The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy
Author: Whiteside, Robertson Lafayette
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

PROPHECY ***

The Kingdom
Of
Promise
And
Prophecy

By
ROBERTSON L. WHITESIDE

1956

Published By
Miss Inys Whiteside
Denton, Texas

Printed and Bound By
_THE MANNEY COMPANY_
_1041 Isbell Road_ _Fort Worth 14, Texas_

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Preach the Word 7

Part I—Questions
Have All Prophecies of Old Testament Been Fulfilled? 21
Information On Old Testament Kingdom 23
Promise to Abraham 25
Jews and Their Kingdom 27
Will Jews Return to Jerusalem? 32
Prophecy of Amos 9:13-15 41
Matthew 16:28 Explained 43
Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Corinthians 6:2 46
The Jews, The Kingdom and Salvation 51
Some Questions Considered 54
The Olive Tree Figure of Romans 11 59
Ends of The Ages 62
The Four Beasts 63
Points in Revelation 12 64
Questions on Revelation 20 67
Several Questions 69

Part II—Discussions
Prediction or Prophecy 73
Prophecy 75
Shall We Look for a Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy? 79
Abraham and the Land Promise 84
The Time of Promise 88
Rebellion of Israel—A Kingdom Born 91
“Neither ... Nor” 94
Future Kingdom Doctrine Reflects on Integrity Of God 100
The Old Testament Prophets and Christianity 102
Future-Kingdom Perversions and Dislocations Of Prophecy 106
Your Faith and Your Confession 116
The Christ of The Future-Kingdom Advocates 119
Is Salvation Now Offered to All? 120
The Coming of the Lord 122
The “Two Stages” Theory Examined 126
Hope of The Lord’s Coming 130
Paul to the Thessalonians on the Lord’s Return 134
Resurrection From the Dead 139
Theory of Two Resurrections Considered 143
Church Ages 147
Philadelphia and The Hour of Trial 149
Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream 155
Milligan on Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream 160
A Leading Doctrine of This Current Reformation 163
Is the Church the Kingdom? 166
This Government and Jehovah’s Witnesses 168
The New Testament Word Flesh 173
Future-Kingdom Doctrines 177
A Proposition and Its Proof 187

PUBLISHER’S PREFACE

In editing and arranging the writings contained in this book, I used
some lifted from religious journals and some that was still in
manuscript form. For their courtesy extended to me in allowing me to
lift from their papers the writings of my late father, Robertson L.
Whiteside, for publication in books, I wish to express my deepest
gratitude to the present managements of the: GOSPEL ADVOCATE, GOSPEL
GUARDIAN, and FIRM FOUNDATION.

To the many who have encouraged me in this effort, thanks. Your comments
have been a source of great joy and inspiration.

It is my hope that this “Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy” will, along
with the “Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome” and
“Doctrinal Discourses,” fill the present need for sound and careful
Bible teaching. To these will be added, as soon as time will permit, a
compilation of questions and answers for which I have had many requests.

INYS WHITESIDE

INTRODUCTION

Robertson L. Whiteside was a native of Hickman county, Tennessee, born
December 27, 1869, died at his home in Denton, Texas—where he had lived
more than forty years—January 5, 1951. Early in his life (17 years of
age), he dedicated himself to the Lord’s service. He was student,
educator, and preacher and was ever on the firing lines in the fight
against innovations and error. The Bible was his standard of faith and
practice. With him, “to live was Christ.” Like Jeremiah of old (a
character he so loved and admired), there was a burning fire in his
heart he could not contain.

I might write a conventional biography as introduction to this book;
however, it seems to me that the following lesson from his pen is more
revealing of the purpose of the life that he lived.

PREACH THE WORD

“I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge
the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach
the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort,
with all long-suffering and teaching. For the time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to
themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears
from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all
things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy
ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:1-5.)

An old theme, do you say? What about it is old? God, Christ, truth, sin,
salvation, duty, destiny—these never grow old. There is something wrong
with one who thinks any Bible theme is old or out of date. If there were
a cure for all fleshly ailments, would it ever be “out of date”? Would
any sufferer say of it, “O, that is too old for this progressive age”?
But there is no such cure known to man.

But man has a nature more important and enduring than his flesh, and
ailments more far reaching in their results than any fleshly ills. And
the gospel of Christ is a sure cure for all spiritual and moral ills. As
long as there are moral evils to be corrected, sins to be forgiven,
sinners to be saved, and downtrodden and discouraged to be inspirited,
sorrowing hearts to be comforted, just that long will the gospel be
fresh and “up to date.” And what else is up to date?

We have made great advancement in material things, but these do not meet
the needs of the soul. Science has made great strides in material
things, but it has no remedy for sin and crime. In fact, it has put
forces into the hands of the world that the world does not know what to
do with. In truth, I think it can be safely said that science has made
crime more plentiful and daring, and has enabled the criminal to escape
a hundredfold more easily. I am not unmindful of the comforts science
has brought to those who know how to use them; it has also done wonders
in combating disease. But it has put powers in the hands of man that he
does not know how to handle. Even now scientists are seeking ways and
means to destroy whole cities with one blast. Science has just about
perfected means by which civilization will destroy itself in the next
great war. It cannot cure one moral evil, nor generate one spiritual
force for the world’s regeneration. And when a scientist tries to become
a philosopher, he becomes a great injury to the world; for he usually
leaves God out of any scheme of philosophy that he tries to construct.
And psychology and sociology, or any of the moral philosophies, are
equally helpless. Jesus is the Great Physician, and the gospel is his
remedy, his only remedy, for the evils that afflict the world.

