{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64683/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64683","id":"gutenberg_64683","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64683","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Prophecies","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"The Kingdom\n Of\n Promise\n And\n Prophecy\n\n\n By\n ROBERTSON L. WHITESIDE\n\n\n 1956\n\n\n Published By\n Miss Inys Whiteside\n Denton, Texas\n\n Copyright 1956, by\n Miss Inys Whiteside, Denton, Texas\n _Printed in the United States of America_\n\n Printed and Bound By\n _THE MANNEY COMPANY_\n _1041 Isbell Road_ _Fort Worth 14, Texas_\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n Preach the Word 7\n\n\n Part I\u2014Questions\n Have All Prophecies of Old Testament Been Fulfilled? 21\n Information On Old Testament Kingdom 23\n Promise to Abraham 25\n Jews and Their Kingdom 27\n Will Jews Return to Jerusalem? 32\n Prophecy of Amos 9:13-15 41\n Matthew 16:28 Explained 43\n Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Corinthians 6:2 46\n The Jews, The Kingdom and Salvation 51\n Some Questions Considered 54\n The Olive Tree Figure of Romans 11 59\n Ends of The Ages 62\n The Four Beasts 63\n Points in Revelation 12 64\n Questions on Revelation 20 67\n Several Questions 69\n\n\n Part II\u2014Discussions\n Prediction or Prophecy 73\n Prophecy 75\n Shall We Look for a Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy? 79\n Abraham and the Land Promise 84\n The Time of Promise 88\n Rebellion of Israel\u2014A Kingdom Born 91\n \u201cNeither ... Nor\u201d 94\n Future Kingdom Doctrine Reflects on Integrity Of God 100\n The Old Testament Prophets and Christianity 102\n Future-Kingdom Perversions and Dislocations Of Prophecy 106\n Your Faith and Your Confession 116\n The Christ of The Future-Kingdom Advocates 119\n Is Salvation Now Offered to All? 120\n The Coming of the Lord 122\n The \u201cTwo Stages\u201d Theory Examined 126\n Hope of The Lord\u2019s Coming 130\n Paul to the Thessalonians on the Lord\u2019s Return 134\n Resurrection From the Dead 139\n Theory of Two Resurrections Considered 143\n Church Ages 147\n Philadelphia and The Hour of Trial 149\n Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s Dream 155\n Milligan on Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s Dream 160\n A Leading Doctrine of This Current Reformation 163\n Is the Church the Kingdom? 166\n This Government and Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses 168\n The New Testament Word Flesh 173\n Future-Kingdom Doctrines 177\n A Proposition and Its Proof 187\n\n\n\n\n PUBLISHER\u2019S PREFACE\n\n\nIn editing and arranging the writings contained in this book, I used\nsome lifted from religious journals and some that was still in\nmanuscript form. For their courtesy extended to me in allowing me to\nlift from their papers the writings of my late father, Robertson L.\nWhiteside, for publication in books, I wish to express my deepest\ngratitude to the present managements of the: GOSPEL ADVOCATE, GOSPEL\nGUARDIAN, and FIRM FOUNDATION.\n\nTo the many who have encouraged me in this effort, thanks. Your comments\nhave been a source of great joy and inspiration.\n\nIt is my hope that this \u201cKingdom of Promise and Prophecy\u201d will, along\nwith the \u201cCommentary on Paul\u2019s Letter to the Saints at Rome\u201d and\n\u201cDoctrinal Discourses,\u201d fill the present need for sound and careful\nBible teaching. To these will be added, as soon as time will permit, a\ncompilation of questions and answers for which I have had many requests.\n\n INYS WHITESIDE\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\nRobertson L. Whiteside was a native of Hickman county, Tennessee, born\nDecember 27, 1869, died at his home in Denton, Texas\u2014where he had lived\nmore than forty years\u2014January 5, 1951. Early in his life (17 years of\nage), he dedicated himself to the Lord\u2019s service. He was student,\neducator, and preacher and was ever on the firing lines in the fight\nagainst innovations and error. The Bible was his standard of faith and\npractice. With him, \u201cto live was Christ.\u201d Like Jeremiah of old (a\ncharacter he so loved and admired), there was a burning fire in his\nheart he could not contain.\n\nI might write a conventional biography as introduction to this book;\nhowever, it seems to me that the following lesson from his pen is more\nrevealing of the purpose of the life that he lived.\n\n\n\n\n PREACH THE WORD\n\n\n\u201cI charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge\nthe living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach\nthe word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort,\nwith all long-suffering and teaching. For the time will come when they\nwill not endure sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to\nthemselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears\nfrom the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all\nthings, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy\nministry.\u201d (2 Tim. 4:1-5.)\n\nAn old theme, do you say? What about it is old? God, Christ, truth, sin,\nsalvation, duty, destiny\u2014these never grow old. There is something wrong\nwith one who thinks any Bible theme is old or out of date. If there were\na cure for all fleshly ailments, would it ever be \u201cout of date\u201d? Would\nany sufferer say of it, \u201cO, that is too old for this progressive age\u201d?\nBut there is no such cure known to man.\n\nBut man has a nature more important and enduring than his flesh, and\nailments more far reaching in their results than any fleshly ills. And\nthe gospel of Christ is a sure cure for all spiritual and moral ills. As\nlong as there are moral evils to be corrected, sins to be forgiven,\nsinners to be saved, and downtrodden and discouraged to be inspirited,\nsorrowing hearts to be comforted, just that long will the gospel be\nfresh and \u201cup to date.\u201d And what else is up to date?\n\nWe have made great advancement in material things, but these do not meet\nthe needs of the soul. Science has made great strides in material\nthings, but it has no remedy for sin and crime. In fact, it has put\nforces into the hands of the world that the world does not know what to\ndo with. In truth, I think it can be safely said that science has made\ncrime more plentiful and daring, and has enabled the criminal to escape\na hundredfold more easily. I am not unmindful of the comforts science\nhas brought to those who know how to use them; it has also done wonders\nin combating disease. But it has put powers in the hands of man that he\ndoes not know how to handle. Even now scientists are seeking ways and\nmeans to destroy whole cities with one blast. Science has just about\nperfected means by which civilization will destroy itself in the next\ngreat war. It cannot cure one moral evil, nor generate one spiritual\nforce for the world\u2019s regeneration. And when a scientist tries to become\na philosopher, he becomes a great injury to the world; for he usually\nleaves God out of any scheme of philosophy that he tries to construct.\nAnd psychology and sociology, or any of the moral philosophies, are\nequally helpless. Jesus is the Great Physician, and the gospel is his\nremedy, his only remedy, for the evils that afflict the world.\n\nNothing is up to date that does not meet the needs of the times. Many\nthings are up to date in meeting our material needs, but nothing that\nman has ever thought out or planned is up to date in a moral and\nspiritual sense. Along these lines man\u2019s theories are out of date before\nthey are announced. The most advanced person in the world along moral\nand spiritual lines is the one who adheres most closely to the word of\nGod and relies most firmly upon it as the one and only remedy for sin\nand crime. And the man who says that such a man is behind the times is\nhimself so far behind that he does not know that any one has gone on\nbefore! The one who faithfully preaches the word is far in advance of\nhim who preaches something else. And yet the majority of the people have\nnever wanted the plain truth told. They prefer things that please.\n\nBecause some professed Christians would not want the pure word of God\npreached is one of the reasons assigned by Paul as to why the word of\nGod should be preached the more diligently. \u201cPreach the word.... For the\ntime will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.\u201d At first\nthought it might seem that this statement was true in Paul\u2019s day; for\ndid they not persecute and kill preachers then? But Paul was not here\nspeaking of outsiders. He had in mind the time when professed Christians\nwould not endure sound doctrine. Growing tired of the gospel they would\nlong for something else. \u201cHaving itching ears,\u201d they \u201cwill heap to\nthemselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears\nfrom the truth, and turn aside unto fables.\u201d It is plain that he was\ntalking about people who would accept the truth, but later become tired\nof it, and would employ preachers that would tickle their itching ears.\nIt is a dark picture, but it is not a new picture.\n\nAfter God\u2019s people came out of Egypt, they frequently drifted into the\ncondition Paul here mentions. Read the historical books of the Old\nTestament and also the testimony of the prophets, and you will find that\nGod\u2019s people never remained true to him very long at a time. Against\nthem Jeremiah testifies: \u201cFor my people have committed two evils: they\nhave forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed them out\ncisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.\u201d (Jer. 2:13.) They\nhad turned from the fountain of living waters as spoken to them by God\u2019s\nprophets, and had procured for themselves false prophets. And that was\ntheir folly and their sin. Isaiah delivers a terrific rebuke: \u201cThe ox\nknoweth his owner, and the ass his master\u2019s crib: but Israel doth not\nknow, my people doth not consider.\u201d (Isa. 1:3.) They did not know as\nmuch about where safety and food could be found as did the ox or the\nass.\n\nIs there not a need now for straight gospel preaching? Of course, a\npreacher should be a Christian gentleman at all times, but he should not\nbecome too polished to preach the unadulterated word of God. He may\nsuffer for it, but what of that? And some misguided souls may say that\nplain preaching keeps people away and injures the standing of the\nchurch, but the faithful preacher knows that that makes it the more\nbinding upon him to preach the gospel straight. Because Jeremiah spoke\nthe word of God faithfully, the people said: \u201cThis man seeketh not the\nwelfare of this people, but the hurt.\u201d (Jer. 38:4.) And yet he was the\nbest friend the people had. But they wanted smooth things spoken to\nthem. They wanted him to tell them that no evil would come upon them. It\nappears that Jeremiah at times grew weary, and felt as if he might as\nwell give up the strife, but he could not quit. \u201cI am become a\nlaughing-stock all the day, every one mocketh me. For as often as I\nspeak, I cry out; I cry, Violence and destruction! because the word of\nJehovah is made a reproach unto me, and a derision, all the day. And if\nI say, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name,\nthen there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones,\nand I am weary with forbearing, and I cannot contain.\u201d (Jer. 20:7-9.)\nJeremiah loved his people, and could not be quiet as he beheld them\nplunging into ruin. A more heroic figure than Jeremiah does not grace\nthe pages of Old Testament history.\n\nThese are perilous times. Man\u2019s schemes have broken down and the world\nis in chaos. Human wisdom has come up against a blank wall, beyond which\nman cannot see. The people are saying to their erstwhile leaders, \u201cCry\u201d;\nand the leaders call back, \u201cWhat shall we cry?\u201d We have left God out of\nour scheme of things. We have dabbled in this monkey business till\nconditions have made monkeys out of our wisest men. But there is balm,\nthere is healing, there is a physician. Preach the word.\n\nWe want to convert sinners and edify saints, but there is danger that we\nput the main emphasis on the wrong things. We may become so busy as\nherdboys that we forget to feed the sheep. We may become so absorbed in\nkeeping the young folks interested that we forget to fill them with the\nword of God. We may become so engaged in building fine meeting houses,\nthat we forget to build fine Christian characters.\n\nIt is a fine thing for a church to have a house suited to its needs, but\na house is not one of the essentials. The early Christians owned no\nmeetinghouses, but they made the gospel ring throughout the land. It is\na sin for brethren to burden themselves with a church-house debt that\nrequires all their energies and resources to meet. Some churches have so\nburdened themselves with debt that they have ceased any worthwhile\neffort to preach the word. It is feared that pride contributed much to\ntheir present humiliation. Some of these monuments to pride or mistaken\nzeal will never be paid out, and the church will be discouraged and\nweakened, and all because they forgot that their main mission was to\nconvert sinners and edify saints. In trying to \u201cput things over\u201d they\nhave gone under. PREACH THE WORD.\n\nDo not worry about science. It has its legitimate field, and in its\nfield it has done wonderful things. We reap its benefits and are glad.\nThe average preacher knows little about science, and the average\nscientist knows less about the Bible. The claim that science and the\nBible do not agree should disturb no one. What is called \u201cscience\u201d is\nnot static. Each generation brings new light; most of the old theories\nhave been exploded by scientists themselves. Yet each generation of\nscientists boldly announces that science has disproved the Bible. But it\ncan as easily be proved that science has disproved itself. With all\ntheir dogmatism about the Bible and science, there are few theories that\nreal scientists are willing to take their stand upon and say: \u201cHere is\nultimate truth; no future discoveries will contradict this.\u201d So long as\nthey cannot afford to affirm that they have arrived at ultimate truth,\nhow can they with honor say that science disproves the Bible? Besides,\nif the Bible fully agreed with the scientific theories of one age, it\nwould not agree with the theories of the next age. The Bible is\nunchangeable and cannot keep up agreement with that which constantly\nchanges. Some of the foremost scientists recognize the limitations of\nscience and are firm believers in the Bible. PREACH THE WORD. No known\ntruth contradicts the Bible.\n\nBut why preach the word? Why did the early Christians preach the word in\nthe face of such fiery persecution? Why did Paul, then about to be put\nto death for preaching the word, urge upon his beloved Timothy a course\nof action that was bound to bring suffering? Why do we now sacrifice\nthat the word may be preached? We notice some reasons why the word\nshould be preached.\n\nThe word of God is the seed of the kingdom. The parable of the sower\nsets forth this truth as plainly as language can do so. \u201cThe sower\nsoweth the word.\u201d That parable sets forth the truth that the word of God\nis to the spiritual kingdom exactly what seed is to the vegetable\nkingdom. The word produces plants in the spiritual kingdom just as seed\nproduces plants in the vegetable kingdom. If this be not so, then no one\ncan tell what the Savior meant to teach by this parable.\n\nLife is in the word just as life is in any other seed. If the seed be\nnot planted, life will not spring up. No matter how well the soil may be\nprepared, there will be no life there till the seed be planted. No\nmatter how much the heart may be prepared by education, culture, sorrow,\nor whatever may come, there will be no spiritual life in the heart till\nthe seed\u2014the word of God\u2014is planted there.\n\nSeed is able under suitable conditions to transform dead elements of the\nsoil into life. In nature, this is the process of reproduction. Those\nwho contend for a direct operation of the Spirit in regeneration base\ntheir contention on the fact that the sinner is dead. It is claimed that\ndead sinners must be made alive by this direct work of the Spirit before\nthey can obey the Lord. This is the heart of their contention. Grant\ntheir premise, does their conclusion follow? Is the sinner\u2019s heart any\ndeader than the soil into which the farmer sows his seed? The farmer\nknows that the life inherent in the seed is able to transform dead soil\ninto a living, growing plant. If the theologians were as wise as the\nmost ignorant farmer, they would sow the seed, which is the word of God,\nknowing that the deadness of the soil\u2014the sinner\u2019s heart\u2014is no barrier\nto an abundant harvest. PREACH THE WORD.\n\nThere is saving power in the word. An angel said to Cornelius: \u201cSend to\nJoppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto\nthee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.\u201d (Acts\n11:13, 14.) \u201cWherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of\nwickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to\nsave your souls.\u201d (James 1:21.) \u201cI am not ashamed of the gospel: for it\nis the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.\u201d (Rom.\n1:16.) Of course, no one thinks there is power in the material of which\nthe Bible is made. The power that leads men to Christ is the thoughts,\nthe ideas, the motives, presented in the word of God. There is power in\na thought; and power in a motive. By words men move men, even whole\narmies and nations. Men\u2019s thoughts have been powerful enough to\noverthrow kingdoms. If we want men to act a certain way, we try to fill\nthem with thoughts and motives tending to lead them in the direction we\nwant them to go. We stir up action along certain lines by filling the\npeople with certain thoughts and motives. In this way we work in people\nto induce them to will and do as we think they should. A man lives out\nin his life the thoughts he has in his heart. If we can fill people full\nof God\u2019s ideas, God\u2019s thoughts, we will induce them to do God\u2019s will. In\nthis way God works in people to get them to live different lives. This\nhelps us to understand what Paul says in Phil. 2:13: \u201cFor it is God who\nworketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.\u201d\n\nIt is through the mighty power of the word that men are drawn to Christ.\nI fear that many preachers will never get forgiveness for the way they\nhave treated what the Lord says in John 6:44, 45. They so often read\nverse 44 and stop for their usual argument on the direct drawing put\nforth by the Spirit. Of course, when God draws, he draws by his power.\nIf they would read both verses, they would defeat their argument made on\nverse 44. Is that honest? Is that handling aright the word of truth?\nRead both verses: \u201cNo man can come to me, except the Father that sent me\ndraw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the\nprophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard\nfrom the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.\u201d (John 6:44, 45.) It\nis through God\u2019s word that we hear and learn of the Father; in that way\nGod\u2019s drawing power is brought to bear upon us. The gospel is God\u2019s\npower to save, because it draws men to Christ, who alone can save.\n\nIt is not necessary to put in much time following the rambling efforts\nof the debater to prove man\u2019s depravity. Some years ago I had a\ndiscussion with Mr. Ben M. Bogard. On the Spirit question, he made the\nusual arguments on the depravity deadness of the sinner. In my first\nreply I made the statement: \u201cI object to Mr. Bogard\u2019s theory because it\nlimits the power of God. He has the sinner so dead that God could not\nmake a gospel that would reach him. I object to a theory that makes God\nso helpless.\u201d Mr. Bogard, with more than usual bluster, replied: \u201cIt is\nnot a question of God\u2019s power. God can do anything he wants to. He could\nhave made a gospel that would reach the dead sinner\u2019s heart, if he had\nwanted to do so.\u201d I replied: \u201cThe sinner is not so dead, then, as we\nhave been hearing he was. Even this personal contact for which he\ncontends would not have been necessary if God had made the right kind of\ngospel. So the trouble is not in the deadness of the sinner, but in the\ninefficiency of the gospel. But God could have made a better gospel, if\nhe had wanted to. My contention is that he made the very gospel that Mr.\nBogard says he could have made. Why waste further time discussing the\ndeadness of the sinner?\u201d Of course, I paid due attention to Mr. Bogard\u2019s\ntotal-depravity notions, but he did not recover from his admission. God\nmade a gospel that is perfectly adapted to man as he is. PREACH THE\nWORD.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n If you become a little squeamish about denouncing false teachers, read\n Jeremiah. If you think people are so hardened in sin that they hate\n you for preaching the word, read Jeremiah. A careful study of Jeremiah\n is good tonic for anyone.\n\n Jeremiah has been unjustly called the \u201cweeping prophet,\u201d as if he were\n a sort of weakling; whereas there was never a more heroic soul.\n Nothing turned him aside from his duty. If he wept, it was because he\n loved his nation, and his heart was torn with the knowledge of what\n was coming to his people. He would have been cold-blooded had he not\n wept.\n\n\n\n\n Part I\n QUESTIONS\n\n\n\n\n HAVE ALL PROPHECIES OF OLD TESTAMENT BEEN FULFILLED?\n\n\n1. Have all the prophecies of the Old Testament been fulfilled?\u2014Beaumont\n\nAnd I might ask: When is a prophecy fulfilled? Some prophecies are\nfulfilled in a simple act, or event. The prophecies concerning the birth\nof Christ were fulfilled when he was born, and the prophecies concerning\nhis death were fulfilled when he was crucified. Other prophecies\nconcerning single events will occur to the reader. But some prophecies\nspoke of conditions that were to prevail over a long period of time.\nStudy the prophecies concerning Babylon and Tyre. (Isa. 13:17-22; Jer.\n51:60-62; Ezek. 26:7-14.) These cities were destroyed, as foretold; but\nthey were to remain in desolation forever. That part of the prophecy is\nstill being fulfilled. Certain prophecies concerning Christ, which began\nto be fulfilled on the first Pentecost after his resurrection, will go\non being fulfilled as long as time shall last. He was to establish a\nkingdom; that prophecy has been fulfilled. But the prophecy further\nsays: \u201cOf the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no\nend, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it,\nand to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth\neven for ever.\u201d (Isa. 9:7.) This prophecy began to be fulfilled when\nJesus took his seat upon David\u2019s throne and established his kingdom. But\nthe prophecy says he was to reign upon that throne forever. That\nprophecy covers the whole period of time, from the time Jesus began to\nreign till he surrenders up the kingdom to his Father. And he is still\nsaving the people, as the prophets foretold that he would.\n\nBut the prophecies concerning the Jews that the future-kingdom folks\nharp on so much have been fulfilled.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n One fact is made to stand out clearly in the New Testament\u2014namely,\n that the Law of Moses, with all its legal enactments, all its forms,\n ceremonies, and penalties, ended at the cross; and it is surprising\n that any one who professes to believe the New Testament should think\n otherwise. If interested, read Rom. 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:4-18; Gal.\n 3:11-22; 4:21-31; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14. A thoughtful reading of the\n letter to the Hebrews will convince any one that the old covenant\n passed away and that we now have a new and living way.\n\n Christ loved the church, bought it with his own blood, and prayed for\n its oneness. So far as we can, we should love the church as he loved\n it.\n\n\n\n\n GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON OLD TESTAMENT KINGDOM\n\n\nIt is some times difficult to determine just what information is wanted.\nThere are, however, some things about \u201cthe Old Testament kingdom\u201d that\nshould be carefully considered.\n\nWhen God called Israel out of Egypt, he said to them: \u201cNow therefore, if\nye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be\nmine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine:\nand ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.\u201d (Ex.\n19:5, 6.) For a long period of time after they settled in Canaan they\nhad no king but Jehovah; they were, therefore, Jehovah\u2019s kingdom. But\nthere came a time when they wanted a change; they wanted a centralized\ngovernment, with a man as their king. At that time they had an excuse\nfor demanding a king. Read carefully the eighth chapter of First Samuel.\nSamuel was old, and his sons were corrupt. \u201cThen all the elders of\nIsrael gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah; and\nthey said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy\nways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But this\nthing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And\nSamuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto\nthe voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have\nnot rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king\nover them.\u201d Samuel was commanded to show them the nature of the\ngovernment they were demanding. When Samuel had done so, the people\nsaid: \u201cNay; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like\nall the nations.\u201d Jehovah selected Saul as their first king. When the\nday of his anointing came, Samuel said to the people: \u201cSee ye him whom\nJehovah hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the\npeople?... Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and\nwrote it in a book, and laid it up before Jehovah.\u201d (1 Sam. 10:24, 25.)\nThus Israel became a kingdom among kingdoms, and was then reckoned as\nsuch.\n\nIsrael had not only sinned against Jehovah, but had rejected him as\ntheir king. The kingdom thus established was not Jehovah\u2019s kingdom.\nWhile Saul reigned, it was the kingdom of Saul. (1 Chron. 12:23.) It was\ntransferred to David because of Saul\u2019s sins; it was then David\u2019s\nkingdom. Any time thereafter it was the kingdom of the man who was king.\n\nIt is strange that some people yet look for that kingdom to be\nrestored\u2014a kingdom that was conceived in sin and brought forth in\nrebellion against Jehovah! On one occasion, when Israel was in great\ndistress, Jehovah said to them: \u201cWhere now is thy king, that he may save\nthee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a\nking and princes? I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken\nhim away in my wrath.\u201d (Hos. 13:10, 11.) With what emotions do they\nexpect the Lord to restore that kingdom?\n\n\n\n\n PROMISE TO ABRAHAM: GEN. 13:14, 15 AND ACTS 7:5\n\n\n Since Abraham bought even a burying place for Sarah, and Stephen, in\n Acts 7:5, says, \u201cHe (God) gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so\n much as to set his foot on,\u201d in what sense, if any, did he receive the\n promise contained in Gen. 13:14, 15?\u2014Mrs. Mary B. Robins.\n\nPersonally, Abraham did not receive actual title to the land of promise,\nthough the Lord, in some sense, did give him the land, as will be seen\nby reading Gen. 28:4; 35:12. He enjoyed its productiveness as fully as\nif he had been its actual owner. His vast herds fattened on its grass\nand drank water from the wells which his servants digged. Had God driven\nout all the nations and turned the land over to Abraham, he could not\nhave possessed it nor have made any more use of it than he did. Stephen\ncertainly did not mean to say that God had failed in his promise to\nAbraham. It seems that Stephen\u2019s point was that the promise was not to\nAbraham as an individual, but to him as the founder of a nation\u2014to his\nseed. The time for the promise to be fulfilled would come when Abraham\u2019s\nposterity became sufficiently numerous to possess the land. That was\nclearly Stephen\u2019s point, for he adds: \u201cBut as the time of the promise\ndrew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and\nmultiplied in Egypt.\u201d (Acts 7:17.) This shows that the time for the\nfulfillment of that promise was when the people grew and multiplied, and\nthat the time for its fulfillment was not in Abraham\u2019s day, nor is it\nyet in the future. It was fulfilled when the nations were driven out of\nCanaan and the land divided between the tribes of Israel. \u201cSo Jehovah\ngave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers;\nand they possessed it, and dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of\nany good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel.\u201d\n(Josh. 21:43, 45.)\n\nYet in the face of all this, it has been argued that the land promise to\nAbraham must yet be fulfilled, and that Abraham must be raised and the\nJews restored to Palestine in order for this promise to be fulfilled.\nBut the argument is mixed. It starts out to prove that the land must be\ngiven to Abraham, and winds up with his sharing it with the Jews. But\nStephen\u2019s language destroys that conclusion, for his language shows\nplainly that Abraham and his seed were not to possess it jointly at the\nsame time. Notice the language: \u201cHe promised that he would give to him\nin possession, and to his seed after him.\u201d Not with him, but \u201cafter\nhim.\u201d The future-kingdom folks will have a hard time showing how Abraham\nwill possess the land of Canaan during a millennium and then his seed\npossess it after him.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n There are only two things that a person can do with a command\u2014he can\n obey it or disobey it. One whose heart is right toward God will do\n whatever God commands him to do.\n\n\n\n\n THE JEWS AND THEIR KINGDOM\n\n\nFor some time I have had on hand some letters from an aged Texas\nbrother, an ardent advocate of the future-kingdom theory and its allied\ntheories. These letters contain seven closely written pages\u2014too much for\nthis page. In his last letter the brother says: \u201cYou answer questions\nfor others, but it seems that my questions are a little too hard for\nyou.... We recall that some months ago you said that the kingdom of\nDavid and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same kingdom, and that Solomon\nsat on the throne of Jehovah. Solomon sat on the throne of David.\u201d (1\nKings 2:12, 24.)\n\nWhen a person asks for information, I give his question attention as\nsoon as possible; but when a person is merely trying to flunk me on what\nhe considers a hard examination, I take the examination when it suits\nme. Besides, those who ask for information should have first\nconsideration. The editor assigned me the task of answering questions,\nand not to carry on debates; but I must break over this time and stand\nthe examination, and also do a little debating.\n\nBut the brother\u2019s memory seems to be at fault. I do not recall saying\nthat the kingdom of David and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same. At\nleast, that is not my idea at all. In a general sense God rules in all\nthe universe, but in a special sense he ruled Israel for a time. At\nMount Sinai, Jehovah said: \u201cNow therefore, if ye will obey my voice\nindeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from\namong all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a\nkingdom of priests, and a holy nation.\u201d (Ex. 19:5, 6.) Later they\nrejected Jehovah as their king. Jehovah said: \u201cThey have rejected me,\nthat I should not be king over them.\u201d (See 1 Samuel 8:4-22.) God\npermitted them to have a king. The resultant kingdom was conceived in\nsin and brought forth in rebellion against Jehovah. The people dethroned\nJehovah, so to speak, and organized a kingdom of their own. \u201cIt is thy\ndestruction, O Israel, that thou art against me, against thy help. Where\nnow is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy\njudges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I have given\nthee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.\u201d (Hos.\n13:9-11.) And yet all the time of that kingdom the right to rule the\npeople was Jehovah\u2019s. The king sat on Jehovah\u2019s throne over Israel.\n\nBut our brother does not think Solomon sat on Jehovah\u2019s throne, but on\nDavid\u2019s throne. It is strange that these future-kingdom advocates can\nsee 1 Kings 2:12, 24, but cannot see 1 Chron. 29:23: \u201cThen Solomon sat\non the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.\u201d This\nlanguage shows also that David had sat on the throne of Jehovah. It was\nreally Jehovah\u2019s throne, but was called David\u2019s throne because he\noccupied it. And while Solomon occupied it, it was also his throne.\nConcerning Solomon, Jehovah said: \u201cI will establish his throne forever.\u201d\nIt was Jehovah\u2019s throne, David\u2019s throne, and then Solomon\u2019s throne.\nHence, God had allowed the people to have their way and put a king on\nhis throne. The management of the affairs of the kingdom was in the\nhands of the king. \u201cNow when Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel.\u201d (1\nSam. 14:47.) The whole organization of the kingdom was in the king\u2019s\nhands. But enough of this. Here are the questions:\n\n1. \u201cWas the kingdom of David a material, visible kingdom, or an\ninvisible spirit kingdom?\u201d\n\nIt was a kingdom like other kingdoms. The people said: \u201cWe will have a\nking over us, that we may be like all the nations.\u201d And Jehovah said to\nSamuel: \u201cHearken unto their voice.\u201d (1 Sam. 8:18-22.) That settles it.\nIt was a kingdom patterned after other kingdoms. That kingdom was\ndestroyed and how any sane person should expect God to restore a kingdom\nthat was organized in rebellion against him is one of the mysteries.\n\n2. \u201cGod destroyed it, but said he would restore it as in the days of\nold. (Amos 9:11-15.) Has it been restored as it was?\u201d\n\nGod did not say that he would restore that rebellious kingdom as it was.\nThe tabernacle of David was the royal family of David. The royal house,\nor family, of David fell. It was set up again when Jesus, of the royal\nfamily of David, was exalted at God\u2019s right hand and made both Lord and\nMessiah. (Acts 2:29-36.) According to James, this had to be done before\nthe gospel could be preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:13-19.) That\nprophecy of Amos has been fulfilled.\n\n3. \u201cHave all Israel been gathered from the nations and given possession\nof their land, with David as their king, as prophesied in Ezek.\n37:10-24?\u201d\n\nEzekiel uttered that prophecy while Israel was in captivity. Any\nIsraelite who heard or read that prophecy would understand him to be\nreferring to their then existing captivity. Our brother does not believe\nthat the same David of old would be again their king, but that one of\nthe seed of David would be king. Jesus was of the seed of David, and is\nnow king. Neither are the Jews now in captivity. It is strange that any\none would take a passage that speaks of delivering the Jews from\ncaptivity and apply it to the Jews of today or of tomorrow. In the\nprophecy referred to, Jehovah said: \u201cI will take the children of Israel\nfrom among the nations, whither they are gone.\u201d They were among the\nnations at that time, and from that condition Jehovah would deliver\nthem. As to whether they then became a glorious nation would be\ndetermined by their own conduct. \u201cAnd at what instant I shall speak\nconcerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;\nif they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice,\nthen will I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.\u201d\n(Jer. 18:9, 10.) This prophecy was spoken direct to Israel as a warning\nto them.\n\n4. \u201cIf the kingdom was restored at Pentecost, why did every apostle\nafter Pentecost that spoke of the return of Christ put it in the\nfuture?\u201d\n\nThe old kingdom was not restored, but the kingdom of God was set up on\nPentecost. Christ is on the throne, where he will sit till all his\nenemies are subdued. (Acts 2:35.) The last enemy to be abolished is\ndeath. (1 Cor. 15:26.) Death will be destroyed when the whole human\nfamily is raised from the dead. Jesus will occupy his present throne\ntill that event is consummated. He will deliver up the kingdom to the\nFather. (1 Cor. 15:26-28.) That leaves no room for Jesus to reign on\nanother throne before all the dead are raised. Yes, the apostles spoke\nof the return of Christ as future; but, unfortunately for the\nfuture-kingdom theory, they did not put the establishment of his kingdom\nin the future. Neither did these ambassadors for Christ tell us that the\nJews would yet be restored to Palestine.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Instead of recognizing that God was working out through them his plan\n for the redemption of the world, the Jews concluded God cared for no\n other people. The promise to Abraham and their own prophets should\n have taught them the truth, but they were too much wrapped up in\n themselves to see the truth.\n\n From the things we learn from God\u2019s dealings with nations, it can be\n safely said that no nation falls so long as it serves a purpose in\n God\u2019s plans. That was true anciently, and it is true today.\n\n\n\n\n WILL JEWS RETURN TO JERUSALEM?\n\n\n From Tennessee comes this question: \u201cDo the Scriptures teach that the\n Jews will return to Jerusalem and then Christ will come and rebuild\n the temple there?\u201d\n\nWe learn from a note accompanying the question that a Holy Roller or\nsome similar kind of preacher is creating a little confusion by teaching\nthat the Jews will return to Jerusalem and Christ will soon come and\nrebuild the temple.\n\nThere is no way to keep fanatics from making wild guesses, nor to keep\nspeculators from perverting the word of God. But if people studied the\nBible as they should, such fellows would create very little confusion.