To fit the theory, Paul should have said that that day would not overtake them, because they would not be there, having already been caught up to meet the Lord in the air.
Some people look at this Scripture so carelessly that they actually think that Paul says the dead saints will be raised before the wicked are raised. One good brother, a friend of mine, quoted Scripture, to me as follows: “The dead in Christ shall rise first, and the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years are passed.” But Paul was not contrasting the resurrection of the saints and the wicked, but was speaking of the dead saints and those living when Christ comes. Will the living saints leave the dead in their graves? No, the dead saints will be raised first—that is, before the living ascend; and then all shall be caught up to meet the Lord. Whether the wicked were to be raised then, or were never to be raised, was not so much as hinted at. But the passage does teach this: When the Lord comes, the saints will be caught up to meet him in the air, and the wicked will be destroyed in that day. And that agrees with what Paul says in his second letter to the Thessalonians.
In Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians he gives some additional information concerning the coming of the Lord and our gathering together unto him. From the first verse of the second chapter we learn that the coming of the Lord referred to is that coming in which the saints are gathered together unto him. Paul would not have them troubled by thinking that that day was “just at hand.” One writer, well known to the Gospel Advocate readers, makes this comment on the phrase, “at hand”: “In every translation known to me, except the Douay, the King James, and the American Revised Version, this reads ‘the day of the Lord is now present.’ Some one had made those Thessalonians believe that the day of the Lord had already broken in upon them.” I know that some translations have “present” instead of “at hand”, but they are not so numerous as the foregoing quotation would have us believe. The following translations have “at hand”: Latin Vulgate, Bible Union, Living Oracles, Sharpe, George R. Noyes (Harvard University teacher), Anderson, Syriac, Sawyer, and James MacKnight. So far as scholarship goes, it is very likely that the scholarship back of the American Standard Version outweighs the scholarship of all the translations referred to in the foregoing quotation, with the exception of the English Revision.
But it matters little to us what those Thessalonian brethren thought about the matter; it does not affect Paul’s teaching on the subject. Paul tells us that a falling away must come first and the man of sin be revealed. This must be, he tells us, before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him. But the theory that is now so attractive to some people has this man of sin developed after the saints are taken up to meet the Lord in the air; the man of sin is then to be destroyed at what is termed the second stage of his coming. But Paul plainly says that the coming he is here talking about is the coming in which the saints are gathered together unto the Lord. It is strange that a theory will so blind people that they cannot see a plain statement in the very passages from which they claim to deduce their teaching.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Jesus and Paul were not contentious, yet they contended earnestly for the truth. They were the greatest fighters of all time. They were moved by two Loves. They loved man so much that they fought with determination anything and everything that would hurt man. They loved the truth so much that they fought everything that was in the way of its progress. And they stirred people as none others ever did.
It has been said that it is useless to quote the Bible to one who disbelieves it. But Jesus quoted it to the devil. There is power in an appropriate passage of Scripture that even a disbeliever cannot evade.
Before following any advice it is better to find out the character of him who gives the advice and what possible interest he may have in our following his advice.
RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD
The following question came to me recently:
Brother Whiteside: Do you not think that the expression, “resurrection from the dead,” has reference to the death state, rather than the meaning that some will come “out from among” the other dead ones? Say something to us in the Gospel Advocate along this line. John S. Clark.
In the growth of language it is common for words to take on additional meanings. This, of course, is common knowledge and needs no proof.
In the phrase, “from the dead” (ek nekron), the word “dead” is plural in the Greek, but by a sort of figure of speech, or extension of the meaning of the word, it applies to the state of death; at least, some passages of Scripture set forth that idea. In Rom. 6:13 we have the phrase, “alive from the dead,” and in I John 3:14 we have the phrase, “passed out of death into life.” In both passages the meaning is the same; yet in Romans the Greek word from which we have “dead” is plural, and in John we have another word in the singular. The Romans had been dead in sins, but were made alive from that death. The Cambridge Greek Testament has this note: “Ek nekron, as men that are alive after being dead.” Bloomfield: “Ex nekron zontas, as those who, after having been (spiritually) dead, are now alive.” Thayer: “Zeen ek nekron, tropically, out of moral death to enter upon a new life, dedicated and acceptable to God (Rom. 6:13.)” In defining “ek,” Thayer has this: “5. Of the condition or state out of which one comes or is brought: ... zontes ek nekron, alive from being dead—i. e., who had been dead and were alive again (Rom. 6:13.)” It is plain, therefore, that the word “dead” in Rom. 6:13 refers to the death state. It is true that it refers here to spiritual death, but its use in describing the state of the sinner is a figurative use of the same expression that is applied to the state of those who are dead physically.
We have the same phrase in Rom. 11:15—“life from the dead” (ek nekron). On this passage Thayer has this: “Zoa ek nekron, life breaking forth from the abode of the dead.” Bloomfield gives the following as the sense of the whole verse: “If their _sin_, which occasioned this casting away, has been the means of reconciling the world, by bringing about the death of Christ, what shall the _receiving of them again into the divine favor be_ (whenever it shall take place), but so happy a change, both to themselves and to the Gentiles, as may, in a manner, be said to raise the whole world from death to life? Zoe ek nekron, by a figure common to all languages, denotes (as Turretin and Stuart explain) something great and surprising, like what a general resurrection from the dead would be.” So, according to Bloomfield, “life from the dead” is life from death.
But it is contended by all the future-kingdom folks that the phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron), applies to the righteous and never to the wicked. Their cause depends upon their repudiating the idea that the word “dead” refers to the death state. They tell us that the righteous are raised before the wicked, and are, therefore, raised “out from among” dead ones. But their contention is not conclusive, even if “ek nekron” should be rendered “out of the dead ones.” In the first place, to make “ek” mean _out from among_ is stretching that little word too much. Again, before the resurrection, the dead ones are made up of both the righteous and the wicked. Their contention will not allow that the righteous come “out from among” the righteous dead. They do not, then, come “out from among” the dead, but “out from among” only a part of the dead. But “out from among” is not even good English.
Again, granting, for argument’s sake, that “from the dead” means “out of dead ones,” their contention then does not hold good. We view the field of the dead; they are all there—the righteous, the sinners, the infants, and all irresponsible people. They all arise at once; have they not come out of the dead? They were dead ones, now they are live ones; out of the dead ones came the living ones. The apostles preached a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15). In Acts 4:2 “ek nekron” is used in connection with the resurrection of all the dead. The Sadducees were sorely troubled because the apostles “proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.”
I have never seen any provision, or place, for the resurrection of infants and irresponsibles in the future-kingdom theory, nor have I seen any place for such in their future-kingdom. They cannot be rulers, for they have not been tested and proved worthy of such place; the most of them cannot be citizens, for they are not Jews. Will they be raised before the millennial kingdom begins? If so, what will be their status in that kingdom, or will they be any part of it?
Pointed Paragraphs:
Contrary to all human tendencies, God would have us celebrate the death of Christ instead of his birth. Had he wanted us to celebrate his birth, he would not have left its date in obscurity. A little attention to the history or manner of shepherding in Palestine will convince anyone that December 25 is not the correct date. In the Lord’s Supper, we celebrate his death; in observing the Supper on the Lord’s day, we celebrate his resurrection. We honor Jesus by following in his steps and by doing his will; we dishonor him and disgrace his cause by celebrating his birth in the way it is usually done.
Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any daughter of the heathen surrounding him; neither did Isaac and Rebekah want their two sons to do so. The marriage relation is so close that no Christian should marry a person whose influence would be hurtful instead of helpful.
THEORY OF TWO RESURRECTIONS CONSIDERED
In a former article it was shown that the word “dead” in the phrase, “resurrection from the dead,” sometimes, at least, refers to the death state. People are raised from the dead—that is, the death state. But it is contended by the future-kingdom folks that there will be two resurrections—the righteous to be raised from among the dead, and the rest of the dead will be raised later. They insist that the phrase, “from the dead,” shows that some of the dead will be left. But their arguments have never seemed conclusive to me.
It would be hard to get two resurrections more than a thousand years apart out of the following language of the Savior: “Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in their tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29.) There is to be an hour, or period, in which all, both good and bad shall come forth from the dead at the call of Jesus. The same thought—that is, that both will be raised at the same time—is presented in Acts 4:1, 2: “And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” Here we have the phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron). The priests and the captain of the temple were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of anybody. With them death ended all. Are we to believe that they stirred up all this trouble because the apostles taught that the righteous would be raised before the wicked? That point did not concern them, but to preach that the dead would be raised did disturb them. The apostles preached in Jesus a universal resurrection from the dead. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22.) Before Felix, Paul preached that he had hope toward God that there would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15.) It was that sort of preaching that so exasperated the Sadducees. Hence, when the apostles at Jerusalem preached that all would be raised from the dead (ek nekron), it infuriated the Sadducees. But the Pharisees believed in a universal resurrection. Paul took advantage of this difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees, when he was brought before the council in Jerusalem, and said: “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6.)