Nothing is up to date that does not meet the needs of the times. Many
things are up to date in meeting our material needs, but nothing that
man has ever thought out or planned is up to date in a moral and
spiritual sense. Along these lines man’s theories are out of date before
they are announced. The most advanced person in the world along moral
and spiritual lines is the one who adheres most closely to the word of
God and relies most firmly upon it as the one and only remedy for sin
and crime. And the man who says that such a man is behind the times is
himself so far behind that he does not know that any one has gone on
before! The one who faithfully preaches the word is far in advance of
him who preaches something else. And yet the majority of the people have
never wanted the plain truth told. They prefer things that please.

Because some professed Christians would not want the pure word of God
preached is one of the reasons assigned by Paul as to why the word of
God should be preached the more diligently. “Preach the word.... For the
time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.” At first
thought it might seem that this statement was true in Paul’s day; for
did they not persecute and kill preachers then? But Paul was not here
speaking of outsiders. He had in mind the time when professed Christians
would not endure sound doctrine. Growing tired of the gospel they would
long for something else. “Having itching ears,” they “will heap to
themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears
from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.” It is plain that he was
talking about people who would accept the truth, but later become tired
of it, and would employ preachers that would tickle their itching ears.
It is a dark picture, but it is not a new picture.

After God’s people came out of Egypt, they frequently drifted into the
condition Paul here mentions. Read the historical books of the Old
Testament and also the testimony of the prophets, and you will find that
God’s people never remained true to him very long at a time. Against
them Jeremiah testifies: “For my people have committed two evils: they
have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed them out
cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jer. 2:13.) They
had turned from the fountain of living waters as spoken to them by God’s
prophets, and had procured for themselves false prophets. And that was
their folly and their sin. Isaiah delivers a terrific rebuke: “The ox
knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not
know, my people doth not consider.” (Isa. 1:3.) They did not know as
much about where safety and food could be found as did the ox or the
ass.

Is there not a need now for straight gospel preaching? Of course, a
preacher should be a Christian gentleman at all times, but he should not
become too polished to preach the unadulterated word of God. He may
suffer for it, but what of that? And some misguided souls may say that
plain preaching keeps people away and injures the standing of the
church, but the faithful preacher knows that that makes it the more
binding upon him to preach the gospel straight. Because Jeremiah spoke
the word of God faithfully, the people said: “This man seeketh not the
welfare of this people, but the hurt.” (Jer. 38:4.) And yet he was the
best friend the people had. But they wanted smooth things spoken to
them. They wanted him to tell them that no evil would come upon them. It
appears that Jeremiah at times grew weary, and felt as if he might as
well give up the strife, but he could not quit. “I am become a
laughing-stock all the day, every one mocketh me. For as often as I
speak, I cry out; I cry, Violence and destruction! because the word of
Jehovah is made a reproach unto me, and a derision, all the day. And if
I say, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name,
then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones,
and I am weary with forbearing, and I cannot contain.” (Jer. 20:7-9.)
Jeremiah loved his people, and could not be quiet as he beheld them
plunging into ruin. A more heroic figure than Jeremiah does not grace
the pages of Old Testament history.

These are perilous times. Man’s schemes have broken down and the world
is in chaos. Human wisdom has come up against a blank wall, beyond which
man cannot see. The people are saying to their erstwhile leaders, “Cry”;
and the leaders call back, “What shall we cry?” We have left God out of
our scheme of things. We have dabbled in this monkey business till
conditions have made monkeys out of our wisest men. But there is balm,
there is healing, there is a physician. Preach the word.

We want to convert sinners and edify saints, but there is danger that we
put the main emphasis on the wrong things. We may become so busy as
herdboys that we forget to feed the sheep. We may become so absorbed in
keeping the young folks interested that we forget to fill them with the
word of God. We may become so engaged in building fine meeting houses,
that we forget to build fine Christian characters.

It is a fine thing for a church to have a house suited to its needs, but
a house is not one of the essentials. The early Christians owned no
meetinghouses, but they made the gospel ring throughout the land. It is
a sin for brethren to burden themselves with a church-house debt that
requires all their energies and resources to meet. Some churches have so
burdened themselves with debt that they have ceased any worthwhile
effort to preach the word. It is feared that pride contributed much to
their present humiliation. Some of these monuments to pride or mistaken
zeal will never be paid out, and the church will be discouraged and
weakened, and all because they forgot that their main mission was to
convert sinners and edify saints. In trying to “put things over” they
have gone under. PREACH THE WORD.