\nIt is hard to tell just why such a high fever has lately developed about\nthe future of the Jews. Some preachers seem not to have much thought for\nany one but the Jews.\n\nGod promised Abraham to make of his seed a great nation and to give to\nthem the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17.) After Israel came out\nof Egypt, God entered into a covenant with them, promising to make of\nthem a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, on condition that they\nobeyed his voice and kept his covenant. (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But as they\nneared Canaan, Jehovah said to them: \u201cAnd it shall be, if thou shalt\nforget Jehovah thy God, and walk after other Gods, and serve them, and\nworship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely\nperish. As the nations that Jehovah maketh to perish before you, so\nshall ye perish; because ye would not hearken unto the voice of Jehovah\nyour God.\u201d (Deut. 8:19, 20.) The nations spoken of perished permanently,\nnever to inhabit Canaan again. Israel was to perish as they did, if they\nturned from Jehovah in rebellion against him. I think one can safely say\nthat not a future-kingdom advocate believes that Scripture just as it\nreads.\n\nSome, at least, of those who look for the return of the Jews to\nPalestine and the restoration of their old kingdom tell us that the land\npromise to Abraham and his seed was an unconditional promise. If so, why\nhave the Jews been deprived of their land for eighteen and a half\ncenturies? If the Jews were driven out because of their conduct, then\nthe land covenant, or promise, was conditional. It seems to me that\ntheir theory virtually charges God with a failure to carry out an\nunconditional promise. Just here the interested reader should read\ncarefully Deut. 27 and 28. But some will tell us that the land promise\nand the national promises have not yet been fulfilled to the Jews; but\nin so contending they run squarely against plain statements of\nScripture.\n\nAfter Israel had conquered the land of Palestine and each tribe had\nentered into its inheritance, Joshua called the people together and made\nan address to them, in which he said: \u201cAnd behold, this day I am going\nthe way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your\nsouls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which\nJehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you,\nnot one thing hath failed thereof.\u201d (Josh. 23:14.) Joshua had already\ndeclared: \u201cSo Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to\ngive unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein....\nThere failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto\nthe house of Israel; all came to pass.\u201d (Josh. 21:43-45.) Hence, they\nhad come into possession of all that God had sworn to their fathers to\ngive them. All of God\u2019s promises to them have been fulfilled, even\nthough they never again see the land of Palestine.\n\nSome centuries after they came into possession of Palestine the\nIsraelites became so corrupt and rebellious that they were carried into\ncaptivity. Many of the prophets foretold this carrying away into\ncaptivity, and there were numerous prophecies that they would be brought\nback into their own land. These prophecies, long ago fulfilled, are now\nbrought forward to prove that the Jews will again be brought back into\ntheir own land. It is a miserable perversion of prophecies that have had\ntheir fulfillment in the restoration of the Jews from their Babylonian\ncaptivity. Why should any one call it speculation about unfulfilled\nprophecy?\n\nThe contention that the Jews are yet God\u2019s chosen people, and that he\nyet has in store for them special blessings that are not obtainable by\nother people, is in direct contradiction to God\u2019s whole plan of\nsalvation through Christ. The plain teaching of the New Testament is\nagainst such an idea, and yet it is God\u2019s final revelation to man, and\nshows the full development and perfection of all the plans and purposes\nwhich God began in the Old Testament to outline in promise, prophecy,\nand type. Hence, if God has yet in store some special blessings for the\nJews, he certainly would have told us about it in the New Testament; but\ninstead of giving us such information, the New Testament distinctly and\nemphatically teaches that now fleshly relations count for nothing.\nAlthough Paul was \u201cof the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a\nHebrew of the Hebrews,\u201d he counted such fleshly relations as but refuse,\nand declared that he had no confidence in the flesh\u2014that is, in any\nfleshly relations. (Phil. 3:2-8.) In 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, Paul declares that\nChrist died for all, and because of that fact he adds, \u201cWherefore we\nhenceforth know no man after the flesh\u201d\u2014we give no distinction to any\nman because of his nationality. \u201cEven though we have known Christ after\nthe flesh, yet now we know him so no more.\u201d (verse 16.) No one thinks of\nChrist as a Jew with a Jew\u2019s narrow nationalistic traits, but as a world\nsavior. That he so often referred to himself as the _Son of man_, and\nnot as a Jew, is more significant than many think. It sets him before us\nas equally related to all men and as equally interested in all men.\nJehovah is not a tribal God and Jesus is not a tribal king, as most of\nthe future-kingdom folks seem to believe.\n\nJesus himself gives us a picture of the latter end of the Jews. Read\nMatt. 12:43-45. The unclean spirit, having been driven out of the man,\nreturns to the man with seven other spirits worse than himself. \u201cAnd the\nlast state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it\nbe also unto this evil generation.\u201d If the word here translated\n_generation_ means _race_, as it often does, the future of the Jewish\nrace is dark indeed.\n\nIn applying the lesson of the parable of the householder, Jesus said:\n\u201cTherefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from\nyou, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.\u201d\n(See Matt. 21:33-43.) This nation is the new Israel of God, the church.\nChristians are now the circumcision. (Phil. 3:3.) Christians are now\n\u201cAbraham\u2019s seed, heirs according to promise.\u201d (Gal. 3:29.) The promises\nand prophecies that have not been fulfilled to fleshly Israel are to be\nfulfilled to the church, which is now God\u2019s Israel.\n\nIt has already been shown that there is no ground for expecting the Jews\nto return to Palestine. Instead of finding any teaching to that effect\nin the New Testament, as we would expect to find if such is to take\nplace, we find the weight of New Testament teaching to be against such\nan event.\n\nThe return of the Jews to Palestine, the rebuilding of the temple, and\nthe restoration of the Jewish kingdom are all so interwoven in the\nprogram of the future-kingdom advocates that they stand or fall\ntogether. It is a significant fact that the prophecies relied on to\nprove the fore-going propositions were all uttered before the Babylonian\ncaptivity or during that captivity. The Babylonian captivity had often\nbeen foretold. Therefore, when any prophet spoke of the regathering of\nthe Jews to Palestine and the rebuilding of their temple, every Jew of\nthat time would understand the prophet to be speaking of their return\nfrom Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of their temple then.\nEzekiel prophesied during the captivity, being himself one of the early\ncaptives. Of course, anything he said about the return of the Jews and\nthe rebuilding of the temple would be understood by every Jew of that\ntime as referring to their deliverance from their present captivity.\nWithout some special words of explanation they could not have understood\nit otherwise. But no such words of explanation were given. The prophets\nknew how the Jews would understand them, and yet they let it go at that.\nAre we to understand that God, through his prophets, deceived the Jews?\nSurely not. The prophets foretold the return of the Jews from captivity.\nThe Jews would understand them to refer to their return from Babylonian\ncaptivity. What then? Sound principles of exegesis demand that these\ncircumstances and conditions be taken into consideration in the\napplication of these prophecies. This the future-kingdom advocates fail\nto do. But they tell us that some of the promises in these prophecies\nconcerning the return of the Jews from captivity have not yet been\nfulfilled. But such an affirmation ignores the conditionality of God\u2019s\npromises. It is the same blunder that is made by the advocates of the\nimpossibility of apostasy. Even if it could be shown that some things\npromised to the Jews on their return to Palestine were never fulfilled,\nthat would not prove that they will yet be fulfilled. The human side\nmust be taken into consideration. Hear the Lord through Jeremiah:\n\u201cBehold, as the clay in the potter\u2019s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house\nof Israel.... And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and\nconcerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is\nevil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the\ngood, wherewith I said I would benefit them.\u201d (Jer. 18:5-10.) This is\nGod\u2019s warning to Israel, but it has no weight with the future-kingdom\nadvocates.\n\nThe Lord brought the Jews back from captivity and planted them in their\nland. They would have had God\u2019s choicest blessings had they obeyed his\nvoice; but they failed him, and plunged into the grossest sins. This\ncriminality culminated in their murdering the Son of God and many of his\nsaints. It was not the crimes of individuals here and there, but the\ndeliberate crimes of the nation. Death is the punishment for deliberate\nmurder. National murder demanded national death. The Jewish nation\nsuffered that death in the destruction of Jerusalem.\n\nWhen God sent his Son into the world, he did not send him to reorganize\nthe Jewish kingdom, but to open up a way of salvation for sinners. He\ndid not fail to accomplish what he was sent to do, as the future-kingdom\nadvocates claim. Hear his own words: \u201cI glorified thee on the earth,\nhaving accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.\u201d (John\n17:4.) That statement should settle a lot of speculation about the\nrejected king and the postponed kingdom.\n\nWhen Jesus comes again, he will not come to rebuild the temple in\nJerusalem, but to render judgment. (Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:6-10.)\nHis temple is here now. \u201cUpon this rock I will build my church.\u201d (Matt.\n16:18.) That church is his temple. \u201cKnow ye not that ye are a temple of\nGod, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth\nthe temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy,\nand such are ye.\u201d (1 Cor. 3:16, 17.) \u201cBeing built upon the foundation of\nthe apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner\nstone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth\ninto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for\na habitation of God in the Spirit.\u201d (Eph. 2:20-22.) In the old material\ntemple, animal sacrifices and other material sacrifices were offered; in\nthis new spiritual temple, spiritual sacrifices are offered. \u201cYe also,\nas living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy\npriesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through\nJesus Christ.\u201d (1 Pet. 2:5.) Can any one believe that we are to give up\nthis glorious spiritual temple for the old material temple? this\nspiritual worship for the carnal ordinances of the material temple? If\nso, he has poor taste for the spiritual.\n\nThe temple in Jerusalem was but a type, a shadow, of this glorious\nspiritual temple. (Heb. 9:1-10.) This spiritual house is a \u201cgreater and\nmore perfect tabernacle.\u201d (Heb. 9:11.) Now, we are gravely told that in\nthe millennium we will exchange this glorious spiritual temple for the\nmaterial temple with its animal sacrifices, give up the substance for\nthe shadow, give up the gospel of grace for the law of the temple, which\nmeans the law of Moses. That temple, we are informed, will be again\nsanctified by the blood of animals. Such material conceptions as this\nwhole future-kingdom idea suits very well such materialists as the\nRussellites, but has no place in the thinking of one who glories in the\ncross of Christ and in his blood-bought church.\n\nAs a sample of the passages relied on to prove that the Jews are yet to\nbe restored to Palestine and their temple rebuilt, read Ezek. 34:11-31;\nalso chapters 37; 39:21-29, and to the close of Ezekiel. Remember, as\nyou read, that Ezekiel prophesied while he and his nation were in\ncaptivity. In the temple of which Ezekiel speaks there were to be all\nthe offerings and ceremonies required by the law of Moses. The blood of\nthe animal sacrifices served the same purposes as the law specified. The\npriests were of the tribe of Levi. This cannot refer to the future, for\nno Jew now knows to what tribe he belongs. With the blood of animals\natonement was to be made for the people. If a man can believe all this\nis yet future, he can believe anything that suits his fancy; facts will\nbe no barrier to anything he wants to believe.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n From Alabama comes this request: \u201cExplain Ezek. 37, concerning the dry\n bones and sticks. When did this take place?\u201d\n\n The children of Israel were then in captivity; from that captivity\n they were to be delivered. (See verses 21, 22.) The dry bones coming\n to life represented their return from captivity. Their return would be\n as if they were coming alive from the dead. Their captivity was their\n burial; their return would be as if they were coming from their\n graves. They had been divided into two kingdoms. Joining the two\n sticks into one stick represented the joining of the two peoples into\n one nation after their return. Their return is told in Ezra and\n Nehemiah. After that return they were one people. And they would have\n had a glorious kingdom had they obeyed Jehovah. The prophecies of the\n Old Testament concerning the fate of the Jews in their disobedience\n are being fulfilled all down the ages.\n\n\n\n\n PROPHECY OF AMOS 9:13-15\n\n\nHas the prophecy in Amos 9:13-15 been fulfilled?\u2014Mrs. X, Detroit.\n\nAmos 9:13-15: \u201cBehold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the plowman\nshall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth\nseed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall\nmelt. And I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel, and they\nshall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant\nvineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall make gardens, and eat\nthe fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall\nno more be plucked up out of their land, which I have given them, saith\nJehovah thy God.\u201d\n\nAmos had gone from his home at Tekoa to Bethel to prophesy against the\nkingdom of Israel, which had become very corrupt, and to warn the people\nof their coming doom. (Amos 1:1; 7:7-17.) They were to be sifted,\nscattered, among the nations. As Amos was speaking of their captivity,\nwhich they later suffered, it seems reasonable to conclude that the\nverses in question referred to their return from that captivity. All who\nwanted to return from that captivity to their own land had abundant\nopportunity. There is no evidence that the Jews will again be carried\nout of their own land into captivity, so as to be brought out of\ncaptivity in the future. All the prophecies that speak of a return of\nthe Jews out of captivity have been fulfilled. One thing is sure: they\nare not now in captivity; therefore, they could not now be brought out\nof captivity, unless again carried into captivity.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n\n ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN\n\n \u201cSeeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that\n pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that\n called us by his own glory and virtue.\u201d (2 Pet. 1:3.) We are in the\n habit of saying that God has given us in the gospel everything that is\n essential to life and godliness; but Peter goes a little farther than\n that and affirms that God has given us all things that pertain to life\n and godliness. There is a difference. To illustrate: There are certain\n things that are essential to an automobile; and there are other things\n that pertain to an automobile; but are not essential to it. When you\n have all things that are essential to an automobile, you can go to a\n supply house and purchase a lot of extras that pertain to an\n automobile. But suppose you have all the essentials of an automobile,\n and then you add all the things that pertain to an automobile, nothing\n else could be added that would make it any more complete. God has not\n only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but\n he has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.\n\n But do religious people believe it? If so, why all these flummeries\n that God has said nothing about? If you will read the verse again, you\n will notice that he has given us all these things through the\n knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of Christ means the knowledge that\n has been revealed about him\u2014the gospel of Christ. Hence, through the\n gospel God has not only given us all things that are essential to life\n and godliness, but all things that pertain to life and godliness. If\n there is, therefore, anything in your religion that did not come to\n you through the gospel, it does not so much as pertain to life and\n godliness. Is it not time to check up on our religion and see if we\n have anything that we cannot find in the New Testament? Any person of\n intelligence can do that for himself.\n\n\n\n\n MATTHEW 16:28 EXPLAINED\n\n\n Please explain Matt. 16:28. I have to contend with the Boll theory.\n What I want to know is how the disciples were to \u201csee\u201d the Son of man\n coming in his kingdom.\u2014W. C. Anderson.\n\nMatthew 16:28.\n\n\u201cVerily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who\nshall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in\nhis kingdom.\u201d\n\nIn this verse it is stated that some would _taste_ of death\u2014some of them\nwould _see_ the Son of man coming in his kingdom. _Taste_ and _see_\u2014are\nthese terms used literally? A little study of both words will help. \u201cOh\ntaste and see that Jehovah is good.\u201d (Ps. 34:8.) \u201cSweet are thy words\nunto my taste.\u201d (Ps. 119:103.) \u201cTasted of the heavenly gift\u201d; \u201ctasted\nthe good word of God.\u201d (Heb. 6:4, 5.) If you make _see_ represent the\nactual functioning of one of the five senses, why not make _taste_ do\nthe same? No man actually tastes death as he tastes food. The\nfuture-kingdom folks stress giving words their literal meaning, but even\nthey will not say that a man tastes Jehovah, his word, or death, as he\ntastes food. So also the word _see_ has a variety of meanings, or uses.\nTo see often means to know. \u201cTaste and see (know) that Jehovah is good.\u201d\nTo see often means to experience. We see joy and we see a good time; we\nsee trouble and sorrow. Taste death\u2014experience death, or suffer death.\nThe parallel passages, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, say: \u201cVerily I say unto\nyou, There are some of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of\ndeath, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.\u201d \u201cBut I tell\nyou of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no\nwise taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.\u201d To see the Son of\nman coming in his kingdom and to see the kingdom of God come with power\nand to see the kingdom of God are different expressions of the same\nidea. When the kingdom of God came with power, it was Christ coming in\nhis kingdom. Just as certain as some of those standing by would die\nbefore the kingdom came, or the Son of man came in his kingdom, just\nthat certain some would live till that event occurred. Ye\u2014those standing\nby, not those of some future date\u2014shall see the Son of man coming in his\nkingdom, or see the kingdom of God come with power, and they would see\nit before they died. The future-kingdom folks do not see that part of\nwhat Jesus said; they see only \u201csee the Son of man coming in his\nkingdom.\u201d And yet no man literally sees a kingdom, as he sees a material\nobject; for the \u201ckingdom of God cometh not with observation\u201d\u2014that is,\nnot in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes; i. e., in a\nvisible manner. (Luke 17:20.) Jesus made that statement in answer to the\nPharisees\u2019 question as to when the kingdom of God would come. Hence,\nsome of the disciples to whom Jesus was talking would see Jesus coming\nin his kingdom; yet they would not see with their eyes. Jesus himself\ndeclared that his kingdom would not come in that manner.\n\nThe future-kingdom folks put stress on the statement: \u201cThey shall see\nthe Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great\nglory.\u201d But notice the change in pronouns\u2014\u201cye shall see,\u201d \u201cthey shall\nsee.\u201d They tell us that this coming on the clouds will be when he comes\nin his kingdom. They also tell us that when he thus comes the wicked\ndead will not see him, for they will not be raised till the end of a\nthousand years. But there is a hitch in that. Certainly the high priest\nwho condemned Jesus to death belongs in the class of the wicked dead yet\nJesus said to him and to the court: \u201cYe shall see the Son of man sitting\nat the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.\u201d Notice\nthe word _henceforth_\u2014from now on. Notice, too that this wicked court\nwas henceforth to see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power.\nNo man sees him sitting with his natural eye. The word _see_ here has\ntwo objects, _sitting_ and _coming_; or, rather, the same persons shall\nsee Jesus sitting and coming. Even a child should be able to see that\nthe word _see_ could not here mean a mental conception as to one of its\nobjects and an actual seeing with the eyes as to the other object. A\nword may have several meanings, but it cannot have two meanings at one\nand the same time. As some of the disciples then living were to see\nJesus coming in his kingdom and the Sanhedrin were to see him sitting on\nthe right hand of power, the Lord came in his kingdom during the\nlifetime of these people.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n The apostles were practical men. Some were fishermen; one, a tax\n collector. Both callings teach a person not to believe all he hears.\n\n\n\n\n MATTHEW 19:28; 25:31; LUKE 22:28-30; 1 COR. 6:2 EXPLAINED\n\n\nMatthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. Please explain\u2014Owen\nW. Smith.\n\n1. Matt. 19:28: \u201cAnd Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that\nye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall\nsit on the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones,\njudging the twelve tribes of Israel.\u201d Read the context. The rich young\nman had refused to follow Jesus. Peter said: \u201cWe have left all, and\nfollowed thee; what then shall we have?\u201d The reply of Jesus does not\nmean that they had followed him in the regeneration, for Jesus had\npassed through no regeneration. Luke says they had followed him in his\ntemptation. Jesus was telling his apostles what they would have in the\nregeneration. The regeneration is that period of time in which people\nare being regenerated. The other passage in which the word\n\u201cregeneration\u201d occurs shows that people are being regenerated in this\ndispensation. (Tit. 3:5.) But it was during this time of regeneration\nthat Christ was to sit on the throne of his glory and the apostles were\nto sit on thrones. Hence, both Jesus and his apostles are now on their\nthrones, for all were to sit on thrones at the same time. On Pentecost,\nPeter declared that God had raised up Jesus to sit on David\u2019s throne and\nhad made him both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:30-36.) Jesus himself\ndeclared that all authority had been given to him. Those who say that he\nhas all authority, but is not exercising it, overlook the _therefore_ in\nthe next verse. Suppose Jesus had expressed that idea, it would have\nread something like this: \u201cAll authority has been given me, but I am not\nexercising it; and because I am not exercising it, go into all the world\nand make disciples of all the nations.\u201d The command was based on his\nhaving all authority. Some have overlooked the _therefore_. As Jesus is\non his throne, so are the apostles on their thrones. But how are they\njudging? McGarvey says on this point:\n\n This statement of Paul that \u201cthe saints shall judge the world\u201d (1 Cor.\n 6:2) has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to\n take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the\n sitting on the thrones are declared to be contemporaneous with the\n regeneration and with Christ\u2019s sitting on his throne; and, therefore,\n they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this,\n of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing\n decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom,\n and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones,\n because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they\n judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True,\n we have written communications from only part of them, but judgments\n pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all\n are the judgments of the entire bench.\n\nOn the _twelve tribes_ he remarks:\n\n The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of\n Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any\n intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with\n the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh;\n consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve\n tribes representing the church of God of which they were a type.\n\nIn judging, the apostles declare who is free from guilt and who is\ncondemned. This is made plain in John 20:23: \u201cWhose soever sins ye\nforgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they\nare retained.\u201d\n\n2. Matt. 25:31: \u201cBut when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and\nall the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.\u201d\nThis verse is incomplete, and is really explained by the rest of the\nchapter. He shall sit on the throne of judgment, and before him will be\ngathered all nations for judgment; but the people will be judged as\nindividuals and not as nations. It is not a judgment of nations, or\ngovernments, as has sometimes been said. Even a little attention to the\ngender of the Greek words of the passage will show how ill-founded is\nthat assumption. \u201cNations\u201d is neuter in the Greek; it cannot, therefore,\nbe the antecedent of _them_ in verse 32, for it is masculine. And so is\n_ye blessed_ in verse 34, and _ye cursed_ in verse 41. Both _these_ and\n_the righteous_ in verse 46 are masculine. It is, therefore, not a\njudgment of nations, as such, but of the people. The passage is in\nperfect harmony with 2 Thess. 1:6-10. Here he comes to take vengeance on\nthe wicked and to be glorified in his saints. It is, therefore, the\njudgment at the last day.\n\n3. Luke 22:28-30: \u201cBut ye are they that have continued with me in my\ntemptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father\nappointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom;\nand ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.\u201d Read\nthe context. They had just eaten the Passover and the Lord\u2019s Supper. A\ncontention had arisen between the disciples as to who would be accounted\nthe greatest; and Jesus had told them that there was to be no one among\nthem exercising lordship over the others, but that service would be the\nthing that counted. The apostles had faithfully followed him in his\ntemptation; he would, therefore, appoint them a kingdom, and they would\neat and drink at his table in his kingdom. On account of the fact that\nthey had just eaten the Lord\u2019s Supper we naturally associate the Lord\u2019s\ntable with the Lord\u2019s Supper. They, therefore, would eat the Lord\u2019s\nSupper in his kingdom. But the Lord\u2019s Supper will not be eaten after he\ncomes again. But as they were to eat it in his kingdom, it is certain\nthat they ate it in his kingdom while they lived. The kingdom now in\nexistence is, therefore, the kingdom he appointed them. In Luke 12:32,\nJesus said: \u201cFear not little flock; for it is your Father\u2019s good\npleasure to give you the kingdom.\u201d The Father was to give this kingdom\nto the \u201clittle flock.\u201d This cannot mean that he will give his kingdom to\nhis followers at the end of this dispensation, when the little flock\nshall have swelled into \u201ca great multitude, which no man could number,\nout of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues.\u201d (Rev.\n7:9.) No; it was to be given to a little flock and not to a numberless\nhost, and the language clearly shows that it was to be given to those\nwho were then present. And that was the kingdom which he appointed to\nthem, and in which they sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes\nof Israel. On this last point, see comments above on Matt. 19:28.\n\n4. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3: \u201cOr know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?\nand if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest\nmatters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? how much more, things\nthat pertain to this life?\u201d\n\nCommentators have had no end of trouble over these verses, and there is\nlittle agreement among them. In some sense saints judge the world and\nangels, but how? and when? It is a hazardous and foolish thing to build\na theory on a difficult passage, especially when little, if any, light\non the point can be gained from other Scriptures. But it does not seem\npossible that Christians will be judges in the last day, when all shall\nbe judged. From Matt. 25:31-46 we learn that the righteous will be\njudged along with the wicked. Saints will not then occupy judgment\nthrones, but will be gathered before the judgment throne. They cannot be\njudges while being judged. After that they cannot judge the world, for\nthe world will already have been judged. And there is no Scripture that\nteaches that the heavenly angels will then be judged by any one. But the\ngospel is God\u2019s law, and every time it is preached sinners are judged as\nguilty, as are also the devil and his angels. And saints have this same\nlaw by which to judge among themselves. These are facts, whether the\npassage in question has that meaning or not. This view has the merit of\nnot being out of harmony with the general teaching of the New Testament.\nBut let us be sure not to build a theory on a difficult passage of\nScripture, nor use it in support of a theory. We might be found wresting\nthe Scripture to our own destruction.\n\n\n\n\n QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JEWS, THE KINGDOM AND SALVATION\n\n\nTell me: When, or how, did Christ offer the Jews the kingdom? What\npassage, or passages, or teaching as a whole do you think the\nearth-kingdom advocates rely on to prove the statement that the kingdom\nwas offered the Jews?\n\nWas the kingdom offered the Jews in any sense that _salvation_ was not\noffered them?\n\nDid they reject the kingdom in any sense they did not reject salvation?\n\nIf the kingdom was offered the Jews, and they rejected it, and the Lord\nfor that reason postponed the kingdom, why is it he did not also\npostpone the salvation offered?\u2014X\n\nPerhaps I might as well answer the foregoing questions as a whole as to\nanswer each one separately. The querist has been doing some close\nthinking, and his questions open up a field for some profitable\ninvestigation.\n\nThe querist evidently refers to the Jews as a nation, and not as\nindividuals. It is claimed by the kingdom speculators that Jesus offered\nthe kingdom to the Jewish nation on condition that the rulers and people\nalike repent, but the assertion is not backed up by any definite proof.\nThe advocates of that notion arrive at such a conclusion by assumptions\nand deductions. They assume that the prophets foretold the restoration\nof the old kingdom of Israel, a kingdom that was born in rebellion\nagainst God and in rejection of him as King! They assume that Jesus\noffered the kingdom to the Jews as a nation, but they gave no proof that\nJesus offered that kingdom or anything else to a national Israel. But as\nsuch a kingdom did not come into being, they conclude that both the king\nand his kingdom were rejected. Matt. 3:2 is quoted in this connection,\nbut they do not show how that Scripture proves their contention. John\nwas preaching to individuals, and not to the nation as such. The fact is\nthat he never did go and preach to the rulers, nor did they come to him.\nThey did send a committee to inquire into his work.\n\nI see no way to separate the kingdom from salvation, nor can I see how\none can exist apart from the other. Of course the old kingdom had\ncitizens who were not in a saved state, but I do not see how that could\nbe true of the kingdom of Christ. However, we are told that only Jews\nwho are born again will be citizens of the kingdom which they suppose\nChrist will set up when he comes again. In that respect, as well as in\nmany others, this supposed kingdom will not be like the old kingdom.\n\nThat the future-kingdom advocates realize they have no certain proof of\ntheir rejection and postponement theory is shown by the fact that they\ndo not agree on any certain Scripture, nor as to the time of this\nsupposed rejection and postponement. John R. Rice puts it in the tenth\nchapter of Matthew; Scofield, in the eleventh; R. H. Boll, in the\ntwelfth. John R. Rice says the kingdom at hand was never preached after\nthe tenth chapter; the offer was then withdrawn. He should have read\nwhat Jesus a year later instructed the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:11.)\nIn a note on Matt. 11:20-24 Scofield says: \u201cThe kingdom of heaven\nannounced \u2018at hand\u2019 by John the Baptist, by the King himself, and by the\ntwelve, and attended by mighty works, has been _morally_ rejected. The\nplaces chosen for the testing of the nation\u2014Chorazin, Bethsaida,\netc.\u2014having rejected both John and Jesus, the rejected King now speaks\nof judgment. The final official rejection is later. (Matt. 27:31-37).\u201d\nOn verses 28-30 he says: \u201cThe new message of Jesus. The rejected King\nnow turns from the rejecting _nation_ and offers not the _kingdom_, but\n_rest_ and _service_ to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It\nis a pivotal point in the ministry of Jesus.\u201d R. H. Boll says: \u201cIn\nchapter twelve the antagonism of the Pharisees, stirred to its height by\nhis Sabbath healing, came to a terrible climax: they went out and took\ncounsel against him _how they might destroy him_. (12:14.) This was a\ngreat turning point.\u201d As they find no Scripture which says what they\nclaim, they depend on assumptions and deductions, and their deductions\ndo not agree.\n\nA PROPOSITION: The gospel plan of salvation is the scheme of redemption\nforetold in promise and prophecy.\n\n\n\n\n SOME QUESTIONS CONSIDERED\n\n\nA brother has presented to me a few questions for my consideration. The\nquestions are about matters that are being much agitated these days. The\nfirst question indicates that somebody thinks the Lord refused some\npeople the privilege of believing, lest he might get more followers on\nhis hands than he needed for future rulers! But to the questions:\n\n1. \u201cWas there ever a time when God refused any one the privilege to\nbelieve in Christ, as indicated in John 12:39, 40? If so, has he\nrevealed the purpose thereof?\u201d\n\nThe passage mentioned says: \u201cFor this cause they could not believe, for\nthat Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened\ntheir heart; lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with\ntheir heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.\u201d The quotation is\nfrom Isa. 6:10. In Isaiah\u2019s day the people of Judah had become very\ncorrupt, and were growing worse. To these people Jehovah said: \u201cAh\nsinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers,\nchildren that deal corruptly! they have forsaken Jehovah, they have\ndespised the Holy One of Israel, they are estranged and gone backward.\u201d\n(Isa 1:4.) They had reached the point where they were utterly unfit to\nmanage their own affairs of government. The great majority were beyond\nthe hope of reformation. They would not even consider Jehovah, and were\nmore senseless as to their own good than the ox or the ass. \u201cThe ox\nknoweth his owner, and the ass his master\u2019s crib; but Israel doth not\nknow, my people doth not consider.\u201d (Verse 3.) When people reach that\nstage, there is nothing to do but to hasten them on to their doom.\nHence, Jehovah said to Isaiah when he sent him to prophesy to the people\nof Judah: \u201cMake the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy,\nand shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their\nears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.\u201d\n(Isa. 6:10.) Isaiah could do this only by his teachings and warnings.\nThey were so determined in their rebellion that the more Isaiah warned\nthem, the harder their hearts became. Their sinfulness resulted in the\nBabylonian captivity. The Jews had again become so sinful that a worse\ncalamity was soon to come upon them. The leaders rejected the preaching\nof John and dogged the steps of Jesus every move he made. They were so\nrebellious that the miracles and teaching of Jesus hardened their hearts\ninstead of converting them. There was no direct operation on their\nhearts to keep them from believing. The things that made believers of\nsome hardened the hearts of others. The Lord never did keep any honest\nheart from believing. The prophecy quoted in John 12:39, 40 is quoted by\nthe Savior in Matt. 13:14, 15 in such a way as to show that the people\nwere responsible for their hardness of heart. When people will not\nbelieve the truth, God sends them strong delusions that they may believe\na lie and be damned. (See 2 Thess. 