diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/64683-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64683-0.txt | 5956 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 5956 deletions
diff --git a/old/64683-0.txt b/old/64683-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index db0a687..0000000 --- a/old/64683-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,5956 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy, by -Robertson Lafayette Whiteside - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy - -Author: Robertson Lafayette Whiteside - -Release Date: March 04, 2021 [eBook #64683] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed Proofreading - Team at https://www.pgdp.net - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KINGDOM OF PROMISE AND -PROPHECY *** - - - - - The Kingdom - Of - Promise - And - Prophecy - - - By - ROBERTSON L. WHITESIDE - - - 1956 - - - Published By - Miss Inys Whiteside - Denton, Texas - - Copyright 1956, by - Miss Inys Whiteside, Denton, Texas - _Printed in the United States of America_ - - Printed and Bound By - _THE MANNEY COMPANY_ - _1041 Isbell Road_ _Fort Worth 14, Texas_ - - - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS - - - Page - Preach the Word 7 - - - Part I—Questions - Have All Prophecies of Old Testament Been Fulfilled? 21 - Information On Old Testament Kingdom 23 - Promise to Abraham 25 - Jews and Their Kingdom 27 - Will Jews Return to Jerusalem? 32 - Prophecy of Amos 9:13-15 41 - Matthew 16:28 Explained 43 - Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Corinthians 6:2 46 - The Jews, The Kingdom and Salvation 51 - Some Questions Considered 54 - The Olive Tree Figure of Romans 11 59 - Ends of The Ages 62 - The Four Beasts 63 - Points in Revelation 12 64 - Questions on Revelation 20 67 - Several Questions 69 - - - Part II—Discussions - Prediction or Prophecy 73 - Prophecy 75 - Shall We Look for a Literal Fulfillment of Prophecy? 79 - Abraham and the Land Promise 84 - The Time of Promise 88 - Rebellion of Israel—A Kingdom Born 91 - “Neither ... Nor” 94 - Future Kingdom Doctrine Reflects on Integrity Of God 100 - The Old Testament Prophets and Christianity 102 - Future-Kingdom Perversions and Dislocations Of Prophecy 106 - Your Faith and Your Confession 116 - The Christ of The Future-Kingdom Advocates 119 - Is Salvation Now Offered to All? 120 - The Coming of the Lord 122 - The “Two Stages” Theory Examined 126 - Hope of The Lord’s Coming 130 - Paul to the Thessalonians on the Lord’s Return 134 - Resurrection From the Dead 139 - Theory of Two Resurrections Considered 143 - Church Ages 147 - Philadelphia and The Hour of Trial 149 - Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream 155 - Milligan on Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream 160 - A Leading Doctrine of This Current Reformation 163 - Is the Church the Kingdom? 166 - This Government and Jehovah’s Witnesses 168 - The New Testament Word Flesh 173 - Future-Kingdom Doctrines 177 - A Proposition and Its Proof 187 - - - - - PUBLISHER’S PREFACE - - -In editing and arranging the writings contained in this book, I used -some lifted from religious journals and some that was still in -manuscript form. For their courtesy extended to me in allowing me to -lift from their papers the writings of my late father, Robertson L. -Whiteside, for publication in books, I wish to express my deepest -gratitude to the present managements of the: GOSPEL ADVOCATE, GOSPEL -GUARDIAN, and FIRM FOUNDATION. - -To the many who have encouraged me in this effort, thanks. Your comments -have been a source of great joy and inspiration. - -It is my hope that this “Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy” will, along -with the “Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome” and -“Doctrinal Discourses,” fill the present need for sound and careful -Bible teaching. To these will be added, as soon as time will permit, a -compilation of questions and answers for which I have had many requests. - - INYS WHITESIDE - - - - - INTRODUCTION - - -Robertson L. Whiteside was a native of Hickman county, Tennessee, born -December 27, 1869, died at his home in Denton, Texas—where he had lived -more than forty years—January 5, 1951. Early in his life (17 years of -age), he dedicated himself to the Lord’s service. He was student, -educator, and preacher and was ever on the firing lines in the fight -against innovations and error. The Bible was his standard of faith and -practice. With him, “to live was Christ.” Like Jeremiah of old (a -character he so loved and admired), there was a burning fire in his -heart he could not contain. - -I might write a conventional biography as introduction to this book; -however, it seems to me that the following lesson from his pen is more -revealing of the purpose of the life that he lived. - - - - - PREACH THE WORD - - -“I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge -the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach -the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, -with all long-suffering and teaching. For the time will come when they -will not endure sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to -themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears -from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all -things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy -ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:1-5.) - -An old theme, do you say? What about it is old? God, Christ, truth, sin, -salvation, duty, destiny—these never grow old. There is something wrong -with one who thinks any Bible theme is old or out of date. If there were -a cure for all fleshly ailments, would it ever be “out of date”? Would -any sufferer say of it, “O, that is too old for this progressive age”? -But there is no such cure known to man. - -But man has a nature more important and enduring than his flesh, and -ailments more far reaching in their results than any fleshly ills. And -the gospel of Christ is a sure cure for all spiritual and moral ills. As -long as there are moral evils to be corrected, sins to be forgiven, -sinners to be saved, and downtrodden and discouraged to be inspirited, -sorrowing hearts to be comforted, just that long will the gospel be -fresh and “up to date.” And what else is up to date? - -We have made great advancement in material things, but these do not meet -the needs of the soul. Science has made great strides in material -things, but it has no remedy for sin and crime. In fact, it has put -forces into the hands of the world that the world does not know what to -do with. In truth, I think it can be safely said that science has made -crime more plentiful and daring, and has enabled the criminal to escape -a hundredfold more easily. I am not unmindful of the comforts science -has brought to those who know how to use them; it has also done wonders -in combating disease. But it has put powers