Do not worry about science. It has its legitimate field, and in its
field it has done wonderful things. We reap its benefits and are glad.
The average preacher knows little about science, and the average
scientist knows less about the Bible. The claim that science and the
Bible do not agree should disturb no one. What is called “science” is
not static. Each generation brings new light; most of the old theories
have been exploded by scientists themselves. Yet each generation of
scientists boldly announces that science has disproved the Bible. But it
can as easily be proved that science has disproved itself. With all
their dogmatism about the Bible and science, there are few theories that
real scientists are willing to take their stand upon and say: “Here is
ultimate truth; no future discoveries will contradict this.” So long as
they cannot afford to affirm that they have arrived at ultimate truth,
how can they with honor say that science disproves the Bible? Besides,
if the Bible fully agreed with the scientific theories of one age, it
would not agree with the theories of the next age. The Bible is
unchangeable and cannot keep up agreement with that which constantly
changes. Some of the foremost scientists recognize the limitations of
science and are firm believers in the Bible. PREACH THE WORD. No known
truth contradicts the Bible.

But why preach the word? Why did the early Christians preach the word in
the face of such fiery persecution? Why did Paul, then about to be put
to death for preaching the word, urge upon his beloved Timothy a course
of action that was bound to bring suffering? Why do we now sacrifice
that the word may be preached? We notice some reasons why the word
should be preached.

The word of God is the seed of the kingdom. The parable of the sower
sets forth this truth as plainly as language can do so. “The sower
soweth the word.” That parable sets forth the truth that the word of God
is to the spiritual kingdom exactly what seed is to the vegetable
kingdom. The word produces plants in the spiritual kingdom just as seed
produces plants in the vegetable kingdom. If this be not so, then no one
can tell what the Savior meant to teach by this parable.

Life is in the word just as life is in any other seed. If the seed be
not planted, life will not spring up. No matter how well the soil may be
prepared, there will be no life there till the seed be planted. No
matter how much the heart may be prepared by education, culture, sorrow,
or whatever may come, there will be no spiritual life in the heart till
the seed—the word of God—is planted there.

Seed is able under suitable conditions to transform dead elements of the
soil into life. In nature, this is the process of reproduction. Those
who contend for a direct operation of the Spirit in regeneration base
their contention on the fact that the sinner is dead. It is claimed that
dead sinners must be made alive by this direct work of the Spirit before
they can obey the Lord. This is the heart of their contention. Grant
their premise, does their conclusion follow? Is the sinner’s heart any
deader than the soil into which the farmer sows his seed? The farmer
knows that the life inherent in the seed is able to transform dead soil
into a living, growing plant. If the theologians were as wise as the
most ignorant farmer, they would sow the seed, which is the word of God,
knowing that the deadness of the soil—the sinner’s heart—is no barrier
to an abundant harvest. PREACH THE WORD.

There is saving power in the word. An angel said to Cornelius: “Send to
Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto
thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.” (Acts
11:13, 14.) “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of
wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to
save your souls.” (James 1:21.) “I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it
is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” (Rom.
1:16.) Of course, no one thinks there is power in the material of which
the Bible is made. The power that leads men to Christ is the thoughts,
the ideas, the motives, presented in the word of God. There is power in
a thought; and power in a motive. By words men move men, even whole
armies and nations. Men’s thoughts have been powerful enough to
overthrow kingdoms. If we want men to act a certain way, we try to fill
them with thoughts and motives tending to lead them in the direction we
want them to go. We stir up action along certain lines by filling the
people with certain thoughts and motives. In this way we work in people
to induce them to will and do as we think they should. A man lives out
in his life the thoughts he has in his heart. If we can fill people full
of God’s ideas, God’s thoughts, we will induce them to do God’s will. In
this way God works in people to get them to live different lives. This
helps us to understand what Paul says in Phil. 2:13: “For it is God who
worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.”

It is through the mighty power of the word that men are drawn to Christ.
I fear that many preachers will never get forgiveness for the way they
have treated what the Lord says in John 6:44, 45. They so often read
verse 44 and stop for their usual argument on the direct drawing put
forth by the Spirit. Of course, when God draws, he draws by his power.
If they would read both verses, they would defeat their argument made on
verse 44. Is that honest? Is that handling aright the word of truth?
Read both verses: “No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me
draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the
prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard
from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.” (John 6:44, 45.) It
is through God’s word that we hear and learn of the Father; in that way
God’s drawing power is brought to bear upon us. The gospel is God’s
power to save, because it draws men to Christ, who alone can save.

It is not necessary to put in much time following the rambling efforts
of the debater to prove man’s depravity. Some years ago I had a
discussion with Mr. Ben M. Bogard. On the Spirit question, he made the
usual arguments on the depravity deadness of the sinner. In my first
reply I made the statement: “I object to Mr. Bogard’s theory because it
limits the power of God. He has the sinner so dead that God could not
make a gospel that would reach him. I object to a theory that makes God
so helpless.” Mr. Bogard, with more than usual bluster, replied: “It is
not a question of God’s power. God can do anything he wants to. He could
have made a gospel that would reach the dead sinner’s heart, if he had
wanted to do so.” I replied: “The sinner is not so dead, then, as we
have been hearing he was. Even this personal contact for which he
contends would not have been necessary if God had made the right kind of
gospel. So the trouble is not in the deadness of the sinner, but in the
inefficiency of the gospel. But God could have made a better gospel, if
he had wanted to. My contention is that he made the very gospel that Mr.
Bogard says he could have made. Why waste further time discussing the
deadness of the sinner?” Of course, I paid due attention to Mr. Bogard’s
total-depravity notions, but he did not recover from his admission. God
made a gospel that is perfectly adapted to man as he is. PREACH THE
WORD.