2:8-12.) The reason there are so many\nfool notions believed now is because people will not believe the truth.\nGod will have all men to be saved, but they will not.\n\n2. \u201cDid the crucifixion of Christ depend upon the Jews\u2019 rejection of\nhim?\u201d\n\nJesus came at a time when everything was ready for the working out of\nGod\u2019s plans. \u201cBut when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his\nSon, born of a woman, born under the Law.\u201d (Gal. 4:4). God was not\nexperimenting to see if his plans would work out. He knew what would be\ndone, and was not bothering his mind as to what he would have to do\nabout it, if the Jews did not reject and crucify Jesus, for he knew what\nthey would do. Then why should I worry my mind about it? I cannot\nentertain an idea that implies that God did not know enough to know when\nto send his Son, or that he did not know what would happen when he did\nsend him. Why people raise such questions is a puzzle, for no one can do\nanything about it, no matter what might or might not have happened.\n\n3. \u201cDid God anticipate their acceptance universally?\u201d\n\nSuppose he did or did not, what can we do about it? People raise\nquestions that, in various ways, reflect on God. Being the all-wise God,\nhe knew that the Jews would not all accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Son\nof God. Jesus himself said that only a few would find the narrow way.\nPaul showed that the prophets taught that only a remnant of Israel would\nbe saved. (See Rom. 10:16-21; 11:1-10.) But what gives rise to such\nquestions? It grows out of the new speculation that Jesus came to\nestablish an earthly kingdom, or rather to restore the kingdom of\nIsrael, but failed in his purpose because the Jews rejected him. God\nknew the Jews would crucify Jesus. (See Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:27.)\n\n4. \u201cIf they had, would he have set up an earthly kingdom?\u201d\n\nThere is not the least indication that God did not accomplish what he\nintended to accomplish by sending his Son into the world, nor that the\nkingdom he set up was not what he intended to set up. On the other hand,\nthere is plenty of evidence that he inaugurated the very system he had\nin mind, and which he had foretold through the prophets. To say that his\nplans did not work out as he intended is equal to saying that the things\nhe foretold through the prophets turned out to be false. If it be\nreplied that the prophets said nothing about what some call \u201cthe church\nage,\u201d it only shows that some people have read the Scriptures with\nlittle profit. The evidence is abundant that the apostles and other\ninspired preachers and writers taught that Christianity, or the gospel\nplan of salvation, is exactly what the prophets foretold. On Pentecost,\nPeter referred to certain prophecies as fulfilled on that day. Again:\n\u201cYea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as\nmany as have spoken, they also told of these days.\u201d (Acts 3:24.) In\npreaching the gospel of Christ, Paul said nothing but what the prophets\nand Moses did say should come. (Acts 26:22.) Paul also affirms that the\ngospel which he preached God had \u201cpromised afore through his holy\nprophets in the holy scriptures.\u201d (Rom. 1:2.) But why offer more proof?\nThe apostles knew what they were talking about, or rather the Holy\nSpirit, who spoke through them, knew. Yet the future-kingdom advocates\ngenerally contend that the Old Testament prophecies center in an earthly\nkingdom, and say nothing about Christianity as revealed through the\napostles. One writer said: \u201cBut the Old Testament knows nothing whatever\nof Christianity.\u201d Ponder this question: If God did not set up the\nkingdom which they say the prophets foretold, but instead gave them\nsomething the prophets said nothing about, is it any wonder that the\nJews rejected it? The wonder would be that any of them accepted it.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Notice the prayer of Asa; notice other prayers in the Bible. With the\n exception of Solomon\u2019s prayer at the dedication of the temple and the\n prayer of Jesus on the night of his betrayal, all are very short.\n Notice the manner in which they addressed Jehovah. No endearing terms\n are used, but terms expressive of reverence for the power and majesty\n of God. Such expressions as \u201cour dear heavenly Father\u201d are not found\n in the Bible. Such expressions should have no place in our prayers\n today. Christians need to know how to pray, and a study of the prayers\n of the Bible will help us to pray as we ought.\n\n \u201cAgain I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as\n touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my\n Father who is in heaven.\u201d (Matt. 18:19.) Here it is supposed that they\n agree on what to ask for before they pray. Would it not be a good\n thing for a group of worshippers to know what they are going to pray\n for, rather than for someone to lead out in a long, rambling prayer\n that is supposed to be appropriate to all occasions, and is,\n therefore, never appropriate to any occasion? Delivering an oration to\n the Lord, under pretense of praying, is not praying at all.\n\n\n\n\n THE OLIVE TREE FIGURE OF ROM. 11\n\n\n I wish you would give an explanation of Rom. 11. The part that I am\n the most interested in is the figure of the olive tree. Is there\n anything in this chapter, or in any other, that teaches that the Jews\n as a nation will ever accept Christ?\u2014Oklahoma.\n\nWe cannot at present give space to a discussion of the entire chapter.\nThe verses containing the olive-tree illustration read as follows:\n\n But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild\n olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them\n of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the\n branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that barest the root,\n but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that\n I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off,\n and thou standest by thy faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if\n God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee.\n Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell,\n severity; but toward thee, God\u2019s goodness, if thou continue in his\n goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. And they also, if they\n continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able\n to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by\n nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a\n good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural\n branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:17-24.)\n\nCare should be used in dealing with another man\u2019s illustrations and\nfigures of speech. The language quoted is an illustration of God\u2019s\ndealings with Jews and Gentiles. Because of unbelief the Jews had been\nsevered from God\u2019s favor; by faith the Gentiles had been brought into\nunion with God. Neither Jew nor Gentile has any special favors from God;\nthe standing of each depends on their faith. That is the point Paul is\nmaking, and to make his illustration do service beyond the point\nillustrated is to do violence to his language.\n\nBut what is the olive tree? It is God\u2019s favor. Read the connection. The\nHebrews had been in God\u2019s favor all along till they were broken off\nbecause of unbelief. Their fall, mentioned in verse 12, is the same\nthing as this cutting off. But now, to both Jews and Gentiles alike,\nGod\u2019s favor is manifested in Christ, and may be obtained by faith in\nhim.\n\nNo people as a nation will or can accept Christ. Any people as a nation\nmust act as an organized government; those in authority determine what\nshall be done. But no constituted authorities can decide that the nation\nshall accept Christ; that is an individual matter. But even if a nation\ncould through its proper authorities accept Christ, the Jews could not\ndo so, for they have no one with authority to speak for the whole people\non anything.\n\nIt is hard for some to see that God totally and finally rejected and\ndestroyed the Jewish nation, but did not irrevocably reject the Jews.\nPaul gives himself as an example that God had not irrevocably cast off\nthe Jewish people. That he referred to himself as an example shows that\nhe had in mind the Jews as individuals and not as a nation. His case\nshows that the door of salvation had not been closed against the\nindividual Jew. And his olive-tree illustration shows that he was\nspeaking of the individual Jew and not of the nation. Both Jews and\nGentiles were grafted into the same olive tree, and both by the same\nprocess. Paul\u2019s conclusion\u2014\u201cand so all Israel shall be saved\u201d\u2014has been\ngreatly perverted. The future-kingdom folks put the emphasis on _all\nIsrael_; Paul put the emphasis on _so_. _So_ is an adverb of manner. He\nhad been showing how the Jews might be saved, and not that the nation\nwould be restored. He had shown that Gentiles were grafted in by\nfaith\u2014saved by faith in Christ. \u201cAnd so\u201d\u2014in like manner\u2014shall all Israel\nbe saved. Peter had made the same point before the Jerusalem brethren:\n\u201cBut we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord\nJesus, in like manner as they.\u201d (Acts 15:11.)\n\nHow many Jews may yet be converted to Christ, no one knows; but those\nwho are converted to Christ will be in the one body with all converted\nGentiles, \u201cwhere there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and\nuncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is\nall, and in all.\u201d (Col. 3:11.)\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Much is said about preaching the truth in love, and so it should be\n preached. But in love of what? The preacher should so love the truth\n that he will not sacrifice any of it nor pervert it, and he should so\n love people that he will not withhold from them even an unpleasant\n truth. He that does either of these things loves neither the truth nor\n the people. We frequently fool ourselves; we think we do thus and so\n to spare the feelings of others, when it is our own feelings that\n prompt us. \u201cPreach the word; be urgent in season, out of season;\n rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n ENDS OF THE AGES\n\n\nWhat does Paul mean in the expression, \u201cUpon whom the ends of the ages\nare come\u201d?\u2014\n\nThe dispensations are referred to as ages. There have been the\nPatriarchal age and the Mosaic age, and also we now have the Christian\nage. The ends, or aims, of both the Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age\nlooked forward to the Christian age. Christianity is the end of the\nages\u2014it is the last. Yet the future-kingdom advocates would have us\nbelieve that Paul was mistaken; that Christianity is not the end of the\nages, but there will be at least two more ages. But Paul, being\ninspired, was right, and Christianity is the end of the ages. And that\nsettles the future-kingdom claims. This is the ends of the ages.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n \u201cHere am I; send me.\u201d To know the Lord and to realize our dependence\n upon him makes us willing, even anxious, to do whatever he wants us to\n do. There is something fearfully wrong with the heart of one who\n inquires concerning any duty. Will it pay? Is it pleasant work? Will I\n be thrown with the right sort of people? Will it enhance my\n reputation? Is the work below my dignity? The true servant of the\n Lord, like Isaiah, says: \u201cHere am I; send me.\u201d Like his Lord he can\n say, \u201cMy meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish\n his work.\u201d (John 4:34.) \u201cI delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy\n law is within my heart.\u201d (Ps. 40:8.)\n\n\n\n\n THE FOUR BEASTS\n\n\nWill you please give a scriptural answer as to who or what the four\nbeasts refer in Rev. 4:6-9? Or give your idea as to what is meant by the\nfour beasts.\u2014Lee Chumbley.\n\nThe Scriptures do not tell us who or what the four beasts represent.\nInstead of _beasts_ the American Standard Version has _living\ncreatures_. It could as well be translated _living beings_ or _living\nones_. But that does not tell us who or what they represent. If the\nquerist will read on through the sixth chapter, he will find some of the\nthings these living beings did. For one thing he will find that they had\nthe power of speech. But the person who tells who or what they represent\ntells that which he does not know to be true. Brother Chumbley can find\npreachers who will tell him, and he will also find that they do not\nagree.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n A tragedy, to have any unity of action when played on the stage, must\n be planned and written by one person\u2014at least under the direction of\n one person. Imagine, if you can, a play written by several men,\n neither of whom knew what the other was writing, or that he was\n writing at all. Yet the tragedy of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus\n was so written by the prophets. And then the play\u2014none of the actors\n in the drama, save Jesus, knew that the part he was playing had been\n written, yet each played his part according to the record. God knew\n what would be done, and had the prophets to write it down.\n\n\n\n\n POINTS IN REVELATION 12\n\n\nA letter of some length from a good sister, Mrs. L. E. Jones, tells\nabout some things that came up in a class of which she is a member. The\nteacher holds to the future-kingdom theory. The class is going through\nthe book of Revelation. The letter mentions several things that came up\nin their study of Chapter 12, and from the letter I glean the following\nquestions:\n\n 1. Is the accuser of verse 10 the devil? Is it because of this accuser\n that Christ intercedes for us? It was so stated by a member of the\n class, who also said that as God was not human, he did not know what\n Christ suffered. Is that true?\n\n 2. Our teacher said that God was protecting and keeping the Jews, and\n that he had something special in store for them (something nice). I\n want you to answer in the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient.\n\n 3. Does the woman of verses 1-6, 13-17 represent the Jews? That was\n our teacher\u2019s idea.\n\n1. From what is said in the context it seems clear that the devil was\nbefore God as the accuser of the brethren; but as he was cast down from\nheaven to the earth, how can anyone figure out that he is now before God\naccusing the brethren? He is, however, doing all he can to lead them\ninto sin. Hence, the admonition: \u201cBe sober, be watchful: your adversary\nthe devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may\ndevour.\u201d (1 Pet. 5:8.) He is busying himself here on earth now. Jesus is\nour advocate with the Father, but I would not think he was before God\nengaged in a talk contest with the devil.\n\n2. As God is no respecter of persons, how can any believer in Christ\nargue that a Jew, because he is a Jew, is yet to enjoy blessings that a\nGentile cannot hope to receive, no matter how faithful he is, simply\nbecause he is not a Jew. The theory contradicts the fundamental\nprinciples of the gospel. Those who hold to that theory judge after the\nflesh\u2014a thing Jesus condemned. (John 8:15.) The theory encourages the\nJew to glory in his fleshly descent from Abraham\u2014to glory after the\nflesh. Such glorying Paul said was foolishness. (2 Cor. 11:17, 18.) It\nteaches the Jew to have confidence in the flesh, his Jewish flesh. Paul\nhad no such confidence; to him such relationship was but refuse. Or, as\nthe King James Version has it, he counted such dependence on Jewish\nflesh as but dung. (Phil. 3:2-8.) Such is your teacher\u2019s theory. Christ\ndied for all. (2 Cor. 5:15.) Now notice the next verse (verse 16):\n\u201cWherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh.\u201d Notice the force\nof the word _henceforth_\u2014from now on. Yes, the Jews are still in the\nworld; so are the Japanese and Chinamen. So what does that prove? The\nperson who assumes to know what God knows or does not know is about like\na worm assuming to know what Solomon knew and did not know.\n\n3. Any theory about the woman of chapter 12 is merely a guess, for the\nrecord does not say who she was. Some commentators, perhaps the majority\nof them, say she was the church, the dragon was the Roman Empire, and\nthe child was Constantine. I do not know. But if the woman was the\nJewish nation and the child was Jesus, then she was a very unnatural\nmother, for she killed her child! But that leaves the dragon out of the\npicture, and leaves us wondering about verse 6.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n\n CREATING A DEMAND\n\n Sometime ago a Christian man asked a gospel preacher: \u201cWhy do we not\n have great gospel sermons like those we used to hear?\u201d The reply was:\n \u201cThere is no demand for them.\u201d Do that question and answer reveal\n conditions as they are? Have we reached the point where preaching is\n trimmed down to fit the demands of the times? Is preaching thus\n reduced to a matter of trade?\n\n Some factories make only those articles that are in demand. But\n occasionally an article is offered for sale for which there had been\n no demand, but the makers of such articles proceed to create a demand.\n They do extensive advertising; they extol the uses and virtues of\n their article till people want it. And cannot we in the same way\n create a demand for the pure gospel in communities where there is no\n demand? We cannot do it by dealing in religious soup. There is a\n demand for the unadulterated gospel, for great gospel sermons; but the\n demand is not as extensive nor as intensive as it should be. Even in\n some churches of Christ there is not as strong demand for gospel\n sermons as there should be. When an elder can say, as some of them\n have said, \u201cSo far as I am concerned, I do not care whether our\n preacher can preach or not,\u201d it is time we were waking up.\n\n\n\n\n QUESTIONS ON REVELATION 20.\n\n\nE. B. Taylor asks seven or eight questions on the twentieth chapter of\nRevelation. To give answer to all these questions would require an\nexegesis of the chapter. For me that is impossible. The chapter abounds\nin figures of speech. Many have read into that chapter things that are\nnot in it. They also make some of it figurative and the rest literal, as\nthe needs of their theory require. With them a day in some of the\nprophecies is a year, but they take the thousand years as literal. Yet\nthey will not say that the devil is a real snake, nor that the chain is\na literal chain, nor that the beast is a real four-footed animal. Here\nare some of the things in this chapter that I do not know: Who the angel\nis, what the key is, the great chain, why the devil is called a snake,\nwhat the binding means, the thousand years, when the thousand years end,\nthe abyss and how it was sealed, length of the \u201clittle time,\u201d who sat on\nthrones, what judgment was given them, the extent of that judgment, what\nthe beast is, the image, mark of the beast, the war of verse 8, Gog and\nMagog, the camp of the saints, how devoured by fire, the lake, the beast\nof verse 10, who the false prophet is, nor how there can be day and\nnight in eternity. Yet the chapter makes some plain statements.\n\nWe may not know who the martyrs are, yet it is affirmed of them, and of\nno one else, that \u201cthey lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand\nyears.\u201d When or where this reigning is, was, or is to be, is not stated.\nBut it is stated in verse 6 that those who have part in the first\nresurrection \u201cshall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign\nwith him a thousand years.\u201d Hence, they are to be priests and to reign\nat the same time\u2014a royal priesthood. It is plain that they were to reign\nwhile they were priests, but Christians are priests now. Leaving out _to\nbe_, words supplied by the translator, Revelations 1:6 reads thus: \u201cHe\nmade us a kingdom, priests unto his God and Father.\u201d Being kings and\npriests, Christians are a royal priesthood. (See 1 Pet. 2:9.)\n\nIn 20:12, John saw the dead standing before the throne. _The dead_, not\na part of the dead. This is in perfect harmony with the Savior\u2019s\ndescription of the judgment in Matt. 25:31-46. It is argued by some that\nthis is a judgment of nations\u2014kingdoms\u2014instead of individuals. But\nnations in the Greek is neuter; but the pronoun _them_ in verse 32 is\nmasculine, and, therefore, refers to people, and not to nations as such.\nAt the judgment, therefore, all\u2014the small and the great\u2014will stand\nbefore the throne. This is also made clear in 2 Thess. 1:7-10. There it\nis declared that Jesus will take vengeance on the wicked \u201cwhen he shall\ncome to be glorified in his saints.\u201d And the last verse in the twentieth\nchapter of Revelations shows that some will be at that judgment, whose\nnames are written in the book of life.\n\n\n\n\n SEVERAL QUESTIONS\n\n\n1. Do you believe in the \u201csecret rapture\u201d theory?\n\n2. Will there be any life on the earth during the millennium period?\n\n1. The word _rapture_ is from a Latin word that means \u201cto carry off by\nforce.\u201d By some strange aberration some religious folks applied that\nterm to the Lord\u2019s taking saints from the earth, as if they will have to\nbe forced to go or somebody or power will have to be forced to let them\ngo\u2014a sort of seizing and carrying away. But I could not believe in the\n\u201csecret rapture\u201d unless I had some evidence. That evidence is lacking.\n\n2. I have found no evidence that there is to be a thousand-year period\nin which there will be no life on the earth. There is evidence, however,\nthat there will be life on the earth so long as the earth continues.\n\u201cWhile the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and\nsummer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.\u201d (Gen. 8:22.) A\ncareful reading of 2 Pet. 3:1-14 will show that so long as the earth\nremaineth Christians are exhorted to be \u201clooking for and earnestly\ndesiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens\nbeing on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with\nfervent heat.\u201d Any student can find other evidence to the same import.\n\nBut suppose one believes the affirmative of both these questions, what\nis practical about such belief? If you hold to a notion that helps\nneither your faith nor your practice, why waste time with it? Why\ndisturb others with it?\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Jesus came to save sinners, not to make sinners. People were sinners\n before Jesus came, and they would have continued to be sinners had not\n Jesus come. If people do not believe in him, they continue sinning\n just as they would have done had he not come.\n\n Though Jesus was moved with compassion at the sight of human\n suffering, his miracles of healing were not performed primarily to\n relieve suffering. If that were so, he would cure all sick folks even\n now, or cause that no one would ever be afflicted in any way. His\n miracles were performed as signs that God was with him.\n\n Jesus put a higher value on man than on animals. \u201cHow much then is a\n man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on\n the sabbath day.\u201d (Matt. 12:12.) There is something of vast worth in\n man, else God would not have been mindful of him.\n\n\n\n\n Part II\n DISCUSSIONS\n\n\n\n\n PREDICTION OR PROPHECY\n\n\nThe word \u201cpredict\u201d comes from a compound Latin word that means, \u201cto\nsay,\u201d or \u201ctell before\u201d; hence, to prophesy. But many words in the course\nof time have somewhat changed in meaning; \u201cpredict\u201d is such a word. In\ngiving synonyms under \u201cforetell\u201d Webster says, \u201c\u2018Foretell\u2019 (Saxon) and\n\u2018predict\u2019 (Latin) are often interchangeable; but predict is now commonly\nused when inference from facts (rather than occult processes) is\ninvolved.\u201d Hence when a man considers facts and trends and draws a\nconclusion as to what will be the outcome, that is prediction. Did Bible\nprophecies originate that way? No; \u201c... knowing this first, that no\nprophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever\ncame by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy\nSpirit.\u201d (2 Pet 1:19-21).\n\nVerse 21 really explains verse 20. Prophecy was never a forecast of\nevents based on conditions and trends of the times; it was not a private\ninterpretation of the culmination of trends. It did not come (Greek,\n\u201cwas not brought\u201d) by the will of man; \u201cbut men spake from God, being\nmoved by the Holy Spirit.\u201d Hence, no prophecy came as a result of a\nman\u2019s own private interpretation of trends and events of the times. If a\nman should draw a conclusion from facts and trends, such conclusion\ncould, in a loose sense, be called a prophecy, a prophecy of private\ninterpretation, a prophecy that came by the will of man; but Peter\nspeaks of the prophecy of scripture. Such prophecy is not of the private\ninterpretation of facts and trends. Notice the contrast\u2014\u201cno prophecy of\nscripture is of private interpretation ... but men spoke from God, being\nmoved by the Holy Spirit.\u201d The passage has no reference to what should\nbe done about prophecy that had already been written, but to weave\ntogether a mass of prophecies, most of which have been fulfilled, and\nmake a scheme for the future, practically amounts to a man-made\nprophecy\u2014a prophecy that comes by the will of man. Even the prophets did\nnot understand their own prophecies\u2014did not know but that \u201cthe\nsufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow them, \u201cwas meant\nfor themselves,\u201d till God revealed to them \u201cthat not unto themselves,\nbut unto you did they minister these things\u201d (1 Pet. 1:10-12). But it\nseems that a host of preachers and editors today think they know more\nabout the prophecies than did the prophets who uttered them.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n A privilege is a right which we may exercise or not, as we choose.\n Attending the annual feasts of the Jews was a privilege with the\n women. They could stay at home or go, without guilt. To the men,\n attending these feasts was not a privilege, but a duty. To fail\n brought guilt. Christians should do some serious thinking to determine\n their privileges and their duties. To say that a certain thing is both\n a privilege and a duty is about as sensible as to say that a certain\n thing is both black and white. To be baptized, to attend the\n Lord\u2019s-day worship, to give, to study God\u2019s word, and to obey all\n other commands are duties, and are not privileges in any proper sense\n of the word.\n\n\n\n\n PROPHECY\n\n\nA prophecy is anything God reveals through an inspired spokesman. It\nmight be concerning future events or present duties and warnings. But in\nthis article I shall use the word in its common acceptation\u2014namely, as a\nrevelation of things future as to the time the prophecy was given.\n\nIt was no uncommon thing for prophecies to be delivered in highly\nfigurative language. In such cases the prophecy was to be fulfilled in\nthe sense conveyed by the figurative language. It is a common saying\nthat the Bible means exactly what it says, but that is never true when\nthings are spoken in figurative language. We all use figurative\nlanguage. When Paul said, \u201cBeware of the dogs,\u201d no one thinks he\nreferred to literal dogs. When Jesus called Herod a \u201cfox,\u201d he used\nfigurative language, and no one thinks he meant that Herod was a literal\nfox.\n\nIn his recent book on prophecy a certain brother says: \u201cExpect a literal\nfulfillment. This is God\u2019s way of fulfilling prophecy. Every prophecy\nwhich the Bible says has been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally.\u201d\nThat is a broad statement. Can he make proof? Let him try his dictum on\nIsa. 40:3, 4: \u201cThe voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the\nwilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for\nour God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill\nshall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough\nplaces a plain.\u201d A literal fulfillment of that prophecy would require\nmountains and hills to be torn down and valleys to be filled up. Now,\nLuke (3:4, 5) quotes this prophecy and applies it to the work of John\nthe Baptist. And Matthew distinctly says that John the Baptist was the\none of whom Isaiah prophesied. (Matt. 3:3). This one fulfillment of\nprophecy completely upsets his dictum, unless the author contends that\nJohn had a contract to construct a literal highway, and literally\nleveled mountains and hills and filled up valleys, as highway builders\ndo. But we had never thought of John the Baptist as a road contractor!\n\nAnother highly figurative prophecy is the following: \u201cAnd the wolf shall\ndwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and\nthe calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child\nshall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones\nshall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And\nthe sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned\nchild shall put his hand on the adder\u2019s den. They shall not hurt nor\ndestroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the\nknowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.\u201d (Isa. 11:6-9). But\nwe are told that this must have its literal fulfillment, and that the\ntime will come when all beasts of prey shall be thoroughly changed and\ngentled. If all prophecies must be literally fulfilled, what about the\nfirst verse of this chapter? Will a literal shoot and branch come up\nfrom the literal stock and roots of Jesse? And Isaiah (55:12) spoke of a\ncoming time when \u201cthe mountains and the hills shall break forth before\nyou into singing; and all the trees of the field shall clap their\nhands.\u201d And we are gravely admonished to expect a literal fulfillment of\nall prophecies!\n\nBut what about the animals? The kings of Assyria and Babylon are called\n\u201clions.\u201d (Jer. 4:7; 50:17.) The princes in Jerusalem were called\n\u201croaring lions,\u201d and the judges \u201cwolves.\u201d (Zeph. 3:3.) The princes of\nIsrael were called \u201cwhelps,\u201d and their mother \u201ca lioness\u201d; and one of\nthese whelps became a lion! (Ezek. 19:1-9.) David referred to certain of\nhis enemies as \u201cbulls\u201d (Ps. 22:12), and Amos refers to certain people as\nthe \u201ckine of Bashan\u201d (Amos 4:1). Jesus called certain people \u201cwolves\u201d\n(Matt. 7:15; 10:16), and Paul said to the elders of Ephesus: \u201cGrievous\nwolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock\u201d (Acts 20:29).\nWill the future-kingdom advocates contend that this prophecy of Paul\u2019s\nwas literally fulfilled? Had our brother been present, would he have\nlooked for literal wolves to destroy that church? If so, he would have\nmissed the force of Paul\u2019s words entirely. If these elders had been\nguided by the above dictum, they would have gone out on a literal wolf\nhunt!\n\nMen of ferocious disposition are to be tamed and gentled by the gospel\nof Christ; but even that will not be universal, so far as this prophecy\nindicates. The prophecy does not make any affirmation concerning the\nwhole world. The key to a proper understanding of the prophecy which is\nquoted above is found in the last verse: \u201cThey shall not hurt nor\ndestroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the\nknowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.\u201d It is in Jehovah\u2019s\nholy mountain where this gentleness shall be\u2014where no hurt shall be\ndone. The mountain of Jehovah, in Isaiah\u2019s language, refers to Jehovah\u2019s\ngovernment: \u201cAnd it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the\nmountain of Jehovah\u2019s house shall be established on the top of the\nmountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall\nflow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go\nup to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he\nwill teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of\nZion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.\u201d\n(Isa. 2:2, 3.) It is in this holy mountain, this church, or house, of\nGod, where \u201cthey shall not hurt nor destroy\u201d; and the reason is given:\n\u201cFor the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters\ncover the sea.\u201d Certainly no one will contend that wild beasts will be\nso full of the knowledge of God that they will not hurt nor destroy. But\nferocious men do become gentle under the influence of the gospel; they\nmust be thus gentled before they can enter Jehovah\u2019s holy mountain.\n\nOne more thought. If, in studying prophecy, we are to expect a literal\nfulfillment, and if that is God\u2019s way of fulfilling all prophecies, then\nwhat are we to do with Isa. 2:2, 3 and 40:3, 4? The mountains and hills\nare to be leveled down, and yet Jehovah\u2019s mountain is to be established\non the top of the mountains and exalted above the hills. How can both\nthings take place literally? So it appears that their dictum on the\nliteral fulfillment of prophecies makes it impossible for prophecies to\nbe literally fulfilled.\n\n\n\n\n SHALL WE LOOK FOR A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF ALL PROPHECY?\n\n\nThe future-kingdom advocates put great stress on the literal application\nof Old Testament prophecies. A Prophecy concerning Israel must be\napplied to Israel in the flesh, and Jerusalem means the Jerusalem in\nPalestine. Zion must have its literal application, and so with \u201cthrone\u201d\nand \u201ckingdom\u201d, etc. With them, there must be no \u201cspiritualizing.\u201d The\nlamb and the lion must refer to literal lion and lamb. But will they\nstick to that line? Hardly. Isaiah said: \u201cEvery valley shall be exalted,\nand every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be\nmade level, and the rough places plain.\u201d (Isa. 40:4.) Now, the inspired\nhistorians of the New Testament applied that Scripture to the work of\nJohn the Baptist; yet we are told by the future-kingdom advocates that\nevery prophecy must have its plain, literal fulfillment. If so, the\ninspired New Testament writers were mistaken on this point, and that\nprophecy has not yet been fulfilled.\n\nBut we are told that the prophecies mean exactly what they say. Now, is\nthat really so? Then, what about the four beasts in Daniel 7? \u201cFour\ngreat beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other.\u201d Yes, it\nis true that these matters were interpreted for us, but it is also true\nthat the interpretation shows that the four beasts were not actually\nfour beasts. It also shows, as do other passages, that many prophecies\nare couched in highly figurative language. The prophecy concerning the\nwork of John (Isa. 40) shows how highly figurative some prophecies are.\nOr will the future-kingdom folks say that even this prophecy must yet\nhave its literal fulfillment?\n\nBut it is contended that the throne of David means the rule over the\nfleshly house of Israel in the land of Palestine, and that unless Christ\nrules over the Jewish nation in the land of Palestine he does not occupy\nthe throne of David. He must have a civil government, with Israelites as\ncitizens and the land of Palestine as the territory; otherwise, he does\nnot occupy the same throne David did. This would imply that the kingdom\nover which Christ rules must be an exact replica of the kingdom as it\nwas in the days of David. If not, why not? If it can be changed in one\nparticular, why not in others? It is argued that God\u2019s oath to David\n(Ps. 89:34, 35) precludes the possibility of any change in the kingdom.\nBut even after so arguing, do our future-kingdom advocates outline a\nkingdom just like the kingdom of David? They do not. Here are a few\npoints wherein the kingdom of David differs from the future kingdom as\noutlined by its advocates:\n\nDavid\u2019s reign was local; Christ\u2019s reign to be worldwide.\n\nEvery kind of Israelite, good and bad, citizens in David\u2019s kingdom: only\nregenerated Israelites to be citizens in Christ\u2019s kingdom.\n\nFleshly birth made citizens of David\u2019s kingdom; a Jew must be born again\nto be a citizen of Christ\u2019s kingdom.\n\nEvery child of Hebrew parents was in David\u2019s kingdom; children must be\nold enough to voluntarily accept Christ to be in the future kingdom.\n\nDavid was king, family of Aaron were priests then; Christ to be both\nKing and Priest.\n\nSome rather unruly men were helpers in David\u2019s kingdom; only true and\ntried Christians are to reign with Christ. (Here the future kingdom as\noutlined by its advocates radically differs from David\u2019s kingdom.)\n\nDavid\u2019s kingdom was constantly beset by its enemies; no enemies to the\nfuture kingdom.\n\nDavid\u2019s kingdom constantly organized for war; nothing like that in the\nfuture kingdom.\n\nIn David\u2019s kingdom they learned war; in the future kingdom they shall\nlearn war no more.\n\nDavid reigned while the devil was loose and doing his worst; we are told\nthat Christ cannot begin his reign till Satan is bound.\n\nMoses was the lawgiver of the old kingdom; Christ is to be the lawgiver\nfor the future kingdom.\n\nAnd that is not all; but we grow weary of the task of enumerating the\ndifferences. Yet we are told that, if there is any alteration, the\nthrone of the kingdom cannot be the throne of David.\n\nWhen Jehovah called Israel out of Egypt, he told them that, if they\nwould obey his voice, they would be unto him \u201ca kingdom of priests, and\na holy nation.