in the hands of man that he -does not know how to handle. Even now scientists are seeking ways and -means to destroy whole cities with one blast. Science has just about -perfected means by which civilization will destroy itself in the next -great war. It cannot cure one moral evil, nor generate one spiritual -force for the world’s regeneration. And when a scientist tries to become -a philosopher, he becomes a great injury to the world; for he usually -leaves God out of any scheme of philosophy that he tries to construct. -And psychology and sociology, or any of the moral philosophies, are -equally helpless. Jesus is the Great Physician, and the gospel is his -remedy, his only remedy, for the evils that afflict the world. - -Nothing is up to date that does not meet the needs of the times. Many -things are up to date in meeting our material needs, but nothing that -man has ever thought out or planned is up to date in a moral and -spiritual sense. Along these lines man’s theories are out of date before -they are announced. The most advanced person in the world along moral -and spiritual lines is the one who adheres most closely to the word of -God and relies most firmly upon it as the one and only remedy for sin -and crime. And the man who says that such a man is behind the times is -himself so far behind that he does not know that any one has gone on -before! The one who faithfully preaches the word is far in advance of -him who preaches something else. And yet the majority of the people have -never wanted the plain truth told. They prefer things that please. - -Because some professed Christians would not want the pure word of God -preached is one of the reasons assigned by Paul as to why the word of -God should be preached the more diligently. “Preach the word.... For the -time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine.” At first -thought it might seem that this statement was true in Paul’s day; for -did they not persecute and kill preachers then? But Paul was not here -speaking of outsiders. He had in mind the time when professed Christians -would not endure sound doctrine. Growing tired of the gospel they would -long for something else. “Having itching ears,” they “will heap to -themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears -from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.” It is plain that he was -talking about people who would accept the truth, but later become tired -of it, and would employ preachers that would tickle their itching ears. -It is a dark picture, but it is not a new picture. - -After God’s people came out of Egypt, they frequently drifted into the -condition Paul here mentions. Read the historical books of the Old -Testament and also the testimony of the prophets, and you will find that -God’s people never remained true to him very long at a time. Against -them Jeremiah testifies: “For my people have committed two evils: they -have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed them out -cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jer. 2:13.) They -had turned from the fountain of living waters as spoken to them by God’s -prophets, and had procured for themselves false prophets. And that was -their folly and their sin. Isaiah delivers a terrific rebuke: “The ox -knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not -know, my people doth not consider.” (Isa. 1:3.) They did not know as -much about where safety and food could be found as did the ox or the -ass. - -Is there not a need now for straight gospel preaching? Of course, a -preacher should be a Christian gentleman at all times, but he should not -become too polished to preach the unadulterated word of God. He may -suffer for it, but what of that? And some misguided souls may say that -plain preaching keeps people away and injures the standing of the -church, but the faithful preacher knows that that makes it the more -binding upon him to preach the gospel straight. Because Jeremiah spoke -the word of God faithfully, the people said: “This man seeketh not the -welfare of this people, but the hurt.” (Jer. 38:4.) And yet he was the -best friend the people had. But they wanted smooth things spoken to -them. They wanted him to tell them that no evil would come upon them. It -appears that Jeremiah at times grew weary, and felt as if he might as -well give up the strife, but he could not quit. “I am become a -laughing-stock all the day, every one mocketh me. For as often as I -speak, I cry out; I cry, Violence and destruction! because the word of -Jehovah is made a reproach unto me, and a derision, all the day. And if -I say, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name, -then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, -and I am weary with forbearing, and I cannot contain.” (Jer. 20:7-9.) -Jeremiah loved his people, and could not be quiet as he beheld them -plunging into ruin. A more heroic figure than Jeremiah does not grace -the pages of Old Testament history. - -These are perilous times. Man’s schemes have broken down and the world -is in chaos. Human wisdom has come up against a blank wall, beyond which -man cannot see. The people are saying to their erstwhile leaders, “Cry”; -and the leaders call back, “What shall we cry?” We have left God out of -our scheme of things. We have dabbled in this monkey business till -conditions have made monkeys out of our wisest men. But there is balm, -there is healing, there is a physician. Preach the word. - -We want to convert sinners and edify saints, but there is danger that we -put the main emphasis on the wrong things. We may become so busy as -herdboys that we forget to feed the sheep. We may become so absorbed in -keeping the young folks interested that we forget to fill them with the -word of God. We may become so engaged in building fine meeting houses, -that we forget to build fine Christian characters. - -It is a fine thing for a church to have a house suited to its needs, but -a house is not one of the essentials. The early Christians owned no -meetinghouses, but they made the gospel ring throughout the land. It is -a sin for brethren to burden themselves with a church-house debt that -requires all their energies and resources to meet. Some churches have so -burdened themselves with debt that they have ceased any worthwhile -effort to preach the word. It is feared that pride contributed much to -their present humiliation. Some of these monuments to pride or mistaken -zeal will never be paid out, and the church will be discouraged and -weakened, and all because they forgot that their main mission was to -convert sinners and edify saints. In trying to “put things over” they -have gone under. PREACH THE WORD. - -Do not worry about science. It has its legitimate field, and in its -field it has done wonderful things. We reap its benefits and are glad. -The average preacher knows little about science, and the average -scientist knows less about the Bible. The