Pointed Paragraphs:

If you become a little squeamish about denouncing false teachers, read
Jeremiah. If you think people are so hardened in sin that they hate
you for preaching the word, read Jeremiah. A careful study of Jeremiah
is good tonic for anyone.

Jeremiah has been unjustly called the “weeping prophet,” as if he were
a sort of weakling; whereas there was never a more heroic soul.
Nothing turned him aside from his duty. If he wept, it was because he
loved his nation, and his heart was torn with the knowledge of what
was coming to his people. He would have been cold-blooded had he not
wept.

Part I
QUESTIONS

HAVE ALL PROPHECIES OF OLD TESTAMENT BEEN FULFILLED?

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON OLD TESTAMENT KINGDOM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

THE JEWS AND THEIR KINGDOM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

WILL JEWS RETURN TO JERUSALEM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

PROPHECY OF AMOS 9:13-15

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN

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

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

MATTHEW 16:28 EXPLAINED

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

Matthew 16:28.

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

On the _twelve tribes_ he remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JEWS, THE KINGDOM AND SALVATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the future-kingdom advocates realize they have no certain proof of
their rejection and postponement theory is shown by the fact that they
do not agree on any certain Scripture, nor as to the time of this
supposed rejection and postponement. John R. Rice puts it in the tenth
chapter of Matthew; Scofield, in the eleventh; R. H. Boll, in the
twelfth. John R. Rice says the kingdom at hand was never preached after
the tenth chapter; the offer was then withdrawn. He should have read
what Jesus a year later instructed the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:11.)
In a note on Matt. 11:20-24 Scofield says: “The kingdom of heaven
announced ‘at hand’ by John the Baptist, by the King himself, and by the
twelve, and attended by mighty works, has been _morally_ rejected. The
places chosen for the testing of the nation—Chorazin, Bethsaida,
etc.—having rejected both John and Jesus, the rejected King now speaks
of judgment. The final official rejection is later. (Matt. 27:31-37).”
On verses 28-30 he says: “The new message of Jesus. The rejected King
now turns from the rejecting _nation_ and offers not the _kingdom_, but
_rest_ and _service_ to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It
is a pivotal point in the ministry of Jesus.” R. H. Boll says: “In
chapter twelve the antagonism of the Pharisees, stirred to its height by
his Sabbath healing, came to a terrible climax: they went out and took
counsel against him _how they might destroy him_. (12:14.) This was a
great turning point.” As they find no Scripture which says what they
claim, they depend on assumptions and deductions, and their deductions
do not agree.

A PROPOSITION: The gospel plan of salvation is the scheme of redemption
foretold in promise and prophecy.

SOME QUESTIONS CONSIDERED

A brother has presented to me a few questions for my consideration. The
questions are about matters that are being much agitated these days. The
first question indicates that somebody thinks the Lord refused some
people the privilege of believing, lest he might get more followers on
his hands than he needed for future rulers! But to the questions:

1. “Was there ever a time when God refused any one the privilege to
believe in Christ, as indicated in John 12:39, 40? If so, has he
revealed the purpose thereof?”

The passage mentioned says: “For this cause they could not believe, for
that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened
their heart; lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with
their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.” The quotation is
from Isa. 6:10. In Isaiah’s day the people of Judah had become very
corrupt, and were growing worse. To these people Jehovah said: “Ah
sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers,
children that deal corruptly! they have forsaken Jehovah, they have
despised the Holy One of Israel, they are estranged and gone backward.”
(Isa 1:4.) They had reached the point where they were utterly unfit to
manage their own affairs of government. The great majority were beyond
the hope of reformation. They would not even consider Jehovah, and were
more senseless as to their own good than the ox or the ass. “The ox
knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not
know, my people doth not consider.” (Verse 3.) When people reach that
stage, there is nothing to do but to hasten them on to their doom.
Hence, Jehovah said to Isaiah when he sent him to prophesy to the people
of Judah: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy,
and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.”
(Isa. 6:10.) Isaiah could do this only by his teachings and warnings.
They were so determined in their rebellion that the more Isaiah warned
them, the harder their hearts became. Their sinfulness resulted in the
Babylonian captivity. The Jews had again become so sinful that a worse
calamity was soon to come upon them. The leaders rejected the preaching
of John and dogged the steps of Jesus every move he made. They were so
rebellious that the miracles and teaching of Jesus hardened their hearts
instead of converting them. There was no direct operation on their
hearts to keep them from believing. The things that made believers of
some hardened the hearts of others. The Lord never did keep any honest
heart from believing. The prophecy quoted in John 12:39, 40 is quoted by
the Savior in Matt. 13:14, 15 in such a way as to show that the people
were responsible for their hardness of heart. When people will not
believe the truth, God sends them strong delusions that they may believe
a lie and be damned. (See 2 Thess. 2:8-12.) The reason there are so many
fool notions believed now is because people will not believe the truth.
God will have all men to be saved, but they will not.

2. “Did the crucifixion of Christ depend upon the Jews’ rejection of
him?”