The two-resurrectionists seek to make a point on Paul’s effort to “attain unto the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil. 3:11.) After quoting Phil. 3:10-14, Charles M. Neal says: “To present and emphasize this thought, Paul invents a new word. This word, ‘exanastasis,’ occurs but this one time in the New Testament. The phrase ‘resurrection from the dead,’ is translated by Rotherham as ‘out-resurrection from among the dead,’ and in the Emphatic Diaglott as ‘resurrection from among the dead’.” It is true that the word occurs in the New Testament only in this one place. But we become somewhat doubtful of one who quotes as authority the Emphatic Diaglott, a translation that is printed and sold by the Russellites. And surely no one would seriously put Rotherham up against the great body of scholars who gave the American Standard Version.
But to seek to make “exanastasis” mean _out-resurrection from_ is to venture beyond the lexicons. Liddell and Scott gives the New Testament meaning as the _resurrection_. Thayer: _a rising up; a rising again; resurrection_. Thus it is seen that Thayer, though himself a premillennialist, gives no support to the idea in defining the word. When a man gives a definition of a word that is not sustained by either of these lexicons, nor by the greatest body of scholars that was ever gathered for any purpose, he puts entirely too much stress upon himself.
It is true that “ek” or “ex” when standing alone as a preposition, usually has the general meaning of “out of”; but when used as a part of a compound word, as in ’exanastasis’, it sometimes merely intensifies the meaning of the word to which it is joined, giving the idea of “utterly, entirely.” See Thayer and Liddell and Scott. If one has the time and opportunity, he may also examine Winer (page 429) and Robertson’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (pages 562-4, 596). If “ex” adds any meaning to the word here, it merely means that Paul was striving to obtain a complete resurrection, a perfect resurrection—that is, a resurrection to life that is life indeed. In that respect there is a decided difference between the resurrection of a faithful Christian and a sinner, for a sinner is not raised to real life.
Sometimes the preposition adds nothing to the meaning of the word with which it is compounded—that is, so far as we can see. Take, for illustration, the verb from which we have “exanastasis.” It occurs in Mark 12:19 and Luke 20:28—“raised up seed unto his brother.” Here we have “ex” joined to the verb; but in the parallel passage in Matt. 22:24, where the meaning is bound to be exactly the same, the preposition “ex” is left off. If adding “ex” to the verb does not change this verb, how can one dogmatically argue that it changes the noun that is derived from the verb? The argument built on “exanastasis” is about as flimsy an argument as one could find. A cause that depends on such arguments cannot have a substantial basis. But a wild theory is often supported by very tame arguments.
Pointed Paragraphs:
One preacher can do very little toward establishing a church in a great city. It is perhaps harder now than ever. We have seen it tried. It would be better to take Antioch as an example. Notice the number of workers that concentrated their efforts on that city. They got results. Paul generally had a group of helpers with him. Together they did work in cities where one man would have failed, or practically so. Ignoring this divine example and putting one man in a city without real help, we have wasted much effort.
CHURCH AGES
When a man tries to sustain a false theory in religion he cannot do so by correct application of the scriptures. He will make false arguments and pervert the scriptures. A striking example of this is seen in the efforts of some to find prophetic symbolisms in the letters to the seven churches in Asia. These letters were written to seven churches in seven cities of Asia Minor, and they are recorded in the second and third chapters of Revelation. Here is what Scofield says in his Bible: “The messages to the seven churches have a fourfold application: (1) Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) personal, in exhortations to him ‘that hath an ear,’ and in the promises ‘to him that overcometh’; (4) prophetic as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A. D. 96 to the end.”
Of course, when these men talk about the church they include all that they call branches of the church. They claim that we are now living in the period symbolized by the church at Laodicea. There is not even a hint that there were any prophetic symbolisms in the condition of these churches. Of course they do not claim that the condition of the church at Ephesus was prophetic of a future period—its condition merely portrayed the condition of the churches then. That is absurd, for the six other churches mentioned were not like Ephesus—in fact, there is not a hint that the Ephesus church was like any other church of that day, and yet the theory requires that the condition of the church at Ephesus correctly represented all the churches of that period. And then the other six churches are said to represent, or symbolize, or forecast the condition of the church at certain periods. The marking off the period that each church is supposed to represent is purely arbitrary. No one can prove, even if the theory were true, that we live in the Laodicean period. But the whole theory is fantastic, absurd, and a reflection on God.
Think what the theory involves. How could a church then determine the character of the whole church during a certain period hundreds of years later? Or did God by direct miraculous power make these churches to be like what he knew the whole church would be at different periods? Or did he by direct power make the periods to be like the churches of Asia? In either case people had to be what God by direct power chose to make them. Where then is there room for freedom of will, or freedom of action? Any one who can believe that each of these churches was a forecast of the whole church at a certain period can believe any foolish, fantastic, absurd thing that the wildest imagination can conceive. He does not have to have any evidence—he just lets his imagination run riot. I would like for some of its advocates to tell me when that notion was hatched out, and by whom.
PHILADELPHIA AND THE HOUR OF TRIAL
Foy E. Wallace, Jr., passes over to me a document which was written in Detroit with a request that I say something about it. The document would fill my page. As much of it has no special bearing on the points sought to be made, I will make liberal and fair quotations from it. The passage commented upon first is Rev. 3:10: “Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” I quote:
“The promise. ‘The hour of trial’ was ahead, but Philadelphia was to be kept from it. Not saved through it, but kept from it....
“That Hour. (1) It is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘the’. (2) It is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘trial’, for it is ‘to try them that dwell upon the earth.’ (4) It is yet future; ‘to come upon the whole world.’ Nothing has since occurred in history filling out this picture.... (5) the Philadelphia type of saints will escape.... Those who keep his word are of the Philadelphia type of saints. The church that is true to the word is a church of the Philadelphian type and can lay claim to this same promise.”
John wrote seven letters, dictated by the Lord, to seven churches in Asia; the church at Philadelphia was one of these churches. The Lord made a definite promise to the church at Philadelphia. Naturally the members of that church would understand that the promise was to them; but that church long ago ceased to exist. And yet we are told that the promise made to those brethren is yet future. If that be so, then that promise was not for those brethren at all! They are all dead; was that the way the Lord was going to keep them from the hour of trial? No, no; according to the foregoing quotation, the promise was not meant for the church at Philadelphia at all, but for the churches of the Philadelphian type! Such juggling with the record is both taking away from and adding to the words of the book. The promise was not made to the “Philadelphian type of saints”, but to the church at Philadelphia. It is true that some promises, general in their nature, though not to one individual or group of individuals, are to be enjoyed by all who fulfill the conditions; but certainly the ones to whom the promise is directly made are included in the promise! But, strange to say, according to the foregoing quotation, the church at Philadelphia to whom the promise was made was not included in the promise made directly to them! That promise is yet future, so we are told.
But the implication of the quotation is that the promise was made to the Philadelphian type of churches, and that it is to be fulfilled in “the rapture.” And what is it that a person cannot prove, if he is allowed to juggle words to suit his theory? If the hour of trial is yet future, the Lord kept Philadelphia from it by deferring it till all those saints died. But he conjures up a peculiar method of escape for those saints who long ago died: (7) “The method of escape is found in such passages as 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is often called the rapture, and properly so, from the expression ‘caught up,’ which rapture means.” But would not the saints of Philadelphia escape that supposed three and a half years of tribulation if they should remain in their graves?
I quote again: “Other Designations. Jesus used the term ‘that day,’ also the term ‘tribulation.’ Daniel calls it ‘a time of trouble’ such as is unequaled and never repeated. In Jer. 30:7 it is ‘the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.’ Here is a parallel to the escape of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace. Those who are ‘saved out of it’ are distinct from those who are kept from it. John has a vision of a number who ‘come out of the great tribulation,’ but the Philadelphians are kept from it!”
He affirms that the various terms he names applies to one certain period that is yet to be; but he gives not one word of proof. The terms, “that day,” “in that day,” “day of trouble,” “tribulation,” “tribulations,” “that hour,” are used many times in the Bible, and certainly do not all refer to the same period of time. Why then pick out a term here and there and arbitrarily apply them to one certain time? THE REASON: a certain theory demands it. And if the writer will examine the Greek in Jer. 30:7 and Rev. 3:10, he will find apo, from, in Jeremiah, and ek, out of, in Revelation, which completely reverses the point he seeks to make on the use of prepositions.
Again I quote: “Chronology.... The order of some outstanding things foretold is revealed. To get this order saves confusion. From Jesus’ prophecy on the mount (Matt. 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21) avoiding all forced interpretations, we learn ‘the tribulation of those days’ leads up to the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars of the heaven, the powers of the heaven being shaken, and the glorious appearing of the Son of man. Note the expression ‘immediately after’ in Matt. 24:29. Note also Mark 13:24-27 ... even up to the tribulation there are foretold ‘wars and rumors of wars,’ and ‘nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.’ Again, attention is called to the fact that those days of unprecedented tribulation ‘shall be shortened.’ Obviously they are terminated by the Son of man in connection with his appearing. The times foretold in this connection constitute ‘the days of the Son of man.’ (see Luke 17:26.) The ‘rapture’ precedes ‘the tribulation of those days,’ ‘the days of the Son of man.’ And the rapture awaits nothing that is foretold.”