\u201d (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But had not God always exercised\nuniversal dominion over all the works of his hands? Certainly, but now\nhe was to rule in a special way over a special people. As this people\nwere to have no earthly head, they were not to be like the nations\naround them, and were not to be reckoned among the Nations. God made\ntheir laws, and gave direction for their execution. This state of things\ncontinued till the days of Samuel. Then the people asked for a king that\nthey might be like the nations around them. That was a rejection of\nJehovah as their king. Saul was put on the throne, and the kingdom\nbecame his. He was rejected and the kingdom given to David. These men\nand the descendants of David occupied the throne that belonged\npeculiarly and specially to Jehovah. Jehovah occupied that throne before\nSaul or David, and that throne continued after the last son of David\nreigned. The royal family of David fell into decay, but did Jehovah\u2019s\nrule over Israel cease? Did not his throne continue as it did before\nSaul became king? It is true that the Jews were rarely independent, but\nwere they any less under the rule of Jehovah when they were subject to\nother nations? Did not the kingdom continue with them? Before becoming\nexcited at these words, read Matt. 21:43: \u201cTherefore say I unto you, the\nkingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a\nnation bringing forth the fruits thereof.\u201d How could the kingdom be\ntaken from them, if it was not then with them? The Lord was then\ndeveloping that nation to whom the kingdom was to be given, and to whom\nit was given on the first Pentecost after his resurrection.\n\nOn Pentecost, Peter preached that God had raised up Jesus to sit on\nDavid\u2019s throne. It has been argued that Peter does not say that he then\nsat upon that throne. If not, what point was there in mentioning it?\nAfter mentioning it, Peter says: \u201cBeing therefore by the right hand of\nGod exalted,\u201d etc. If that is not a conclusion from what he said about\nthe throne of David, why the \u201ctherefore\u201d? Would Peter\u2014would any\nspeaker\u2014make an argument about the throne of David, and conclude that\n\u201ctherefore\u201d Jesus had been exalted to something else, something he had\nnot even mentioned? Are we seriously expected to believe such\nabsurdities?\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n By faith Noah built the ark. Faith only\u2014that is, faith without\n works\u2014is dead. Such faith never would have built the ark; neither does\n it ever accomplish anything nor bring any blessings. Faith prompted\n and guided Noah in building the ark, and so it is said that he built\n the ark by faith\u2014a faith made perfect by works.\n\n God has always tested man\u2019s willingness to do his will. To be a real\n test, the thing commanded must be such that the person can see no\n connection between the thing commanded and the result to be obtained.\n Examples: The brazen serpent (Num. 21:4-9); Naaman\u2019s dipping in the\n Jordan (2 Kings 5:1-19). Baptism is such a test.\n\n \u201cReligion\u201d is a broad term. There are many religions, but only one\n true religion. It would be better now to speak of \u201cThe place of\n Christianity in a nation\u2019s life.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n ABRAHAM AND THE LAND PROMISE\n\n\nWhen God called Abraham out of the Chaldees, he made certain promises to\nhim, one of which is this: \u201cIn thee shall all the families of the earth\nbe blessed.\u201d (Gen. 12:1-3). Then when Abraham stood the test about\noffering up Isaac, God added this to the other promises: \u201cIn thy seed\nshall all the nations of the earth be blessed.\u201d That this promise refers\nto Christ is made clear by Paul: \u201cNow to Abraham were the promises\nspoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as\nof one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.\u201d (Gal. 3:16). Paul\u2019s language\nshows clearly that the promised seed of Abraham was none other than\nChrist Jesus. It is a perversion of the promise to make it refer to all\nfleshly children of Abraham or to those who are children by faith.\nChristians are blessings to others only as they allow Christ to use them\nas his instruments.\n\nUniversalists use the promise to Abraham in an effort to prove that all\npeople will be saved, but they ignore the conditionality of promises. It\nis not my purpose to discuss Universalism, but call attention to these\nstatements: \u201cYe will not come to me, that ye may have life.\u201d (John\n5:40). \u201cHe that disbelieveth shall be condemned.\u201d (Mark 16:16). \u201cAnd\nthese shall go away into eternal punishment.\u201d (Matt. 25:46). A person\nwho will not believe these scriptures, and others that might be cited,\nwill not believe anything he does not want to believe.\n\nThe future kingdom folks have twisted the land-promise in support of\ntheir future plans for the Lord. The land-promise to Abraham did not\nproduce the speculation about the future return of the Jews to\nPalestine; but their return is an essential part of the future kingdom\ntheory, and that made it necessary to claim that the land promise still\nholds good. Let us look into this matter briefly.\n\n\u201cAnd Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give\nthis land.\u201d (Gen. 12:7). \u201cAnd he said unto him, I am Jehovah that\nbrought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit\nit.\u201d (Gen. 15:7). But Abram did not believe Jehovah, and said, \u201cO Lord\nJehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?\u201d For that\nunbelief, God required him to prepare three animals and two birds for a\nsacrifice, and then Jehovah did not honor his sacrifice with fire from\nheaven; and Abram had to protect his sacrifices from birds of prey. Then\nhe fell into a deep sleep; \u201cAnd lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon\nhim.\u201d Then Jehovah revealed to him the future bondage of his seed, and\ntheir deliverance. This showed Abram how God was displeased with Abram\u2019s\nunbelief. It is significant that God left Abram out of his next promise:\n\u201cIn that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed\nhave I given this land.\u201d You see, Abram would have died long before they\nreturned from Egypt. As we proceed it is well to remember the wording of\nthis covenant-promise, and that Abraham is not included in it. Yet so\nlong as Abraham lived, he was included in the land promise. (See Gen.\n17:8). And of course, when the land-promise was made to Isaac and to\nJacob after the death of Abraham, he was not included (Gen. 26:2, 3;\n28:13).\n\nIt is urged by some that God promised the land to Abraham as an\nindividual, yet Stephen says that God \u201cgave him none inheritance in it,\nno, not so much as to set his foot on.\u201d (Acts 7:5). It is affirmed that\nthis promise must yet be fulfilled; yet Abraham had all the grazing\nrights he needed. The land therefore was his to use. But the future\nkingdom advocates overlook another statement Stephen made: After\nmentioning Israel\u2019s going down into Egypt, Stephen said, \u201cBut as the\ntime of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the\npeople grew and multiplied in Egypt.\u201d (verse 17). This was the land\npromise which God made to Abraham\u2014\u201cGod vouchsafed unto Abraham.\u201d The\ntime for the fulfilling of that promise to Abraham had drawn nigh. The\nlanguage cannot be twisted to mean anything else: So the Lord led Israel\nout of the land of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. Was this land\npromise which was \u201cvouchsafed to Abraham,\u201d and which had drawn nigh\nfulfilled? Joshua answers that question. \u201cSo Jehovah gave unto Israel\nall the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they\npossessed it, dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of any good thing\nwhich Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.\u201d\n(Josh. 21:43-45). In his farewell address Joshua said, \u201cAnd, behold,\nthis day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your\nhearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the\ngood things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to\npass unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof.\u201d (Josh. 23:14).\nLanguage could not be plainer; or more emphatic. And a man who will not\nbelieve what Joshua says will not believe anything he does not want to\nbelieve.\n\nWe have been told that the land promise was unconditional; but the fact\nthat the Jews were carried into captivity because of their sins and the\nfurther fact that they are not now in Palestine, and also the fact that\nat the beginning they had to drive the nations out, show how foolish it\nis to say that the land promise was not conditional. The Jews increased\nin their wickedness till they crucified Christ and tried to destroy his\nchurch. For these crimes they lost the land and their national\nexistence; and now they have no more right to Palestine than to Italy,\nor any other country.\n\nNotice the wording of God\u2019s promise to Abraham: \u201cI will give unto thee,\nand to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of\nCanaan, for an everlasting possession.\u201d (Gen. 17:8). \u201cAfter thee\u201d\u2014does\nthat preposition \u201cafter\u201d mean any thing to you? The land was given to\nAbraham, and to his seed after him\u2014a succession of ownership, first\nAbraham and after him his seed. So if that promise is yet to be\nfulfilled, then Abraham will first occupy the land, how long no one\nknows, then it passes to his seed. Look at the language carefully, and\nit will mean something to you. You cannot ignore that preposition\n\u201cafter.\u201d It is clear enough if you recognize the fact that Abraham had\nfull use of the land while he lived, and that after him his seed had the\nland.\n\n\n\n\n THE TIME OF PROMISE\n\n\nIn the discussion about the land promise made to Abraham, one plain\nstatement seems to have been overlooked. But, first, let us get before\nus an argument that some make on that promise. It is argued that the\npromise was made direct to Abraham and was meant to be fulfilled to him\nin person, and yet Stephen informs us that God \u201cgave him none\ninheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.\u201d (Acts 7:5).\nAssuming that the promise to Abraham meant that he would have title and\nright to the land in his own person, it is therefore argued that he must\nyet have it in his possession. It is therefore argued that the Jews must\nreturn to Palestine, so that the promise to Abraham may be fulfilled.\nBut in thus making Abraham and the nation of Israel joint-owners of the\nland at the same time\u2014they overlook the promise as Stephen stated it:\n\u201cand he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his\nseed after him.\u201d Notice that word _after_\u2014first to Abraham, then to \u201chis\nseed _after_ him.\u201d Notice again this word _after_ in Gen. 17:8 \u201cI will\ngive unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojourning,\nall the land of Canaan.\u201d Abraham first, then his seed after him. I\nwonder how long these future kingdom folks think Abraham is to possess\nthe land before it comes into the possession of his seed after him! The\nemphasis the future kingdom folks place on their idea that the land was\nto be given to Abraham in person will not allow them to concede the\ntruth that the promise was made to him as the head or father of a nation\nto be possessed by the nation of whom he was the father. The head or\nfather of a nation is sometimes put for the nation\u2014is sometimes spoken\nof as a nation. Before Jacob and Esau were born, Jehovah said to\nRebecca, \u201cTwo nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be\nseparated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the\nother people; and the elder shall serve the younger.\u201d (Gen. 25:23).\nThese statements or promises concerning these unborn sons were to be\nfulfilled centuries after they were born\u2014fulfilled in their descendants.\nTo rebellious King Saul, Samuel said, \u201cJehovah hath rent the kingdom of\nIsrael from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine,\nthat is better than thou.\u201d (1 Sam. 15:28.) Yet that threat was never\nvisited upon Saul in person, for he continued to be king so long as he\nlived. Now, that threat to Saul was as personal as was the land promise\nto Abraham. Why does not some wild scribe argue that Saul must be raised\nagain and put on the throne of Israel, so God can fulfill his threat?!!\nThe threat was fulfilled in the family of Saul just as the land promise\nto Abraham was fulfilled to his descendants. And that is exactly the way\nthe land promise to Abraham was fulfilled. After Stephen spoke of this\nland promise, he said, \u201cBut as the time of the promise drew nigh which\nGod vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.\u201d\n(Acts 7:17.) \u201cThe time of the promise\u201d can mean nothing else than the\n_time for the fulfillment of the promise_. That time had drawn nigh, and\nthings began to shape up for the fulfillment of that promise. Those who\nclaim that the promise has not yet been fulfilled have a quarrel with\nStephen.\n\nAt the proper time Moses was sent to lead Israel out of Egypt. In giving\ninstructions concerning the passover, Moses said, \u201cAnd it shall come to\npass, when ye are come to the land which Jehovah will give you,\naccording as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.\u201d (Ex.\n12:25.) Hence when they should come into their possessions in Canaan,\nthat was exactly what God had promised. Again Moses refers to Canaan as\nthe land which Jehovah \u201csware unto thy fathers to give thee.\u201d (Ex.\n13:5.) This same promise is referred to many times in Deuteronomy. A few\nof the many passages: (6:3, 10, 18, 23; 8:1; 31:20.) These passages\nteach plainly that the possession of the land of Canaan by Israel would\nbe the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob. Joshua so understood it; for when the tribes of Israel came into\npossession of the territories allotted them, he said, \u201cAnd behold this\nday I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts\nand in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good\nthings which Jehovah your God spake concerning you: all are come to pass\nunto you, not one thing hath failed thereof. And it shall come to pass,\nthat as all the good things are come upon you of which Jehovah your God\nspake unto you, so will Jehovah bring upon you all the evil things,\nuntil he have destroyed you from off this good land which Jehovah your\nGod hath given you.\u201d (Josh. 23:14, 15.)\n\n\n\n\n REBELLION OF ISRAEL\u2014A KINGDOM BORN.\n\n\nWhen Jehovah led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, he said to\nthem, \u201cYe have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on\neagles\u2019 wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will\nobey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own\npossession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye\nshall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.\u201d (Ex. 19:4-6.)\nOf course, God, in a general way, ruled over all the works of his hands,\nbut in a special sense he ruled over the nation of Israel. For a long\ntime Jehovah was their only king. In emergencies he raised up judges to\ndeliver them from their enemies. But in the course of time they became\ndissatisfied with that sort of thing. Their sins brought them into\ntrouble, and they thought that it was the efficiency of the governments\nsurrounding them.\n\n\u201cThen all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to\nSamuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy\nsons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the\nnations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king\nto judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto\nSamuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto\nthee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I\nshould not be king over them.\u201d (1 Sam. 8:4-7.) Nevertheless, Jehovah\ntold Samuel to inform the people fully as to how the king which they\ndesired would oppress them, and Samuel did so. \u201cBut the people refused\nto hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will\nhave a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that\nour king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.\u201d\n(Verses 19, 20.) Saul was selected as king, though some were not pleased\nwith the selection.\n\nSoon after being made king, Saul smashed the armies of the Ammonites in\na great battle. Then Samuel knew that it was an appropriate time to\ngather the people together and \u201crenew the kingdom.\u201d They were called\ntogether at Gilgal, and there Samuel resigned as judge in a solemn\naddress to the people. He told them that, although they had asked for a\nking when Jehovah was their King, Jehovah would bless them and their\nking, if they and their king obeyed his voice. His speech and the rain\nthat came at Samuel\u2019s call so impressed the people that they said: \u201cWe\nhave added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.\u201d (1 Sam.\n12:19.)\n\nThis kingdom, which was conceived in a desire to be like other nations,\nborn in open rebellion against God, and tolerated through the\nforbearance of God, is the kingdom that some people would have us\nbelieve God yet intends to restore and enlarge. That kingdom restored\nis, we are told, the hope of Israel! That is the kingdom over which\nJesus and the church will yet rule, and through which all the world will\nbe blessed! Who can believe it?\n\nI am aware that a question like this may occur to some one: If that\nkingdom was established in rebellion against God, how is it that Jehovah\npromised the throne of David to the Christ? But if we were unable to\ngive a satisfactory answer to that question, it would not change what\nthe Lord says as to the spirit that brought that kingdom into existence.\nBut the question presents no real difficulty. Before the people called\nfor a king so as to be like the nations, Jehovah was their king; he\nalone occupied the throne. Of course you understand that \u201cthrone\u201d means\nauthority to rule, rulership, kingly authority. When Saul, David, or\nSolomon ruled over God\u2019s people, he occupied the throne of Jehovah. It\nwas called David\u2019s throne because he occupied it, and not because it was\nhis by right. If people could ever get it settled in their minds that\nDavid really sat on Jehovah\u2019s throne, it would save them from some\nconfusion. But these two quotations show that the throne of David and\nthe throne of Jehovah are the same: \u201cAnd Solomon sat upon the throne of\nDavid his father.\u201d (1 Kings 2:12.) \u201cThen Solomon sat on the throne of\nJehovah as king instead of David his father.\u201d (1 Chron. 29:23.) It is\nplain that Jehovah\u2019s throne was called David\u2019s because he occupied it.\nHe who rules over God\u2019s people occupies the same throne that David\noccupied. No one will deny that Jesus now rules over God\u2019s people or, if\nyou like the expression better, rules in the hearts of God\u2019s people. To\nacknowledge that he does so rule is to acknowledge that he sits on the\nthrone on which David sat. This truth has nothing to do with the fact\nthat the people of Israel sinned in wanting a king so as to be like the\nnations around them. \u201cI have given thee a king in mine anger, and have\ntaken him away in my wrath.\u201d (Hos. 13:11.)\n\n\n\n\n NEITHER\u2014NOR\n\n\nIn the May issue of Word and Work, Stanford Chambers writes under the\nabove caption as follows:\n\n One was recently heard to say publicly: \u201cI am neither a\n premillennialist nor a postmillennialist.\u201d I think I saw the same from\n the pen of some writer. It is difficult to see how one can avoid being\n one or the other. A man might say: \u201cI am neither an immersionist nor a\n nonimmersionist.\u201d How could that be, unless he disregards baptism\n entirely? Just so in regard to the return of our Lord; it is either\n before the millennium, that is, premillennial, or it is after it, that\n is, postmillennial. Whoever disavows the event of his coming until the\n close of the millennium, whoever puts the millennium anywhere\n preceding the coming, is a postmillennialist, whatever he disavows or\n denies.\n\n Just because the Lord Jesus may come at any time, and because it is an\n event he has commanded us to watch for and to pray about, I dare not\n put a thousand years between me and the fulfillment. Hence, I am a\n premillennial, and can no more help it than I can help being an\n immersionist.\n\n \u201cBut what difference does it make whether I am \u2018pre\u2019 or \u2018Post\u2019?\u201d I\n should say not enough in and of itself, merely, for it to be made a\n test of fellowship as has been attempted even by some \u201cNeither ...\n Nor\u2019s.\u201d But it might make a great deal of difference for a man to put\n a thousand years between him and the coming of Jesus. Our Saviour\n himself shows the likely effect for one to say: \u201cMy Lord delays his\n coming.\u201d Again, it might make a great deal of difference for him to\n teach men so. It is a serious thing to oppose any one\u2019s quoting, \u201cThe\n Lord is at hand,\u201d or \u201cThe Judge standeth before the door,\u201d or \u201cThe end\n of all things is at hand,\u201d or \u201cWhen ye see these things, know that he\n is near.\u201d Too much store is being set by this \u201cwhat difference does it\n make?\u201d The postmillennial error has many attendant malinterpretations\n it were well to avoid. As every truth of God\u2019s word is helpful, so\n every error is harmful, and _any_ error _may_ lead to fatality. \u201cProve\n all things, hold fast that which is good.\u201d\n\nYes, I have said publicly, both orally and in print, that I am neither a\npremillennialist nor a postmillenialist. The Gospel Advocate has been\nall along making a heroic effort to steer clear of all party, or class,\nnames. But Brother Chambers thinks it cannot be done. He does not see\nhow a man can keep from being a premillennialist or a postmillennialist.\nIn his estimation a man cannot be simply a Christian; he must have some\nsort of a descriptive term to designate what sort of Christian he is.\nAnd so we have premillennial Christians and postmillennial Christians.\nHere, then, is partyism in religion, the beginning of new denominations.\nIt will not help the situation any to say that these are merely\ndescriptive words, and not party names. Why the need of these\ndescriptive terms, if they are not intended to describe different\nparties? _Methodist_ was first a descriptive term, and then a party\nname. Premillennial Christian, postmillennial Christian, and Baptist\nChristian; in principle, what is the difference? And herein we see one\nof the evils of preaching speculative theories that create groups,\nclasses, or parties in the church. What right has any man or set of men\nto create two parties, and then tell me that I must belong to one of\nthem? That these brethren of Word and Work have created conditions that\nmake it necessary in their judgment to use descriptive terms to\ndesignate groups of brethren condemns the whole movement as divisive in\nnature and sectarian in principle. If they think they have created\nconditions in the church that make it necessary for the Gospel Advocate\nto line up with one of these parties and be labeled, they are decidedly\nmistaken. If, as Brother Chambers says, he cannot help wearing a party\nlabel, he needs the help the Gospel Advocate is trying to give him. But\nif he is just bound to be what he is, and cannot help it, what will he\ndo about it when the Lord comes, if the Lord does not follow the program\nthese brethren have marked out for him? And herein is another danger to\nthese brethren. Before Jesus came to earth, the learned Jews had things\nmapped out; and because Jesus did not follow their program, they\nbelieved him to be an imposter. Yes, there were program makers for his\nfirst coming, and there are program makers for his second coming; and\nthe fatal blunder of the first program makers should be a warning to the\npresent program makers.\n\nBut Brother Chambers thinks that neither \u201cpre\u201d nor \u201cpost\u201d should be made\na test of fellowship. There is something pitiful and shaky about a plea\nthat one\u2019s teaching or practice be not made a test of fellowship. The\nplea itself is a confession of divergence. We have often heard that same\nplea from the \u201cprogressives.\u201d No matter from whom it comes, it sounds\nlike a plea for forbearance and mercy. The Gospel Advocate has never, in\nits long history, felt the least need of making such a plea. Can you\nimagine J. C. McQuiddy, T. B. Larimore, E. G. Sewell, or David Lipscomb\nbegging the brethren not to make some theory or practice of theirs a\ntest of fellowship?\n\nThere has been a good deal of loose talk about tests of fellowship. To\nraise the question as to an opinion or theory without giving any\nattention to what is done with the opinion or theory does not meet the\nissue. An opinion or practice might be very innocent, and yet a man\nmight make a great deal of trouble with it. It is not then his opinion\nyou must consider, but the use he makes of it. Suppose some man should\ndecide that dark clothing is conducive to piety and sober-mindedness,\nand that light clothing makes the wearer light-hearted and gay, and that\nflashy dress makes the wearer frivolous and giddy. Would you feel\ndisposed to make his notion or his practice a test of fellowship? But\nsuppose that peculiar notion of his becomes such an obsession with him\nthat he feels that he must advocate it everywhere? He becomes so carried\naway with the idea that he becomes a nuisance, a trouble maker, and a\ndivider of churches; what then? What would Brother Chambers do about it?\nSuppose he, while dividing churches with his peculiar theory, pleads\nthat the sort of dress a fellow wears should not be made a test of\nfellowship; how would Brother Chambers answer him? It is supposed, of\ncourse, that Brother Chambers cares enough for the peace and unity of\nchurches to do something about such a situation, but what would he do?\nWould he fellowship the fellow, bid him Godspeed, and call him to hold\nmeetings? And it would be much worse if the fellow divided churches by\npreaching hurtful and untrue theories.\n\nIf brethren press a theory to the dividing of churches and then tell us\nthat we must let them alone, else they will have no fellowship with us,\nwhat can we do about it? They have drawn the line, and issued a\n\u201cmanifesto.\u201d And yet they keep talking about tests of fellowship.\n\nWhat is their object in talking so much about tests of fellowship? Do\nthey live up to their plea? When has a church which indorses\nwhole-heartedly the Word and Work theory ever called one who opposed\nsuch theory to hold their meeting? What fellowship do they extend to\npreachers who do not indorse them? Why do they not call Foy E. Wallace,\nJr., C. R. Nichol, or men like these, to assist them in meetings? No\nlonger ago than last year some friends of mine wanted me to teach a\nBible class of nights in their meetinghouse. Two of the elders are\nardent admirers of Brother Boll and his teaching; they refused to allow\nthe class to be taught in the meetinghouse. Look at the matter any way\nyou please, and it was worse than a refusal to fellowship me. And the\nonly grounds of refusal was the fact that I was not a \u201cpre.\u201d Now, until\nthey show some fellowship toward those who oppose their theories, all\nclear-thinking brethren will conclude that their talk about \u201ctests of\nfellowship\u201d is indulged in merely to create prejudice in their favor.\nSuch a thing is cheap politics.\n\n\u201cOur Savior himself shows the likely effect for one to say: \u2018My Lord\ndelays his coming.\u2019\u201d Brother Chambers here quotes from the parable found\nin Luke 12:42-48. These brethren quote, \u201cMy Lord delays his coming,\u201d as\nif that was the real crime of that wicked servant; whereas he merely\ntook advantage of his lord\u2019s delay to give expression to the villainy\nthat was already in him. The use these brethren make of this seems to\nindicate that they think the only thing that keeps people out of all\nmeanness is the expectation that the Lord might come any moment. But I\nhave never said that the Lord delays his coming, and, therefore, do not\nbelong in the class with that wicked servant. The word translated\n_delayeth_ means \u201c_to linger_, _delay_, _tarry_.\u201d\u2014Thayer. \u201c_To spend\ntime_; _to continue_ or _last long_, _hold out_; _to persevere_ in\ndoing; especially, _to tarry_, _linger_, _delay_, _be slow_; _to\nprolong_, _put off_.\u201d\u2014Liddell and Scott. This word would not be used\nconcerning an event that was not delayed beyond the time it was\nexpected. Now, these future-kingdom advocates tell us that the first\nChristians were taught to expect Jesus to come again while they lived.\nBut he did not come then. According to their teaching, the Lord has\ndelayed his coming several hundred years beyond the time expected. Who\nis it that says the Lord did not come at the time he was expected? They\nare the ones, according to their own teaching, who say: \u201cMy Lord delays\nhis coming.\u201d\n\nBrother Chambers says: \u201cIt is a serious thing to oppose any one\u2019s\nquoting, \u2018The Lord is at hand,\u2019 or \u2018The Judge standeth before the door,\u2019\nor \u2018The end of all things is at hand,\u2019 or \u2018When ye see these things,\nknow that the end is near.\u2019\u201d Who opposes his quoting the Scriptures\nreferred to? When a man makes an implied charge of that nature, he is\nhonor bound to name the parties, when called on to do so. Will Brother\nChambers give the name of the person to whom he refers, or is he merely\ninsinuating things to create prejudice?\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n To write the word of Christ upon the heart, or, what is essentially\n the same, to let it dwell in us richly, means more than to commit it\n to memory. It is to make it the dominant factor in our thinking and in\n our plans and purposes.\n\n\n\n\n FUTURE KINGDOM DOCTRINE\u2014REFLECTS ON INTEGRITY OF GOD\n\n\nSometimes a wrong theory does not look so bad till you begin to examine\nits consequences and the side issues that are its necessary supports.\nAnd sometimes theories so warp our thinking as to develop in us a wrong\nconception of Jehovah and of his attitude toward man. Such theories are\nextremely hurtful. There are some things about this future-kingdom\ntheory that are hurtful in more ways than one.\n\nThe Theory Reflects on the Integrity of God.\n\nIn his tract, \u201cThe Kingdom of Heaven,\u201d page 13, Arthur W. Pink says:\n\u201cFrom a number of reasons which we shall state we are compelled to\nbelieve that our Lord\u2019s message, \u2018Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is\nat hand,\u2019 signifies that _an offer of the Messianic kingdom_, as\nforetold by the Old Testament prophets, _was then being made to the\nJews_. Let us remark that it is of the utmost importance that we pay\ncareful attention to the word \u2018repent\u2019 here. In this call to repentance,\nour Lord, as the Baptist before him had done, _laid down the fundamental\nterms on which the kingdom was being offered to Israel_.\u201d Others make\nthe same plea. If they are correct, then God offered them the kingdom on\ncondition that they repent. Thousands of them did repent; but we are\ntold that God deferred the establishment of the kingdom because not all\nrepented. But what about his promise to them who did repent? God made\nthem a promise on condition; they performed that condition, but God did\nnot give them what he promised! It does not help any to say that the\nnation rejected him. What about his promise to those who accepted him?\nIt will not do to say God dealt falsely with some because others dealt\nfalsely with him. We are told that the offer of the kingdom was made in\ngood faith. Some accepted the offer in good faith, but we are told that\nthey did not get what God had promised them. There is a serious defect\nin a man\u2019s faith who can thus reflect on the integrity of Jehovah.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Grubbing up false doctrines and unscriptural practices is as essential\n as grubbing up noxious growths in the field, but a farmer can\n impoverish himself by putting in all his time grubbing. And the man\n who puts in all his time in opposing false doctrine and exposing wrong\n practices will impoverish his character. The fundamental doctrine, or\n teaching, is the framework around which the Christian character is\n built. The framework must be there, or the character will not stand\n up; the gentler graces must be built around the framework, or the\n person is harsh and unattractive.\n\n Every time we judge a doctrine or another person, we judge ourselves.\n In condemning evil, we declare ourselves righteous. In condemning\n righteousness, we declare our sinfulness. In other words, every\n judgment we deliver shows what sort of person we are. Our judgments on\n others reveal our own standards. The character of the Jews was\n revealed in their blaspheming the gospel.\n\n\n\n\n THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nIn his kingdom tract, page 15, Mr. Arthur W. Pink says: \u201cThe Old\nTestament _knows nothing whatever of Christianity_!\u201d So, then, there is\nnot a type or a prophecy in the Old Testament that points to the\nreligion of the Lord Jesus Christ! But that idea is not peculiar to Mr.\nPink; it is a part of the future-kingdom doctrine. To the ordinary\nreader of the New Testament it sounds strange to hear some one argue\nthat the prophets of the Old Testament tell us nothing of the gospel of\nChrist, the New Covenant (or New Testament), the kingdom as it now is,\nor anything else that pertains to the present plan of salvation through\nChrist. But such teaching is one of the necessary supports to the\nfuture-kingdom theory. It must be made to appear that the entire plan of\nGod for the world\u2019s redemption centered in a material kingdom, in which\nthe Jews would be the citizens and over which Jesus would rule on the\nthrone of David in Jerusalem. It would be the kingdom of David literally\nrestored. Other nations would be blessed only through Israel and in\nsubservience to them. Of course the theory contemplates the return of\nthe Jews to Palestine and their conversion to Christ. And we are taught\nby the future-kingdom advocates that the Old Testament prophets speak\nonly of that sort of thing.\n\nLet the reader think closely as he reads the following quotation: \u201cAbout\nthe middle of Acts occurs an event of first importance. The acceptance\nof the Gentiles into the church\u2014into the favor of God as joint sharers\nof the blessings of Israel\u2019s Christ\u2014was a most terrible perplexity to\nall believing Jews. It was, in fact, a _mystery_. It had never been\nrevealed that such a thing would happen. (Eph. 3:4-6.) That the Gentiles\nwere to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery; _that_ had been\npreviously revealed. But the observant reader of the prophets will\nnotice that it is always after the national restoration and exaltation\nof Israel, and always through restored Israel and in subservience to\nIsrael that the Gentiles were to be so blessed.\u201d (\u201cThe Kingdom of God,\u201d\nby R. H. Boll, page 63.) So they would have us believe that the Old\nTestament prophets said nothing of the gospel as revealed in the New\nTestament, nothing of the new covenant of which the apostles are\nministers and of which Christ is mediator, and that the covenant of\nwhich Jeremiah prophesied (chapter 31) has not yet been made. Yet Paul\nquotes that prophecy in the eighth chapter of Hebrews, and informs us\nthat Christ is now the mediator of that covenant.\n\nBut the theory is wrong, absurdly wrong. In Luke\u2019s record of the great\ncommission (24:46, 47) Jesus said: \u201cThus it is written, that the Christ\nshould suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that\nrepentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all\nthe nations, beginning from Jerusalem.\u201d Here Jesus plainly declares that\nit had been written that repentance and remission of sins should be\npreached in his name unto all the nations. Paul declares that he had\nbeen \u201cseparated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through\nhis prophets in the holy scriptures.\u201d (Rom. 1:1, 2.) Here Paul plainly\ndeclares that the gospel which he preached had been promised through the\nprophets. In reporting Paul\u2019s preaching at Berea, Luke says: \u201cNow these\nwere more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the\nword with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether\nthese things were so.\u201d (Acts 17:11.) How could they determine that Paul\nwas preaching in harmony with the prophets, if the prophets said nothing\nof the gospel which he preached? In that case, would not their searching\nthe Scriptures cause them to reject his preaching? If Paul had held to\nthe future-kingdom theory, his honesty would have led him to tell these\nhonest-hearted Bereans that they could not find anything in the\nScriptures about the gospel which he was preaching. At the house of\nCornelius, Peter said: \u201cTo him bear all the prophets witness, that\nthrough his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission\nof sins.\u201d (Acts 10:43.) Peter (1 Pet. 1:10-12) tells us that the\nprophets searched diligently to understand their prophecies concerning\nthis salvation, \u201cTo whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but\nunto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced\nunto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy\nSpirit sent forth from heaven.\u201d Paul preached the gospel\u2014preached\nChristianity in its fullness, and yet he affirmed that he said \u201cnothing\nbut what the prophets and Moses did say should come.\u201d (Acts 26:22, 23.)\nHe preached salvation through faith in Christ, and that there was no\ndistinction between Jew and Gentile: \u201cBut now apart from the law a\nrighteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law\nand the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus\nChrist unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.\u201d (Rom.