Jesus came at a time when everything was ready for the working out of
God’s plans. “But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his
Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” (Gal. 4:4). God was not
experimenting to see if his plans would work out. He knew what would be
done, and was not bothering his mind as to what he would have to do
about it, if the Jews did not reject and crucify Jesus, for he knew what
they would do. Then why should I worry my mind about it? I cannot
entertain an idea that implies that God did not know enough to know when
to send his Son, or that he did not know what would happen when he did
send him. Why people raise such questions is a puzzle, for no one can do
anything about it, no matter what might or might not have happened.

3. “Did God anticipate their acceptance universally?”

Suppose he did or did not, what can we do about it? People raise
questions that, in various ways, reflect on God. Being the all-wise God,
he knew that the Jews would not all accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Son
of God. Jesus himself said that only a few would find the narrow way.
Paul showed that the prophets taught that only a remnant of Israel would
be saved. (See Rom. 10:16-21; 11:1-10.) But what gives rise to such
questions? It grows out of the new speculation that Jesus came to
establish an earthly kingdom, or rather to restore the kingdom of
Israel, but failed in his purpose because the Jews rejected him. God
knew the Jews would crucify Jesus. (See Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:27.)

4. “If they had, would he have set up an earthly kingdom?”

There is not the least indication that God did not accomplish what he
intended to accomplish by sending his Son into the world, nor that the
kingdom he set up was not what he intended to set up. On the other hand,
there is plenty of evidence that he inaugurated the very system he had
in mind, and which he had foretold through the prophets. To say that his
plans did not work out as he intended is equal to saying that the things
he foretold through the prophets turned out to be false. If it be
replied that the prophets said nothing about what some call “the church
age,” it only shows that some people have read the Scriptures with
little profit. The evidence is abundant that the apostles and other
inspired preachers and writers taught that Christianity, or the gospel
plan of salvation, is exactly what the prophets foretold. On Pentecost,
Peter referred to certain prophecies as fulfilled on that day. Again:
“Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as
many as have spoken, they also told of these days.” (Acts 3:24.) In
preaching the gospel of Christ, Paul said nothing but what the prophets
and Moses did say should come. (Acts 26:22.) Paul also affirms that the
gospel which he preached God had “promised afore through his holy
prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom. 1:2.) But why offer more proof?
The apostles knew what they were talking about, or rather the Holy
Spirit, who spoke through them, knew. Yet the future-kingdom advocates
generally contend that the Old Testament prophecies center in an earthly
kingdom, and say nothing about Christianity as revealed through the
apostles. One writer said: “But the Old Testament knows nothing whatever
of Christianity.” Ponder this question: If God did not set up the
kingdom which they say the prophets foretold, but instead gave them
something the prophets said nothing about, is it any wonder that the
Jews rejected it? The wonder would be that any of them accepted it.

Pointed Paragraphs:

Notice the prayer of Asa; notice other prayers in the Bible. With the
exception of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple and the
prayer of Jesus on the night of his betrayal, all are very short.
Notice the manner in which they addressed Jehovah. No endearing terms
are used, but terms expressive of reverence for the power and majesty
of God. Such expressions as “our dear heavenly Father” are not found
in the Bible. Such expressions should have no place in our prayers
today. Christians need to know how to pray, and a study of the prayers
of the Bible will help us to pray as we ought.

“Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as
touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:19.) Here it is supposed that they
agree on what to ask for before they pray. Would it not be a good
thing for a group of worshippers to know what they are going to pray
for, rather than for someone to lead out in a long, rambling prayer
that is supposed to be appropriate to all occasions, and is,
therefore, never appropriate to any occasion? Delivering an oration to
the Lord, under pretense of praying, is not praying at all.

THE OLIVE TREE FIGURE OF ROM. 11

I wish you would give an explanation of Rom. 11. The part that I am
the most interested in is the figure of the olive tree. Is there
anything in this chapter, or in any other, that teaches that the Jews
as a nation will ever accept Christ?—Oklahoma.

We cannot at present give space to a discussion of the entire chapter.
The verses containing the olive-tree illustration read as follows:

But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them
of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the
branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that barest the root,
but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that
I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off,
and thou standest by thy faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if
God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee.
Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell,
severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his
goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. And they also, if they
continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able
to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by
nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural
branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:17-24.)

Care should be used in dealing with another man’s illustrations and
figures of speech. The language quoted is an illustration of God’s
dealings with Jews and Gentiles. Because of unbelief the Jews had been
severed from God’s favor; by faith the Gentiles had been brought into
union with God. Neither Jew nor Gentile has any special favors from God;
the standing of each depends on their faith. That is the point Paul is
making, and to make his illustration do service beyond the point
illustrated is to do violence to his language.

But what is the olive tree? It is God’s favor. Read the connection. The
Hebrews had been in God’s favor all along till they were broken off
because of unbelief. Their fall, mentioned in verse 12, is the same
thing as this cutting off. But now, to both Jews and Gentiles alike,
God’s favor is manifested in Christ, and may be obtained by faith in
him.

No people as a nation will or can accept Christ. Any people as a nation
must act as an organized government; those in authority determine what
shall be done. But no constituted authorities can decide that the nation
shall accept Christ; that is an individual matter. But even if a nation
could through its proper authorities accept Christ, the Jews could not
do so, for they have no one with authority to speak for the whole people
on anything.