There are difficulties in the discourse Jesus delivered to the disciples on Olivet; but it is certain that no one will get a correct idea of what was said if he ignores the questions that gave rise to the speech. Jesus was answering questions put to him by the disciples. The disciples had called his attention to the temple and its adornments. Jesus said: “As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” When they had crossed to the mount of Olives, Peter, James, John, and Andrew said to him: “Teacher, when therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?” Put yourself in the place of these disciples: would you not understand that everything Jesus said was in answer to those two questions? Would Jesus confuse them by saying a lot of things which they would understand to be in answer to their questions, but were not? In Mark’s record we have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to be accomplished?” To say that most of the answer Jesus gave related to something about which they had not inquired is to accuse Jesus of not dealing fairly with them. In Matthew’s record we have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” For the last clause the marginal reading has, “Or, _the consummation of the age_.” To say that Matthew’s report of these questions does not mean the same as the reports of Mark and Luke is to accuse some one of making a false report of the questions.[1]
It is singular that so many commentators take it for granted that the disciples were, in Matthew’s report, asking about the second coming of Christ; but that could not be. Jesus had not taught them anything about his second coming; besides, they had never believed that he would be put to death! The Jews held to the idea that when the Messiah came, he would abide, forever, ruling as a great king in Jerusalem. How then could the disciples have been asking questions about the second coming of Christ, when they did not believe he would go away? It is astonishing that commentators have overlooked this plain fact. The disciples referred to his coming in judgment on Jerusalem. The tribulation was the suffering of the Jews when the Romans destroyed their nation and Jerusalem. The temple was utterly destroyed. The Jewish nation ended; darkness and gloom settled down over the people. The fulfillment of what Jesus had said was a sign that he was what he claimed to be—that the Son of man was also the Christ, the Son of God. For the natural phenomena mentioned you get some explanation by reading Isa. 13:1-10.
Pointed Paragraphs:
The treatment Joseph received at home would tend to make him arrogant and overbearing. To serve the purpose God had in view, these traits had to be toned down. A period of slavery, followed by a rather long stay in prison, would reduce his pride and feeling of importance. In both slavery and imprisonment he learned to work under men, and at the same time he learned to manage men. He also learned business principles. A petted son does not have much opportunity to learn any of these useful things. Joseph had to be torn away from his father in order to learn to be useful.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM
Nebuchadnezzar had a wonderful dream, and required, on penalty of death, that the wise men tell him the dream and its interpretation. None but Daniel could do so. To the king Daniel said: “Thou, O king, sawest, and, behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was terrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Dan. 2:31-35.)
Before we read the interpretation of this dream, let us observe: (1) that Nebuchadnezzar saw the complete image, as if all its parts existed at the same time; (2) that the stone smote the image on the feet; (3) that the whole image from feet to head was broken in pieces and scattered as dust; (4) and that no place was found for them—no place for such parts as composed that image.
_The Interpretation_—“Thou art the head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, for as much as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it break in pieces and crush.... And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. For as much as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter.” (Verses 36-45.)
This dream and the interpretation have furnished a starting point for many sermons by gospel preachers. Till recently they all contended that the kingdom of this prophecy was set up in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and then and there entered upon the work which Daniel said it would accomplish. It is now argued by a few brethren that when Jesus comes again the kingdom of this prophecy will then have its real beginning, and will then destroy the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. But is there anything in the interpretation to warrant such a radical change from a century of gospel preaching?
The four world kingdoms represented in the image—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome—came and fell in the order mentioned. Yet Nebuchadnezzar saw them in the image, as if all existed at the same time. The stone is represented as breaking in pieces the whole image—that is, the kingdom of God is represented as destroying all of the four world kingdoms. “It broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold.” In truth, it was an image of world empire, and that was broken in pieces, never to be made whole again. Every attempt at world empire, since Rome, has ended in failure, and will continue to fail.
It is also plainly stated that in the days of these kings—that is, while the image still remained—the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, and that this kingdom would destroy the image. The Roman Empire embodied all that was in the other three kingdoms of the image. So long as Rome existed the image stood. The stone smote the image on the feet, but destroyed every part of the image. Every kingdom represented in that image has ceased to be; the image has been entirely destroyed—not a vestige of it remains. It follows, then, with the force of a demonstration, that the kingdom of God has been set up. Even though it be claimed that another world empire is yet to be, it cannot, by any juggling of words or flight of the imagination, be made a part of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. In that image each kingdom merged into the one following it till Rome; then the stone smote the image and destroyed it. As the kingdom was to be set up during the existence of that image, and as that image has been destroyed, it proves beyond a doubt that the God of heaven has set up his kingdom.
So far as the interpretation of the dream shows, the kingdom of God was to destroy only the kingdoms of the image; and it could destroy the first three only as they were represented in the Roman Empire. World Empires died with Rome. The principles of the kingdom of Christ have so modified human thinking as to destroy the possibility of world empire.
But we are told that Daniel’s language shows that these kingdoms are to be destroyed suddenly, and by violent impact. But it cannot be shown that Daniel’s language requires such method of destruction. The kingdom was to grind them to dust. Does that only imply destruction? Besides, the future-kingdom idea is that the kingdom of God will be ushered in in full power; whereas the dream represents it as a stone that destroyed the image and then grew into a mountain that filled the earth. If you still insist that Daniel’s language shows that the kingdoms are to be destroyed by violent impact, then I ask you to consider carefully the language of Jer. 1:9, 10: “Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” That is as strong language as Daniel uses in describing the work of the kingdom of God; yet we know that Jeremiah destroyed nothing by violent impact. Yet how these future-kingdom advocates would have stressed this language if it had been used to describe the work of the kingdom instead of the work of Jeremiah! It would be interesting to see them try to show how Dan. 2:44, 45 requires violence, but Jer. 1:9, 10 means “peaceful penetration.”
Pointed Paragraphs:
A thing gained through deceit or fraud cannot bring contentment and satisfaction. Jacob never enjoyed any real happiness in possessing the birthright, and the blessings he obtained from Isaac by fraud made him an exile and caused him much worry and distress. One cannot see wherein it was any real satisfaction to him.
We get into trouble when we scheme and plan to help God work out his plans. When God announced, even before Esau and Jacob were born, his purposes concerning these two prospective sons of Isaac and Rebekah, Rebekah should have realized that God would work out his plans in his own way; but she thought she must do some scheming to help God work out his plans. In so doing she lost the company of her beloved son and caused him untold misery.
MILLIGAN ON NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM
After I wrote my recent article on “Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation,” I found a series of articles on the kingdom, written by Robert Milligan and published in the Millenial Harbinger of 1858. That the reader may see that the positions set forth in my article are neither new nor fanciful, I quote some extracts from Bro. Milligan’s articles. Concerning the establishment of the kingdom foretold in Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, Mr. Milligan says:
The prophet limits the chronology of the event to “The days of these kings.” But who are they? When did they reign? What was the beginning, the duration, the end of their administration?
Many writers on prophecy, and even some of our own brethren, for whose opinions we entertain very great respect, refer all this to the future. They suppose by “_these kings_” are meant the ten kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided, and which they suppose were symbolized by the ten toes of the image.... But with all due respect for these good brethren, we are constrained to dissent from such an interpretation of the passage. To us there appear to lie against it many objections, some of which are the following:
1. The notion that the toes of the image were designed to represent the ten fragments of the Western Roman Empire is a mere hypothesis. It may possibly be true; but certain it is that the evidence is wanting.... But ten toes on one foot would be rather incongruous.
2. But even if it could be satisfactorily shown that the ten toes were designed to represent the fragments of the ten kingdoms that arose out of the Western Empire, it would by no means follow that these are identical with the kings named in the text. The reverse of this is certainly true. The limiting adjective, “_these_,” implies that the subject to which it refers had been clearly designated.... But the only kings fairly implied in the whole connection are those of the four universal monarchies....
From these premises we infer that the phrase, “_these kings_,” has no reference to the monarchs of modern Europe. Nor does it, as some have supposed, refer exclusively to the Caesars. These are not in this connection made the subject of a distinct prophecy. The phrase evidently refers to all the rulers of the four universal monarchies, and comprehends the kings of Babylon, and Persia, and Macedonia, as well as those of Rome.
The meaning of this passage, then, is simply this: that at some epoch during the lifetime of that human monster, or between the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of the Roman Empire in the year of Christ 476, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom in the world.
After some discussion of the events of the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, Brother Milligan says:
According, then, to the testimony of Peter, Jesus Christ was, on the day of Pentecost, seated on the throne of David, not in Jerusalem, as the Jews anticipated, but in heaven at the right hand of God. He was exalted to the rank and dignity of a Prince as well as a Savior. And hence, for the first time in the history of the world, those who gladly received his word were commanded to be baptized in _the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins_.
In his second article Brother Milligan quotes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation thereof, and then comments as follows:
The image was then smitten upon the feet. The wound was mortal. The tyrant that had governed the world from the days of Nebuchadnezzar till that hour was slain. His spirit was subdued, and his whole physical organization, consisting of gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, and clay, was then broken into fragments.