\n3:21, 22.) So this very plan of salvation which Paul preached, in which\nthere was no distinction between Jew and Gentile, was foretold in both\nthe Law and the prophets. Paul quotes Moses as prophesying that\ndisobedient Israel would be provoked to jealousy by the obedience of a\npeople other than the Jews. (Rom. 10:19.) Paul applies that prophecy to\nthe obedience of the Gentiles. And then he shows that Isaiah foretold\nthat the Gentiles would be blessed while Israel remained rebellious:\n\u201cAnd Isaiah is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me\nnot; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me. But as to Israel\nhe saith, All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient\nand gainsaying people.\u201d And yet we are told that the prophets foretold\nthat only through restored Israel were the Gentiles to be blessed.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n We can know that Deity united with humanity in the person of Jesus,\n though we cannot understand just how the two natures were united. But\n we can believe what the Bible says and adjust our lives to its\n teaching. Herein lies our salvation.\n\n We can know that there are three persons in the Godhead, though we\n cannot comprehend their nature and unity. The finite cannot understand\n the infinite.\n\n\n\n\n THE FUTURE-KINGDOM PERVERSIONS AND DISLOCATIONS OF PROPHECY\n\n\nMuch is said these days about modernism and fundamentalism. I hope to be\nallowed to live in a modern world without being called a \u201cmodernist\u201d and\nto hold to fundamental truths without being dubbed a \u201cfundamentalist.\u201d\nThese \u201cfundamentalists\u201d have formed a program for the Lord, mixed in a\nfew truths, and named the mixture \u201cfundamentalism,\u201d and its advocates\n\u201cfundamentalists.\u201d If their theory is as old as the Bible, why the new\nnames for it and its advocates? Old ideas and doctrines do not require\nnew names: anything new requires a new name. Now, \u201cmodernism\u201d and\n\u201cmodernist\u201d are older words than \u201cfundamentalism\u201d and \u201cfundamentalist.\u201d\nReligiously, I am no \u201cmodernist\u201d; and the term \u201cfundamentalism\u201d is too\nnew for a Bible lover to accept. It is even newer than the term\n\u201cmodernism.\u201d It would be interesting to hear Mr. Rice explain how his\ndoctrine is so ancient, since the name of it is more modern than is the\nterm \u201cmodernism.\u201d In name, they out modern the modernists! When a\ndoctrine is more modern than modernism, it is too modern for me.\n\nIn Mr. Rice\u2019s tract, \u201cChrist\u2019s Literal Reign on Earth from David\u2019s\nThrone at Jerusalem,\u201d he claims to prove \u201cfrom the Scriptures the\npremillennial coming of Christ; that he has not yet set up his kingdom\non earth, but that he will reign from a literal throne at Jerusalem, in\nhis literal human body, over the entire earth.\u201d He assumes much, argues\nlittle, and makes many scattering assertions. It would be easier to\nreview his tract, if more care and thought had gone into its making.\n\nThe trouble with him and his future-kingdom advocates, is not\nspeculating about unfulfilled prophecies, but a perversion and\ndislocation of prophecies that have been fulfilled. When a man takes\nprophecies that have been fulfilled and makes them do service in some\nfuture program, he is not speculating about unfulfilled prophecies. To\ncall such perversion \u201cspeculation about unfulfilled prophecies\u201d is to\nyield to him his claim that they have not been fulfilled. This is not,\ntherefore, a discussion on \u201cunfulfilled prophecies,\u201d but an effort to\nshow that Mr. Rice and others have, in the interest of a theory,\ndislocated promises and prophecies, some of which have been fulfilled.\n\nMr. Rice quotes Gen. 13:14, 15; 17:8, and comments: \u201cYou will notice\nfrom the context that it was the literal land over which Abraham walked\nand which he saw, called by the name, \u2018the land of Canaan.\u2019 The promise\nis unconditional, and utterly without time limit. It is \u2018for an\neverlasting possession\u2019.\u201d And if Mr. Rice will read Josh. 21:43-45;\n23:14, he will notice both from the text and the context that God\nfulfilled this promise to the letter\u2014not one thing failed of all that\nGod had promised. Yet the Jews are not in that land now. Why? Mr. Rice\nsays the promise of the land to Abram\u2019s seed was unconditional and\nwithout time limit. Who broke the covenant? If Mr. Rice is correct, the\nseed of Abraham did not break the land covenant, for there were no\nconditions for them to break. If Mr. Rice is correct, God was the only\none that could break the covenant. God promised them unconditional\npossession of the land, and then dispossessed them of it. That is a\nreflection on the integrity of Jehovah.\n\nMr. Rice says: \u201cThe Lord foretold in Deut. 28:63-68 the dispersion of\nIsrael \u2018among all the peoples, from one end of the earth even unto the\nother;\u2019 but in Deut. 30:1-6, the regathering of Israel to their own land\nto possess it is plainly foretold.\u201d Why did Mr. Rice refer to so small a\npart of each of these chapters? Was he afraid the reader might discover\nsomething in the rest of these chapters that would upset his theory?\nTheir dispersion was one of the curses that would come upon them if they\ndisobeyed the law Moses gave them. (See Deut. 28:15.) Read Deut. 30:8,\n10, and you will see that their return was conditioned on their keeping\nthe commandments which Moses commanded them, and that after their return\nthey were to keep all the commandments of the law of Moses. This\ncondition is now impossible of fulfillment, for the law of Moses is not\nin force. If Mr. Rice will read Neh. 1:8, 9, he will find that the\nregathering here spoken of took place when the Jews returned from\nBabylonian captivity. Surely he will not take issue with Nehemiah. The\nother passages relied on to prove the future gathering of the Jews to\nPalestine refer to the same event.\n\nMoses plainly told the Israelites that if they forgot God and turned\nfrom his commandments, they would as surely perish as that the nations\nwhom they drove out of Palestine perished. (Deut. 8:19, 20.) These\nnations perished utterly as nations, and Moses said the nation of Israel\nwould perish as they did. Because of their sins they were carried into\ncaptivity. Later, all who desired to return to Palestine were permitted\nto do so. They again fell into sin; and in John\u2019s day they had again\ngrown so corrupt that he told them the ax then lay at the root of the\ntree. (Matt. 3:10.) Then the Jewish nation murdered the Son of God\u2014that\nis, the high court of the nation procured his murder. Under God\u2019s law\nthe penalty for murder was death. As this was murder by the nation,\nnothing but national death would satisfy divine justice. The tree had\nbecome wholly bad, and God used the Roman armies as the ax with which to\ncut down that tree. According to these future-kingdom advocates, the\nmost glorious period of Jewish history is yet to be; but Jesus tells us\nthat the last state of that race will be worse than the first. (See\nMatt. 12:43-45.)\n\nThe Jews were broken off from God\u2019s favor because of sin\u2014unbelief. Now\nboth Jew and Gentile stand on an equal footing before God. God is not a\nrespecter of persons. Religiously, we know no man after the flesh. These\nfuture-kingdom folks seek to keep up this racial distinction which\nChristianity was meant to destroy. In Paul\u2019s allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) the\nhandmaid and her son represented Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and\nPaul uses that allegory to show that the handmaid and her son were cast\nout. Christians are children of the free woman. Paul then affirms: \u201cThe\nson of the handmaid (Jewish nation) shall not inherit with the son of\nthe freewoman.\u201d Hence, the Jewish nation, as such, is left out of any\nfurther inheritance. Jesus plainly told the Jews: \u201cTherefore say I unto\nyou, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a\nnation bringing forth the fruits thereof.\u201d (Matt. 21:43.) Believers in\nChrist are now \u201csons of Abraham\u201d (Gal. 3:7) \u201cand heirs according to the\npromise\u201d (Gal. 3:29). The Jewish nation, as such, is not now an heir of\nanything. By unbelief the Jews were broken off from God\u2019s favor. (Rom.\n11:20.) Gentiles were grafted in by faith. \u201cAnd so\u201d\u2014in the same\nmanner\u2014\u201call Israel shall be saved.\u201d\n\nThere is not a hint in the New Testament that the Jews will be restored\nto Palestine and be the only citizens of this fantastic future kingdom,\nwith other people subject to them. That would be fleshly distinction\nwith a vengeance. \u201cBehold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is\nthe day of salvation.\u201d (2 Cor. 6:2.) Think of the nature of this kingdom\nthese men set forth as the object of our highest hope: \u201cThe kingdom of\nChrist is to be as literal as David\u2019s kingdom.... It is to be as literal\nand earthly as Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, and Rome.\u201d So says Mr.\nRice. That would please well the carnal nature of man. It is a pitiful\nthing to see men delude themselves with such false hopes.\n\nMr. Rice says: \u201cJesus, David\u2019s son, is to restore David\u2019s kingdom.\u201d Yet\nhe says: \u201cThe present world system will have to be destroyed before\nChrist can have his kingdom on this earth.\u201d David ruled without having\nthe present world system destroyed. If Christ is to have the same\nkingdom, why cannot he do the same? Is it possible that Mr. Rice thinks\nDavid could do a thing that Christ will be unable to do? The theory\nbelittles Christ.\n\nHere are two statements from Mr. Rice: \u201cJesus will restore all Israel to\ntheir own land, the land of Canaan, and will rule over them from David\u2019s\nthrone.\u201d \u201cJesus is not now sitting in his throne, but in his Father\u2019s\nthrone, according to Rev. 3:21.\u201d His idea is that when Jesus comes again\nhe will descend from that universal throne which he now occupies with\nthe father and sit on David\u2019s throne as king of the Jews, thus\nexchanging a higher for a lower. And they call that exaltation of\nChrist! Exalted to a lower place! \u201cThrone\u201d means kingly authority.\nDavid\u2019s throne and Jehovah\u2019s throne are the same. In I Kings it is said\nthat \u201cSolomon sat upon the throne of David his father.\u201d In 1 Chron.\n29:23 it is said that \u201cSolomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king\ninstead of his father.\u201d That which was called David\u2019s throne was\nJehovah\u2019s throne. It was called David\u2019s throne simply because he ruled\nover God\u2019s people. The effort to make a distinction between God\u2019s throne\nand David\u2019s throne is a miserable perversion of Bible truth. As Jesus\nnow rules over God\u2019s people, he occupies the same position that David\noccupied.\n\nWhen did Jesus begin his reign? On Pentecost, Peter reminded his hearers\nthat God had promised David to place one of his seed upon his throne,\nand that David, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ.\nJesus was therefore raised up to sit on David\u2019s throne. Read Acts\n2:29-38. Verse 33: \u201cBeing therefore by the right hand of God exalted,\nand having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he\nhath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.\u201d To Peter the coming of\nthe Holy Spirit on that day was proof that Jesus had been exalted to\nDavid\u2019s throne. From John 7:37-39 we learn that the Holy Spirit would be\ngiven when Jesus was glorified. Read Mat. 20:20, 21 and Mark 10:35-37,\nand you will see that sitting with Jesus in his kingdom and sitting with\nhim in his glory mean the same thing. As the giving of the Holy Spirit\non the day of Pentecost was proof that he had entered into his glory, it\nis also proof that he had been exalted to rulership in his kingdom.\n\nBut it has been said that Jesus was then anointed, but did not then\nbegin to reign, just as David was anointed some time before he began his\nreign. But here is a fatal defect in that illustration: Not one thing\nwas done in the name of David as king till he actually assumed the reins\nof government. Acts were to begin to be performed in the name of Christ\nat Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came. (Luke 24:46-49.) On that day\nPeter commanded the people to repent and be baptized in the name of\nJesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38.) Was Peter guilty of\nforging the name of Christ to a pardon proclamation? He had no right to\nso do, and his act was forgery, if Jesus had not authorized him to do\nso. And Jesus could not have authorized him to proclaim pardon in his\nname, if Jesus was not then occupying the throne. Not one future-kingdom\nadvocate, nor all of them together, can answer this one argument,\nneglected or overlooked though it has been. It settles the whole matter\nas to the fact of his reigning now and as to when his reign began.\n\nMr. Rice says: \u201cJohn the Baptist came preaching \u2018Repent ye: for the\nkingdom of heaven is at hand.\u2019 (Matt. 3:2.) Jesus began to preach from\nthe same text in his early ministry. (Matt. 4:17.) We find that the\ncommand to repent is repeated many times on through the rest of the New\nTestament, but the statement, \u2018The kingdom of heaven is at hand,\u2019 was\ndropped and not repeated any more, though the kingdom is mentioned\ndozens of times. The reason is that the Jews rejected Christ, their\nKing, and the kingdom was postponed. (Luke 13:34, 35.)\u201d \u201cAt hand\u201d means\n\u201cnear.\u201d In the third year of his public ministry Christ sent the seventy\nout to preach, \u201cThe kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.\u201d (Luke\n10:1-10.) That was during the last year of his ministry. Certainly,\nafter the first Pentecost after the resurrection the kingdom was not\npreached as \u201cat hand\u201d any more, for the simple reason that it had come.\nPaul says that Christians have been \u201cdelivered out of the power of\ndarkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love.\u201d (Col.\n1:13.) Christ is now \u201cThe blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings,\nand Lord of lords.\u201d (1 Tim. 6:15.) As he is the \u201conly Potentate,\u201d he\nalone rules in this kingdom. Hence, it is his kingdom, and the throne is\nhis throne.\n\nBut Mr. Rice would have us believe that when John and Jesus announced\nthat the kingdom had come nigh they missed it a long way. Jesus also\npreached \u201cThe time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u201d\n(Mark 1:15.) If Mr. Rice is correct, the kingdom was not at hand\u2014the\ntime for it to come was not fulfilled. He would have us believe that\nJesus did not know what he was talking about. But that is not the worst\nreflection on Jesus that this theory makes. They were assured of the\nkingdom on condition that they repent and believe the gospel\u2014that is,\nthat they repent and accept Christ. Some of them, in good faith,\ntrusting the words of John and Jesus, did repent, and accepted Christ.\nBut, according to the adherents of the future-kingdom theory, they did\nnot get what God had promised them. It will not relieve the situation to\nsay that most of them rejected him. What about his word to those who did\naccept him? They did their part; did God do his? Mr. Rice says he did\nnot. I am unalterably opposed to any theory that thus makes out God a\nliar to those who faithfully do his commands and trust his promises.\n\nThe postponement theory belittles the church and makes it an\nafterthought, a sort of emergency measure. According to Mr. Rice, God\nmeant to establish a material kingdom just like other world kingdoms,\nbut the Jews did not make it possible for him to do so. The church was\nthen established to continue till the time was ripe for the kingdom,\naccording to the theory. The church, then, was not God\u2019s original plan.\nBut what saith the Scriptures? Was that God\u2019s original intent? \u201cTo the\nintent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly\nplaces might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of\nGod, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus\nour Lord.\u201d (Eph. 3:10, 11.) Thus we see that it was the eternal purpose\nof God to make known his wisdom through the church. And how long will\nthis continue? \u201cUnto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus\nunto all generations forever and ever.\u201d (Eph. 3:21.) The church, then,\nwill not be superseded by another institution so long as generations\ncome and go.\n\nMr. Rice quotes Acts 15:13-16 to prove that \u201cthe restoration of the\nkingdom of David is to be after this Gentile church age.\u201d Had he given\nthe full quotation James made from Amos, it would have proved the very\nopposite of what he claims. James was justifying the acceptance of the\nGentiles, and quoted Amos to prove that since the royal family of David\nwas re-established the Gentiles might come into the church. Read verses\n17 and 18 and see how miserably Mr. Rice perverts the argument of James.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n A life spent in entertaining and being entertained is an empty and\n useless life. The satisfaction that comes from knowing that one is of\n help to his fellow man is some reward within itself. How useless must\n a person feel who never does anything useful! How boresome such a life\n must be!\n\n People sometimes say that this plan or that plan will not work.\n Certainly not; no plan will work. But people may work a plan, or work\n according to a plan, or they may work without any prearranged plan. A\n plan is not as necessary as a purpose.\n\n\n\n\n YOUR FAITH AND YOUR CONFESSION\n\n\nThe promises and prophecies recorded in God\u2019s revelation to the Jews led\nthem to confidently expect the coming of a Deliverer, the Messiah. They\nhave planted that expectation in the hearts of many Gentiles. (Of course\nthe reader understands that \u201cMessiah\u201d in Hebrew is the same as \u201cChrist\u201d\nin Greek.) But the Jews had no clear conception as to what the Christ\nwould be and do. In fact they had many very erroneous ideas about the\npromised Christ. Hence, when Jesus appeared in their midst, they were so\nblinded by their theories that they rejected him as the Christ\u2014that is,\nthe majority of the Jews would not accept him as the Christ, while many\nof them believed on him as the Christ. To the most of them Jesus was a\npuzzle, a stone of stumbling. They could not deny his mighty miracles\nnor controvert successfully his teaching. Denying the only truth that\nwould have explained him, they dealt in many conjectures as to who he\nwas. Some said he was Elijah; some John the Baptist; others, that he was\nJeremiah, or one of the prophets. But when Jesus put the question direct\nto his disciples, \u201cBut who say ye that I am?\u201d Peter unhesitatingly\nanswered: \u201cThou art the Christ, the son of the living God.\u201d But the\nmajority of the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the Christ, and\nlooked forward to the coming of the Christ.\n\nUpon the great truth that Jesus is the Christ the church is built; upon\nthat truth the whole system of Christianity rests. If he be not the\nChrist, the gospel is a baseless fabrication and the church is without\nexcuse for existence. It is this foundation truth that we believe and\nconfess.\n\nThere was no controversy among the Jews as to whether the expected\nChrist would be called \u201cthe Son of God.\u201d Any Jew would confess that he\nbelieved the expected Christ to be the Son of God. But they deny that\nJesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Any of those Jews who rejected and\ncrucified Jesus would have readily said: \u201cI believe the Christ is the\nSon of God.\u201d I was startled to hear a preacher ask a number of\ncandidates for baptism this question: \u201cDo you believe that Christ is the\nSon of God?\u201d Now that question misses the point entirely. Any orthodox\nJew could give an affirmative answer to that question; but ask him if he\nbelieves that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and he will answer\nwith an emphatic \u201cNo.\u201d The great question is: \u201cDo you believe that Jesus\nis the Christ, the Son of the living God?\u201d The great answer, the great\nconfession of faith is: \u201cJesus is the Christ, the Son of the living\nGod.\u201d\n\nThat confession should not be so abridged as to leave any doubt as to\nwho you believe is the Christ, the Son of God. If you believe that Jesus\nis the Christ, say so. To say that you believe that Christ is the Son of\nGod is really no confession at all.\n\nThe confession should not be extended so as to include more than this\ngreat truth. Mr. Russell extended that confession. He taught that the\nChrist is Jesus and the church; with him, Jesus was only the head of a\nbody that is called \u201cthe Christ.\u201d With him, it took both the head and\nthe body to constitute the Christ. Some gospel preachers took up with\nthat idea and thus weakened their faith by extending their confession.\nCertainly, if a man believes that theory, his confession is not full and\ncomplete when he says: \u201cI believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of\nthe living God.\u201d That is really not what he believes. If he makes his\nconfession as broad as his faith, he will say: \u201cI believe that Jesus and\nthe church is the Christ.\u201d\n\nDo the foregoing points seem to you to be matters of small import? If\nso, I envy not your discernment. Notice carefully the purpose for which\nJohn wrote: \u201cMany other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the\ndisciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written,\nthat ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that\nbelieving ye may have life in his name.\u201d (John 20:30, 31.)\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n \u201cFor ye were going astray like sheep.\u201d The idea expressed in the\n original Greek is not that they were going astray, but they were\n astray. When a living thing is astray, it is lost; at least, it is not\n in its proper place, not where it belongs. Sin is not the proper\n element for people; they do not rightly belong there; it is not their\n natural habitat. Righteousness is man\u2019s natural habitat; that is where\n God originally placed him. When he wanders off into sin, he is on\n foreign soil.\n\n The Hebrew kingdom never would have been divided if all had adhered\n strictly to the law of God. People do not divide when all are\n determined to do right. When churches divide, there is unrighteousness\n somewhere.\n\n\n\n\n THE CHRIST OF THE FUTURE-KINGDOM ADVOCATES\n\n\nOne of the great evils of the future-kingdom advocates is their idea as\nto the Christ. When I first read Pastor Russell\u2019s idea of the Christ, I\nwas astonished, but later I found that others had adopted his idea. Mr.\nRussell says: \u201cThus the saints of the gospel age are an anointed\ncompany\u2014anointed to be kings and priests unto God (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Pet.\n2:9); and together with Jesus, their chief and Lord, they constitute\nJehovah\u2019s Anointed\u2014the Christ.\u201d (\u201cThe Divine Plan of the Ages,\u201d pages\n81, 82.) Also \u201cThe Christ includes all anointed of the Spirit.\u201d Now note\nthe following from \u201cThe Book of Revelation,\u201d by R. H. Boll: \u201cThat the\nman-child of chapter 12:5 is none other than the Christ; but not the\nindividual Christ alone, but his body, the church, also, seen as\nconnected with him.\u201d Page 44: \u201cThis mystic man-child is not simply the\nChild that was born at Bethlehem, but the Christ as including both\nhimself, the head, and the church, his spiritual body, which is one with\nhim.\u201d In the estimation of these writers the Christ is composed of Jesus\nand the church. If a person espouses that theory, he should make his\nconfession as comprehensive and extensive as his faith. If he says, \u201cI\nbelieve that Jesus is the Christ,\u201d his confession is not full. To fully\nconfess his faith in the Christ, he must say: \u201cI believe that Jesus and\nhis church is the Christ.\u201d That is evident to any one who will read\ncarefully what these writers say. Read the quotation again. Now, shall\nwe revise our confession to make it fit this future-kingdom idea?\n\n\n\n\n IS SALVATION NOW OFFERED TO ALL?\n\n\nA man does not always realize fully the consequences of his doctrine. It\nseems to me that a person cannot believe the future-kingdom theory as\nnow advocated and also believe that God now seeks the salvation of all\nmen. If I understand this theory, and I think I do, the faithful\nChristians are to be rulers with Christ, and that to each one will be\ngiven territory commensurate with his development as a servant of God.\nSome, at least, seem to take the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:13-27)\nin a very literal sense. \u201cHave thou authority over ten cities\u201d; \u201cBe thou\nalso over five cities.\u201d As there will be a limit to the number of\ncities, there will, of necessity, be a limit to the number of rulers\nneeded. Mr. Russell was consistent and bold enough to plainly and openly\ndeclare that God is not now seeking to convert the mass of mankind, but\nis only getting a ruling class ready. His position on this point is so\nwell known that I shall not here take space to quote from him. Some do\nnot speak so plainly on this point as Mr. Russell, and yet they speak\nplainly enough to be understood, as the following from Brother R. H.\nBoll will show: \u201cThat the \u2018new song\u2019 of Rev. 5:9, 10 views the work of\npurchasing unto God with his own blood men out of every nation as\nfinished. The selection is seen as completed; the full number of the\nchosen ones seen as constituting a kingdom of priests unto God, as\nreigning on earth. This then prophetically foreviews the time when God\nshall have done visiting \u2018the Gentiles\u2019 (the nations) to _take out of\nthem_ a people for his name. (Acts 15:14.) The church is an election,\n_called out_.\u201d Again: \u201cHe has a mystery\u2014that is, a secret\u2014to tell us: to\nwit, that Israel\u2019s hardening is limited as to extent and as to time: as\nto extent, for it is \u2018in part;\u2019 as to time, for it is \u2018until\u2019 something\nis accomplished\u2014namely, until the full count of the elect Gentiles shall\nhave come in. Then Israel\u2019s tide shall turn.\u201d So it seems that the Lord\nhas a certain number of Gentiles to be called, and the present order\nmust continue till the \u201cfull count of the elect Gentiles shall have come\nin.\u201d But all such teaching is essential to the future-kingdom theory as\nnow advocated. The theory necessitates the doctrine that now is the time\nof salvation for only the needed number of rulers.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n That the gospel succeeded so well in superstitious Ephesus need not\n surprise anyone. In superstition there is reverence for supernatural\n things. In fact, superstition is ignorant reverence. By teaching these\n people the gospel, Paul guided their reverence to the right\n objectives. Superstition is reverence without reason; rationalism is\n reason without reverence. It is easier to enlighten ignorant reverence\n than it is to reestablish reverence in a heart from which it has been\n banished.\n\n With some religionists of today custom and tradition have greater\n weight than the plain word of God. Assail baptism, a thing positively\n commanded, and they applaud; assail their unscriptural teachings and\n practices, and they become greatly offended. Some churches of Christ\n have had troubles over customs and traditions.\n\n\n\n\n THE COMING OF THE LORD\n\n\nIn the Christian Standard of March 19, 1932, Brother H. H. Peters,\nsecretary of the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, says: \u201cAs\nalready intimated, the plan of the Millenial Harbinger was different\nfrom that of its predecessor. It was unique in the journalism of\nAmerica, religious or otherwise. Its very name indicates that its editor\npartook somewhat of the spirit that was abroad in the land, which\nexpected the immediate return of the Lord and the establishment of his\nmillenial reign. Mr. Campbell never became a dogmatist on this point,\nnor did the brotherhood ever take up any of the fantastic views of\nMiller and others, but it was impossible in that day to do any kind of\nreligious work without partaking somewhat of the spirit that expected\nthe immediate return of the Lord.\u201d It would be hard to crowd into fewer\nwords more historic errors than the foregoing extract contains. Mr.\nCampbell did not believe that Jesus would return to earth and then reign\na thousand years. He did believe that, before the coming of the Lord,\nthere would be a thousand years of universal peace and righteousness.\nMr. Campbell was not a premillennialist; neither did he believe the Lord\nwould return immediately. On these matters he wrote extensively. He\ncited a number of prophecies which he believed had not been fulfilled,\nbut must be fulfilled before the coming of the Lord. One wonders where\nMr. Peters got authority for his statements. However, when a person gets\nintoxicated with the future-kingdom idea, he can see authority for\nstatements that no sober-minded person can discover. They even tell us\nthat the apostles taught the early Christians to expect the immediate\nreturn of the Lord.\n\nBecause some do not hold to the theories propagated by the\npremillennialists, they are charged with not believing in the second\ncoming of the Lord at all. From one writer we have the following: \u201cThe\nthought of his coming has faded out of the minds of men.\u201d Again: \u201cIn the\neighteenth century, however, there came a man named \u2018Daniel Whitby.\u2019...\nHe taught that the gospel would spread and spread until the whole world\nwould be converted; then would follow a thousand years of blessedness\nand peace, and after all this Jesus would come and wind things up. Then\nthe hope of his coming died again everywhere as this doctrine became the\ngeneral teaching.\u201d That is such a manifest misrepresentation of the\ngreat body of Christians that I shall make no attempt to disprove it. As\nMr. Campbell was accused of holding the same views as Whitby, it will be\nseen that Mr. Peters misrepresents him in the quotation at the beginning\nof this article.\n\nWe are told that \u201cthey were hoping for him, and they were looking for\nhis return in the days of the apostles.\u201d We are asked to believe that\nthe Christians began to expect his return any moment after he went away,\nand that they were taught by the apostles to do so. They think they find\nsuch teaching in what the apostles said about looking for his coming and\nhoping for his coming; but the theory discredits the inspiration of the\napostles. Jesus did not come again during that period. If the apostles\nwere mistaken on that point, how can we be sure they taught the truth on\nanything? If the infidel were to point to this as evidence that the\napostles were not infallible in their teaching, how would these men meet\nthe argument? On this point the learned commentator, James McKnight,\nsays: \u201cGrotius, Locke, and others, have affirmed that the apostles of\nChrist believed the end of the world was to happen in their time, and\nthat they have declared this to be their belief, in various passages of\ntheir epistles. But these learned men and all who join them in that\nopinion have fallen into a most pernicious error. For thereby they\ndestroy the authority of the gospel revelation, at least so far as it is\ncontained in the discourses and writings of the apostles; because, if\nthey have erred in a matter of such importance, and which they affirm\nwas revealed to them by Christ, they may have been mistaken in other\nmatters also, where their inspiration is not more strongly asserted by\nthem than in this instance. In imputing this mistake to the apostles,\nthe deists have heartily joined the learned men above mentioned, because\na mistake of this sort effectually overthrows the apostle\u2019s pretensions\nto inspiration. It is therefore necessary to clear them from so\ninjurious an imputation.\u201d\n\nSuch use has been made of the parable recorded in Luke 12:42-48 as to\nmake it appear that the servant was unfaithful, in that he said: \u201cMy\nLord delayeth his coming.\u201d But they miss the point. As a matter of fact,\nthe Lord has delayed his coming far beyond the time they tell us the\ninspired apostles said he might come. There was certainly nothing sinful\nin what the servant said, when it was true that his lord had delayed his\ncoming. There could be no unfaithfulness in his saying what was actually\ntrue. But his unfaithfulness consisted in his taking advantage of that\ndelay to do wrong. His wrong doing was his unfaithfulness. Not what he\nsaid about that delay, but what he did during that delay, constituted\nhis unfaithfulness. But their use of this parable illustrates the\nstrained interpretations men will put upon the Scripture to propagate a\ntheory.\n\nBut another statement in that parable has some bearing on the matter\nunder discussion: \u201cThe lord of that servant shall come in a day when he\nexpecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him\nasunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.\u201d This statement\napplies to all unfaithful servants, and not simply those who will be\nalive when the Lord comes again. To make this apply only to those who\nare alive at the Lord\u2019s second coming would leave many unfaithful\nservants that would not suffer the fate that this one did, for more\nshall have died before the Lord comes again than will be alive when he\ndoes come. It can apply to all unfaithful servants only in the sense\nthat the Lord comes to all at death.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Instead of being afraid of our enemies, let us trust in Jehovah. Why\n worry overmuch about the evils that we cannot possibly remedy? \u201cFret\n not thyself because of evil-doers, neither be thou envious against\n them that work unrighteousness.\u201d (Ps. 37:1.)\n\n\n\n\n THE \u201cTWO STAGES\u201d THEORY EXAMINED\n\n\nIt would not be fair to myself nor to the reader to charge that any\nChristian does not believe that the Lord will come again. That event is\nso plainly taught in the Bible that no one who believes the Book thinks\notherwise. But some have engaged in so much speculation about what will\noccur when the Lord does come that, so it seems to me, their theories\nvirtually deny much of what has already taken place. In some respects\nthe various angles of their theory fail to connect, or even to\nharmonize.\n\nI have a rather artistic diagram, prepared by a Baptist preacher of some\nability, in Houston, Texas. In this diagram the Lord is represented as\ncoming to the air surrounding the earth, where he is met by the living\nsaints, now changed, and the dead saints, now raised from the dead; and\nthere the diagram represents them as remaining some years, or during the\ntime of the \u201cgreat tribulation\u201d on earth, after which they come on to\nthe earth. Brother R. H. Boll has a diagram in which he sets forth the\nsame idea. The coming of the Lord is thus represented as composed of two\n\u201cstages\u201d\u2014coming for his saints, and then coming on to earth with his\nsaints. But another angle to the theory does not fit into this, as will\nbe seen.\n\nThe theory has the Lord with his saints back in heaven between the two\n\u201cstages\u201d of his coming. Because we so represent matters, some, who do\nnot consider all the angles of the theory, say we are guilty of serious\nmisrepresentation. Let us not be too hasty. There is another angle to\nthis theory.\n\nThe theory represents the whole of the book of Revelation from the\nbeginning of the fourth chapter to the close as dealing with things yet\nfuture, and that from the beginning of chapter four to the end of\nchapter nineteen it tells of things that will occur between the \u201ctwo\nstages\u201d of the Lord\u2019s coming; and that is at the time another angle of\nthe theory has the Lord with his saints in the air surrounding the\nearth. If a man believes that Rev. 4:1 to chapter 19, inclusive, speaks\nof what is to occur between the two \u201cstages\u201d of their theory, he cannot\nbelieve that the Lord remains in the air with his saints during that\ntime. Brother Boll himself does not so believe. \u201cTo see these future\nthings John is called up to heaven. For it is in heaven that the plans\nand counsels of God are laid; and the things that transpire on the earth\nhave their secret source and origin there.... So all the great events of\nwhich the book of Revelation tells come from above, first decreed and\ndecided on in God\u2019s council chamber in heaven.\u201d John first saw God\nsitting upon his throne surrounded by twenty-four other thrones, upon\nwhich sat twenty-four elders. \u201cThat these are saints, representatives of\nall saints, seems perfectly evident.\u201d And so there were saints in\nheaven, around the throne of God, while another angle of the theory has\nthem in the air that surrounds the earth. Then John saw in the right\nhand of God as he sat on the throne a book, close-sealed with seven\nseals. None other than the Lord Jesus Christ was found that could open\nthat book. He came and took the book out of the hand of him who sat on\nthe throne. So Jesus was up in heaven, in the presence of the throne of\nGod, at the very time one angle of the theory has him in the air. And\nBrother Boll believes he was there, for he says: \u201cWhen John lifts up his\neyes to see the mighty Lion, he discerns, for the first time, in the\nmidst of the central glory of the Throne, the figure of \u2018a lamb\nstanding.\u2019\u201d From that time on we see Jesus taking an active part in all\nthat transpires around the throne in heaven. And then we come to chapter\n19. We here quote some comments made by Brother Boll on that chapter:\n\u201cWith him are armies\u2014the armies which are in heaven.... But who are\nthese \u2018holy ones\u2019 (that is, saints), and who are these armies of heaven\nthat follow in his train \u2018upon white horses clothed in fine linen, white\nand pure\u2019? The answer is indicated to us a few verses above (1-9). In\nheaven, the saints previously taken up, have joined their Lord in an\neternal wedlock.... It is in this \u2018fine linen, white and pure,\u2019 that we\nsee the armies of heaven arrayed, who follow him as he comes forth.