It is hard for some to see that God totally and finally rejected and
destroyed the Jewish nation, but did not irrevocably reject the Jews.
Paul gives himself as an example that God had not irrevocably cast off
the Jewish people. That he referred to himself as an example shows that
he had in mind the Jews as individuals and not as a nation. His case
shows that the door of salvation had not been closed against the
individual Jew. And his olive-tree illustration shows that he was
speaking of the individual Jew and not of the nation. Both Jews and
Gentiles were grafted into the same olive tree, and both by the same
process. Paul’s conclusion—“and so all Israel shall be saved”—has been
greatly perverted. The future-kingdom folks put the emphasis on _all
Israel_; Paul put the emphasis on _so_. _So_ is an adverb of manner. He
had been showing how the Jews might be saved, and not that the nation
would be restored. He had shown that Gentiles were grafted in by
faith—saved by faith in Christ. “And so”—in like manner—shall all Israel
be saved. Peter had made the same point before the Jerusalem brethren:
“But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord
Jesus, in like manner as they.” (Acts 15:11.)

How many Jews may yet be converted to Christ, no one knows; but those
who are converted to Christ will be in the one body with all converted
Gentiles, “where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and
uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is
all, and in all.” (Col. 3:11.)

Pointed Paragraphs:

Much is said about preaching the truth in love, and so it should be
preached. But in love of what? The preacher should so love the truth
that he will not sacrifice any of it nor pervert it, and he should so
love people that he will not withhold from them even an unpleasant
truth. He that does either of these things loves neither the truth nor
the people. We frequently fool ourselves; we think we do thus and so
to spare the feelings of others, when it is our own feelings that
prompt us. “Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season;
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”

ENDS OF THE AGES

What does Paul mean in the expression, “Upon whom the ends of the ages
are come”?—

The dispensations are referred to as ages. There have been the
Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age, and also we now have the Christian
age. The ends, or aims, of both the Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age
looked forward to the Christian age. Christianity is the end of the
ages—it is the last. Yet the future-kingdom advocates would have us
believe that Paul was mistaken; that Christianity is not the end of the
ages, but there will be at least two more ages. But Paul, being
inspired, was right, and Christianity is the end of the ages. And that
settles the future-kingdom claims. This is the ends of the ages.

Pointed Paragraphs:

“Here am I; send me.” To know the Lord and to realize our dependence
upon him makes us willing, even anxious, to do whatever he wants us to
do. There is something fearfully wrong with the heart of one who
inquires concerning any duty. Will it pay? Is it pleasant work? Will I
be thrown with the right sort of people? Will it enhance my
reputation? Is the work below my dignity? The true servant of the
Lord, like Isaiah, says: “Here am I; send me.” Like his Lord he can
say, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish
his work.” (John 4:34.) “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy
law is within my heart.” (Ps. 40:8.)

THE FOUR BEASTS

Will you please give a scriptural answer as to who or what the four
beasts refer in Rev. 4:6-9? Or give your idea as to what is meant by the
four beasts.—Lee Chumbley.

The Scriptures do not tell us who or what the four beasts represent.
Instead of _beasts_ the American Standard Version has _living
creatures_. It could as well be translated _living beings_ or _living
ones_. But that does not tell us who or what they represent. If the
querist will read on through the sixth chapter, he will find some of the
things these living beings did. For one thing he will find that they had
the power of speech. But the person who tells who or what they represent
tells that which he does not know to be true. Brother Chumbley can find
preachers who will tell him, and he will also find that they do not
agree.

Pointed Paragraphs:

A tragedy, to have any unity of action when played on the stage, must
be planned and written by one person—at least under the direction of
one person. Imagine, if you can, a play written by several men,
neither of whom knew what the other was writing, or that he was
writing at all. Yet the tragedy of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus
was so written by the prophets. And then the play—none of the actors
in the drama, save Jesus, knew that the part he was playing had been
written, yet each played his part according to the record. God knew
what would be done, and had the prophets to write it down.

POINTS IN REVELATION 12

A letter of some length from a good sister, Mrs. L. E. Jones, tells
about some things that came up in a class of which she is a member. The
teacher holds to the future-kingdom theory. The class is going through
the book of Revelation. The letter mentions several things that came up
in their study of Chapter 12, and from the letter I glean the following
questions:

1. Is the accuser of verse 10 the devil? Is it because of this accuser
that Christ intercedes for us? It was so stated by a member of the
class, who also said that as God was not human, he did not know what
Christ suffered. Is that true?

2. Our teacher said that God was protecting and keeping the Jews, and
that he had something special in store for them (something nice). I
want you to answer in the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient.

3. Does the woman of verses 1-6, 13-17 represent the Jews? That was
our teacher’s idea.

1. From what is said in the context it seems clear that the devil was
before God as the accuser of the brethren; but as he was cast down from
heaven to the earth, how can anyone figure out that he is now before God
accusing the brethren? He is, however, doing all he can to lead them
into sin. Hence, the admonition: “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary
the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may
devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8.) He is busying himself here on earth now. Jesus is
our advocate with the Father, but I would not think he was before God
engaged in a talk contest with the devil.