Since that time Charlemagne, Napoleon, and many others, have attempted to revive the spirit and reunite the scattered fragments of this fallen image. But all such attempts have been in vain.... It is true, the spirit of war still exists: blood is often shed for the most trivial causes. But let any prince or potentate now attempt to revive the spirit of this fallen image; let him attempt, like Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, and Caesar, to subdue the world, and to govern it on the principle that “might makes right;” and if not treated as a maniac by his own subjects, he will, at least, find arrayed against him the combined powers of Christendom.
In view of what happened to the Kaiser when he tried to conquer the world, the last statement of Brother Milligan looks almost like prophecy. But it was not a prophecy, but merely a statement based on Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
I invite the future-kingdom advocates to consider the following:
1. The image, as it stood before Nebuchadnezzar, represented four world empires. That is, of course, admitted.
2. The kingdom of God was to be set up while that image stood, and was to destroy the image. On that point no one can mistake what Daniel says.
3. That image has been destroyed—there has not been a world empire since the days of Rome.
4. It is certain, therefore, that the kingdom of God has been established, and that the principles of that kingdom have broken down and destroyed world empires.
It is a pity that a man will become so obsessed with a speculative idea as to say that the image has been destroyed, but the kingdom of God had nothing to do with its destruction. To me it looks like a flat denial of what Daniel says.
A LEADING DOCTRINE OF THIS CURRENT REFORMATION
When I was a young man, the gospel preachers who were then active in preaching the ancient gospel preached often on the establishment of the kingdom. As I recall those sermons, they usually began with the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel’s interpretation thereof, as recorded in the second chapter of Daniel. It was argued that the kingdom foretold in verse 44 began on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. That was one position on which there was no disagreement among “Christians only” in those days. It is true that there had been some speculations to the contrary in the days of Alexander Campbell. One Dr. John Thomas was a leading spirit in that agitation. It was contended that the restoration of the Israelites to a kingdom of their own in Palestine was the hope—the Elpis—of Israel. While we do not recognize Mr. Campbell as authority in matters of faith, we do recognize him as a teacher of great ability. It will do us good to read carefully some things Mr. Campbell wrote on the kingdom question. Note how the following fits into the present agitation on this question:
I will receive it as a favor from any person, to be informed of any people or preacher, on this continent or in the European world, that clearly or definitely stated or announced, in unequivocal affirmation, that the Christian church did not commence, and, consequently, was never organized, till the first Pentecost after the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of the Lord Jesus Christ; that then placed upon the throne of David, and upon the throne of God, he commenced his reign _personally_ in heaven and _spiritually_ upon the earth, by the mission of the Holy Spirit to his apostles, and through them to his church, which is now his natural and earthly body—the fullness, or manhood development, of Him who fills all things, in all places, with life, and beauty, and happiness.
The foregoing is taken from the Millenial Harbinger of February, 1852. In a footnote to the foregoing quotation we have the following from Mr. Campbell:
To prevent misconception of this allusion to the throne of David, I simply remark for the present, to be developed, probably more fully again, that the _throne of David_ was, in fact, the _earthly throne of God_, in the midst of ancient Israel. David was his viceroy—that is, _the Lord’s anointed_—a fact not well understood by the church, and still less by some untaught and unteachable dogmatists of the present day. It was necessary to the plans of Jehovah, which are all sublimely grand and wonderful, that he should have two thrones—one on earth and one in heaven—for a time occupied one above, by himself, and one below, by his vicegerent, called or constituted by him; and therefore his solemn oath or covenant with David, that he would raise out of his person, in fullness of time, one that would occupy both thrones. Hence, said the inspired bard of Israel, “Jehovah said to my Jehovah, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool.” It is beautifully in accordance with this fact that Mary the Virgin was the last bud on the tree of David which could blossom and fructify, and bring forth a representative of David. So that, if Jesus be not the heir of David’s throne, there never can be one born, and God’s covenant has failed. This is a death blow to Jewish infidelity, if their eyes were not closed and their ears sealed. But Jesus was the Son of David, and born to be a King, as he told Caesar’s representative. On the throne of David, as King of kings, he now sits, and also on the throne of God; for he has all crowns upon his head, and affirms that all authority in heaven and on earth is given him.
Any one who desires to peruse the most conceited, consequential, and dogmatical treaties, based upon hallucination, and parody of the words “Elpis Israel,” will, if he have a dollar to throw away, have a demonstration of a disease called in Kentucky “the _big head_,” probably unequaled in this century; making the _hope of Israel_—indeed, the hope of the gospel in full development—to consist in raising up again a throne of David in Palestine in Jerusalem; as if that throne had been vacant now for eighteen hundred years, or as if Jesus Christ would remove his throne out of the heavenly Jerusalem, to rebuild and locate it in old Jerusalem, and there to aggrandize the empire of the universe! But this only in passing, as one of the specimens of the power of the love of notoriety or of the marvelous, in wrecking and bewildering the human mind. We regard this development of the passion for notoriety as one of the most admonitory dispensations in our immediate circle of observation. It has made a man, that might have been useful, worthless to himself, worthless to his friends, and worse than worthless to the world.
In the January Harbinger (1851) Mr. Campbell reports a sermon which he preached at Bloomington, Ind., from which I glean the following excerpts:
“On Saturday night our subject was the promised advocacy of the Spirit, after the return and coronation of the Messiah in heaven; the commencement of his kingdom, and the peculiarities of the Christian dispensation, in contrast with the patriarchal and Jewish institutions. We gave reasons why Christianity, or the kingdom of Christ, could not be developed till he received all authority in heaven and earth—till he received the kingdom and government of the universe.” “The kingdom has come, and the king has been on the throne of David now more than eighteen hundred years: still, myriads are yet praying, ‘Thy kingdom come’!” “Thus Jesus, after he had expiated our sins on earth, entered heaven, and basing his intercession, _as our high priest_, upon his sacrifice, he sat down a priest upon his throne, ‘after the order of Melchizedek;’ a high priest forever, ‘according to the power of an endless life.’ This, as set forth, is a leading doctrine of this current reformation.... It is pregnant with great revolutionizing and regenerating principles.”
If Jesus is not now our anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, he is not yet the Christ. Do you believe Jesus to be the Christ now, or the Christ that is yet to be?
IS THE CHURCH THE KINGDOM?
Bro. Ira C. Moore, in F. F. of June 17, (190?) says “No.” He reasons that because these two words are from Greek words of different meanings, and because the two words themselves have no meaning in common, therefore they can not apply to the same thing. He says the meaning of a word may be substituted by the word and make sense, and refers to our use of this principle in reference to baptism and sprinkling. The principle is true in the main, but Bro. Moore’s reasoning from it is as fallacious as can be. No one claims that the words kingdom and church mean the same. To describe or define a specific act words must of necessity be synonymous, yet words very different in meaning may be applied to the same person or thing, owing to the different relations that a person or thing sustains to the world. Man, husband, father, citizen, author, and president are words very different in their meanings, yet all of them apply to one person Theodore Roosevelt. In the different positions of life he occupies the relation that each of these words indicates. Because all these words are appropriately applied to him does that mean that you can take a sentence in which one of them is used and replace it with either of the words and make sense. “I, Theodore Roosevelt, husband, or author, or father of the United States,” etc. How is that? “Nonsense,” did you say? Just so.
Apostle, Author, Shepherd, Bishop, Bread of Life, Bridegroom, Star, Captain, Christ, Corner Stone, Counselor, Governor, Head of the Church, High Priest, King, Master, Mediator, Prophet, Physician, and a number of other names and designations apply to one Being yet they differ in meaning. In different relations different words apply to Him. Just so with the church. It is called body, family, temple, house, kingdom, etc. Viewing it from different standpoints, you use different scripture words. Being “called out,” it is the church, as an organization, it is the body of Christ; as a government, having Christ as its King; it is the kingdom of Christ.
This is enough—you see the point.
Pointed Paragraphs:
People spend much time and energy in worrying about things that are entirely in the hands of God. We worry about the weather, and we worry about how God will work out his plans in the final windup of all earthly matters. If we believe in God and in Christ, why worry?
Wherein God invites us to trust him, he will not betray us. To doubt him is sin. He is not slack concerning his promises. He rewards abundantly those who put their trust in him—those who love him serve him.
If by faith we could see the Lord as he is and could realize our own weakness and dependence upon him, all the praise and adulation that men could heap upon us would seem empty and vain. To know that our Lord looked upon us with favor would be sufficient.
THIS GOVERNMENT AND JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
Dear Brother Whiteside:
It seems to me that we ought not to oppose any move upon the part of the government to respect the conscience of sincere individuals. There are too many people in this country who would like to see us stop preaching for us to help further any movement which would deny the right to preach to certain religious groups.
There have been efforts in some cities to make it illegal for the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to distribute their literature or to sell it on the streets. These, in so far as they have come to my attention, have been declared unconstitutional. For this I am thankful, for I know once such laws are placed upon the books that they will be used by people against us in certain sections of the country. I have met people who would have invoked legal aid, if they had the power to do so, to prevent us from preaching in certain places by means of the tract. It seems to me that laws which might be passed and used against “Jehovah’s Witnesses” could be easily used in the hands of vested interests and tricky lawyers to rob the church of Christ of the liberty of free speech.