\nThese armies are not angels; they are his saints composing His Bride,\n\u2018the Lamb\u2019s wife.\u2019\u201d Here, then, we have Jesus in heaven with his saints\nready to come forth from heaven, but another angle of the theory has the\nLord and his armies of saints in the air ready to make the second stage\nof his journey! Again: \u201cSo from heaven, riding forth for Israel\u2019s help,\ncomes their Messiah at the head of the heavenly host.\u201d\n\nI do not refer to these matters to provoke any controversy, but to show\nthat we have not misrepresented any one, and also to show that one angle\nof the future-kingdom theory does not harmonize with another angle of\nthe theory. If a theory contradicts itself, we should be excused if we\ncontradict the theory. Both angles of this theory cannot be true, and no\nman can put these angles together in such a way as to make the theory\nlook good to one who knows that God\u2019s truth is in perfect harmony with\nitself.\n\nBut the theory has the marriage of Christ to his bride yet future.\nAccording to the theory, the church is only _engaged_ to Christ now. If\nthat be so, in what sense is he now Lord of his bride?\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n The Bible does not idealize humanity\u2014not even its heroes. It\n impartially records the good and the bad. It records the drunkenness\n of Noah and the falsehood of Abraham, and gives us a full picture of\n the awful sin of David. It tells of Peter\u2019s denial of Christ and of\n his hypocrisy at Antioch. It tells how Moses tried to find a way to\n keep from carrying out God\u2019s orders. No human productions are so\n impartial.\n\n There is something radically wrong with a man\u2019s religion when it\n drives out of his heart all sympathy, kindness, and mercy. The hatred\n of the lawyers and the Pharisees toward Jesus was greater than their\n desire to see a sufferer healed.\n\n Forbearance is characteristic of a Christian. It is to be exercised\n toward those who in some way make themselves unpleasant in a personal\n way.\n\n\n\n\n HOPE OF THE LORD\u2019S COMING\n\n\nInspired men did teach that the Lord is coming again; but when men\naffirm that the Holy Spirit taught the early Christians to expect the\nLord to come the second time in their day, they virtually accuse the\nHoly Spirit of raising hopes that they knew would not be realized. We\nwould expect infidels to argue that inspired men taught things that\nturned out not to be true. But the idea is so abhorrent to any one who\nbelieves in the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the absolute\ntruthfulness of everything he taught that it seems that no one could for\na moment regard it as a harmless guess or as a matter about which we\nneed not be concerned. However, if the apostles did teach such doctrine,\nwe will have to acknowledge that they did, even though it leads us to\ndiscredit the certainty of their teaching. But did they teach it? Is\nthere any justice, reason, or foundation for putting them under such a\ncloud of suspicion? Emphatically, no!\n\nAn argument to support the theory is built on a misunderstanding of the\nword \u201chope.\u201d We are told that the apostles taught the early Christians\nto hope for the Lord\u2019s coming, and that hope is made up of desire and\nexpectation, all of which is true. But they assume that to hope for a\nthing is to expect it immediately, or at any moment. Their own\ncontention on the word \u201chope\u201d robs them of any hope of a millenial\nkingdom; for they all contend that the Jews must return to Palestine,\nRome be developed again into a great empire, and then some years of\ngreat tribulation must pass before the millenial kingdom is set up. With\ntheir idea of hope, they can hope for nothing except that which may\noccur at any moment. But they are wrong in their contention on hope. We\nplant a crop, hoping for a good harvest; but no one is simple enough to\nthink the harvest may come at any moment. The man who gives a large sum\nof money to build a college or hospital hopes to benefit generations\nunborn. We may lend, hoping to receive. Certainly no one makes a loan\nexpecting the return at any moment. They are, therefore, wrong in\nassuming that imminency inheres in expectancy. And they are wrong also\nas to the basis of expectation. Expectation must have more than\nconjecture, more than mere probability, for a basis. I earnestly desire\nthe Lord to come while I live, but I do not expect him to do so, for I\nhave nothing on which to base such an expectation. But you ask, \u201cDo you\nnot think that the Lord might come while you live?\u201d Certainly, but\nexpectation must be based on something more substantial than what may or\nmay not be. If the Lord should plainly tell me that he would come while\nI live, I would have grounds for expecting him to come before I die. But\nthe Lord has never told any generation that he would come during the\nlife of that generation, and for that reason no one has ever expected\nthe Lord to come while he lived. If the apostles had taught the early\nChristians that the Lord would come in their day, then they could have\nexpected him to come. But if the apostles had so taught, they would have\ntaught falsely, for the Lord did not come then. But they did not so\nteach, and therefore the early Christians did not expect his return in\ntheir day. And yet they did, as do all Christians today, expect him to\ncome at some period, for he said he would. They may have desired that he\ncome in their day, and we may desire him to come in our day; but they\nhad no grounds upon which to expect him to come then, neither have we\nany grounds for expecting him to come in our day.\n\nThe coming of the Lord is to be earnestly desired, and yet the thought\nof his coming fills one with dread and awe. Yet we are told that such\nfeelings indicate that there is something wrong with us, just as there\nis something wrong with a wife if she feels uneasy at the home-coming of\na good husband. We are reminded that the faithful wife gladly meets the\ndevoted husband when he returns from a journey, and that children\njoyfully run to meet their father when he comes home, and this should be\nour attitude and feeling when the Lord comes. If we tremble at his\npresence, there is something wrong! Is it possible that any one so\nthinks? Does any one really think that we can meet the Lord on the same\nbasis that one human being meets another? To teach that we should have\nsuch feeling of familiarity as a wife has toward her husband or as\nchildren have toward their father is hurtful to piety and reverence. If\nthe author of the foregoing illustrations does not mean all this, his\nillustrations do not mean anything. For years I have had an earnest\ndesire that the Lord come while I live, and yet I know that when I\nappear before him in his majesty and glory, I shall, like the beloved\nJohn, fall at his feet as one dead. (Rev. 1:17.) I cannot think that any\nChristian will feel otherwise. When Jehovah spoke to Moses out of the\nburning bush, \u201cMoses trembled, and durst not behold.\u201d (Acts 7:32.) Was\nthere something wrong with Moses and the beloved John? But the author\nwho presented the aforementioned illustrations is wrong, as he himself\nwill learn when he appears in the presence of the Judge of all the\nearth.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Perhaps you have wondered what people do in heaven. The redeemed are\n before God\u2019s throne, ready always to do his bidding. In teaching his\n disciples how to pray, Jesus put in this petition: \u201cThy will be done,\n as in heaven, so on earth.\u201d Heaven is not, therefore, a place of\n idleness. But obedience is a thing that must be learned. \u201cThough he\n was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.\u201d The\n service of God in this life is the school in which we learn obedience;\n we must learn to serve here, or we will not have the joy of service\n over there. \u201cHe that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle\n over them.\u201d They will be secure in his service\u2014have his constant care.\n\n Are all people subject to their environs in the development of their\n character? Yes and no. Environment makes some people what they are;\n others, like Asa, get busy, and make their environment.\n\n\n\n\n PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS ON THE LORD\u2019S RETURN\n\n\nThese Thessalonians had \u201cturned unto God from idols, to serve a living\nGod, and to wait for his Son from heaven.\u201d To wait for the coming of the\nLord does not mean that we are to remain in idleness till he comes. To\nwait on the Lord in any matter is to remain steadfast in the hope that\nhe will fulfill that which he promised. It is a forward-looking attitude\nof mind and heart, with confidence that God will fulfill his word,\nwhether soon or late.\n\nIn reading the Bible, we frequently allow the chapter divisions to\ninfluence our conclusions. We forget for the time that writers of the\nBible made no division into chapters and verses. In our study we should\nabsolutely disregard the chapter divisions, for the discussion of a\npoint begun in one chapter frequently runs into the next. In the first\nThessalonian letter Paul\u2019s discussion of the events connected with the\nLord\u2019s return begins with the thirteenth verse of the fourth chapter and\nends with the eleventh verse of the fifth chapter. If we ignore this\nfact, we deal unfairly with Paul.\n\nWhen Paul planted the church at Thessalonica, he did not have time to\nfully instruct the new converts, for he was soon driven away by fierce\npersecution. Before he wrote his first letter to them, some of their\nnumber had died. They did not know what would become of these at the\nLord\u2019s coming. Concerning them, they had no hope; for they had no\ninformation upon which to base any hope. Paul\u2019s purpose in writing the\nsection under consideration was to teach them that they would \u201csorrow\nnot, even as the rest, who have no hope.\u201d Through or by Jesus, God would\nbring these dead saints to heaven; for the dead saints would be raised\nfrom the dead, and, together with the living saints, would be caught up\nin the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. \u201cWherefore comfort ye one\nanother with these words.\u201d\n\nThen Paul says that it is not necessary to say anything to them about\nthe times and seasons. \u201cThe times and the seasons\u201d of what? Of that\nconcerning which he had just told them about\u2014namely, the coming of the\nLord and the resurrection of the dead saints, and the ascension of all\nsaints to meet him in the air. But that day would come as a thief in the\nnight; then what? \u201cWhen they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden\ndestruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and\nthey shall in no wise escape.\u201d So, then, in that day in which the Lord\ncomes to gather to himself his saints, sudden destruction will come upon\nthe rest of mankind. \u201cBut ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that\nday should overtake you as a thief.\u201d What day? The day of which he was\nspeaking, the day in which the saints shall be taken up and the wicked\nshall suddenly be destroyed. Some would have us believe that the saints\nwill be secure in the day when sudden destruction is visited upon the\nwicked, because they shall have already been taken up to meet the Lord\nin the air some years before that day of destruction of the ungodly. But\nPaul tells us that that day of destruction will not come upon them as a\nthief, for they are all sons of light\u2014they are ready and watching. To\nfit the theory, Paul should have said that that day would not overtake\nthem, because they would not be there, having already been caught up to\nmeet the Lord in the air.\n\nSome people look at this Scripture so carelessly that they actually\nthink that Paul says the dead saints will be raised before the wicked\nare raised. One good brother, a friend of mine, quoted Scripture, to me\nas follows: \u201cThe dead in Christ shall rise first, and the rest of the\ndead lived not again till the thousand years are passed.\u201d But Paul was\nnot contrasting the resurrection of the saints and the wicked, but was\nspeaking of the dead saints and those living when Christ comes. Will the\nliving saints leave the dead in their graves? No, the dead saints will\nbe raised first\u2014that is, before the living ascend; and then all shall be\ncaught up to meet the Lord. Whether the wicked were to be raised then,\nor were never to be raised, was not so much as hinted at. But the\npassage does teach this: When the Lord comes, the saints will be caught\nup to meet him in the air, and the wicked will be destroyed in that day.\nAnd that agrees with what Paul says in his second letter to the\nThessalonians.\n\nIn Paul\u2019s second letter to the Thessalonians he gives some additional\ninformation concerning the coming of the Lord and our gathering together\nunto him. From the first verse of the second chapter we learn that the\ncoming of the Lord referred to is that coming in which the saints are\ngathered together unto him. Paul would not have them troubled by\nthinking that that day was \u201cjust at hand.\u201d One writer, well known to the\nGospel Advocate readers, makes this comment on the phrase, \u201cat hand\u201d:\n\u201cIn every translation known to me, except the Douay, the King James, and\nthe American Revised Version, this reads \u2018the day of the Lord is now\npresent.\u2019 Some one had made those Thessalonians believe that the day of\nthe Lord had already broken in upon them.\u201d I know that some translations\nhave \u201cpresent\u201d instead of \u201cat hand\u201d, but they are not so numerous as the\nforegoing quotation would have us believe. The following translations\nhave \u201cat hand\u201d: Latin Vulgate, Bible Union, Living Oracles, Sharpe,\nGeorge R. Noyes (Harvard University teacher), Anderson, Syriac, Sawyer,\nand James MacKnight. So far as scholarship goes, it is very likely that\nthe scholarship back of the American Standard Version outweighs the\nscholarship of all the translations referred to in the foregoing\nquotation, with the exception of the English Revision.\n\nBut it matters little to us what those Thessalonian brethren thought\nabout the matter; it does not affect Paul\u2019s teaching on the subject.\nPaul tells us that a falling away must come first and the man of sin be\nrevealed. This must be, he tells us, before the coming of the Lord Jesus\nChrist and our gathering together unto him. But the theory that is now\nso attractive to some people has this man of sin developed after the\nsaints are taken up to meet the Lord in the air; the man of sin is then\nto be destroyed at what is termed the second stage of his coming. But\nPaul plainly says that the coming he is here talking about is the coming\nin which the saints are gathered together unto the Lord. It is strange\nthat a theory will so blind people that they cannot see a plain\nstatement in the very passages from which they claim to deduce their\nteaching.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Jesus and Paul were not contentious, yet they contended earnestly for\n the truth. They were the greatest fighters of all time. They were\n moved by two Loves. They loved man so much that they fought with\n determination anything and everything that would hurt man. They loved\n the truth so much that they fought everything that was in the way of\n its progress. And they stirred people as none others ever did.\n\n It has been said that it is useless to quote the Bible to one who\n disbelieves it. But Jesus quoted it to the devil. There is power in an\n appropriate passage of Scripture that even a disbeliever cannot evade.\n\n Before following any advice it is better to find out the character of\n him who gives the advice and what possible interest he may have in our\n following his advice.\n\n\n\n\n RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD\n\n\nThe following question came to me recently:\n\n Brother Whiteside: Do you not think that the expression, \u201cresurrection\n from the dead,\u201d has reference to the death state, rather than the\n meaning that some will come \u201cout from among\u201d the other dead ones? Say\n something to us in the Gospel Advocate along this line. John S. Clark.\n\nIn the growth of language it is common for words to take on additional\nmeanings. This, of course, is common knowledge and needs no proof.\n\nIn the phrase, \u201cfrom the dead\u201d (ek nekron), the word \u201cdead\u201d is plural in\nthe Greek, but by a sort of figure of speech, or extension of the\nmeaning of the word, it applies to the state of death; at least, some\npassages of Scripture set forth that idea. In Rom. 6:13 we have the\nphrase, \u201calive from the dead,\u201d and in I John 3:14 we have the phrase,\n\u201cpassed out of death into life.\u201d In both passages the meaning is the\nsame; yet in Romans the Greek word from which we have \u201cdead\u201d is plural,\nand in John we have another word in the singular. The Romans had been\ndead in sins, but were made alive from that death. The Cambridge Greek\nTestament has this note: \u201cEk nekron, as men that are alive after being\ndead.\u201d Bloomfield: \u201cEx nekron zontas, as those who, after having been\n(spiritually) dead, are now alive.\u201d Thayer: \u201cZeen ek nekron, tropically,\nout of moral death to enter upon a new life, dedicated and acceptable to\nGod (Rom. 6:13.)\u201d In defining \u201cek,\u201d Thayer has this: \u201c5. Of the\ncondition or state out of which one comes or is brought: ... zontes ek\nnekron, alive from being dead\u2014i. e., who had been dead and were alive\nagain (Rom. 6:13.)\u201d It is plain, therefore, that the word \u201cdead\u201d in Rom.\n6:13 refers to the death state. It is true that it refers here to\nspiritual death, but its use in describing the state of the sinner is a\nfigurative use of the same expression that is applied to the state of\nthose who are dead physically.\n\nWe have the same phrase in Rom. 11:15\u2014\u201clife from the dead\u201d (ek nekron).\nOn this passage Thayer has this: \u201cZoa ek nekron, life breaking forth\nfrom the abode of the dead.\u201d Bloomfield gives the following as the sense\nof the whole verse: \u201cIf their _sin_, which occasioned this casting away,\nhas been the means of reconciling the world, by bringing about the death\nof Christ, what shall the _receiving of them again into the divine favor\nbe_ (whenever it shall take place), but so happy a change, both to\nthemselves and to the Gentiles, as may, in a manner, be said to raise\nthe whole world from death to life? Zoe ek nekron, by a figure common to\nall languages, denotes (as Turretin and Stuart explain) something great\nand surprising, like what a general resurrection from the dead would\nbe.\u201d So, according to Bloomfield, \u201clife from the dead\u201d is life from\ndeath.\n\nBut it is contended by all the future-kingdom folks that the phrase,\n\u201cresurrection from the dead\u201d (ek nekron), applies to the righteous and\nnever to the wicked. Their cause depends upon their repudiating the idea\nthat the word \u201cdead\u201d refers to the death state. They tell us that the\nrighteous are raised before the wicked, and are, therefore, raised \u201cout\nfrom among\u201d dead ones. But their contention is not conclusive, even if\n\u201cek nekron\u201d should be rendered \u201cout of the dead ones.\u201d In the first\nplace, to make \u201cek\u201d mean _out from among_ is stretching that little word\ntoo much. Again, before the resurrection, the dead ones are made up of\nboth the righteous and the wicked. Their contention will not allow that\nthe righteous come \u201cout from among\u201d the righteous dead. They do not,\nthen, come \u201cout from among\u201d the dead, but \u201cout from among\u201d only a part\nof the dead. But \u201cout from among\u201d is not even good English.\n\nAgain, granting, for argument\u2019s sake, that \u201cfrom the dead\u201d means \u201cout of\ndead ones,\u201d their contention then does not hold good. We view the field\nof the dead; they are all there\u2014the righteous, the sinners, the infants,\nand all irresponsible people. They all arise at once; have they not come\nout of the dead? They were dead ones, now they are live ones; out of the\ndead ones came the living ones. The apostles preached a resurrection of\nboth the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15). In Acts 4:2 \u201cek nekron\u201d is\nused in connection with the resurrection of all the dead. The Sadducees\nwere sorely troubled because the apostles \u201cproclaimed in Jesus the\nresurrection from the dead.\u201d\n\nI have never seen any provision, or place, for the resurrection of\ninfants and irresponsibles in the future-kingdom theory, nor have I seen\nany place for such in their future-kingdom. They cannot be rulers, for\nthey have not been tested and proved worthy of such place; the most of\nthem cannot be citizens, for they are not Jews. Will they be raised\nbefore the millennial kingdom begins? If so, what will be their status\nin that kingdom, or will they be any part of it?\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Contrary to all human tendencies, God would have us celebrate the\n death of Christ instead of his birth. Had he wanted us to celebrate\n his birth, he would not have left its date in obscurity. A little\n attention to the history or manner of shepherding in Palestine will\n convince anyone that December 25 is not the correct date. In the\n Lord\u2019s Supper, we celebrate his death; in observing the Supper on the\n Lord\u2019s day, we celebrate his resurrection. We honor Jesus by following\n in his steps and by doing his will; we dishonor him and disgrace his\n cause by celebrating his birth in the way it is usually done.\n\n Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any daughter of the heathen\n surrounding him; neither did Isaac and Rebekah want their two sons to\n do so. The marriage relation is so close that no Christian should\n marry a person whose influence would be hurtful instead of helpful.\n\n\n\n\n THEORY OF TWO RESURRECTIONS CONSIDERED\n\n\nIn a former article it was shown that the word \u201cdead\u201d in the phrase,\n\u201cresurrection from the dead,\u201d sometimes, at least, refers to the death\nstate. People are raised from the dead\u2014that is, the death state. But it\nis contended by the future-kingdom folks that there will be two\nresurrections\u2014the righteous to be raised from among the dead, and the\nrest of the dead will be raised later. They insist that the phrase,\n\u201cfrom the dead,\u201d shows that some of the dead will be left. But their\narguments have never seemed conclusive to me.\n\nIt would be hard to get two resurrections more than a thousand years\napart out of the following language of the Savior: \u201cMarvel not at this:\nfor the hour cometh, in which all that are in their tombs shall hear his\nvoice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the\nresurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the\nresurrection of judgment.\u201d (John 5:28, 29.) There is to be an hour, or\nperiod, in which all, both good and bad shall come forth from the dead\nat the call of Jesus. The same thought\u2014that is, that both will be raised\nat the same time\u2014is presented in Acts 4:1, 2: \u201cAnd as they spake unto\nthe people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees\ncame upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and\nproclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.\u201d Here we have the\nphrase, \u201cresurrection from the dead\u201d (ek nekron). The priests and the\ncaptain of the temple were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in\nthe resurrection of anybody. With them death ended all. Are we to\nbelieve that they stirred up all this trouble because the apostles\ntaught that the righteous would be raised before the wicked? That point\ndid not concern them, but to preach that the dead would be raised did\ndisturb them. The apostles preached in Jesus a universal resurrection\nfrom the dead. \u201cFor as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be\nmade alive.\u201d (1 Cor. 15:22.) Before Felix, Paul preached that he had\nhope toward God that there would be a resurrection both of the just and\nthe unjust. (Acts 24:15.) It was that sort of preaching that so\nexasperated the Sadducees. Hence, when the apostles at Jerusalem\npreached that all would be raised from the dead (ek nekron), it\ninfuriated the Sadducees. But the Pharisees believed in a universal\nresurrection. Paul took advantage of this difference between the\nSadducees and Pharisees, when he was brought before the council in\nJerusalem, and said: \u201cBrethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees:\ntouching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.\u201d\n(Acts 23:6.)\n\nThe two-resurrectionists seek to make a point on Paul\u2019s effort to\n\u201cattain unto the resurrection from the dead.\u201d (Phil. 3:11.) After\nquoting Phil. 3:10-14, Charles M. Neal says: \u201cTo present and emphasize\nthis thought, Paul invents a new word. This word, \u2018exanastasis,\u2019 occurs\nbut this one time in the New Testament. The phrase \u2018resurrection from\nthe dead,\u2019 is translated by Rotherham as \u2018out-resurrection from among\nthe dead,\u2019 and in the Emphatic Diaglott as \u2018resurrection from among the\ndead\u2019.\u201d It is true that the word occurs in the New Testament only in\nthis one place. But we become somewhat doubtful of one who quotes as\nauthority the Emphatic Diaglott, a translation that is printed and sold\nby the Russellites. And surely no one would seriously put Rotherham up\nagainst the great body of scholars who gave the American Standard\nVersion.\n\nBut to seek to make \u201cexanastasis\u201d mean _out-resurrection from_ is to\nventure beyond the lexicons. Liddell and Scott gives the New Testament\nmeaning as the _resurrection_. Thayer: _a rising up; a rising again;\nresurrection_. Thus it is seen that Thayer, though himself a\npremillennialist, gives no support to the idea in defining the word.\nWhen a man gives a definition of a word that is not sustained by either\nof these lexicons, nor by the greatest body of scholars that was ever\ngathered for any purpose, he puts entirely too much stress upon himself.\n\nIt is true that \u201cek\u201d or \u201cex\u201d when standing alone as a preposition,\nusually has the general meaning of \u201cout of\u201d; but when used as a part of\na compound word, as in \u2019exanastasis\u2019, it sometimes merely intensifies\nthe meaning of the word to which it is joined, giving the idea of\n\u201cutterly, entirely.\u201d See Thayer and Liddell and Scott. If one has the\ntime and opportunity, he may also examine Winer (page 429) and\nRobertson\u2019s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (pages 562-4, 596). If\n\u201cex\u201d adds any meaning to the word here, it merely means that Paul was\nstriving to obtain a complete resurrection, a perfect resurrection\u2014that\nis, a resurrection to life that is life indeed. In that respect there is\na decided difference between the resurrection of a faithful Christian\nand a sinner, for a sinner is not raised to real life.\n\nSometimes the preposition adds nothing to the meaning of the word with\nwhich it is compounded\u2014that is, so far as we can see. Take, for\nillustration, the verb from which we have \u201cexanastasis.\u201d It occurs in\nMark 12:19 and Luke 20:28\u2014\u201craised up seed unto his brother.\u201d Here we\nhave \u201cex\u201d joined to the verb; but in the parallel passage in Matt.\n22:24, where the meaning is bound to be exactly the same, the\npreposition \u201cex\u201d is left off. If adding \u201cex\u201d to the verb does not change\nthis verb, how can one dogmatically argue that it changes the noun that\nis derived from the verb? The argument built on \u201cexanastasis\u201d is about\nas flimsy an argument as one could find. A cause that depends on such\narguments cannot have a substantial basis. But a wild theory is often\nsupported by very tame arguments.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n One preacher can do very little toward establishing a church in a\n great city. It is perhaps harder now than ever. We have seen it tried.\n It would be better to take Antioch as an example. Notice the number of\n workers that concentrated their efforts on that city. They got\n results. Paul generally had a group of helpers with him. Together they\n did work in cities where one man would have failed, or practically so.\n Ignoring this divine example and putting one man in a city without\n real help, we have wasted much effort.\n\n\n\n\n CHURCH AGES\n\n\nWhen a man tries to sustain a false theory in religion he cannot do so\nby correct application of the scriptures. He will make false arguments\nand pervert the scriptures. A striking example of this is seen in the\nefforts of some to find prophetic symbolisms in the letters to the seven\nchurches in Asia. These letters were written to seven churches in seven\ncities of Asia Minor, and they are recorded in the second and third\nchapters of Revelation. Here is what Scofield says in his Bible: \u201cThe\nmessages to the seven churches have a fourfold application: (1) Local,\nto the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in\nall time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state\nin the sight of God; (3) personal, in exhortations to him \u2018that hath an\near,\u2019 and in the promises \u2018to him that overcometh\u2019; (4) prophetic as\ndisclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from,\nsay, A. D. 96 to the end.\u201d\n\nOf course, when these men talk about the church they include all that\nthey call branches of the church. They claim that we are now living in\nthe period symbolized by the church at Laodicea. There is not even a\nhint that there were any prophetic symbolisms in the condition of these\nchurches. Of course they do not claim that the condition of the church\nat Ephesus was prophetic of a future period\u2014its condition merely\nportrayed the condition of the churches then. That is absurd, for the\nsix other churches mentioned were not like Ephesus\u2014in fact, there is not\na hint that the Ephesus church was like any other church of that day,\nand yet the theory requires that the condition of the church at Ephesus\ncorrectly represented all the churches of that period. And then the\nother six churches are said to represent, or symbolize, or forecast the\ncondition of the church at certain periods. The marking off the period\nthat each church is supposed to represent is purely arbitrary. No one\ncan prove, even if the theory were true, that we live in the Laodicean\nperiod. But the whole theory is fantastic, absurd, and a reflection on\nGod.\n\nThink what the theory involves. How could a church then determine the\ncharacter of the whole church during a certain period hundreds of years\nlater? Or did God by direct miraculous power make these churches to be\nlike what he knew the whole church would be at different periods? Or did\nhe by direct power make the periods to be like the churches of Asia? In\neither case people had to be what God by direct power chose to make\nthem. Where then is there room for freedom of will, or freedom of\naction? Any one who can believe that each of these churches was a\nforecast of the whole church at a certain period can believe any\nfoolish, fantastic, absurd thing that the wildest imagination can\nconceive. He does not have to have any evidence\u2014he just lets his\nimagination run riot. I would like for some of its advocates to tell me\nwhen that notion was hatched out, and by whom.\n\n\n\n\n PHILADELPHIA AND THE HOUR OF TRIAL\n\n\nFoy E. Wallace, Jr., passes over to me a document which was written in\nDetroit with a request that I say something about it. The document would\nfill my page. As much of it has no special bearing on the points sought\nto be made, I will make liberal and fair quotations from it. The passage\ncommented upon first is Rev. 3:10: \u201cBecause thou didst keep the word of\nmy patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour\nwhich is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the\nearth.\u201d I quote:\n\n\u201cThe promise. \u2018The hour of trial\u2019 was ahead, but Philadelphia was to be\nkept from it. Not saved through it, but kept from it....\n\n\u201cThat Hour. (1) It is the \u2018hour of trial\u2019 with emphasis on \u2018the\u2019. (2) It\nis the \u2018hour of trial\u2019 with emphasis on \u2018trial\u2019, for it is \u2018to try them\nthat dwell upon the earth.\u2019 (4) It is yet future; \u2018to come upon the\nwhole world.\u2019 Nothing has since occurred in history filling out this\npicture.... (5) the Philadelphia type of saints will escape.... Those\nwho keep his word are of the Philadelphia type of saints. The church\nthat is true to the word is a church of the Philadelphian type and can\nlay claim to this same promise.\u201d\n\nJohn wrote seven letters, dictated by the Lord, to seven churches in\nAsia; the church at Philadelphia was one of these churches. The Lord\nmade a definite promise to the church at Philadelphia. Naturally the\nmembers of that church would understand that the promise was to them;\nbut that church long ago ceased to exist. And yet we are told that the\npromise made to those brethren is yet future. If that be so, then that\npromise was not for those brethren at all! They are all dead; was that\nthe way the Lord was going to keep them from the hour of trial? No, no;\naccording to the foregoing quotation, the promise was not meant for the\nchurch at Philadelphia at all, but for the churches of the Philadelphian\ntype! Such juggling with the record is both taking away from and adding\nto the words of the book. The promise was not made to the \u201cPhiladelphian\ntype of saints\u201d, but to the church at Philadelphia. It is true that some\npromises, general in their nature, though not to one individual or group\nof individuals, are to be enjoyed by all who fulfill the conditions; but\ncertainly the ones to whom the promise is directly made are included in\nthe promise! But, strange to say, according to the foregoing quotation,\nthe church at Philadelphia to whom the promise was made was not included\nin the promise made directly to them! That promise is yet future, so we\nare told.\n\nBut the implication of the quotation is that the promise was made to the\nPhiladelphian type of churches, and that it is to be fulfilled in \u201cthe\nrapture.\u201d And what is it that a person cannot prove, if he is allowed to\njuggle words to suit his theory? If the hour of trial is yet future, the\nLord kept Philadelphia from it by deferring it till all those saints\ndied. But he conjures up a peculiar method of escape for those saints\nwho long ago died: (7) \u201cThe method of escape is found in such passages\nas 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is often called the rapture, and properly so,\nfrom the expression \u2018caught up,\u2019 which rapture means.\u201d But would not the\nsaints of Philadelphia escape that supposed three and a half years of\ntribulation if they should remain in their graves?\n\nI quote again: \u201cOther Designations. Jesus used the term \u2018that day,\u2019 also\nthe term \u2018tribulation.\u2019 Daniel calls it \u2018a time of trouble\u2019 such as is\nunequaled and never repeated. In Jer. 30:7 it is \u2018the time of Jacob\u2019s\ntrouble; but he shall be saved out of it.\u2019 Here is a parallel to the\nescape of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace. Those who are \u2018saved\nout of it\u2019 are distinct from those who are kept from it. John has a\nvision of a number who \u2018come out of the great tribulation,\u2019 but the\nPhiladelphians are kept from it!\u201d\n\nHe affirms that the various terms he names applies to one certain period\nthat is yet to be; but he gives not one word of proof. The terms, \u201cthat\nday,\u201d \u201cin that day,\u201d \u201cday of trouble,\u201d \u201ctribulation,\u201d \u201ctribulations,\u201d\n\u201cthat hour,\u201d are used many times in the Bible, and certainly do not all\nrefer to the same period of time. Why then pick out a term here and\nthere and arbitrarily apply them to one certain time? THE REASON: a\ncertain theory demands it. And if the writer will examine the Greek in\nJer. 30:7 and Rev. 3:10, he will find apo, from, in Jeremiah, and ek,\nout of, in Revelation, which completely reverses the point he seeks to\nmake on the use of prepositions.\n\nAgain I quote: \u201cChronology.... The order of some outstanding things\nforetold is revealed. To get this order saves confusion. From Jesus\u2019\nprophecy on the mount (Matt. 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21) avoiding all\nforced interpretations, we learn \u2018the tribulation of those days\u2019 leads\nup to the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars of the\nheaven, the powers of the heaven being shaken, and the glorious\nappearing of the Son of man. Note the expression \u2018immediately after\u2019 in\nMatt. 24:29. Note also Mark 13:24-27 ... even up to the tribulation\nthere are foretold \u2018wars and rumors of wars,\u2019 and \u2018nation shall rise\nagainst nation, and kingdom against kingdom.\u2019 Again, attention is called\nto the fact that those days of unprecedented tribulation \u2018shall be\nshortened.\u2019 Obviously they are terminated by the Son of man in\nconnection with his appearing. The times foretold in this connection\nconstitute \u2018the days of the Son of man.\u2019 (see Luke 17:26.) The \u2018rapture\u2019\nprecedes \u2018the tribulation of those days,\u2019 \u2018the days of the Son of man.\u2019\nAnd the rapture awaits nothing that is foretold.\u201d\n\nThere are difficulties in the discourse Jesus delivered to the disciples\non Olivet; but it is certain that no one will get a correct idea of what\nwas said if he ignores the questions that gave rise to the speech. Jesus\nwas answering questions put to him by the disciples. The disciples had\ncalled his attention to the temple and its adornments. Jesus said: \u201cAs\nfor these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there\nshall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown\ndown.