2. As God is no respecter of persons, how can any believer in Christ
argue that a Jew, because he is a Jew, is yet to enjoy blessings that a
Gentile cannot hope to receive, no matter how faithful he is, simply
because he is not a Jew. The theory contradicts the fundamental
principles of the gospel. Those who hold to that theory judge after the
flesh—a thing Jesus condemned. (John 8:15.) The theory encourages the
Jew to glory in his fleshly descent from Abraham—to glory after the
flesh. Such glorying Paul said was foolishness. (2 Cor. 11:17, 18.) It
teaches the Jew to have confidence in the flesh, his Jewish flesh. Paul
had no such confidence; to him such relationship was but refuse. Or, as
the King James Version has it, he counted such dependence on Jewish
flesh as but dung. (Phil. 3:2-8.) Such is your teacher’s theory. Christ
died for all. (2 Cor. 5:15.) Now notice the next verse (verse 16):
“Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh.” Notice the force
of the word _henceforth_—from now on. Yes, the Jews are still in the
world; so are the Japanese and Chinamen. So what does that prove? The
person who assumes to know what God knows or does not know is about like
a worm assuming to know what Solomon knew and did not know.

3. Any theory about the woman of chapter 12 is merely a guess, for the
record does not say who she was. Some commentators, perhaps the majority
of them, say she was the church, the dragon was the Roman Empire, and
the child was Constantine. I do not know. But if the woman was the
Jewish nation and the child was Jesus, then she was a very unnatural
mother, for she killed her child! But that leaves the dragon out of the
picture, and leaves us wondering about verse 6.

Pointed Paragraphs:

CREATING A DEMAND

Sometime ago a Christian man asked a gospel preacher: “Why do we not
have great gospel sermons like those we used to hear?” The reply was:
“There is no demand for them.” Do that question and answer reveal
conditions as they are? Have we reached the point where preaching is
trimmed down to fit the demands of the times? Is preaching thus
reduced to a matter of trade?

Some factories make only those articles that are in demand. But
occasionally an article is offered for sale for which there had been
no demand, but the makers of such articles proceed to create a demand.
They do extensive advertising; they extol the uses and virtues of
their article till people want it. And cannot we in the same way
create a demand for the pure gospel in communities where there is no
demand? We cannot do it by dealing in religious soup. There is a
demand for the unadulterated gospel, for great gospel sermons; but the
demand is not as extensive nor as intensive as it should be. Even in
some churches of Christ there is not as strong demand for gospel
sermons as there should be. When an elder can say, as some of them
have said, “So far as I am concerned, I do not care whether our
preacher can preach or not,” it is time we were waking up.

QUESTIONS ON REVELATION 20.

E. B. Taylor asks seven or eight questions on the twentieth chapter of
Revelation. To give answer to all these questions would require an
exegesis of the chapter. For me that is impossible. The chapter abounds
in figures of speech. Many have read into that chapter things that are
not in it. They also make some of it figurative and the rest literal, as
the needs of their theory require. With them a day in some of the
prophecies is a year, but they take the thousand years as literal. Yet
they will not say that the devil is a real snake, nor that the chain is
a literal chain, nor that the beast is a real four-footed animal. Here
are some of the things in this chapter that I do not know: Who the angel
is, what the key is, the great chain, why the devil is called a snake,
what the binding means, the thousand years, when the thousand years end,
the abyss and how it was sealed, length of the “little time,” who sat on
thrones, what judgment was given them, the extent of that judgment, what
the beast is, the image, mark of the beast, the war of verse 8, Gog and
Magog, the camp of the saints, how devoured by fire, the lake, the beast
of verse 10, who the false prophet is, nor how there can be day and
night in eternity. Yet the chapter makes some plain statements.

We may not know who the martyrs are, yet it is affirmed of them, and of
no one else, that “they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand
years.” When or where this reigning is, was, or is to be, is not stated.
But it is stated in verse 6 that those who have part in the first
resurrection “shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign
with him a thousand years.” Hence, they are to be priests and to reign
at the same time—a royal priesthood. It is plain that they were to reign
while they were priests, but Christians are priests now. Leaving out _to
be_, words supplied by the translator, Revelations 1:6 reads thus: “He
made us a kingdom, priests unto his God and Father.” Being kings and
priests, Christians are a royal priesthood. (See 1 Pet. 2:9.)

In 20:12, John saw the dead standing before the throne. _The dead_, not
a part of the dead. This is in perfect harmony with the Savior’s
description of the judgment in Matt. 25:31-46. It is argued by some that
this is a judgment of nations—kingdoms—instead of individuals. But
nations in the Greek is neuter; but the pronoun _them_ in verse 32 is
masculine, and, therefore, refers to people, and not to nations as such.
At the judgment, therefore, all—the small and the great—will stand
before the throne. This is also made clear in 2 Thess. 1:7-10. There it
is declared that Jesus will take vengeance on the wicked “when he shall
come to be glorified in his saints.” And the last verse in the twentieth
chapter of Revelations shows that some will be at that judgment, whose
names are written in the book of life.

SEVERAL QUESTIONS

1. Do you believe in the “secret rapture” theory?

2. Will there be any life on the earth during the millennium period?

1. The word _rapture_ is from a Latin word that means “to carry off by
force.” By some strange aberration some religious folks applied that
term to the Lord’s taking saints from the earth, as if they will have to
be forced to go or somebody or power will have to be forced to let them
go—a sort of seizing and carrying away. But I could not believe in the
“secret rapture” unless I had some evidence. That evidence is lacking.