Then, too, it would be easy for an intense patriot to label the teachings of the New Testament, and thus of the church of Christ, as subversive. They could point out that the New Testament teaches that—
1. Christians are kings and priests. (Rev. 1:6.)
2. That we are endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States which is world-wide in its mission and which acknowledges as its supreme ruler Jesus Christ instead of Washington.
3. That this kingdom has been antagonistic, to say the least, to some governments of the past. (Dan. 2:44.)
4. That members of this kingdom believe that it was prophesied by Isaiah, who said that, among other things, its members would beat their swords into plowshares and cease to learn the ways of war. (Isa. 2:2-4.)
5. That they are not allowed to take vengeance. (Rom. 12:19.) From this they could draw conclusions which would lead many people to take steps to curtail our religious freedom.
For these reasons, if for no other, it seems to me that your article in the Gospel Advocate for March 26, 1942, was unnecessary. It helps encourage a movement which could easily result in opposition to the gospel.
Of course I do not accept the peculiar doctrines of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” I think we ought to teach them, among other things, Paul’s teaching concerning the proper attitude to civil powers. (Rom. 13:1.)—James D. Bales.
Brother Bales surely has not thought this thing through. As I see it, if “Jehovah’s Witnesses” are to be allowed unmolested to distribute their literature of opposition to all human governments, neither should a rabid German propagandist be molested in this country.
I made no effort to “oppose any move on the part of the government to respect the conscience” of any citizen of this government. So far the government has been as considerate as could be expected. But suppose a citizen of Germany, one wholly loyal to his government, were doing propaganda work on the streets of our cities, he would certainly be conscientiously opposed to doing military service for this government. Would Brother Bales think this government should so respect his conscience as to let him go on with his subversive activities? He is an individual, and he has a conscience, and he would certainly be sincere in his devotion to his government. Brother Bales makes no exceptions when he speaks of “the conscience of sincere individuals.” Do you say he was speaking of citizens of this government? If so, he leaves “Jehovah’s Witnesses” out, they themselves being witnesses, as a glance at their teaching will show.
Both Russell and Rutherford taught that “the times of the Gentiles,” of which the Bible speaks, is the time in which God permitted the Gentiles to rule in the governments of the earth. Their language is too plain to admit of any misunderstanding. Mr. Russell taught that the saints should be submissive to Gentile governments up to the close of the times of the Gentiles, or to the limit of their right to rule. With these people the times of the Gentiles began “when the diadem was taken from Zedekiah,” and lasted till A. D. 1914. In the 1912 edition of _The Time Is at Hand_, Vol. 2, (“copyright 1889”), Mr. Russell says: “In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles—i. e., the full end of their lease of dominion—will be reached in A. D. 1914; and that date will be the fartherest limit of the rule of imperfect men.” (Pages 76, 77.) “So, then, Gentile rule had a beginning, will last for a _fixed time_, and will end at the time appointed.” (Page 78.) During the times of the Gentiles the saints were to “render to them due respect and obedience,” but “to keep separate from the kingdoms of this world as strangers, pilgrims, and foreigners.” That eliminates them from citizenship in any government of the world, in so far as one can eliminate himself. “Foreigners” are not citizens. And their submission to Gentile governments was to end when the times of the Gentiles ended, when this new order would enter in full force. In the “Finished Mystery,” published in 1917, we have this: “Their united testimony is that the times of the Gentiles have expired, the reign of Christ has begun, all earthly potentates—civil, social, ecclesiastical, and financial—must give way to the new order of things, and will not give way peaceably, but must be ejected.” (Page 231.) This volume was written and published after Russell’s death. After all the date setting for the end of Gentile governments, we have this: “There is evidence that the establishments of the kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten years later than we once calculated.” (“Finished Mystery,” page 128.)
In “Our Lord’s return” Rutherford says: “The word ‘world’ means the social and political order or rule governing the people.” (Page 35.) “The end of the Gentile rule, therefore, would mark necessarily the legal end of the present order; therefore, the end of the world”—that is, the end of the “social and political order or rule governing the people.” (Page 37.) “This does not mean the end of trouble, but it does mean, according to Jesus’ words, that the old world legally ended in 1914.” (“Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” page 19.) Hence, according to Rutherford, no government now has any right to exist; they are all usurpers and in rebellion against the world’s rightful ruler. Who is the rightful ruler? In passages too numerous to quote they tell us that Christ would be the universal king when the times of the Gentiles ended in 1914. But who is the Christ of Rutherford? “The Christ consists of Jesus glorified, the head, and the members of his body, which constitute the church.” (Page 76.) Russell taught the same. The church and Jesus constitute the Christ, and they are now the rightful rulers of the world; no other government has any right to exist. That is their teaching. They, therefore, claim to owe no allegiance to any human government, but are opposed to all human governments. If any of our brethren who are conscientious objectors hold to positions similar to the foregoing, then they should have registered as aliens, as should all followers of Rutherford.
At the risk of making this too long, I wish to notice by number the items listed by Brother Bales.
1. Read the American Standard Version on Rev. 1:6, then look at the Greek. “Kingdom,” not “kings.”
2. I am not endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States.
3. I know not what Brother Bales means by “antagonistic”; that is a strong word.
4. We have not space here to discuss this passage, (Isa. 2:2-4) but trust to do so later.
5. No individual is allowed to take vengeance; even this government forbids that. God takes vengeance through his appointed channel, the human government.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Israel fell because of its own internal corruption, and so has many another nation fallen. That is the greatest danger facing our nation today. When God is ruled out of the educational, social, and business life of a nation all sorts of corruption follows, and corruption means decay and death.
THE NEW TESTAMENT WORD FLESH
In the New Testament the word _flesh_ does not always have the same significance. Sometimes it refers to our material bodies, and sometimes to the bodies of other living things. (1 Cor. 15:39.) It sometimes refers to that state or condition in which the gratifying of the appetites and passions of our bodies is our chief concern—strictly a worldly life. (Romans 7:5, 8:6-9.) It is to mind the flesh—a contrast with a spiritual life. And some times the word _flesh_ refers to a race or nation, as distinguished from another race or nation. Paul speaks of the Jews as “my flesh”. (Rom. 11:14.) “As concerning the flesh”, Christ was of the fathers of the Jewish race—that is, as to his flesh he was a Jew. After stating that Christ died for all, Paul adds, “Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now know him so no more.” In Christ there are no fleshly distinctions—no race discriminations. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of All.” (Rom. 10:12.) And as Christ is the savior of both Jew and Gentile, and is Lord of all—king over all, we can no longer regard him as a Jew—we no longer think of him as a Jew, or in any way identified with fleshly Israel. Yet the future Kingdom advocates still identify him with fleshly Israel and speak of him as “Israel’s Christ,” “Israel’s Messiah,” “Israel’s King.” They encourage the Jew to glory in the fact that he is a Jew. They would have the Jew to believe that the Jewish nation is even yet God’s chosen people, a nation with glorious future, exalted above all others subservient to them. But not so with Paul.
Some of the early professed Christians gloried in the Jewish nation with all its traditions and every thing Jewish, and tried to bind these on Gentile Christians. Concerning their attitude and his own ideal Paul said, “For not even they who receive circumcision do themselves keep the law; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:13-16.) These Judaizers gloried in the flesh, gloried in the fact that they were Jews: and they were prototypes of those who now encourage the Jews to glory in the fact that they are Jews; but Paul gloried only in the cross of Christ, and pronounced peace upon all who followed his rule. Disturbance and strife followed those ancient Judaizing preachers, as it does those today who glory in the modern version of that nation. The Judaizers did so much harm in the churches of Galatia where Paul had done so much labor, that it so stirred Paul’s feelings that he said, “I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision,” or as the marginal reading has, “Greek, _mutilate themselves_.” (Gal. 5:12.) Concerning this same class of men, he said to the Philippians, “beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision,” and then adds, “for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” The context shows plainly that Paul had no confidence in his Jewish flesh—no confidence in the fact that he was a Jew, even though he had more grounds for such confidence than did the Judaizing disturbers. “... if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet more.” And then Paul gives the grounds on which he might, if it were worth anything, have more confidence in the flesh than his Judaizing enemies: “circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews.” In his fleshly relations he had all the advantages that any Jew could have had. “Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yet verily, I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him.” (Read Phil. 3:2-11.) Paul gave up his fleshly connection and all that pertained to it, as refuse, or dung, that he might gain Christ; he could not gain Christ and justification by faith in him without so doing. And yet all over this country, in the press, in the pulpit and over the radio, men are teaching that to the Jew belongs the glory of that supposed kingdom. In that kingdom only the Jews will be citizens; other people will be subservient to them, and will have to come to the Jews for favors! That really teaches the Jew to have confidence in the flesh—to glory in the fact that he is a Jew. It cannot develop in him a spirit of humility, and therefore hinders his conversion. He must, as Paul did, give all that up, or he can never gain Christ.