claim that science and the -Bible do not agree should disturb no one. What is called “science” is -not static. Each generation brings new light; most of the old theories -have been exploded by scientists themselves. Yet each generation of -scientists boldly announces that science has disproved the Bible. But it -can as easily be proved that science has disproved itself. With all -their dogmatism about the Bible and science, there are few theories that -real scientists are willing to take their stand upon and say: “Here is -ultimate truth; no future discoveries will contradict this.” So long as -they cannot afford to affirm that they have arrived at ultimate truth, -how can they with honor say that science disproves the Bible? Besides, -if the Bible fully agreed with the scientific theories of one age, it -would not agree with the theories of the next age. The Bible is -unchangeable and cannot keep up agreement with that which constantly -changes. Some of the foremost scientists recognize the limitations of -science and are firm believers in the Bible. PREACH THE WORD. No known -truth contradicts the Bible. - -But why preach the word? Why did the early Christians preach the word in -the face of such fiery persecution? Why did Paul, then about to be put -to death for preaching the word, urge upon his beloved Timothy a course -of action that was bound to bring suffering? Why do we now sacrifice -that the word may be preached? We notice some reasons why the word -should be preached. - -The word of God is the seed of the kingdom. The parable of the sower -sets forth this truth as plainly as language can do so. “The sower -soweth the word.” That parable sets forth the truth that the word of God -is to the spiritual kingdom exactly what seed is to the vegetable -kingdom. The word produces plants in the spiritual kingdom just as seed -produces plants in the vegetable kingdom. If this be not so, then no one -can tell what the Savior meant to teach by this parable. - -Life is in the word just as life is in any other seed. If the seed be -not planted, life will not spring up. No matter how well the soil may be -prepared, there will be no life there till the seed be planted. No -matter how much the heart may be prepared by education, culture, sorrow, -or whatever may come, there will be no spiritual life in the heart till -the seed—the word of God—is planted there. - -Seed is able under suitable conditions to transform dead elements of the -soil into life. In nature, this is the process of reproduction. Those -who contend for a direct operation of the Spirit in regeneration base -their contention on the fact that the sinner is dead. It is claimed that -dead sinners must be made alive by this direct work of the Spirit before -they can obey the Lord. This is the heart of their contention. Grant -their premise, does their conclusion follow? Is the sinner’s heart any -deader than the soil into which the farmer sows his seed? The farmer -knows that the life inherent in the seed is able to transform dead soil -into a living, growing plant. If the theologians were as wise as the -most ignorant farmer, they would sow the seed, which is the word of God, -knowing that the deadness of the soil—the sinner’s heart—is no barrier -to an abundant harvest. PREACH THE WORD. - -There is saving power in the word. An angel said to Cornelius: “Send to -Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto -thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.” (Acts -11:13, 14.) “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of -wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to -save your souls.” (James 1:21.) “I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it -is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” (Rom. -1:16.) Of course, no one thinks there is power in the material of which -the Bible is made. The power that leads men to Christ is the thoughts, -the ideas, the motives, presented in the word of God. There is power in -a thought; and power in a motive. By words men move men, even whole -armies and nations. Men’s thoughts have been powerful enough to -overthrow kingdoms. If we want men to act a certain way, we try to fill -them with thoughts and motives tending to lead them in the direction we -want them to go. We stir up action along certain lines by filling the -people with certain thoughts and motives. In this way we work in people -to induce them to will and do as we think they should. A man lives out -in his life the thoughts he has in his heart. If we can fill people full -of God’s ideas, God’s thoughts, we will induce them to do God’s will. In -this way God works in people to get them to live different lives. This -helps us to understand what Paul says in Phil. 2:13: “For it is God who -worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.” - -It is through the mighty power of the word that men are drawn to Christ. -I fear that many preachers will never get forgiveness for the way they -have treated what the Lord says in John 6:44, 45. They so often read -verse 44 and stop for their usual argument on the direct drawing put -forth by the Spirit. Of course, when God draws, he draws by his power. -If they would read both verses, they would defeat their argument made on -verse 44. Is that honest? Is that handling aright the word of truth? -Read both verses: “No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me -draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the -prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard -from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.” (John 6:44, 45.) It -is through God’s word that we hear and learn of the Father; in that way -God’s drawing power is brought to bear upon us. The gospel is God’s -power to save, because it draws men to Christ, who alone can save. - -It is not necessary to put in much time following the rambling efforts -of the debater to prove man’s depravity. Some years ago I had a -discussion with Mr. Ben M. Bogard. On the Spirit question, he made the -usual arguments on the depravity deadness of the sinner. In my first -reply I made the statement: “I object to Mr. Bogard’s theory because it -limits the power of God. He has the sinner so dead that God could not -make a gospel that would reach him. I object to a theory that makes God -so helpless.” Mr. Bogard, with more than usual bluster, replied: “It is -not a question of God’s power. God can do anything he wants to. He could -have made a gospel that would reach the dead sinner’s heart, if he had -wanted to do so.” I replied: “The sinner is not so dead, then, as we -have been hearing he was. Even this personal contact for which he -contends would not have been necessary if God had made the right kind of -gospel. So the trouble is not in the deadness of the sinner, but in the -inefficiency of the gospel. But God could have made a better gospel, if -he had wanted to. My contention is that he made the very gospel that Mr. -Bogard says he could have made. Why waste further time discussing the -deadness of the sinner?” Of course, I paid due attention to Mr. Bogard’s -total-depravity notions, but he did not recover from his admission. God -made a gospel that is perfectly adapted to man as he is. PREACH THE -WORD. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - If you become a little squeamish about denouncing false teachers, read - Jeremiah. If you think people are so hardened in sin that they hate - you for preaching the word, read Jeremiah. A careful study of Jeremiah - is good tonic for anyone. - - Jeremiah has been unjustly called the “weeping prophet,” as if he were - a sort of weakling; whereas there was never a more heroic soul. - Nothing turned him aside from his duty. If he wept, it was because he - loved his nation, and his heart was torn with the knowledge of what - was coming to his people. He would have been cold-blooded had he not - wept. - - - - - Part I - QUESTIONS - - - - - HAVE ALL PROPHECIES OF OLD TESTAMENT BEEN FULFILLED? - - -1. Have all the prophecies of the Old Testament been fulfilled?—Beaumont - -And I might ask: When is a prophecy fulfilled? Some prophecies are -fulfilled in a simple act, or event. The prophecies concerning the birth -of Christ were fulfilled when he was born, and the prophecies concerning -his death were fulfilled when he was crucified. Other prophecies -concerning single events will occur to the reader. But some prophecies -spoke of conditions that were to prevail over a long period of time. -Study the prophecies concerning Babylon and Tyre. (Isa. 13:17-22; Jer. -51:60-62; Ezek. 26:7-14.) These cities were destroyed, as foretold; but -they were to remain in desolation forever. That part of the prophecy is -still being fulfilled. Certain prophecies concerning Christ, which began -to be fulfilled on the first Pentecost after his resurrection, will go -on being fulfilled as long as time shall last. He was to establish a -kingdom; that prophecy has been fulfilled. But the prophecy further -says: “Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no -end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, -and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth -even for ever.” (Isa. 9:7.) This prophecy began to be fulfilled when -Jesus took his seat upon David’s throne and established his kingdom. But -the prophecy says he was to reign upon that throne forever. That -prophecy covers the whole period of time, from the time Jesus began to -reign till he surrenders up the kingdom to his Father. And he is still -saving the people, as the prophets foretold that he would. - -But the prophecies concerning the Jews that the future-kingdom folks -harp on so much have been fulfilled. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - One fact is made to stand out clearly in the New Testament—namely, - that the Law of Moses, with all its legal enactments, all its forms, - ceremonies, and penalties, ended at the cross; and it is surprising - that any one who professes to believe the New Testament should think - otherwise. If interested, read Rom. 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:4-18; Gal. - 3:11-22; 4:21-31; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14. A thoughtful reading of the - letter to the Hebrews will convince any one that the old covenant - passed away and that we now have a new and living way. - - Christ loved the church, bought it with his own blood, and prayed for - its oneness. So far as we can, we should love the church as he loved - it. - - - - - GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON OLD TESTAMENT KINGDOM - - -It is some times difficult to determine just what information is wanted. -There are, however, some things about “the Old Testament kingdom” that -should be carefully considered. - -When God called Israel out of Egypt, he said to them: “Now therefore, if -ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be -mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: -and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. -19:5, 6.) For a long period of time after they settled in Canaan they -had no king but Jehovah; they were, therefore, Jehovah’s kingdom. But -there came a time when they wanted a change; they wanted a centralized -government, with a man as their king. At that time they had an excuse -for demanding a king. Read carefully the eighth chapter of First Samuel. -Samuel was old, and his sons were corrupt. “Then all the elders of -Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah; and -they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy -ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But this -thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And -Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto -the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have -not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king -over them.” Samuel was commanded to show them the nature of the -government they were demanding. When Samuel had done so, the people -said: “Nay; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like -all the nations.” Jehovah selected Saul as their first king. When the -day of his anointing came, Samuel said to the people: “See ye him whom -Jehovah hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the -people?... Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and -wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Jehovah.” (1 Sam. 10:24, 25.) -Thus Israel became a kingdom among kingdoms, and was then reckoned as -such. - -Israel had not only sinned against Jehovah, but had rejected him as -their king. The kingdom thus established was not Jehovah’s kingdom. -While Saul reigned, it was the kingdom of Saul. (1 Chron. 12:23.) It was -transferred to David because of Saul’s sins; it was then David’s -kingdom. Any time thereafter it was the kingdom of the man who was king. - -It is strange that some people yet look for that kingdom to be -restored—a kingdom that was conceived in sin and brought forth in -rebellion against Jehovah! On one occasion, when Israel was in great -distress, Jehovah said to them: “Where now is thy king, that he may save -thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a -king and princes? I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken -him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:10, 11.) With what emotions do they -expect the Lord to restore that kingdom? - - - - - PROMISE TO ABRAHAM: GEN. 13:14, 15 AND ACTS 7:5 - - - Since Abraham bought even a burying place for Sarah, and Stephen, in - Acts 7:5, says, “He (God) gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so - much as to set his foot on,” in what sense, if any, did he receive the - promise contained in Gen. 13:14, 15?