2. I have found no evidence that there is to be a thousand-year period
in which there will be no life on the earth. There is evidence, however,
that there will be life on the earth so long as the earth continues.
“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and
summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22.) A
careful reading of 2 Pet. 3:1-14 will show that so long as the earth
remaineth Christians are exhorted to be “looking for and earnestly
desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens
being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat.” Any student can find other evidence to the same import.

But suppose one believes the affirmative of both these questions, what
is practical about such belief? If you hold to a notion that helps
neither your faith nor your practice, why waste time with it? Why
disturb others with it?

Pointed Paragraphs:

Jesus came to save sinners, not to make sinners. People were sinners
before Jesus came, and they would have continued to be sinners had not
Jesus come. If people do not believe in him, they continue sinning
just as they would have done had he not come.

Though Jesus was moved with compassion at the sight of human
suffering, his miracles of healing were not performed primarily to
relieve suffering. If that were so, he would cure all sick folks even
now, or cause that no one would ever be afflicted in any way. His
miracles were performed as signs that God was with him.

Jesus put a higher value on man than on animals. “How much then is a
man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on
the sabbath day.” (Matt. 12:12.) There is something of vast worth in
man, else God would not have been mindful of him.

Part II
DISCUSSIONS

PREDICTION OR PROPHECY

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

PROPHECY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHALL WE LOOK FOR A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF ALL PROPHECY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

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

ABRAHAM AND THE LAND PROMISE

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

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

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

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

It is urged by some that God promised the land to Abraham as an
individual, yet Stephen says that God “gave him none inheritance in it,
no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:5). It is affirmed that
this promise must yet be fulfilled; yet Abraham had all the grazing
rights he needed. The land therefore was his to use. But the future
kingdom advocates overlook another statement Stephen made: After
mentioning Israel’s going down into Egypt, Stephen said, “But as the
time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the
people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” (verse 17). This was the land
promise which God made to Abraham—“God vouchsafed unto Abraham.” The
time for the fulfilling of that promise to Abraham had drawn nigh. The
language cannot be twisted to mean anything else: So the Lord led Israel
out of the land of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. Was this land
promise which was “vouchsafed to Abraham,” and which had drawn nigh
fulfilled? Joshua answers that question. “So Jehovah gave unto Israel
all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they
possessed it, dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of any good thing
which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.”
(Josh. 21:43-45). In his farewell address Joshua said, “And, behold,
this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your
hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the
good things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to
pass unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14).
Language could not be plainer; or more emphatic. And a man who will not
believe what Joshua says will not believe anything he does not want to
believe.

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

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

THE TIME OF PROMISE

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

At the proper time Moses was sent to lead Israel out of Egypt. In giving
instructions concerning the passover, Moses said, “And it shall come to
pass, when ye are come to the land which Jehovah will give you,
according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.” (Ex.
12:25.) Hence when they should come into their possessions in Canaan,
that was exactly what God had promised. Again Moses refers to Canaan as
the land which Jehovah “sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” (Ex.
13:5.) This same promise is referred to many times in Deuteronomy. A few
of the many passages: (6:3, 10, 18, 23; 8:1; 31:20.) These passages
teach plainly that the possession of the land of Canaan by Israel would
be the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob. Joshua so understood it; for when the tribes of Israel came into
possession of the territories allotted them, he said, “And behold this
day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts
and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good
things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you: all are come to pass
unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof. And it shall come to pass,
that as all the good things are come upon you of which Jehovah your God
spake unto you, so will Jehovah bring upon you all the evil things,
until he have destroyed you from off this good land which Jehovah your
God hath given you.” (Josh. 23:14, 15.)

REBELLION OF ISRAEL—A KINGDOM BORN.

When Jehovah led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, he said to
them, “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on
eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will
obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own
possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:4-6.)
Of course, God, in a general way, ruled over all the works of his hands,
but in a special sense he ruled over the nation of Israel. For a long
time Jehovah was their only king. In emergencies he raised up judges to
deliver them from their enemies. But in the course of time they became
dissatisfied with that sort of thing. Their sins brought them into
trouble, and they thought that it was the efficiency of the governments
surrounding them.

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to
Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy
sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the
nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king
to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto
Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto
thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I
should not be king over them.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7.) Nevertheless, Jehovah
told Samuel to inform the people fully as to how the king which they
desired would oppress them, and Samuel did so. “But the people refused
to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will
have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that
our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.”
(Verses 19, 20.) Saul was selected as king, though some were not pleased
with the selection.

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

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

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

NEITHER—NOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

FUTURE KINGDOM DOCTRINE—REFLECTS ON INTEGRITY OF GOD

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

The Theory Reflects on the Integrity of God.

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND CHRISTIANITY

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

THE FUTURE-KINGDOM PERVERSIONS AND DISLOCATIONS OF PROPHECY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

YOUR FAITH AND YOUR CONFESSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

THE CHRIST OF THE FUTURE-KINGDOM ADVOCATES

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

IS SALVATION NOW OFFERED TO ALL?

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

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

THE COMING OF THE LORD

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

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

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

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

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

Pointed Paragraphs:

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

THE “TWO STAGES” THEORY EXAMINED

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

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

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

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

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy" ***

Home