Recently I heard David L. Cooper, who, Dr. Weber said, is the greatest living Bible scholar, answer some questions in a radio speech. In giving answer to a question as to the setting up of the kingdom, he said that the spiritual kingdom which John announced as at hand was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, but that when Christ returns to earth he will set up his visible kingdom, and that there would be no peace on the earth till that was done. In answering another question he said that Christ will not come till national Israel confess their national sin of rejecting him. If this last statement is true, then the coming of Christ is not imminent, but likely it is far in the future, for there are no signs now that the Jews will ever make such a confession. And if Cooper is right the Jews have the peace of the world in their keeping; for according to him the peace of the world depends on Christ’s second coming, and his coming depends on the conversion of the Jews. So Christ’s second coming is not imminent, and the Jews hold the destiny of the world in their hands! And I see no chance for the Jews to act nationally in anything—how can they?
Pointed Paragraphs:
Here is one lesson that Israel never did learn, nor has the world yet learned it: “O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” (Jer. 10:23.)
FUTURE-KINGDOM DOCTRINES
A brother in Tennessee wants to know the difference, if any, between the church and the kingdom of Christ. A brother in Florida writes an article about long enough to fill my page, seeking to prove that the prophets foretold a kingdom yet future. Occasionally a brother over in Arkansas has written me along the same lines. The scheme argued by these two brethren is along the same lines argued by other future-kingdom advocates.
In its broadest sense the church is that body of people who have been called out of sin into the service of Christ. As Jesus rules over this body of people, it is his kingdom.
“Now when John heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent his disciples, and said unto him, art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?” In similar fashion let us ask, Is Christianity the scheme of redemption that was to come, or look we for another? The future-kingdom advocates have answered, No, we must look for another. On that point they speak in no uncertain terms. It is argued that, though Jesus came to establish his kingdom in Jerusalem and to deliver the Jews from oppression, they rejected him, and he postponed the establishment of his kingdom till the time of his second coming. On this assumption their use of the prophecies is a puzzle. If the prophecies foretold the establishment of his kingdom at his first coming, then they did not foretell its establishment at his second coming; and the future-kingdom advocates discredit the prophets by seeking to make it appear that their prophecies can be shifted from one period to another. And yet they have the audacity to tell us that if things do not work out according to their theory, no dependence can be placed in what the prophets say. Well, half of their theory has failed—the kingdom was not established, we are told, at his first coming! Now they must shift the prophecies to some future date.
Arthur Pink represents F. W. Grant as saying, in the “Numerical Bible,” that Matthew shows, that because Israel rejected Christ, the kingdom of heaven would be taken from them, “and assume the mystery form in which it was unknown to the prophets of Israel.” (page 2). Again (p. 13) Pink says, “But the Old Testament _knows nothing whatsoever of Christianity_!” All future-kingdom advocates from whom I quote hold this same idea. In fact their theory makes it necessary for them to deny that any Old Testament promise or prophecy referred to the scheme of redemption preached by the apostles. In the Word and Work (January 1945) J. Edward Boyd says, “The prophets had clearly seen and foretold the kingdom gloriously triumphant, all opposition crushed, universal in its sway; but this present aspect of the kingdom, the church, although in the mind of God all along, they had not been permitted to see.”
It is a well known fact that the Jews expected the old kingdom to be restored and enlarged with the Messiah on the throne in Jerusalem; and R. H. Boll says, “Their expectations and conceptions of the king and kingdom had their origin in these Old Testament prophecies.” (Kingdom of God, p. 25.) “They saw in him that promised Coming One of David’s line who would free his nation from the Gentile’s yoke and reign over the house of Jacob, and through it over all the nations of the earth. For so it was promised.” (p. 26). “The Old Testament prophecies and promises of the kingdom were the theme of our preceding studies.... By such predictions as those was the kingdom-hope of Israel created; and that most justly and nationally. When John the Baptist lifted up his voice in the wilderness of Judea and announced ‘the kingdom at hand’ he used a phraseology which was already common and current among the Jews, and which was perfectly understood by all.” Read that again. If the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” was “common and current among the Jews,” it was a phrase of their own invention, for no Old Testament prophecy contains the phrase. Matt. 3:2 is the first place it occurs in the Bible. Again (p. 34): “But if the Jewish expectations had been utterly wrong (which, as we have seen in our former articles, was not the case), even then a sense of justice would suggest that God would not have left the people under such misapprehension without a clear protest and correction.” Read that again. Does he mean to say, that if God announced a kingdom different from what the Jews expected without telling them so, he did not have a proper sense of justice? Or does he mean that his own sense of justice would suggest that God should have made the explanation suggested? In either case, he crosses himself up; for he says that Jesus began in Matthew thirteen to talk about the mystery form of the kingdom. But Jesus did not give any hint, that as the Jews had rejected him, the kingdom they expected was now postponed and an entirely new sort of kingdom would be presented. And strange to say, he kept on using the term “kingdom of heaven,” without telling them he was now using the term in an entirely new sense. In fact the Jewish idea remained with the disciples up to the ascension of Christ. Now, what about that sense of justice?
AT HAND:—John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus preached, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:14, 15) This plain language gives the future kingdom advocates a lot of trouble. According to John R. Rice, they soon quit preaching “the kingdom at hand.” He presents this question: “Is there a single time after tenth chapter of Matthew ... that they preached that the kingdom of heaven is at hand? I say it isn’t there.” Again, “After Jesus was rejected definitely by the nation, the kingdom was no longer at hand.” He argues that the kingdom was postponed till the second coming of Christ. But he overlooked what Jesus told the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:1-11). Verse 9: “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” Verse 11: “nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh.” This preaching was done during the last year of Christ’s personal ministry. So what Rice says “isn’t there,” is there; and he would have seen it if he had been looking for truth instead of proof to sustain a theory.
The following sentence from Brother R. H. Boll shows that he realized the difficulty and tried to hedge against it: “If it be felt a difficulty that the kingdom, though announced as ‘at hand’, has never yet appeared, we shall find an explanation unforced and natural, and one which will cast no reflection on the truth and goodness of God.” (K. p. 34). That statement shows clearly that he realized some explanation was needed to keep his theory from casting reflection on the truth and goodness of God; but it seems to me that his attempt at an “unforced and natural” explanation helps not at all. Hear him: “Since the kingdom promise was national, the preparatory repentance must of course also be national: the rulers and the rank and file of the people to all of whom the kingdom was dear, must now sincerely turn and return to God.” Passing by his assertion that “the kingdom promise was national,” I call attention to the “national repentance” idea. Nowhere is there even a hint that John and Jesus told the people that the establishment of the kingdom depended on “national repentance.” Neither said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand, provided the nation repents; otherwise it will be postponed to some future time.” But not a word about national repentance, not a word about national rejection and its results, not a word about postponing the kingdom; and yet in the absence of any such warning, we are told that the kingdom was postponed. Now, what about that sense of justice? Quoting again: “The announcement of the kingdom thus became the basis of the call to repentance.” One motive to cause them to repent was the promised kingdom. Vast multitudes were moved by that promise to repent and be baptized. (Mark 1:5; John 4:1, 2). Multitudes did as commanded; and yet according to the future kingdom advocates none of them received what was promised of them. It seems to me that the explanation reflects seriously on their proposition, and really charges that God did not make good on his promises. The explanation does not explain. What about that sense of justice?
Paul preached the gospel to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Boll says this was a terrible perplexity to all believing Jews. He adds: “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 blessed.” But why quote more.
For a long time I have been preaching that all that the prophets said about a plan of human redemption is fulfilled in the plan of salvation preached by Christ and his apostles and is recorded in the New Testament. I have offered to affirm this proposition: THE PLAN OF SALVATION SET FORTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE SCHEME OF HUMAN REDEMPTION FORETOLD BY THE PROPHETS; or, for _foretold by the prophets_ substitute _foretold in promise and prophecy_. Here is a fair proposition that covers every point involved in the discussion of the future-kingdom theory. When it is proved to be true, then the whole future-kingdom theory is proved to be false. Why put in time showing that the various phases of the theory are false when one proposition fully established proves the whole theory false? Why show that their use of this prophecy and that prophecy is wrong when you can with even more ease show that the New Testament contradicts their use of the prophecies?
Before giving the proof of the correctness of my proposition I wish to mention another matter. Perhaps a few personal words will not be out of place. When I was in the Nashville Bible School out on Spruce street, I had a family—my wife and two children. We had very little money, but we managed by much self-denial to pay rent on a little house, to buy enough groceries to keep us alive, and to pay every dollar of tuition. My youngest brother was with me, and he paid his part of board and rent, and his tuition. Some of the able bodied boys (students) paid neither board nor tuition.