—Mrs. Mary B. Robins. - -Personally, Abraham did not receive actual title to the land of promise, -though the Lord, in some sense, did give him the land, as will be seen -by reading Gen. 28:4; 35:12. He enjoyed its productiveness as fully as -if he had been its actual owner. His vast herds fattened on its grass -and drank water from the wells which his servants digged. Had God driven -out all the nations and turned the land over to Abraham, he could not -have possessed it nor have made any more use of it than he did. Stephen -certainly did not mean to say that God had failed in his promise to -Abraham. It seems that Stephen’s point was that the promise was not to -Abraham as an individual, but to him as the founder of a nation—to his -seed. The time for the promise to be fulfilled would come when Abraham’s -posterity became sufficiently numerous to possess the land. That was -clearly Stephen’s point, for he adds: “But as the time of the promise -drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and -multiplied in Egypt.” (Acts 7:17.) This shows that the time for the -fulfillment of that promise was when the people grew and multiplied, and -that the time for its fulfillment was not in Abraham’s day, nor is it -yet in the future. It was fulfilled when the nations were driven out of -Canaan and the land divided between the tribes of Israel. “So Jehovah -gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; -and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of -any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel.” -(Josh. 21:43, 45.) - -Yet in the face of all this, it has been argued that the land promise to -Abraham must yet be fulfilled, and that Abraham must be raised and the -Jews restored to Palestine in order for this promise to be fulfilled. -But the argument is mixed. It starts out to prove that the land must be -given to Abraham, and winds up with his sharing it with the Jews. But -Stephen’s language destroys that conclusion, for his language shows -plainly that Abraham and his seed were not to possess it jointly at the -same time. Notice the language: “He promised that he would give to him -in possession, and to his seed after him.” Not with him, but “after -him.” The future-kingdom folks will have a hard time showing how Abraham -will possess the land of Canaan during a millennium and then his seed -possess it after him. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - There are only two things that a person can do with a command—he can - obey it or disobey it. One whose heart is right toward God will do - whatever God commands him to do. - - - - - THE JEWS AND THEIR KINGDOM - - -For some time I have had on hand some letters from an aged Texas -brother, an ardent advocate of the future-kingdom theory and its allied -theories. These letters contain seven closely written pages—too much for -this page. In his last letter the brother says: “You answer questions -for others, but it seems that my questions are a little too hard for -you.... We recall that some months ago you said that the kingdom of -David and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same kingdom, and that Solomon -sat on the throne of Jehovah. Solomon sat on the throne of David.” (1 -Kings 2:12, 24.) - -When a person asks for information, I give his question attention as -soon as possible; but when a person is merely trying to flunk me on what -he considers a hard examination, I take the examination when it suits -me. Besides, those who ask for information should have first -consideration. The editor assigned me the task of answering questions, -and not to carry on debates; but I must break over this time and stand -the examination, and also do a little debating. - -But the brother’s memory seems to be at fault. I do not recall saying -that the kingdom of David and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same. At -least, that is not my idea at all. In a general sense God rules in all -the universe, but in a special sense he ruled Israel for a time. At -Mount Sinai, Jehovah said: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice -indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from -among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a -kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) Later they -rejected Jehovah as their king. Jehovah said: “They have rejected me, -that I should not be king over them.” (See 1 Samuel 8:4-22.) God -permitted them to have a king. The resultant kingdom was conceived in -sin and brought forth in rebellion against Jehovah. The people dethroned -Jehovah, so to speak, and organized a kingdom of their own. “It is thy -destruction, O Israel, that thou art against me, against thy help. Where -now is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy -judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I have given -thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. -13:9-11.) And yet all the time of that kingdom the right to rule the -people was Jehovah’s. The king sat on Jehovah’s throne over Israel. - -But our brother does not think Solomon sat on Jehovah’s throne, but on -David’s throne. It is strange that these future-kingdom advocates can -see 1 Kings 2:12, 24, but cannot see 1 Chron. 29:23: “Then Solomon sat -on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” This -language shows also that David had sat on the throne of Jehovah. It was -really Jehovah’s throne, but was called David’s throne because he -occupied it. And while Solomon occupied it, it was also his throne. -Concerning Solomon, Jehovah said: “I will establish his throne forever.” -It was Jehovah’s throne, David’s throne, and then Solomon’s throne. -Hence, God had allowed the people to have their way and put a king on -his throne. The management of the affairs of the kingdom was in the -hands of the king. “Now when Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel.” (1 -Sam. 14:47.) The whole organization of the kingdom was in the king’s -hands. But enough of this. Here are the questions: - -1. “Was the kingdom of David a material, visible kingdom, or an -invisible spirit kingdom?” - -It was a kingdom like other kingdoms. The people said: “We will have a -king over us, that we may be like all the nations.” And Jehovah said to -Samuel: “Hearken unto their voice.” (1 Sam. 8:18-22.) That settles it. -It was a kingdom patterned after other kingdoms. That kingdom was -destroyed and how any sane person should expect God to restore a kingdom -that was organized in rebellion against him is one of the mysteries. - -2. “God destroyed it, but said he would restore it as in the days of -old. (Amos 9:11-15.) Has it been restored as it was?” - -God did not say that he would restore that rebellious kingdom as it was. -The tabernacle of David was the royal family of David. The royal house, -or family, of David fell. It was set up again when Jesus, of the royal -family of David, was exalted at God’s right hand and made both Lord and -Messiah. (Acts 2:29-36.) According to James, this had to be done before -the gospel could be preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:13-19.) That -prophecy of Amos has been fulfilled. - -3. “Have all Israel been gathered from the nations and given possession -of their land, with David as their king, as prophesied in Ezek. -37:10-24?” - -Ezekiel uttered that prophecy while Israel was in captivity. Any -Israelite who heard or read that prophecy would understand him to be -referring to their then existing captivity. Our brother does not believe -that the same David of old would be again their king, but that one of -the seed of David would be king. Jesus was of the seed of David, and is -now king. Neither are the Jews now in captivity. It is strange that any -one would take a passage that speaks of delivering the Jews from -captivity and apply it to the Jews of today or of tomorrow. In the -prophecy referred to, Jehovah said: “I will take the children of Israel -from among the nations, whither they are gone.” They were among the -nations at that time, and from that condition Jehovah would deliver -them. As to whether they then became a glorious nation would be -determined by their own conduct. “And at what instant I shall speak -concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; -if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, -then will I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” -(Jer. 18:9, 10.) This prophecy was spoken direct to Israel as a warning -to them. - -4. “If the kingdom was restored at Pentecost, why did every apostle -after Pentecost that spoke of the return of Christ put it in the -future?” - -The old kingdom was not restored, but the kingdom of God was set up on -Pentecost. Christ is on the throne, where he will sit till all his -enemies are subdued. (Acts 2:35.) The last enemy to be abolished is -death. (1 Cor. 15:26.) Death will be destroyed when the whole human -family is raised from the dead. Jesus will occupy his present throne -till that event is consummated. He will deliver up the kingdom to the -Father. (1 Cor. 15:26-28.) That leaves no room for Jesus to reign on -another throne before all the dead are raised. Yes, the apostles spoke -of the return of Christ as future; but, unfortunately for the -future-kingdom theory, they did not put the establishment of his kingdom -in the future. Neither did these ambassadors for Christ tell us that the -Jews would yet be restored to Palestine. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Instead of recognizing that God was working out through them his plan - for the redemption of the world, the Jews concluded God cared for no - other people. The promise to Abraham and their own prophets should - have taught them the truth, but they were too much wrapped up in - themselves to see the truth. - - From the things we learn from God’s dealings with nations, it can be - safely said that no nation falls so long as it serves a purpose in - God’s plans. That was true anciently, and it is true today. - - - - - WILL JEWS RETURN TO JERUSALEM? - - - From Tennessee comes this question: “Do the Scriptures teach that the - Jews will return to Jerusalem and then Christ will come and rebuild - the temple there?” - -We learn from a note accompanying the question that a Holy Roller or -some similar kind of preacher is creating a little confusion by teaching -that the Jews will return to Jerusalem and Christ will soon come and -rebuild the temple. - -There is no way to keep fanatics from making wild guesses, nor to keep -speculators from perverting the word of God. But if people studied the -Bible as they should, such fellows would create very little confusion. -It is hard to tell just why such a high fever has lately developed about -the future of the Jews. Some preachers seem not to have much thought for -any one but the Jews. - -God promised Abraham to make of his seed a great nation and to give to -them the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17.) After Israel came out -of Egypt, God entered into a covenant with them, promising to make of -them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, on condition that they -obeyed his voice and kept his covenant. (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But as they -neared Canaan, Jehovah said to them: “And it shall be, if thou shalt -forget Jehovah thy God, and walk after other Gods, and serve them, and -worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely -perish. As the nations that Jehovah maketh to perish before you, so -shall ye perish; because ye would not hearken unto the voice of Jehovah -your God.” (Deut. 8:19, 20.) The nations spoken of perished permanently, -never to inhabit Canaan again. Israel was to perish as they did, if they -turned from Jehovah in rebellion against him. I think one can safely say -that not a future-kingdom advocate believes that Scripture just as it -reads. - -Some, at least, of those who look for the return of the Jews to -Palestine and the restoration of their old kingdom tell us that the land -promise to Abraham and his seed was an unconditional promise. If so, why -have the Jews been deprived of their land for eighteen and a half -centuries? If the Jews were driven out because of their conduct, then -the land covenant, or promise, was conditional. It seems to me that -their theory virtually charges God with a failure to carry out an -unconditional promise. Just here the interested reader should read -carefully Deut. 27 and 28. But some will tell us that the land promise -and the national promises have not yet been fulfilled to the Jews; but -in so contending they run squarely against plain statements of -Scripture. - -After Israel had conquered the land of Palestine and each tribe had -entered into its inheritance, Joshua called the people together and made -an address to them, in which he said: “And behold, this day I am going -the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your -souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which -Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, -not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14.) Joshua had already -declared: “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to -give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.... -There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto -the house of Israel; all came to pass.” (Josh. 21:43-45.) Hence, they -had come into possession of all that God had sworn to their fathers to -give them. All of God’s promises to them have been fulfilled, even -though they never again see the land of Palestine. - -Some centuries after they came into possession of Palestine the -Israelites became so corrupt and rebellious that they were carried into -captivity. Many of the prophets foretold this carrying away into -captivity, and there were numerous prophecies that they would be brought -back into their own land. These prophecies, long ago fulfilled, are now -brought forward to prove that the Jews will again be brought back