\u201d When they had crossed to the mount of Olives, Peter, James, John,\nand Andrew said to him: \u201cTeacher, when therefore shall these things be?\nand what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?\u201d\nPut yourself in the place of these disciples: would you not understand\nthat everything Jesus said was in answer to those two questions? Would\nJesus confuse them by saying a lot of things which they would understand\nto be in answer to their questions, but were not? In Mark\u2019s record we\nhave: \u201cTell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign\nwhen these things are about to be accomplished?\u201d To say that most of the\nanswer Jesus gave related to something about which they had not inquired\nis to accuse Jesus of not dealing fairly with them. In Matthew\u2019s record\nwe have: \u201cTell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the\nsign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?\u201d For the last clause\nthe marginal reading has, \u201cOr, _the consummation of the age_.\u201d To say\nthat Matthew\u2019s report of these questions does not mean the same as the\nreports of Mark and Luke is to accuse some one of making a false report\nof the questions.[1]\n\nIt is singular that so many commentators take it for granted that the\ndisciples were, in Matthew\u2019s report, asking about the second coming of\nChrist; but that could not be. Jesus had not taught them anything about\nhis second coming; besides, they had never believed that he would be put\nto death! The Jews held to the idea that when the Messiah came, he would\nabide, forever, ruling as a great king in Jerusalem. How then could the\ndisciples have been asking questions about the second coming of Christ,\nwhen they did not believe he would go away? It is astonishing that\ncommentators have overlooked this plain fact. The disciples referred to\nhis coming in judgment on Jerusalem. The tribulation was the suffering\nof the Jews when the Romans destroyed their nation and Jerusalem. The\ntemple was utterly destroyed. The Jewish nation ended; darkness and\ngloom settled down over the people. The fulfillment of what Jesus had\nsaid was a sign that he was what he claimed to be\u2014that the Son of man\nwas also the Christ, the Son of God. For the natural phenomena mentioned\nyou get some explanation by reading Isa. 13:1-10.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n The treatment Joseph received at home would tend to make him arrogant\n and overbearing. To serve the purpose God had in view, these traits\n had to be toned down. A period of slavery, followed by a rather long\n stay in prison, would reduce his pride and feeling of importance. In\n both slavery and imprisonment he learned to work under men, and at the\n same time he learned to manage men. He also learned business\n principles. A petted son does not have much opportunity to learn any\n of these useful things. Joseph had to be torn away from his father in\n order to learn to be useful.\n\n\n\n\n NEBUCHADNEZZAR\u2019S DREAM\n\n\nNebuchadnezzar had a wonderful dream, and required, on penalty of death,\nthat the wise men tell him the dream and its interpretation. None but\nDaniel could do so. To the king Daniel said: \u201cThou, O king, sawest, and,\nbehold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose\nbrightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was\nterrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and\nits arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron,\nits feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone\nwas cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were\nof iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay,\nthe brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and\nbecame like chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried\nthem away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote\nthe image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.\u201d (Dan.\n2:31-35.)\n\nBefore we read the interpretation of this dream, let us observe: (1)\nthat Nebuchadnezzar saw the complete image, as if all its parts existed\nat the same time; (2) that the stone smote the image on the feet; (3)\nthat the whole image from feet to head was broken in pieces and\nscattered as dust; (4) and that no place was found for them\u2014no place for\nsuch parts as composed that image.\n\n_The Interpretation_\u2014\u201cThou art the head of gold. And after thee shall\narise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of\nbrass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom\nshall be strong as iron, for as much as iron breaketh in pieces and\nsubdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it break\nin pieces and crush.... And in the days of those kings shall the God of\nheaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the\nsovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in\npieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. For\nas much as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without\nhands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the\nsilver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what\nshall come to pass hereafter.\u201d (Verses 36-45.)\n\nThis dream and the interpretation have furnished a starting point for\nmany sermons by gospel preachers. Till recently they all contended that\nthe kingdom of this prophecy was set up in Jerusalem on the first\nPentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and then and there entered\nupon the work which Daniel said it would accomplish. It is now argued by\na few brethren that when Jesus comes again the kingdom of this prophecy\nwill then have its real beginning, and will then destroy the image of\nNebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream. But is there anything in the interpretation to\nwarrant such a radical change from a century of gospel preaching?\n\nThe four world kingdoms represented in the image\u2014Babylon, Medo-Persia,\nGreece, and Rome\u2014came and fell in the order mentioned. Yet\nNebuchadnezzar saw them in the image, as if all existed at the same\ntime. The stone is represented as breaking in pieces the whole\nimage\u2014that is, the kingdom of God is represented as destroying all of\nthe four world kingdoms. \u201cIt broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the\nclay, the silver, and the gold.\u201d In truth, it was an image of world\nempire, and that was broken in pieces, never to be made whole again.\nEvery attempt at world empire, since Rome, has ended in failure, and\nwill continue to fail.\n\nIt is also plainly stated that in the days of these kings\u2014that is, while\nthe image still remained\u2014the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, and\nthat this kingdom would destroy the image. The Roman Empire embodied all\nthat was in the other three kingdoms of the image. So long as Rome\nexisted the image stood. The stone smote the image on the feet, but\ndestroyed every part of the image. Every kingdom represented in that\nimage has ceased to be; the image has been entirely destroyed\u2014not a\nvestige of it remains. It follows, then, with the force of a\ndemonstration, that the kingdom of God has been set up. Even though it\nbe claimed that another world empire is yet to be, it cannot, by any\njuggling of words or flight of the imagination, be made a part of the\nimage of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream. In that image each kingdom merged into\nthe one following it till Rome; then the stone smote the image and\ndestroyed it. As the kingdom was to be set up during the existence of\nthat image, and as that image has been destroyed, it proves beyond a\ndoubt that the God of heaven has set up his kingdom.\n\nSo far as the interpretation of the dream shows, the kingdom of God was\nto destroy only the kingdoms of the image; and it could destroy the\nfirst three only as they were represented in the Roman Empire. World\nEmpires died with Rome. The principles of the kingdom of Christ have so\nmodified human thinking as to destroy the possibility of world empire.\n\nBut we are told that Daniel\u2019s language shows that these kingdoms are to\nbe destroyed suddenly, and by violent impact. But it cannot be shown\nthat Daniel\u2019s language requires such method of destruction. The kingdom\nwas to grind them to dust. Does that only imply destruction? Besides,\nthe future-kingdom idea is that the kingdom of God will be ushered in in\nfull power; whereas the dream represents it as a stone that destroyed\nthe image and then grew into a mountain that filled the earth. If you\nstill insist that Daniel\u2019s language shows that the kingdoms are to be\ndestroyed by violent impact, then I ask you to consider carefully the\nlanguage of Jer. 1:9, 10: \u201cThen Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched\nmy mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy\nmouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the\nkingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow,\nto build and to plant.\u201d That is as strong language as Daniel uses in\ndescribing the work of the kingdom of God; yet we know that Jeremiah\ndestroyed nothing by violent impact. Yet how these future-kingdom\nadvocates would have stressed this language if it had been used to\ndescribe the work of the kingdom instead of the work of Jeremiah! It\nwould be interesting to see them try to show how Dan. 2:44, 45 requires\nviolence, but Jer. 1:9, 10 means \u201cpeaceful penetration.\u201d\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n A thing gained through deceit or fraud cannot bring contentment and\n satisfaction. Jacob never enjoyed any real happiness in possessing the\n birthright, and the blessings he obtained from Isaac by fraud made him\n an exile and caused him much worry and distress. One cannot see\n wherein it was any real satisfaction to him.\n\n We get into trouble when we scheme and plan to help God work out his\n plans. When God announced, even before Esau and Jacob were born, his\n purposes concerning these two prospective sons of Isaac and Rebekah,\n Rebekah should have realized that God would work out his plans in his\n own way; but she thought she must do some scheming to help God work\n out his plans. In so doing she lost the company of her beloved son and\n caused him untold misery.\n\n\n\n\n MILLIGAN ON NEBUCHADNEZZAR\u2019S DREAM\n\n\nAfter I wrote my recent article on \u201cNebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream and its\ninterpretation,\u201d I found a series of articles on the kingdom, written by\nRobert Milligan and published in the Millenial Harbinger of 1858. That\nthe reader may see that the positions set forth in my article are\nneither new nor fanciful, I quote some extracts from Bro. Milligan\u2019s\narticles. Concerning the establishment of the kingdom foretold in\nDaniel\u2019s interpretation of the dream, Mr. Milligan says:\n\n The prophet limits the chronology of the event to \u201cThe days of these\n kings.\u201d But who are they? When did they reign? What was the beginning,\n the duration, the end of their administration?\n\n Many writers on prophecy, and even some of our own brethren, for whose\n opinions we entertain very great respect, refer all this to the\n future. They suppose by \u201c_these kings_\u201d are meant the ten kingdoms\n into which the Roman Empire was divided, and which they suppose were\n symbolized by the ten toes of the image.... But with all due respect\n for these good brethren, we are constrained to dissent from such an\n interpretation of the passage. To us there appear to lie against it\n many objections, some of which are the following:\n\n 1. The notion that the toes of the image were designed to represent\n the ten fragments of the Western Roman Empire is a mere hypothesis. It\n may possibly be true; but certain it is that the evidence is\n wanting.... But ten toes on one foot would be rather incongruous.\n\n 2. But even if it could be satisfactorily shown that the ten toes were\n designed to represent the fragments of the ten kingdoms that arose out\n of the Western Empire, it would by no means follow that these are\n identical with the kings named in the text. The reverse of this is\n certainly true. The limiting adjective, \u201c_these_,\u201d implies that the\n subject to which it refers had been clearly designated.... But the\n only kings fairly implied in the whole connection are those of the\n four universal monarchies....\n\n From these premises we infer that the phrase, \u201c_these kings_,\u201d has no\n reference to the monarchs of modern Europe. Nor does it, as some have\n supposed, refer exclusively to the Caesars. These are not in this\n connection made the subject of a distinct prophecy. The phrase\n evidently refers to all the rulers of the four universal monarchies,\n and comprehends the kings of Babylon, and Persia, and Macedonia, as\n well as those of Rome.\n\n The meaning of this passage, then, is simply this: that at some epoch\n during the lifetime of that human monster, or between the time of\n Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of the Roman Empire in the year of Christ\n 476, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom in the world.\n\nAfter some discussion of the events of the first Pentecost after the\nresurrection of Christ, Brother Milligan says:\n\n According, then, to the testimony of Peter, Jesus Christ was, on the\n day of Pentecost, seated on the throne of David, not in Jerusalem, as\n the Jews anticipated, but in heaven at the right hand of God. He was\n exalted to the rank and dignity of a Prince as well as a Savior. And\n hence, for the first time in the history of the world, those who\n gladly received his word were commanded to be baptized in _the name of\n Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins_.\n\nIn his second article Brother Milligan quotes Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream and\nDaniel\u2019s interpretation thereof, and then comments as follows:\n\n The image was then smitten upon the feet. The wound was mortal. The\n tyrant that had governed the world from the days of Nebuchadnezzar\n till that hour was slain. His spirit was subdued, and his whole\n physical organization, consisting of gold, and silver, and brass, and\n iron, and clay, was then broken into fragments.\n\n Since that time Charlemagne, Napoleon, and many others, have attempted\n to revive the spirit and reunite the scattered fragments of this\n fallen image. But all such attempts have been in vain.... It is true,\n the spirit of war still exists: blood is often shed for the most\n trivial causes. But let any prince or potentate now attempt to revive\n the spirit of this fallen image; let him attempt, like Nebuchadnezzar,\n Cyrus, Alexander, and Caesar, to subdue the world, and to govern it on\n the principle that \u201cmight makes right;\u201d and if not treated as a maniac\n by his own subjects, he will, at least, find arrayed against him the\n combined powers of Christendom.\n\nIn view of what happened to the Kaiser when he tried to conquer the\nworld, the last statement of Brother Milligan looks almost like\nprophecy. But it was not a prophecy, but merely a statement based on\nDaniel\u2019s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream.\n\nI invite the future-kingdom advocates to consider the following:\n\n1. The image, as it stood before Nebuchadnezzar, represented four world\nempires. That is, of course, admitted.\n\n2. The kingdom of God was to be set up while that image stood, and was\nto destroy the image. On that point no one can mistake what Daniel says.\n\n3. That image has been destroyed\u2014there has not been a world empire since\nthe days of Rome.\n\n4. It is certain, therefore, that the kingdom of God has been\nestablished, and that the principles of that kingdom have broken down\nand destroyed world empires.\n\nIt is a pity that a man will become so obsessed with a speculative idea\nas to say that the image has been destroyed, but the kingdom of God had\nnothing to do with its destruction. To me it looks like a flat denial of\nwhat Daniel says.\n\n\n\n\n A LEADING DOCTRINE OF THIS CURRENT REFORMATION\n\n\nWhen I was a young man, the gospel preachers who were then active in\npreaching the ancient gospel preached often on the establishment of the\nkingdom. As I recall those sermons, they usually began with the dream of\nNebuchadnezzar and Daniel\u2019s interpretation thereof, as recorded in the\nsecond chapter of Daniel. It was argued that the kingdom foretold in\nverse 44 began on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ.\nThat was one position on which there was no disagreement among\n\u201cChristians only\u201d in those days. It is true that there had been some\nspeculations to the contrary in the days of Alexander Campbell. One Dr.\nJohn Thomas was a leading spirit in that agitation. It was contended\nthat the restoration of the Israelites to a kingdom of their own in\nPalestine was the hope\u2014the Elpis\u2014of Israel. While we do not recognize\nMr. Campbell as authority in matters of faith, we do recognize him as a\nteacher of great ability. It will do us good to read carefully some\nthings Mr. Campbell wrote on the kingdom question. Note how the\nfollowing fits into the present agitation on this question:\n\n I will receive it as a favor from any person, to be informed of any\n people or preacher, on this continent or in the European world, that\n clearly or definitely stated or announced, in unequivocal affirmation,\n that the Christian church did not commence, and, consequently, was\n never organized, till the first Pentecost after the crucifixion,\n death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of the Lord\n Jesus Christ; that then placed upon the throne of David, and upon the\n throne of God, he commenced his reign _personally_ in heaven and\n _spiritually_ upon the earth, by the mission of the Holy Spirit to his\n apostles, and through them to his church, which is now his natural and\n earthly body\u2014the fullness, or manhood development, of Him who fills\n all things, in all places, with life, and beauty, and happiness.\n\nThe foregoing is taken from the Millenial Harbinger of February, 1852.\nIn a footnote to the foregoing quotation we have the following from Mr.\nCampbell:\n\n To prevent misconception of this allusion to the throne of David, I\n simply remark for the present, to be developed, probably more fully\n again, that the _throne of David_ was, in fact, the _earthly throne of\n God_, in the midst of ancient Israel. David was his viceroy\u2014that is,\n _the Lord\u2019s anointed_\u2014a fact not well understood by the church, and\n still less by some untaught and unteachable dogmatists of the present\n day. It was necessary to the plans of Jehovah, which are all sublimely\n grand and wonderful, that he should have two thrones\u2014one on earth and\n one in heaven\u2014for a time occupied one above, by himself, and one\n below, by his vicegerent, called or constituted by him; and therefore\n his solemn oath or covenant with David, that he would raise out of his\n person, in fullness of time, one that would occupy both thrones.\n Hence, said the inspired bard of Israel, \u201cJehovah said to my Jehovah,\n Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool.\u201d It is\n beautifully in accordance with this fact that Mary the Virgin was the\n last bud on the tree of David which could blossom and fructify, and\n bring forth a representative of David. So that, if Jesus be not the\n heir of David\u2019s throne, there never can be one born, and God\u2019s\n covenant has failed. This is a death blow to Jewish infidelity, if\n their eyes were not closed and their ears sealed. But Jesus was the\n Son of David, and born to be a King, as he told Caesar\u2019s\n representative. On the throne of David, as King of kings, he now sits,\n and also on the throne of God; for he has all crowns upon his head,\n and affirms that all authority in heaven and on earth is given him.\n\n Any one who desires to peruse the most conceited, consequential, and\n dogmatical treaties, based upon hallucination, and parody of the words\n \u201cElpis Israel,\u201d will, if he have a dollar to throw away, have a\n demonstration of a disease called in Kentucky \u201cthe _big head_,\u201d\n probably unequaled in this century; making the _hope of\n Israel_\u2014indeed, the hope of the gospel in full development\u2014to consist\n in raising up again a throne of David in Palestine in Jerusalem; as if\n that throne had been vacant now for eighteen hundred years, or as if\n Jesus Christ would remove his throne out of the heavenly Jerusalem, to\n rebuild and locate it in old Jerusalem, and there to aggrandize the\n empire of the universe! But this only in passing, as one of the\n specimens of the power of the love of notoriety or of the marvelous,\n in wrecking and bewildering the human mind. We regard this development\n of the passion for notoriety as one of the most admonitory\n dispensations in our immediate circle of observation. It has made a\n man, that might have been useful, worthless to himself, worthless to\n his friends, and worse than worthless to the world.\n\nIn the January Harbinger (1851) Mr. Campbell reports a sermon which he\npreached at Bloomington, Ind., from which I glean the following\nexcerpts:\n\n \u201cOn Saturday night our subject was the promised advocacy of the\n Spirit, after the return and coronation of the Messiah in heaven; the\n commencement of his kingdom, and the peculiarities of the Christian\n dispensation, in contrast with the patriarchal and Jewish\n institutions. We gave reasons why Christianity, or the kingdom of\n Christ, could not be developed till he received all authority in\n heaven and earth\u2014till he received the kingdom and government of the\n universe.\u201d \u201cThe kingdom has come, and the king has been on the throne\n of David now more than eighteen hundred years: still, myriads are yet\n praying, \u2018Thy kingdom come\u2019!\u201d \u201cThus Jesus, after he had expiated our\n sins on earth, entered heaven, and basing his intercession, _as our\n high priest_, upon his sacrifice, he sat down a priest upon his\n throne, \u2018after the order of Melchizedek;\u2019 a high priest forever,\n \u2018according to the power of an endless life.\u2019 This, as set forth, is a\n leading doctrine of this current reformation.... It is pregnant with\n great revolutionizing and regenerating principles.\u201d\n\nIf Jesus is not now our anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, he is not\nyet the Christ. Do you believe Jesus to be the Christ now, or the Christ\nthat is yet to be?\n\n\n\n\n IS THE CHURCH THE KINGDOM?\n\n\nBro. Ira C. Moore, in F. F. of June 17, (190?) says \u201cNo.\u201d He reasons\nthat because these two words are from Greek words of different meanings,\nand because the two words themselves have no meaning in common,\ntherefore they can not apply to the same thing. He says the meaning of a\nword may be substituted by the word and make sense, and refers to our\nuse of this principle in reference to baptism and sprinkling. The\nprinciple is true in the main, but Bro. Moore\u2019s reasoning from it is as\nfallacious as can be. No one claims that the words kingdom and church\nmean the same. To describe or define a specific act words must of\nnecessity be synonymous, yet words very different in meaning may be\napplied to the same person or thing, owing to the different relations\nthat a person or thing sustains to the world. Man, husband, father,\ncitizen, author, and president are words very different in their\nmeanings, yet all of them apply to one person Theodore Roosevelt. In the\ndifferent positions of life he occupies the relation that each of these\nwords indicates. Because all these words are appropriately applied to\nhim does that mean that you can take a sentence in which one of them is\nused and replace it with either of the words and make sense. \u201cI,\nTheodore Roosevelt, husband, or author, or father of the United States,\u201d\netc. How is that? \u201cNonsense,\u201d did you say? Just so.\n\nApostle, Author, Shepherd, Bishop, Bread of Life, Bridegroom, Star,\nCaptain, Christ, Corner Stone, Counselor, Governor, Head of the Church,\nHigh Priest, King, Master, Mediator, Prophet, Physician, and a number of\nother names and designations apply to one Being yet they differ in\nmeaning. In different relations different words apply to Him. Just so\nwith the church. It is called body, family, temple, house, kingdom, etc.\nViewing it from different standpoints, you use different scripture\nwords. Being \u201ccalled out,\u201d it is the church, as an organization, it is\nthe body of Christ; as a government, having Christ as its King; it is\nthe kingdom of Christ.\n\nThis is enough\u2014you see the point.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n People spend much time and energy in worrying about things that are\n entirely in the hands of God. We worry about the weather, and we worry\n about how God will work out his plans in the final windup of all\n earthly matters. If we believe in God and in Christ, why worry?\n\n Wherein God invites us to trust him, he will not betray us. To doubt\n him is sin. He is not slack concerning his promises. He rewards\n abundantly those who put their trust in him\u2014those who love him serve\n him.\n\n If by faith we could see the Lord as he is and could realize our own\n weakness and dependence upon him, all the praise and adulation that\n men could heap upon us would seem empty and vain. To know that our\n Lord looked upon us with favor would be sufficient.\n\n\n\n\n THIS GOVERNMENT AND JEHOVAH\u2019S WITNESSES\n\n\n Dear Brother Whiteside:\n\n It seems to me that we ought not to oppose any move upon the part of\n the government to respect the conscience of sincere individuals. There\n are too many people in this country who would like to see us stop\n preaching for us to help further any movement which would deny the\n right to preach to certain religious groups.\n\n There have been efforts in some cities to make it illegal for the\n \u201cJehovah\u2019s Witnesses\u201d to distribute their literature or to sell it on\n the streets. These, in so far as they have come to my attention, have\n been declared unconstitutional. For this I am thankful, for I know\n once such laws are placed upon the books that they will be used by\n people against us in certain sections of the country. I have met\n people who would have invoked legal aid, if they had the power to do\n so, to prevent us from preaching in certain places by means of the\n tract. It seems to me that laws which might be passed and used against\n \u201cJehovah\u2019s Witnesses\u201d could be easily used in the hands of vested\n interests and tricky lawyers to rob the church of Christ of the\n liberty of free speech.\n\n Then, too, it would be easy for an intense patriot to label the\n teachings of the New Testament, and thus of the church of Christ, as\n subversive. They could point out that the New Testament teaches that\u2014\n\n 1. Christians are kings and priests. (Rev. 1:6.)\n\n 2. That we are endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States\n which is world-wide in its mission and which acknowledges as its\n supreme ruler Jesus Christ instead of Washington.\n\n 3. That this kingdom has been antagonistic, to say the least, to some\n governments of the past. (Dan. 2:44.)\n\n 4. That members of this kingdom believe that it was prophesied by\n Isaiah, who said that, among other things, its members would beat\n their swords into plowshares and cease to learn the ways of war. (Isa.\n 2:2-4.)\n\n 5. That they are not allowed to take vengeance. (Rom. 12:19.) From\n this they could draw conclusions which would lead many people to take\n steps to curtail our religious freedom.\n\n For these reasons, if for no other, it seems to me that your article\n in the Gospel Advocate for March 26, 1942, was unnecessary. It helps\n encourage a movement which could easily result in opposition to the\n gospel.\n\n Of course I do not accept the peculiar doctrines of the \u201cJehovah\u2019s\n Witnesses.\u201d I think we ought to teach them, among other things, Paul\u2019s\n teaching concerning the proper attitude to civil powers. (Rom.\n 13:1.)\u2014James D. Bales.\n\nBrother Bales surely has not thought this thing through. As I see it, if\n\u201cJehovah\u2019s Witnesses\u201d are to be allowed unmolested to distribute their\nliterature of opposition to all human governments, neither should a\nrabid German propagandist be molested in this country.\n\nI made no effort to \u201coppose any move on the part of the government to\nrespect the conscience\u201d of any citizen of this government. So far the\ngovernment has been as considerate as could be expected. But suppose a\ncitizen of Germany, one wholly loyal to his government, were doing\npropaganda work on the streets of our cities, he would certainly be\nconscientiously opposed to doing military service for this government.\nWould Brother Bales think this government should so respect his\nconscience as to let him go on with his subversive activities? He is an\nindividual, and he has a conscience, and he would certainly be sincere\nin his devotion to his government. Brother Bales makes no exceptions\nwhen he speaks of \u201cthe conscience of sincere individuals.\u201d Do you say he\nwas speaking of citizens of this government? If so, he leaves \u201cJehovah\u2019s\nWitnesses\u201d out, they themselves being witnesses, as a glance at their\nteaching will show.\n\nBoth Russell and Rutherford taught that \u201cthe times of the Gentiles,\u201d of\nwhich the Bible speaks, is the time in which God permitted the Gentiles\nto rule in the governments of the earth. Their language is too plain to\nadmit of any misunderstanding. Mr. Russell taught that the saints should\nbe submissive to Gentile governments up to the close of the times of the\nGentiles, or to the limit of their right to rule. With these people the\ntimes of the Gentiles began \u201cwhen the diadem was taken from Zedekiah,\u201d\nand lasted till A. D. 1914. In the 1912 edition of _The Time Is at\nHand_, Vol. 2, (\u201ccopyright 1889\u201d), Mr. Russell says: \u201cIn this chapter we\npresent the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the\nGentiles\u2014i. e., the full end of their lease of dominion\u2014will be reached\nin A. D. 1914; and that date will be the fartherest limit of the rule of\nimperfect men.\u201d (Pages 76, 77.) \u201cSo, then, Gentile rule had a beginning,\nwill last for a _fixed time_, and will end at the time appointed.\u201d (Page\n78.) During the times of the Gentiles the saints were to \u201crender to them\ndue respect and obedience,\u201d but \u201cto keep separate from the kingdoms of\nthis world as strangers, pilgrims, and foreigners.\u201d That eliminates them\nfrom citizenship in any government of the world, in so far as one can\neliminate himself. \u201cForeigners\u201d are not citizens. And their submission\nto Gentile governments was to end when the times of the Gentiles ended,\nwhen this new order would enter in full force. In the \u201cFinished\nMystery,\u201d published in 1917, we have this: \u201cTheir united testimony is\nthat the times of the Gentiles have expired, the reign of Christ has\nbegun, all earthly potentates\u2014civil, social, ecclesiastical, and\nfinancial\u2014must give way to the new order of things, and will not give\nway peaceably, but must be ejected.\u201d (Page 231.) This volume was written\nand published after Russell\u2019s death. After all the date setting for the\nend of Gentile governments, we have this: \u201cThere is evidence that the\nestablishments of the kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten\nyears later than we once calculated.\u201d (\u201cFinished Mystery,\u201d page 128.)\n\nIn \u201cOur Lord\u2019s return\u201d Rutherford says: \u201cThe word \u2018world\u2019 means the\nsocial and political order or rule governing the people.\u201d (Page 35.)\n\u201cThe end of the Gentile rule, therefore, would mark necessarily the\nlegal end of the present order; therefore, the end of the world\u201d\u2014that\nis, the end of the \u201csocial and political order or rule governing the\npeople.\u201d (Page 37.) \u201cThis does not mean the end of trouble, but it does\nmean, according to Jesus\u2019 words, that the old world legally ended in\n1914.\u201d (\u201cMillions Now Living Will Never Die,\u201d page 19.) Hence, according\nto Rutherford, no government now has any right to exist; they are all\nusurpers and in rebellion against the world\u2019s rightful ruler. Who is the\nrightful ruler? In passages too numerous to quote they tell us that\nChrist would be the universal king when the times of the Gentiles ended\nin 1914. But who is the Christ of Rutherford? \u201cThe Christ consists of\nJesus glorified, the head, and the members of his body, which constitute\nthe church.\u201d (Page 76.) Russell taught the same. The church and Jesus\nconstitute the Christ, and they are now the rightful rulers of the\nworld; no other government has any right to exist. That is their\nteaching. They, therefore, claim to owe no allegiance to any human\ngovernment, but are opposed to all human governments. If any of our\nbrethren who are conscientious objectors hold to positions similar to\nthe foregoing, then they should have registered as aliens, as should all\nfollowers of Rutherford.\n\nAt the risk of making this too long, I wish to notice by number the\nitems listed by Brother Bales.\n\n1. Read the American Standard Version on Rev. 1:6, then look at the\nGreek. \u201cKingdom,\u201d not \u201ckings.\u201d\n\n2. I am not endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States.\n\n3. I know not what Brother Bales means by \u201cantagonistic\u201d; that is a\nstrong word.\n\n4. We have not space here to discuss this passage, (Isa. 2:2-4) but\ntrust to do so later.\n\n5. No individual is allowed to take vengeance; even this government\nforbids that. God takes vengeance through his appointed channel, the\nhuman government.\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Israel fell because of its own internal corruption, and so has many\n another nation fallen. That is the greatest danger facing our nation\n today. When God is ruled out of the educational, social, and business\n life of a nation all sorts of corruption follows, and corruption means\n decay and death.\n\n\n\n\n THE NEW TESTAMENT WORD FLESH\n\n\nIn the New Testament the word _flesh_ does not always have the same\nsignificance. Sometimes it refers to our material bodies, and sometimes\nto the bodies of other living things. (1 Cor. 15:39.) It sometimes\nrefers to that state or condition in which the gratifying of the\nappetites and passions of our bodies is our chief concern\u2014strictly a\nworldly life. (Romans 7:5, 8:6-9.) It is to mind the flesh\u2014a contrast\nwith a spiritual life. And some times the word _flesh_ refers to a race\nor nation, as distinguished from another race or nation. Paul speaks of\nthe Jews as \u201cmy flesh\u201d. (Rom. 11:14.) \u201cAs concerning the flesh\u201d, Christ\nwas of the fathers of the Jewish race\u2014that is, as to his flesh he was a\nJew. After stating that Christ died for all, Paul adds, \u201cWherefore we\nhenceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ\nafter the flesh, yet now know him so no more.\u201d In Christ there are no\nfleshly distinctions\u2014no race discriminations. \u201cFor there is no\ndistinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of All.\u201d\n(Rom. 10:12.) And as Christ is the savior of both Jew and Gentile, and\nis Lord of all\u2014king over all, we can no longer regard him as a Jew\u2014we no\nlonger think of him as a Jew, or in any way identified with fleshly\nIsrael. Yet the future Kingdom advocates still identify him with fleshly\nIsrael and speak of him as \u201cIsrael\u2019s Christ,\u201d \u201cIsrael\u2019s Messiah,\u201d\n\u201cIsrael\u2019s King.\u201d They encourage the Jew to glory in the fact that he is\na Jew. They would have the Jew to believe that the Jewish nation is even\nyet God\u2019s chosen people, a nation with glorious future, exalted above\nall others subservient to them. But not so with Paul.\n\nSome of the early professed Christians gloried in the Jewish nation with\nall its traditions and every thing Jewish, and tried to bind these on\nGentile Christians. Concerning their attitude and his own ideal Paul\nsaid, \u201cFor not even they who receive circumcision do themselves keep the\nlaw; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in\nyour flesh. But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our\nLord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me,\nand I unto the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor\nuncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as shall walk by this\nrule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.\u201d (Gal.\n6:13-16.) These Judaizers gloried in the flesh, gloried in the fact that\nthey were Jews: and they were prototypes of those who now encourage the\nJews to glory in the fact that they are Jews; but Paul gloried only in\nthe cross of Christ, and pronounced peace upon all who followed his\nrule. Disturbance and strife followed those ancient Judaizing preachers,\nas it does those today who glory in the modern version of that nation.\nThe Judaizers did so much harm in the churches of Galatia where Paul had\ndone so much labor, that it so stirred Paul\u2019s feelings that he said, \u201cI\nwould that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision,\u201d or\nas the marginal reading has, \u201cGreek, _mutilate themselves_.\u201d (Gal.\n5:12.) Concerning this same class of men, he said to the Philippians,\n\u201cbeware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the\nconcision,\u201d and then adds, \u201cfor we are the circumcision, who worship by\nthe Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in\nthe flesh.\u201d The context shows plainly that Paul had no confidence in his\nJewish flesh\u2014no confidence in the fact that he was a Jew, even though he\nhad more grounds for such confidence than did the Judaizing disturbers.\n\u201c... if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet\nmore.\u201d And then Paul gives the grounds on which he might, if it were\nworth anything, have more confidence in the flesh than his Judaizing\nenemies: \u201ccircumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the\ntribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews.\u201d In his fleshly relations he had\nall the advantages that any Jew could have had. \u201cHowbeit what things\nwere gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yet verily, I\ncount all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of\nChrist Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do\ncount them but refuse, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him.\u201d\n(Read Phil. 3:2-11.) Paul gave up his fleshly connection and all that\npertained to it, as refuse, or dung, that he might gain Christ; he could\nnot gain Christ and justification by faith in him without so doing. And\nyet all over this country, in the press, in the pulpit and over the\nradio, men are teaching that to the Jew belongs the glory of that\nsupposed kingdom. In that kingdom only the Jews will be citizens; other\npeople will be subservient to them, and will have to come to the Jews\nfor favors! That really teaches the Jew to have confidence in the\nflesh\u2014to glory in the fact that he is a Jew. It cannot develop in him a\nspirit of humility, and therefore hinders his conversion. He must, as\nPaul did, give all that up, or he can never gain Christ.\n\nRecently I heard David L. Cooper, who, Dr. Weber said, is the greatest\nliving Bible scholar, answer some questions in a radio speech. In giving\nanswer to a question as to the setting up of the kingdom, he said that\nthe spiritual kingdom which John announced as at hand was set up on the\nfirst Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, but that when Christ\nreturns to earth he will set up his visible kingdom, and that there\nwould be no peace on the earth till that was done. In answering another\nquestion he said that Christ will not come till national Israel confess\ntheir national sin of rejecting him. If this last statement is true,\nthen the coming of Christ is not imminent, but likely it is far in the\nfuture, for there are no signs now that the Jews will ever make such a\nconfession. And if Cooper is right the Jews have the peace of the world\nin their keeping; for according to him the peace of the world depends on\nChrist\u2019s second coming, and his coming depends on the conversion of the\nJews. So Christ\u2019s second coming is not imminent, and the Jews hold the\ndestiny of the world in their hands! And I see no chance for the Jews to\nact nationally in anything\u2014how can they?\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n Here is one lesson that Israel never did learn, nor has the world yet\n learned it: \u201cO Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself;\n it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.\u201d (Jer. 10:23.)\n\n\n\n\n FUTURE-KINGDOM DOCTRINES\n\n\nA brother in Tennessee wants to know the difference, if any, between the\nchurch and the kingdom of Christ. A brother in Florida writes an article\nabout long enough to fill my page, seeking to prove that the prophets\nforetold a kingdom yet future. Occasionally a brother over in Arkansas\nhas written me along the same lines. The scheme argued by these two\nbrethren is along the same lines argued by other future-kingdom\nadvocates.\n\nIn its broadest sense the church is that body of people who have been\ncalled out of sin into the service of Christ. As Jesus rules over this\nbody of people, it is his kingdom.\n\n\u201cNow when John heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent his\ndisciples, and said unto him, art thou he that cometh, or look we for\nanother?\u201d In similar fashion let us ask, Is Christianity the scheme of\nredemption that was to come, or look we for another? The future-kingdom\nadvocates have answered, No, we must look for another. On that point\nthey speak in no uncertain terms. It is argued that, though Jesus came\nto establish his kingdom in Jerusalem and to deliver the Jews from\noppression, they rejected him, and he postponed the establishment of his\nkingdom till the time of his second coming. On this assumption their use\nof the prophecies is a puzzle. If the prophecies foretold the\nestablishment of his kingdom at his first coming, then they did not\nforetell its establishment at his second coming; and the future-kingdom\nadvocates discredit the prophets by seeking to make it appear that their\nprophecies can be shifted from one period to another. And yet they have\nthe audacity to tell us that if things do not work out according to\ntheir theory, no dependence can be placed in what the prophets say.\nWell, half of their theory has failed\u2014the kingdom was not established,\nwe are told, at his first coming! Now they must shift the prophecies to\nsome future date.\n\nArthur Pink represents F. W. Grant as saying, in the \u201cNumerical Bible,\u201d\nthat Matthew shows, that because Israel rejected Christ, the kingdom of\nheaven would be taken from them, \u201cand assume the mystery form in which\nit was unknown to the prophets of Israel.\u201d (page 2). Again (p. 13) Pink\nsays, \u201cBut the Old Testament _knows nothing whatsoever of\nChristianity_!\u201d All future-kingdom advocates from whom I quote hold this\nsame idea. In fact their theory makes it necessary for them to deny that\nany Old Testament promise or prophecy referred to the scheme of\nredemption preached by the apostles. In the Word and Work (January 1945)\nJ. Edward Boyd says, \u201cThe prophets had clearly seen and foretold the\nkingdom gloriously triumphant, all opposition crushed, universal in its\nsway; but this present aspect of the kingdom, the church, although in\nthe mind of God all along, they had not been permitted to see.\u201d\n\nIt is a well known fact that the Jews expected the old kingdom to be\nrestored and enlarged with the Messiah on the throne in Jerusalem; and\nR. H. Boll says, \u201cTheir expectations and conceptions of the king and\nkingdom had their origin in these Old Testament prophecies.\u201d (Kingdom of\nGod, p. 25.) \u201cThey saw in him that promised Coming One of David\u2019s line\nwho would free his nation from the Gentile\u2019s yoke and reign over the\nhouse of Jacob, and through it over all the nations of the earth. For so\nit was promised.\u201d (p. 26). \u201cThe Old Testament prophecies and promises of\nthe kingdom were the theme of our preceding studies.... By such\npredictions as those was the kingdom-hope of Israel created; and that\nmost justly and nationally. When John the Baptist lifted up his voice in\nthe wilderness of Judea and announced \u2018the kingdom at hand\u2019 he used a\nphraseology which was already common and current among the Jews, and\nwhich was perfectly understood by all.\u201d Read that again. If the phrase\n\u201cthe kingdom of heaven\u201d was \u201ccommon and current among the Jews,\u201d it was\na phrase of their own invention, for no Old Testament prophecy contains\nthe phrase. Matt. 3:2 is the first place it occurs in the Bible. Again\n(p. 34): \u201cBut if the Jewish expectations had been utterly wrong (which,\nas we have seen in our former articles, was not the case), even then a\nsense of justice would suggest that God would not have left the people\nunder such misapprehension without a clear protest and correction.\u201d Read\nthat again. Does he mean to say, that if God announced a kingdom\ndifferent from what the Jews expected without telling them so, he did\nnot have a proper sense of justice? Or does he mean that his own sense\nof justice would suggest that God should have made the explanation\nsuggested? In either case, he crosses himself up; for he says that Jesus\nbegan in Matthew thirteen to talk about the mystery form of the kingdom.\nBut Jesus did not give any hint, that as the Jews had rejected him, the\nkingdom they expected was now postponed and an entirely new sort of\nkingdom would be presented. And strange to say, he kept on using the\nterm \u201ckingdom of heaven,\u201d without telling them he was now using the term\nin an entirely new sense. In fact the Jewish idea remained with the\ndisciples up to the ascension of Christ. Now, what about that sense of\njustice?\n\nAT HAND:\u2014John the Baptist preached, \u201cRepent ye; for the kingdom of\nheaven is at hand.\u201d (Matt. 3:2). Jesus preached, \u201cThe time is fulfilled,\nand the kingdom of God is at hand.\u201d (Mark 1:14, 15) This plain language\ngives the future kingdom advocates a lot of trouble. According to John\nR. Rice, they soon quit preaching \u201cthe kingdom at hand.\u201d He presents\nthis question: \u201cIs there a single time after tenth chapter of Matthew\n... that they preached that the kingdom of heaven is at hand? I say it\nisn\u2019t there.\u201d Again, \u201cAfter Jesus was rejected definitely by the nation,\nthe kingdom was no longer at hand.\u201d He argues that the kingdom was\npostponed till the second coming of Christ. But he overlooked what Jesus\ntold the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:1-11). Verse 9: \u201cThe kingdom of God\nis come nigh unto you.\u201d Verse 11: \u201cnevertheless know this, that the\nkingdom of God is come nigh.\u201d This preaching was done during the last\nyear of Christ\u2019s personal ministry. So what Rice says \u201cisn\u2019t there,\u201d is\nthere; and he would have seen it if he had been looking for truth\ninstead of proof to sustain a theory.\n\nThe following sentence from Brother R. H. Boll shows that he realized\nthe difficulty and tried to hedge against it: \u201cIf it be felt a\ndifficulty that the kingdom, though announced as \u2018at hand\u2019, has never\nyet appeared, we shall find an explanation unforced and natural, and one\nwhich will cast no reflection on the truth and goodness of God.\u201d (K. p.\n34). That statement shows clearly that he realized some explanation was\nneeded to keep his theory from casting reflection on the truth and\ngoodness of God; but it seems to me that his attempt at an \u201cunforced and\nnatural\u201d explanation helps not at all. Hear him: \u201cSince the kingdom\npromise was national, the preparatory repentance must of course also be\nnational: the rulers and the rank and file of the people to all of whom\nthe kingdom was dear, must now sincerely turn and return to God.\u201d\nPassing by his assertion that \u201cthe kingdom promise was national,\u201d I call\nattention to the \u201cnational repentance\u201d idea. Nowhere is there even a\nhint that John and Jesus told the people that the establishment of the\nkingdom depended on \u201cnational repentance.\u201d Neither said, \u201cThe time is\nfulfilled and the kingdom is at hand, provided the nation repents;\notherwise it will be postponed to some future time.\u201d But not a word\nabout national repentance, not a word about national rejection and its\nresults, not a word about postponing the kingdom; and yet in the absence\nof any such warning, we are told that the kingdom was postponed. Now,\nwhat about that sense of justice? Quoting again: \u201cThe announcement of\nthe kingdom thus became the basis of the call to repentance.\u201d One motive\nto cause them to repent was the promised kingdom. Vast multitudes were\nmoved by that promise to repent and be baptized. (Mark 1:5; John 4:1,\n2). Multitudes did as commanded; and yet according to the future kingdom\nadvocates none of them received what was promised of them. It seems to\nme that the explanation reflects seriously on their proposition, and\nreally charges that God did not make good on his promises. The\nexplanation does not explain. What about that sense of justice?\n\nPaul preached the gospel to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Boll\nsays this was a terrible perplexity to all believing Jews. He adds:\n\u201cThat the Gentiles were to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery;\n_that_ had been previously revealed. But the observant reader of the\nprophets will notice that it is always _after_ the national restoration\nand exaltation of Israel, and always through restored Israel and in\nsubservience to Israel, that the Gentiles were to be blessed.\u201d But why\nquote more.\n\nFor a long time I have been preaching that all that the prophets said\nabout a plan of human redemption is fulfilled in the plan of salvation\npreached by Christ and his apostles and is recorded in the New\nTestament. I have offered to affirm this proposition: THE PLAN OF\nSALVATION SET FORTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE SCHEME OF HUMAN\nREDEMPTION FORETOLD BY THE PROPHETS; or, for _foretold by the prophets_\nsubstitute _foretold in promise and prophecy_. Here is a fair\nproposition that covers every point involved in the discussion of the\nfuture-kingdom theory. When it is proved to be true, then the whole\nfuture-kingdom theory is proved to be false. Why put in time showing\nthat the various phases of the theory are false when one proposition\nfully established proves the whole theory false? Why show that their use\nof this prophecy and that prophecy is wrong when you can with even more\nease show that the New Testament contradicts their use of the\nprophecies?\n\nBefore giving the proof of the correctness of my proposition I wish to\nmention another matter. Perhaps a few personal words will not be out of\nplace. When I was in the Nashville Bible School out on Spruce street, I\nhad a family\u2014my wife and two children. We had very little money, but we\nmanaged by much self-denial to pay rent on a little house, to buy enough\ngroceries to keep us alive, and to pay every dollar of tuition. My\nyoungest brother was with me, and he paid his part of board and rent,\nand his tuition. Some of the able bodied boys (students) paid neither\nboard nor tuition.\n\nDuring those days Brother R. H. Boll and I became good friends, and\ncontinued to be so for years. He played the mandolin and his pal Robert\nMahan played the guitar. Frequently they would come to our little home\nand entertain us with music. We enjoyed their music, and was glad for\nthem to come. I liked the two Roberts, but became more intimate with\nRobert Boll. Some years later he began to write for the Gospel Advocate,\nbut a break came between him and the Advocate over what the Advocate\ncalled his \u201cspeculating about unfulfilled prophecies.\u201d Brother Boll\nstarted up his Word and Work, but I did not see many copies of it. There\ncontinued to be references to Boll\u2019s \u201cspeculating about unfulfilled\nprophecies.\u201d I remember distinctly that I thought, \u201cWell, if speculating\nabout _unfulfilled_ prophecies is all that is the matter with him, why\nworry? What he said about unfulfilled prophecies might be as near right\nas what any body else said. No one could be sure about an _unfulfilled_\nprophecy. So why the fuss?\u201d You cannot imagine my surprise when I began\nto study his booklets to see what he did say. I found that \u201cspeculating\nabout unfulfilled prophecies\u201d was not what was the matter with him at\nall. With him the land promise to the Jews is yet to be realized, the\nJews are yet to return to Palestine, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 has not\nyet been set up, that Christ has not been seated on David\u2019s throne. To\nsay that his teaching is speculation about unfulfilled prophecy is to\nconcede the point. If his teaching that the prophecies concerning the\nthrone of David are yet unfulfilled is speculating about _unfulfilled\nprophecy_, then Christ is not yet on David\u2019s throne. If he is on David\u2019s\nthrone, then Boll is misapplying prophecy instead of speculating about\nunfulfilled prophecy. His trouble is speculating about fulfilled\nprophecy\u2014making prophecies that have been fulfilled apply to some\nimaginary future scheme of things. Speculating about unfulfilled\nprophecy indeed! You have an argument with him about prophecies that you\nbelieve have been fulfilled, and he says they are yet to be fulfilled;\nand then you virtually give up your contention by calling it an argument\nabout unfulfilled prophecy! It makes the heart sick. What unfulfilled\nprophecies has Boll been speculating about? When a man seeks to prove by\nthe prophets that the Jews are yet to be restored to Palestine, that\nChrist is yet to be placed on David\u2019s throne, that the new covenant is\nyet to be established, that Christ is to be a world ruler with the Jews\nas citizens of his kingdom and all others as serfs, that the Gentiles\nwere to be blessed only through restored Israel and in subservience to\nIsrael, that Christ is now seeking to convert and train only enough\npeople to supply the needed number of rulers for a future kingdom, is he\nspeculating about unfulfilled prophecy? It seems to me that Boll does\nvery little speculating about unfulfilled prophecy compared with his use\nof prophecies that have been fulfilled. How can intelligent people be so\ndense?\n\nIn the early part of 1925 Brother C. R. Nichol and I made the first real\nattempt that was made to review Brother Boll\u2019s teaching. We worked\ntogether, and no two men ever tried harder to understand exactly what\nanother man had written. And yet some people, who should have known\nbetter, said we misrepresented Brother Boll and did much to hinder the\neffectiveness of our work. An example: A few brethren were talking\ntogether on the sidewalk in Nashville. An aged preacher of considerable\nability and fame charged that we misrepresented Brother Boll, and was\nvery caustic in his remarks. One of the group, a friend of ours, said:\n\u201cDid you ever read their review?\u201d Critic: \u201cNo, no; I never read it.\u201d\nFriend: \u201cWell, did you read what Boll said?\u201d Critic: \u201cNo, no, I never\nread it.\u201d Friend: \u201cWell, you are not in a position to say anything about\nit.\u201d And that ended the conversation.\n\nNo, we did not misrepresent Brother Boll. But herein is a peculiar\nthing. Many who said we misrepresented Boll said they did not believe\nhis theories. If so, then they believed he misrepresented the\nBible\u2014misrepresented God; and yet in the estimation of some of them he\nwas a very godly and pious man, even though he did misrepresent God. But\nthey fancied that we misrepresented Brother Boll, we greatly sinned! Can\nyou beat it? I can honestly claim that we were as sincere and honest in\ndealing With Brother Boll\u2019s writings as his most devoted friends can\nclaim honesty and sincerity for him in his dealings with the inspired\nwritings.\n\nOne of the strangest, if not the zaniest things in all this controversy\nis that some brethren not only misrepresent themselves, but actually\ncontradict themselves. An example out of many: A written discussion was\nhad with Brother Boll in which Brother Boll contended that the land\npromise to Abraham is yet unfulfilled, that the prophecies concerning\nthe seating of Christ on David\u2019s throne are unfulfilled, and so on. Then\nthat debate was published in a book form with the title, \u201cA Debate About\nUnfulfilled Prophecy!\u201d And thus unwittingly the whole issue was\nsurrendered, virtually saying to Brother Boll, \u201cYou are right; the\nprophecies we have been debating about are unfulfilled.\u201d Can you top\nthat?\n\n\n Pointed Paragraphs:\n\n If you are inclined to think that denominations are the branches Jesus\n spoke of, a little reflection will show you how impossible that is. He\n meant individuals, not denominations. And the diversity among the\n denominations also shows that they are not branches of the vine. No\n one ever saw a vine with branches so different as are the\n denominations. They are not alike, and they bear different kinds of\n fruit. It is impossible for them to be natural branches of the same\n vine.\n\n\n\n\n A PROPOSITION AND ITS PROOF\n\n\nTHE PROPOSITION: The plan of Salvation preached by Christ and his\napostles is the scheme of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy.\n\nThis proposition needs no defining. I am aware of the fact that some\nfuture-kingdom advocates do not go so far as to say that none of the\nprophecies referred Christianity; but the ones from whom I quoted in the\npreceding article, as well as many others, boldly teach that\nChristianity is unknown to the prophets. In so arguing they commit\nthemselves to the fact that only one scheme of redemption was foretold\nby the prophets. On this point we agree. Hence, to prove that\nChristianity was foretold by the prophets is to eliminate any other\nscheme yet to be. In establishing my proposition I shall rely solely on\nwhat is said in the New Testament, for Jesus and his inspired\nrepresentatives are the infallible interpreters of the prophets.\n\nThey tell us that Jesus, in Matt. 13, began to set forth a new plan, the\nplan of which the prophets said nothing; yet in his speech Jesus said:\n\u201cBut blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.\nFor verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men desired\nto see the things which ye see and saw them not; and to hear the things\nwhich ye hear, and heard them not.\u201d (Matt. 13:16, 17.) Now how could\nthese prophets and righteous men have desired to see and to hear what\nthese disciples were then seeing and hearing if it had never been\nrevealed to them that such things would be?\n\nLate in the day on which Jesus arose from the dead two of his disciples\nwent out to Emmaus. They knew that the body of Jesus was missing, but it\nseems that they did not know he had been seen alive. Along the way Jesus\njoined them, but they did not recognize him. They related to him what\nthey knew of recent events, and added: \u201cBut we hoped that it was he who\nshould redeem Israel.\u201d (Luke 24:21.) They had hoped for freedom from\nRome\u2014redemption for the nation from Roman rule. These are the opening\nwords of a speech that Jesus made to them: \u201cO foolish men, and slow of\nheart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!\u201d (verse 25). Does\nnot that virtually say that they, in thinking the prophets spoke of\npolitical deliverance, had not really believed what Moses and the\nprophets had foretold? They had believed that Jesus would give them an\nearthly kingdom; they had not believed what Moses and the prophets had\nforetold. They needed a better understanding of Moses and the prophets.\n\u201cAnd beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them\nin all the scriptures the things concerning himself.\u201d If we had that\nspeech!\n\nIn the great commission Jesus commanded the apostles to make disciples\nof all the nations\u2014to preach the gospel to the whole creation. This was\na demand for world-wide evangelism, regardless of race or nationality.\nHad such evangelism been foretold by the prophets? What saith the Lord?\nIn Luke\u2019s account of this commission he quotes Jesus as saying: \u201cThus it\nis written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead\nthe third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be\npreached in his name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are\nwitnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my\nFather upon you; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with\npower from on high.\u201d (Luke 24:46-49.) Notice what Jesus says had been\nwritten in the prophets\u2014his death and resurrection, and that repentance\nand remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations,\nand that this preaching should begin from Jerusalem. So then, this\nworld-wide evangelism, which was commanded by Christ and preached first\nby his apostles at Jerusalem, had been foretold by the prophets. And\nthis began to be preached on Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit filled\nthem with power from on high. Here a plan of salvation was preached, and\nthis plan had been foretold by the prophets. As only one plan was\nforetold by the prophets, they foretold no other plan than the one which\nbegan to be preached at Jerusalem.\n\nIn his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter showed that Joel had\nprophesied of that day. He also quotes a prophecy of David, which he\ninterprets to refer to the resurrection of Christ and his being seated\non the throne of David, and then draws this conclusion: \u201cBeing therefore\nby the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the\npromise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and\nhear.\u201d (Acts 2:33.) His argument was that Jesus had been raised up to\nsit on David\u2019s throne, and he concludes that he had, therefore, been\nexalted. Yet Boll says: \u201cTo him, and to him exclusively, the throne of\nDavid belongs by every right. But that he is now already occupying that\nthrone is precisely that which Peter does not say.\u201d What, then, is the\nconnection between Peter\u2019s argument and his conclusion? Peter\u2019s argument\nfollowed immediately by _therefore_ is significant. Can any one believe\nthat Peter argued from David\u2019s prophecy that Jesus had been raised up to\nsit on David\u2019s throne, and conclude that he had _therefore_ been exalted\nto something else?\n\nOn that day, and in the city of Jerusalem, repentance and remission of\nsins in the name of Christ began to be preached, and Jesus tells us that\nthe prophets had foretold this very thing. Because he was now\nanointed\u2014made both Lord and Christ\u2014things began to be done in his name.\nHear Boll again: \u201cHe is the anointed King of David\u2019s line, the Christ\nappointed for Israel. (Acts 3:20.) But neither is that saying that he\nnow sits and reigns on David\u2019s throne. David had been anointed God\u2019s\nking long before he actually sat upon his rightful throne over Israel,\nsuffering indignities and persecution at the hands of Saul, and\nrejection at the hands of the people; and he never took the government\nuntil the people themselves willingly sought his rule and chose him and\nsubmitted.\u201d But Bro. Boll overlooks the decisive point. Nothing in the\nkingdom was done in the name of David till he actually \u201ctook the\ngovernment.\u201d When he actually became king, things began to be done in\nhis name and by his authority. If Boll could show that nothing is yet\ndone in the name of Christ, there would be some point in what he says\nabout David. The fact that pardon was offered the enemies of Christ on\nthe condition that they would repent and be baptized shows that he was\nthen actually the reigning king. In Boll\u2019s theory Jesus is only the heir\napparent.\n\nWhen Peter first preached to the Gentiles, he went against the\nprejudices of all Jews, including himself. Could he quote any prophecy\nto fit the occasion? He was preaching to the Gentiles independent of\nIsrael and against the prejudices of Israel, and yet he said: \u201cTo him\nbear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that\nbelieveth on him shall receive remission of sins.\u201d (Acts 10:43.) This\ninspired apostle understood that the prophets foretold the very thing\nthat he was then doing\u2014namely, offering salvation to the Gentiles\nindependent of Israel. Hence, the only plan of salvation foretold by the\nprophets was then in operation.\n\nWhen the Jews of Antioch of Pisidia \u201ccontradicted the things which were\nspoken by Paul, and blasphemed,\u201d he said to them: \u201cLo we turn to the\nGentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee for\na light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the\nuttermost part of the earth.\u201d\n\nHence, in preaching salvation to the Gentiles, Paul was carrying out the\nprophecy of Isaiah. (Acts 13:44-47.)\n\nPaul preached to Jews and Gentiles alike, and affirmed that there was no\ndistinction; and the people of Berea searched the Scriptures daily to\nsee whether his preaching was so. This led many of them to believe.\n(Acts 17:10-12.) Now, if the prophets had said nothing concerning the\nplan of salvation Paul was preaching, but had always foretold that\nGentiles would be blessed only through Israel restored and in\nsubservience to Israel, their searching the Scriptures would have led\nthese Bereans to the conclusion that Paul was wrong.\n\nPaul was sent to preach especially to the Gentiles; he was the apostle\nto the Gentiles. Not only did he preach to the Gentiles independent of\nthe Jews, but in spite of them. \u201cFor this cause,\u201d said he to Agrippa,\n\u201cthe Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. Having\ntherefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day\ntestifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets\nand Moses did say should come: how that the Christ should suffer, and\nhow that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light\nboth to the people and to the Gentiles.\u201d The gospel which he preached\nwas foretold by the prophets and Moses, and he preached nothing that had\nnot been foretold by them. Because of this he said to Agrippa: \u201cKing\nAgrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.\u201d\n\n\u201cPaul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated unto the\ngospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy\nscriptures.\u201d Paul\u2019s call is recorded in Acts 26:12-20. Concerning this\ncall he later said: \u201cBut when it was the good pleasure of God, who\nseparated me, even from my mother\u2019s womb, and called me through his\ngrace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the\nGentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood.\u201d (Gal. 1:15,\n16.) And Paul fought hard to keep the gospel of Christ free from all\ntaint of Judaism and to maintain his right to preach the gospel to the\nGentiles; and he pronounced a curse upon those Judaizing Christians who\nwould corrupt the gospel by mixing it with Judaism (Gal. 1:6-9); and he\naffirms that this gospel which he preached was the gospel which God\n\u201cpromised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures.\u201d The whole\ntheory of the future-kingdom advocates, as well as some things they\nboldly affirm, is an emphatic denial of what Paul here says. It is plain\nto any thoughtful person that the plan of salvation which Paul preached\nis the scheme of redemption foretold by the prophets.\n\nNotice the _now_ in the following: \u201cBut now apart from the law a\nrighteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law\nand the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus\nChrist unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.\u201d (Rom.\n3:21, 22.) This righteousness of God, which had now been manifested, was\nto all believers without race or national distinction; and this\nrighteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is witnessed by the law and\nthe prophets; and as the law and the prophets gave witness to only one\nscheme of redemption, it is plain that the future-kingdom hopes have no\nbasis.\n\nPaul shows that the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled in those who\nare children of God by faith in Christ. (Gal. 3:22-29; 4:28-31.) And it\nseems that the book of Hebrews was written to counteract the teaching of\nthe Judaizers of the church. That letter plainly shows that the types\nand shadows of the law pointed definitely to the church\u2014to this plan of\nsalvation through Christ. And in the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters\nthe writer shows that the new covenant, or New Testament, foretold by\nJeremiah is now in force; yet Boll says concerning the new birth: \u201cIt is\nthe universal requirement of acceptance with God, and characteristic of\nthe new covenant which now in its principle applies to the church, and\nwhich the Lord will make with the house of Israel and with the house of\nJudah \u2018after those days\u2019.\u201d The new covenant now applies to us only in\nprinciple\u2014it is yet to be made! To what extremes people will go to\nmaintain a groundless theory! Jesus is now the mediator of a better\ncovenant, \u201cwhich hath been enacted upon better promises,\u201d not will be\nenacted. \u201cHe taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By\nwhich will we have been sanctified.\u201d (Heb. 10:9, 10.) The man who can\nread the book of Hebrews and not see that the types and shadows of the\nlaw pointed to Christianity as we have it now simply does not see what\nhe reads. They desire to be teachers of the prophecies and the law,\n\u201cthough they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they\nconfidently affirm.\u201d\n\n\u201cConcerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently,\nwho prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what\ntime or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did\npoint unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and\nthe glories that should follow them. To whom it was revealed, that not\nunto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now\nhave been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto\nyou by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.\u201d (1 Pet. 1:10-12.) While\nthe prophets were foretelling the blessings that were to come, they were\n\u201csearching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which\nwas in them did point unto.\u201d Many of the future-kingdom advocates do not\nprofess to know the time of the fulfillment of what they say these\nprophets foretold, but they, with one accord, profess to know exactly\nthe manner of the time\u2014a thing the prophets themselves did not know!\nThey have that all figured out\u2014oh, so much wiser than the prophets! They\ntell us in no uncertain terms the manner of that time, as they have it\nfigured out. But Peter explodes their theory by telling us that these\nprophets were ministering to us, and that the things they foretold had\nbeen announced through them that preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit\nsent forth from Heaven. As the prophets foretold only one scheme of\nredemption, and that scheme has been announced through them that\npreached the gospel by the Holy Spirit, it is certain that there will be\nno future scheme in operation. Hence\u2014\n\nThe plan of salvation preached by Christ and his apostles is the scheme\nof redemption foretold in promise and prophecy. Nor have I relied on my\ninterpretation of the prophecies to prove the proposition.\n\n\n\n\n FOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1]For a full discussion of these questions, see \u201cDoctrinal Discourses\u201d\n pp. 294-298.\n\n\n\n\n SCRIPTURE INDEX\n\n\n GENESIS\n Page\n 8:22 69\n 12:1-3 32, 84\n 12:7 85\n 13:14-17 32\n 15:7 85\n 17:8 85, 87, 88\n 25:23 89\n 26:2, 3 86\n 28:4 25\n 28:13 86\n 35:12 25\n\n\n EXODUS\n 12:25 90\n 13:5 90\n 19:4-6 91\n 19:5, 6 23, 28, 32, 81\n\n\n NUMBERS\n 21:4-9 83\n\n\n DEUTERONOMY\n 6:3, 10, 18, 23 90\n 8:1 90\n 8:19, 20 33, 108\n Chs. 27 & 28 33\n 28:15 108\n 30:8, 10 108\n 31:20 90\n\n\n JOSHUA\n 21:43-45 26, 34, 86, 107\n 23:14 33, 87, 107\n 23:14, 15 90\n\n\n I SAMUEL\n Ch. 8 23\n 8:4-7 91\n 8:4-22 28\n 8:18-22 29\n 8:19, 20 92\n 10:24, 25 24\n 12:19 92\n 14:47 29\n 15:28 89\n\n\n I KINGS\n 2:12 93\n 2:12, 24 27, 28\n\n\n II KINGS\n 5:1-19 83\n\n\n I CHRONICLES\n 12:23 24\n 29:23 28, 93, 111\n\n\n NEHEMIAH\n 1:8, 9 108\n\n\n PSALMS\n 22:12 77\n 37:1 125\n 34:8 43\n 40:8 62\n 89:34, 35 80\n 119:103 43\n\n\n ISAIAH\n 1:3 10, 55\n 1:4 54\n 2:2, 3 78\n 6:10 54, 55\n 9:7 21\n 11:6-9 76\n 13:1-10 154\n 13:17-22 21\n 40:4 79\n 40:3, 4 75, 78\n 55:12 76\n\n\n JEREMIAH\n 1:9, 10 158, 159\n 2:13 10\n 4:7 77\n 18:5-10 37\n 18:9, 10 30\n 20:7-9 11\n 30:7 151\n Ch. 31 103\n 38:4 11\n 50:17 77\n 51:60-62 21\n\n\n EZEKIEL\n 19:1-9 77\n 26:7-14 21\n 34:11-31 40\n 37:21, 22 40\n Chs. 37 to 39:21-29 40\n\n\n DANIEL\n 2:31-35 155\n 2:36-45 156\n 2:44, 45 159\n 2:44 163\n Ch. 7 79\n\n\n HOSEA\n 13:9-11 28\n 13:10, 11 24\n 13:11 93\n\n\n AMOS\n 1:1 41\n 4:1 77\n 7:7-17 41\n 9:11-15 29\n 9:13-15 41\n\n\n ZEPHANIAH\n 3:3 77\n\n\n MATTHEW\n 3:2 52, 179, 180\n 3:3 76\n 3:10 109\n 7:15 77\n 10:16 77\n 12:43-45 35, 109\n 13:14, 15 55\n 13:16, 17 187\n 16:18 38\n 16:28 43\n 18:19 58\n 19:28 46, 49\n 20:20, 21 112\n 21:33-43 36\n 21:43 82, 110\n 22:24 146\n 25:31-46 38, 50, 68\n 25:31, 32, 41, 46 48\n 25:46 48, 84\n\n\n MARK\n 1:5 181\n 1:14, 15 180\n 1:15 113\n 9:1 43\n 10:35-37 112\n 12:19 146\n 16:16 84\n\n\n LUKE\n 3:4, 5 76\n 9:27 43\n 10:1-10 113\n 10:1-11 180\n 10:11 53, 180\n 12:32 49\n 12:42-48 98, 124\n 17:20 44\n 19:13-27 120\n 20:28 146\n 22:28-30 48\n 24:21 188\n 24:25 188\n 24:46, 47 103\n 24:46-49 112, 189\n\n\n JOHN\n 3:14 139\n 4:1, 2 181\n 4:34 62\n 5:28, 29 143\n 5:40 84\n 6:44, 45 16\n 7:37-39 112\n 8:15 65\n 12:39, 40 54, 55\n 17:4 38\n 20:23 47\n 20:30, 31 118\n\n\n ACTS\n 2:23 57\n 2:29-36 29\n 2:29-38 111\n 2:30-36 46\n 2:33 111, 189\n 2:35 31\n 2:38 112\n 3:24 57\n 4:1, 2 143\n 4:2 141\n 4:27, 28 57\n 7:5 86, 88\n 7:17 25, 86, 89\n 7:32 133\n 10:43 104, 191\n 11:13, 14 15\n 13:27 57\n 13:44-47 191\n 15:11 61\n 15:13-16 115\n 15:13-19 29\n 15:17, 18 115\n 17:10-12 191\n 17:11 104\n 20:29 77\n 23:6 144\n 24:15 141, 144\n 26:12-20 192\n 26:22 57, 104\n 26:22, 23 104\n\n\n ROMANS\n 1:2 57\n 1:1, 2 104\n 1:16 15\n 3:21 22, 105, 193\n 6:13 139\n 7:5 173\n 7:1-6 22\n 8:6-9 173\n 10:12 173\n 10:16-21 56\n 10:19 105\n 11:1-10 56\n 11:12 60\n 11:14 173\n 11:15 140\n 11:17-24 59\n 11:20 110\n\n\n I CORINTHIANS\n 3:16, 17 39\n 6:2, 3 49\n 15:22 144\n 15:26-28 31\n 15:39 173\n\n\n II CORINTHIANS\n 3:4-18 22\n 5:14, 15 35\n 5:15 65\n 5:16 35, 65\n 6:2 110\n 11:17, 18 65\n\n\n GALATIANS\n 1:6-9 193\n 1:15, 16 192\n 3:7 110\n 3:11-22 22\n 3:16 84\n 3:22-29 193\n 3:29 36, 110\n 4:4 56\n 4:21-31 22, 109\n 4:28-31 193\n 5:12 174\n 6:13-16 174\n\n\n EPHESIANS\n 2:14-16 22\n 2:20-22 39\n 3:10, 11 114\n 3:21 115\n\n\n PHILIPPIANS\n 2:13 15\n 3:2-8 35, 65\n 3:2-11 175\n 3:3 36\n 3:10-14 144\n\n\n COLOSSIANS\n 1:13 113\n 2:14 22\n 3:11 61\n\n\n I THESSALONIANS\n 4:13-5:11 134\n\n\n II THESSALONIANS\n 1:6-10 38, 48\n 1:7-10 68\n 2:1 136\n 2:8-12 55\n\n\n I TIMOTHY\n 6:15 113\n\n\n II TIMOTHY\n 4:1-5 7\n\n\n TITUS\n 3:5 46\n\n\n HEBREWS\n 6:4, 5 43\n Ch. 8 103, 193\n Chs. 8, 9, 10 193\n 9:1-10 39\n 9:11 39\n 10:9, 10 194\n\n\n JAMES\n 1:21 15\n\n\n I PETER\n 1:10-12 74, 104, 194\n 2:5 39\n 2:9 68\n 5:8 64\n\n\n II PETER\n 1:3 42\n 1:19-21 73\n 3:1-14 69\n\n\n REVELATION\n 1:6 68, 172\n 1:17 132\n 3:10 151\n 3:21 111\n 4:6-9 63\n 7:9 49\n Ch. 12 64, 65, 66\n 20:8, 10, 12 67, 68\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\n\u2014Silently corrected a few typos.\n\n\u2014Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook\n is public-domain in the country of publication.\n\n\u2014In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by\n _underscores_.","title":"The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":52797}