During those days Brother R. H. Boll and I became good friends, and continued to be so for years. He played the mandolin and his pal Robert Mahan played the guitar. Frequently they would come to our little home and entertain us with music. We enjoyed their music, and was glad for them to come. I liked the two Roberts, but became more intimate with Robert Boll. Some years later he began to write for the Gospel Advocate, but a break came between him and the Advocate over what the Advocate called his “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies.” Brother Boll started up his Word and Work, but I did not see many copies of it. There continued to be references to Boll’s “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies.” I remember distinctly that I thought, “Well, if speculating about _unfulfilled_ prophecies is all that is the matter with him, why worry? What he said about unfulfilled prophecies might be as near right as what any body else said. No one could be sure about an _unfulfilled_ prophecy. So why the fuss?” You cannot imagine my surprise when I began to study his booklets to see what he did say. I found that “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies” was not what was the matter with him at all. With him the land promise to the Jews is yet to be realized, the Jews are yet to return to Palestine, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 has not yet been set up, that Christ has not been seated on David’s throne. To say that his teaching is speculation about unfulfilled prophecy is to concede the point. If his teaching that the prophecies concerning the throne of David are yet unfulfilled is speculating about _unfulfilled prophecy_, then Christ is not yet on David’s throne. If he is on David’s throne, then Boll is misapplying prophecy instead of speculating about unfulfilled prophecy. His trouble is speculating about fulfilled prophecy—making prophecies that have been fulfilled apply to some imaginary future scheme of things. Speculating about unfulfilled prophecy indeed! You have an argument with him about prophecies that you believe have been fulfilled, and he says they are yet to be fulfilled; and then you virtually give up your contention by calling it an argument about unfulfilled prophecy! It makes the heart sick. What unfulfilled prophecies has Boll been speculating about? When a man seeks to prove by the prophets that the Jews are yet to be restored to Palestine, that Christ is yet to be placed on David’s throne, that the new covenant is yet to be established, that Christ is to be a world ruler with the Jews as citizens of his kingdom and all others as serfs, that the Gentiles were to be blessed only through restored Israel and in subservience to Israel, that Christ is now seeking to convert and train only enough people to supply the needed number of rulers for a future kingdom, is he speculating about unfulfilled prophecy? It seems to me that Boll does very little speculating about unfulfilled prophecy compared with his use of prophecies that have been fulfilled. How can intelligent people be so dense?
In the early part of 1925 Brother C. R. Nichol and I made the first real attempt that was made to review Brother Boll’s teaching. We worked together, and no two men ever tried harder to understand exactly what another man had written. And yet some people, who should have known better, said we misrepresented Brother Boll and did much to hinder the effectiveness of our work. An example: A few brethren were talking together on the sidewalk in Nashville. An aged preacher of considerable ability and fame charged that we misrepresented Brother Boll, and was very caustic in his remarks. One of the group, a friend of ours, said: “Did you ever read their review?” Critic: “No, no; I never read it.” Friend: “Well, did you read what Boll said?” Critic: “No, no, I never read it.” Friend: “Well, you are not in a position to say anything about it.” And that ended the conversation.
No, we did not misrepresent Brother Boll. But herein is a peculiar thing. Many who said we misrepresented Boll said they did not believe his theories. If so, then they believed he misrepresented the Bible—misrepresented God; and yet in the estimation of some of them he was a very godly and pious man, even though he did misrepresent God. But they fancied that we misrepresented Brother Boll, we greatly sinned! Can you beat it? I can honestly claim that we were as sincere and honest in dealing With Brother Boll’s writings as his most devoted friends can claim honesty and sincerity for him in his dealings with the inspired writings.
One of the strangest, if not the zaniest things in all this controversy is that some brethren not only misrepresent themselves, but actually contradict themselves. An example out of many: A written discussion was had with Brother Boll in which Brother Boll contended that the land promise to Abraham is yet unfulfilled, that the prophecies concerning the seating of Christ on David’s throne are unfulfilled, and so on. Then that debate was published in a book form with the title, “A Debate About Unfulfilled Prophecy!” And thus unwittingly the whole issue was surrendered, virtually saying to Brother Boll, “You are right; the prophecies we have been debating about are unfulfilled.” Can you top that?
Pointed Paragraphs:
If you are inclined to think that denominations are the branches Jesus spoke of, a little reflection will show you how impossible that is. He meant individuals, not denominations. And the diversity among the denominations also shows that they are not branches of the vine. No one ever saw a vine with branches so different as are the denominations. They are not alike, and they bear different kinds of fruit. It is impossible for them to be natural branches of the same vine.
A PROPOSITION AND ITS PROOF
THE PROPOSITION: The plan of Salvation preached by Christ and his apostles is the scheme of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy.
This proposition needs no defining. I am aware of the fact that some future-kingdom advocates do not go so far as to say that none of the prophecies referred Christianity; but the ones from whom I quoted in the preceding article, as well as many others, boldly teach that Christianity is unknown to the prophets. In so arguing they commit themselves to the fact that only one scheme of redemption was foretold by the prophets. On this point we agree. Hence, to prove that Christianity was foretold by the prophets is to eliminate any other scheme yet to be. In establishing my proposition I shall rely solely on what is said in the New Testament, for Jesus and his inspired representatives are the infallible interpreters of the prophets.
They tell us that Jesus, in Matt. 13, began to set forth a new plan, the plan of which the prophets said nothing; yet in his speech Jesus said: “But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which ye see and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not.” (Matt. 13:16, 17.) Now how could these prophets and righteous men have desired to see and to hear what these disciples were then seeing and hearing if it had never been revealed to them that such things would be?
Late in the day on which Jesus arose from the dead two of his disciples went out to Emmaus. They knew that the body of Jesus was missing, but it seems that they did not know he had been seen alive. Along the way Jesus joined them, but they did not recognize him. They related to him what they knew of recent events, and added: “But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:21.) They had hoped for freedom from Rome—redemption for the nation from Roman rule. These are the opening words of a speech that Jesus made to them: “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (verse 25). Does not that virtually say that they, in thinking the prophets spoke of political deliverance, had not really believed what Moses and the prophets had foretold? They had believed that Jesus would give them an earthly kingdom; they had not believed what Moses and the prophets had foretold. They needed a better understanding of Moses and the prophets. “And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” If we had that speech!
In the great commission Jesus commanded the apostles to make disciples of all the nations—to preach the gospel to the whole creation. This was a demand for world-wide evangelism, regardless of race or nationality. Had such evangelism been foretold by the prophets? What saith the Lord? In Luke’s account of this commission he quotes Jesus as saying: “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 nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:46-49.) Notice what Jesus says had been written in the prophets—his death and resurrection, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations, and that this preaching should begin from Jerusalem. So then, this world-wide evangelism, which was commanded by Christ and preached first by his apostles at Jerusalem, had been foretold by the prophets. And this began to be preached on Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit filled them with power from on high. Here a plan of salvation was preached, and this plan had been foretold by the prophets. As only one plan was foretold by the prophets, they foretold no other plan than the one which began to be preached at Jerusalem.
In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter showed that Joel had prophesied of that day. He also quotes a prophecy of David, which he interprets to refer to the resurrection of Christ and his being seated on the throne of David, and then draws this conclusion: “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.” (Acts 2:33.) His argument was that Jesus had been raised up to sit on David’s throne, and he concludes that he had, therefore, been exalted. Yet Boll says: “To him, and to him exclusively, the throne of David belongs by every right. But that he is now already occupying that throne is precisely that which Peter does not say.” What, then, is the connection between Peter’s argument and his conclusion? Peter’s argument followed immediately by _therefore_ is significant. Can any one believe that Peter argued from David’s prophecy that Jesus had been raised up to sit on David’s throne, and conclude that he had _therefore_ been exalted to something else?
On that day, and in the city of Jerusalem, repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ began to be preached, and Jesus tells us that the prophets had foretold this very thing. Because he was now anointed—made both Lord and Christ—things began to be done in his name. Hear Boll again: “He is the anointed King of David’s line, the Christ appointed for Israel. (Acts 3:20.) But neither is that saying that he now sits and reigns on David’s throne. David had been anointed God’s king long before he actually sat upon his rightful throne over Israel, suffering indignities and persecution at the hands of Saul, and rejection at the hands of the people; and he never took the government until the people themselves willingly sought his rule and chose him and submitted.” But Bro. Boll overlooks the decisive point. Nothing in the kingdom was done in the name of David till he actually “took the government.” When he actually became king, things began to be done in his name and by his authority. If Boll could show that nothing is yet done in the name of Christ, there would be some point in what he says about David. The fact that pardon was offered the enemies of Christ on the condition that they would repent and be baptized shows that he was then actually the reigning king. In Boll’s theory Jesus is only the heir apparent.
When Peter first preached to the Gentiles, he went against the prejudices of all Jews, including himself. Could he quote any prophecy to fit the occasion? He was preaching to the Gentiles independent of Israel and against the prejudices of Israel, and yet he 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.) This inspired apostle understood that the prophets foretold the very thing that he was then doing—namely, offering salvation to the Gentiles independent of Israel. Hence, the only plan of salvation foretold by the prophets was then in operation.
When the Jews of Antioch of Pisidia “contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed,” he said to them: “Lo we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
Hence, in preaching salvation to the Gentiles, Paul was carrying out the prophecy of Isaiah. (Acts 13:44-47.)
Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles alike, and affirmed that there was no distinction; and the people of Berea searched the Scriptures daily to see whether his preaching was so. This led many of them to believe. (Acts 17:10-12.) Now, if the prophets had said nothing concerning the plan of salvation Paul was preaching, but had always foretold that Gentiles would be blessed only through Israel restored and in subservience to Israel, their searching the Scriptures would have led these Bereans to the conclusion that Paul was wrong.
Paul was sent to preach especially to the Gentiles; he was the apostle to the Gentiles. Not only did he preach to the Gentiles independent of the Jews, but in spite of them. “For this cause,” said he to Agrippa, “the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come: how that the Christ should suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.” The gospel which he preached was foretold by the prophets and Moses, and he preached nothing that had not been foretold by them. Because of this he said to Agrippa: “King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.”
“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” Paul’s call is recorded in Acts 26:12-20. Concerning this call he later said: “But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood.” (Gal. 1:15, 16.) And Paul fought hard to keep the gospel of Christ free from all taint of Judaism and to maintain his right to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; and he pronounced a curse upon those Judaizing Christians who would corrupt the gospel by mixing it with Judaism (Gal. 1:6-9); and he affirms that this gospel which he preached was the gospel which God “promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” The whole theory of the future-kingdom advocates, as well as some things they boldly affirm, is an emphatic denial of what Paul here says. It is plain to any thoughtful person that the plan of salvation which Paul preached is the scheme of redemption foretold by the prophets.
Notice the _now_ in the following: “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.) This righteousness of God, which had now been manifested, was to all believers without race or national distinction; and this righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is witnessed by the law and the prophets; and as the law and the prophets gave witness to only one scheme of redemption, it is plain that the future-kingdom hopes have no basis.
Paul shows that the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled in those who are children of God by faith in Christ. (Gal. 3:22-29; 4:28-31.) And it seems that the book of Hebrews was written to counteract the teaching of the Judaizers of the church. That letter plainly shows that the types and shadows of the law pointed definitely to the church—to this plan of salvation through Christ. And in the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters the writer shows that the new covenant, or New Testament, foretold by Jeremiah is now in force; yet Boll says concerning the new birth: “It is the universal requirement of acceptance with God, and characteristic of the new covenant which now in its principle applies to the church, and which the Lord will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ‘after those days’.” The new covenant now applies to us only in principle—it is yet to be made! To what extremes people will go to maintain a groundless theory! Jesus is now the mediator of a better covenant, “which hath been enacted upon better promises,” not will be enacted. “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified.” (Heb. 10:9, 10.) The man who can read the book of Hebrews and not see that the types and shadows of the law pointed to Christianity as we have it now simply does not see what he reads. They desire to be teachers of the prophecies and the law, “though they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they confidently affirm.”
“Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. 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.” (1 Pet. 1:10-12.) While the prophets were foretelling the blessings that were to come, they were “searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto.” Many of the future-kingdom advocates do not profess to know the time of the fulfillment of what they say these prophets foretold, but they, with one accord, profess to know exactly the manner of the time—a thing the prophets themselves did not know! They have that all figured out—oh, so much wiser than the prophets! They tell us in no uncertain terms the manner of that time, as they have it figured out. But Peter explodes their theory by telling us that these prophets were ministering to us, and that the things they foretold had been announced through them that preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit sent forth from Heaven. As the prophets foretold only one scheme of redemption, and that scheme has been announced through them that preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit, it is certain that there will be no future scheme in operation. Hence—
The plan of salvation preached by Christ and his apostles is the scheme of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy. Nor have I relied on my interpretation of the prophecies to prove the proposition.
FOOTNOTES
[1]For a full discussion of these questions, see “Doctrinal Discourses” pp. 294-298.
SCRIPTURE INDEX
GENESIS Page 8:22 69 12:1-3 32, 84 12:7 85 13:14-17 32 15:7 85 17:8 85, 87, 88 25:23 89 26:2, 3 86 28:4 25 28:13 86 35:12 25
EXODUS 12:25 90 13:5 90 19:4-6 91 19:5, 6 23, 28, 32, 81
NUMBERS 21:4-9 83
DEUTERONOMY 6:3, 10, 18, 23 90 8:1 90 8:19, 20 33, 108 Chs. 27 & 28 33 28:15 108 30:8, 10 108 31:20 90
JOSHUA 21:43-45 26, 34, 86, 107 23:14 33, 87, 107 23:14, 15 90
I SAMUEL Ch. 8 23 8:4-7 91 8:4-22 28 8:18-22 29 8:19, 20 92 10:24, 25 24 12:19 92 14:47 29 15:28 89
I KINGS 2:12 93 2:12, 24 27, 28
II KINGS 5:1-19 83
I CHRONICLES 12:23 24 29:23 28, 93, 111
NEHEMIAH 1:8, 9 108
PSALMS 22:12 77 37:1 125 34:8 43 40:8 62 89:34, 35 80 119:103 43
ISAIAH 1:3 10, 55 1:4 54 2:2, 3 78 6:10 54, 55 9:7 21 11:6-9 76 13:1-10 154 13:17-22 21 40:4 79 40:3, 4 75, 78 55:12 76
JEREMIAH 1:9, 10 158, 159 2:13 10 4:7 77 18:5-10 37 18:9, 10 30 20:7-9 11 30:7 151 Ch. 31 103 38:4 11 50:17 77 51:60-62 21
EZEKIEL 19:1-9 77 26:7-14 21 34:11-31 40 37:21, 22 40 Chs. 37 to 39:21-29 40
DANIEL 2:31-35 155 2:36-45 156 2:44, 45 159 2:44 163 Ch. 7 79
HOSEA 13:9-11 28 13:10, 11 24 13:11 93
AMOS 1:1 41 4:1 77 7:7-17 41 9:11-15 29 9:13-15 41
ZEPHANIAH 3:3 77
MATTHEW 3:2 52, 179, 180 3:3 76 3:10 109 7:15 77 10:16 77 12:43-45 35, 109 13:14, 15 55 13:16, 17 187 16:18 38 16:28 43 18:19 58 19:28 46, 49 20:20, 21 112 21:33-43 36 21:43 82, 110 22:24 146 25:31-46 38, 50, 68 25:31, 32, 41, 46 48 25:46 48, 84
MARK 1:5 181 1:14, 15 180 1:15 113 9:1 43 10:35-37 112 12:19 146 16:16 84
LUKE 3:4, 5 76 9:27 43 10:1-10 113 10:1-11 180 10:11 53, 180 12:32 49 12:42-48 98, 124 17:20 44 19:13-27 120 20:28 146 22:28-30 48 24:21 188 24:25 188 24:46, 47 103 24:46-49 112, 189
JOHN 3:14 139 4:1, 2 181 4:34 62 5:28, 29 143 5:40 84 6:44, 45 16 7:37-39 112 8:15 65 12:39, 40 54, 55 17:4 38 20:23 47 20:30, 31 118
ACTS 2:23 57 2:29-36 29 2:29-38 111 2:30-36 46 2:33 111, 189 2:35 31 2:38 112 3:24 57 4:1, 2 143 4:2 141 4:27, 28 57 7:5 86, 88 7:17 25, 86, 89 7:32 133 10:43 104, 191 11:13, 14 15 13:27 57 13:44-47 191 15:11 61 15:13-16 115 15:13-19 29 15:17, 18 115 17:10-12 191 17:11 104 20:29 77 23:6 144 24:15 141, 144 26:12-20 192 26:22 57, 104 26:22, 23 104
ROMANS 1:2 57 1:1, 2 104 1:16 15 3:21 22, 105, 193 6:13 139 7:5 173 7:1-6 22 8:6-9 173 10:12 173 10:16-21 56 10:19 105 11:1-10 56 11:12 60 11:14 173 11:15 140 11:17-24 59 11:20 110
I CORINTHIANS 3:16, 17 39 6:2, 3 49 15:22 144 15:26-28 31 15:39 173
II CORINTHIANS 3:4-18 22 5:14, 15 35 5:15 65 5:16 35, 65 6:2 110 11:17, 18 65
GALATIANS 1:6-9 193 1:15, 16 192 3:7 110 3:11-22 22 3:16 84 3:22-29 193 3:29 36, 110 4:4 56 4:21-31 22, 109 4:28-31 193 5:12 174 6:13-16 174
EPHESIANS 2:14-16 22 2:20-22 39 3:10, 11 114 3:21 115
PHILIPPIANS 2:13 15 3:2-8 35, 65 3:2-11 175 3:3 36 3:10-14 144
COLOSSIANS 1:13 113 2:14 22 3:11 61
I THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 134
II THESSALONIANS 1:6-10 38, 48 1:7-10 68 2:1 136 2:8-12 55
I TIMOTHY 6:15 113
II TIMOTHY 4:1-5 7
TITUS 3:5 46
HEBREWS 6:4, 5 43 Ch. 8 103, 193 Chs. 8, 9, 10 193 9:1-10 39 9:11 39 10:9, 10 194
JAMES 1:21 15
I PETER 1:10-12 74, 104, 194 2:5 39 2:9 68 5:8 64
II PETER 1:3 42 1:19-21 73 3:1-14 69
REVELATION 1:6 68, 172 1:17 132 3:10 151 3:21 111 4:6-9 63 7:9 49 Ch. 12 64, 65, 66 20:8, 10, 12 67, 68
Transcriber’s Notes
—Silently corrected a few typos.
—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.
—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.