into -their own land. It is a miserable perversion of prophecies that have had -their fulfillment in the restoration of the Jews from their Babylonian -captivity. Why should any one call it speculation about unfulfilled -prophecy? - -The contention that the Jews are yet God’s chosen people, and that he -yet has in store for them special blessings that are not obtainable by -other people, is in direct contradiction to God’s whole plan of -salvation through Christ. The plain teaching of the New Testament is -against such an idea, and yet it is God’s final revelation to man, and -shows the full development and perfection of all the plans and purposes -which God began in the Old Testament to outline in promise, prophecy, -and type. Hence, if God has yet in store some special blessings for the -Jews, he certainly would have told us about it in the New Testament; but -instead of giving us such information, the New Testament distinctly and -emphatically teaches that now fleshly relations count for nothing. -Although Paul was “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a -Hebrew of the Hebrews,” he counted such fleshly relations as but refuse, -and declared that he had no confidence in the flesh—that is, in any -fleshly relations. (Phil. 3:2-8.) In 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, Paul declares that -Christ died for all, and because of that fact he adds, “Wherefore we -henceforth know no man after the flesh”—we give no distinction to any -man because of his nationality. “Even though we have known Christ after -the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.” (verse 16.) No one thinks of -Christ as a Jew with a Jew’s narrow nationalistic traits, but as a world -savior. That he so often referred to himself as the _Son of man_, and -not as a Jew, is more significant than many think. It sets him before us -as equally related to all men and as equally interested in all men. -Jehovah is not a tribal God and Jesus is not a tribal king, as most of -the future-kingdom folks seem to believe. - -Jesus himself gives us a picture of the latter end of the Jews. Read -Matt. 12:43-45. The unclean spirit, having been driven out of the man, -returns to the man with seven other spirits worse than himself. “And the -last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it -be also unto this evil generation.” If the word here translated -_generation_ means _race_, as it often does, the future of the Jewish -race is dark indeed. - -In applying the lesson of the parable of the householder, Jesus said: -“Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from -you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” -(See Matt. 21:33-43.) This nation is the new Israel of God, the church. -Christians are now the circumcision. (Phil. 3:3.) Christians are now -“Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” (Gal. 3:29.) The promises -and prophecies that have not been fulfilled to fleshly Israel are to be -fulfilled to the church, which is now God’s Israel. - -It has already been shown that there is no ground for expecting the Jews -to return to Palestine. Instead of finding any teaching to that effect -in the New Testament, as we would expect to find if such is to take -place, we find the weight of New Testament teaching to be against such -an event. - -The return of the Jews to Palestine, the rebuilding of the temple, and -the restoration of the Jewish kingdom are all so interwoven in the -program of the future-kingdom advocates that they stand or fall -together. It is a significant fact that the prophecies relied on to -prove the fore-going propositions were all uttered before the Babylonian -captivity or during that captivity. The Babylonian captivity had often -been foretold. Therefore, when any prophet spoke of the regathering of -the Jews to Palestine and the rebuilding of their temple, every Jew of -that time would understand the prophet to be speaking of their return -from Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of their temple then. -Ezekiel prophesied during the captivity, being himself one of the early -captives. Of course, anything he said about the return of the Jews and -the rebuilding of the temple would be understood by every Jew of that -time as referring to their deliverance from their present captivity. -Without some special words of explanation they could not have understood -it otherwise. But no such words of explanation were given. The prophets -knew how the Jews would understand them, and yet they let it go at that. -Are we to understand that God, through his prophets, deceived the Jews? -Surely not. The prophets foretold the return of the Jews from captivity. -The Jews would understand them to refer to their return from Babylonian -captivity. What then? Sound principles of exegesis demand that these -circumstances and conditions be taken into consideration in the -application of these prophecies. This the future-kingdom advocates fail -to do. But they tell us that some of the promises in these prophecies -concerning the return of the Jews from captivity have not yet been -fulfilled. But such an affirmation ignores the conditionality of God’s -promises. It is the same blunder that is made by the advocates of the -impossibility of apostasy. Even if it could be shown that some things -promised to the Jews on their return to Palestine were never fulfilled, -that would not prove that they will yet be fulfilled. The human side -must be taken into consideration. Hear the Lord through Jeremiah: -“Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house -of Israel.... And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and -concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is -evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the -good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jer. 18:5-10.) This is -God’s warning to Israel, but it has no weight with the future-kingdom -advocates. - -The Lord brought the Jews back from captivity and planted them in their -land. They would have had God’s choicest blessings had they obeyed his -voice; but they failed him, and plunged into the grossest sins. This -criminality culminated in their murdering the Son of God and many of his -saints. It was not the crimes of individuals here and there, but the -deliberate crimes of the nation. Death is the punishment for deliberate -murder. National murder demanded national death. The Jewish nation -suffered that death in the destruction of Jerusalem. - -When God sent his Son into the world, he did not send him to reorganize -the Jewish kingdom, but to open up a way of salvation for sinners. He -did not fail to accomplish what he was sent to do, as the future-kingdom -advocates claim. Hear his own words: “I glorified thee on the earth, -having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.” (John -17:4.) That statement should settle a lot of speculation about the -rejected king and the postponed kingdom. - -When Jesus comes again, he will not come to rebuild the temple in -Jerusalem, but to render judgment. (Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:6-10.) -His temple is here now. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matt. -16:18.) That church is his temple. “Know ye not that ye are a temple of -God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth -the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, -and such are ye.” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17.) “Being built upon the foundation of -the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner -stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth -into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for -a habitation of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:20-22.) In the old material -temple, animal sacrifices and other material sacrifices were offered; in -this new spiritual temple, spiritual sacrifices are offered. “Ye also, -as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy -priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through -Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 2:5.) Can any one believe that we are to give up -this glorious spiritual temple for the old material temple? this -spiritual worship for the carnal ordinances of the material temple? If -so, he has poor taste for the spiritual. - -The temple in Jerusalem was but a type, a shadow, of this glorious -spiritual temple. (Heb. 9:1-10.) This spiritual house is a “greater and -more perfect tabernacle.” (Heb. 9:11.) Now, we are gravely told that in -the millennium we will exchange this glorious spiritual temple for the -material temple with its animal sacrifices, give up the substance for -the shadow, give up the gospel of grace for the law of the temple, which -means the law of Moses. That temple, we are informed, will be again -sanctified by the blood of animals. Such material conceptions as this -whole future-kingdom idea suits very well such materialists as the -Russellites, but has no place in the thinking of one who glories in the -cross of Christ and in his blood-bought church. - -As a sample of the passages relied on to prove that the Jews are yet to -be restored to Palestine and their temple rebuilt, read Ezek. 34:11-31; -also chapters 37; 39:21-29, and to the close of Ezekiel. Remember, as -you read, that Ezekiel prophesied while he and his nation were in -captivity. In the temple of which Ezekiel speaks there were to be all -the offerings and ceremonies required by the law of Moses. The blood of -the animal sacrifices served the same purposes as the law specified. The -priests were of the tribe of Levi. This cannot refer to the future, for -no Jew now knows to what tribe he belongs. With the blood of animals -atonement was to be made for the people. If a man can believe all this -is yet future, he can believe anything that suits his fancy; facts will -be no barrier to anything he wants to believe. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - From Alabama comes this request: “Explain Ezek. 37, concerning the dry - bones and sticks. When did this take place?” - - The children of Israel were then in captivity; from that captivity - they were to be delivered. (See verses 21, 22.) The dry bones coming - to life represented their return from captivity. Their return would be - as if they were coming alive from the dead. Their captivity was their - burial; their return would be as if they were coming from their - graves. They had been divided into two kingdoms. Joining the two - sticks into one stick represented the joining of the two peoples into - one nation after their return. Their return is told in Ezra and - Nehemiah. After that return they were one people. And they would have - had a glorious kingdom had they obeyed Jehovah. The prophecies of the - Old Testament concerning the fate of the Jews in their disobedience - are being fulfilled all down the ages. - - - - - PROPHECY OF AMOS 9:13-15 - - -Has the prophecy in Amos 9:13-15 been fulfilled?—Mrs. X, Detroit. - -Amos 9:13-15: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the plowman -shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth -seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall -melt. And I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel, and they -shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant -vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall make gardens, and eat -the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall -no more be plucked up out of their land, which I have given them, saith -Jehovah thy God.” - -Amos had gone from his home at Tekoa to Bethel to prophesy against the -kingdom of Israel, which had become very corrupt, and to warn the people -of their coming doom. (Amos 1:1; 7:7-17.) They were to be sifted, -scattered, among the nations. As Amos was speaking of their captivity, -which they later suffered, it seems reasonable to conclude that the -verses in question referred to their return from that captivity. All who -wanted to return from that captivity to their own land had abundant -opportunity. There is no evidence that the Jews will again be carried -out of their own land into captivity, so as to be brought out of -captivity in the future. All the prophecies that speak of a return of -the Jews out of captivity have been fulfilled. One thing is sure: they -are not now in captivity; therefore, they could not now be brought out -of captivity, unless again carried into captivity. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - - ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN - - “Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that - pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that - called us by his own glory and virtue.” (2 Pet. 1:3.) We are in the - habit of saying that God has given us in the gospel everything that is - essential to life and godliness; but Peter goes a little farther than - that and affirms that God has given us all things that pertain to life - and godliness. There is a difference. To illustrate: There are certain - things that are essential to an automobile; and there are other things - that pertain to an automobile; but are not essential to it. When you - have all things that are essential to an automobile, you can go to a - supply house and purchase a lot of extras that pertain to an - automobile. But suppose you have all the essentials of an automobile, - and then you add all the things that pertain to an automobile, nothing - else could be added that would make it any more complete. God has not - only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but - he has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. - - But do religious people believe it? If so, why all these flummeries - that God has said nothing about? If you will read the verse again, you - will notice that he has given us all these things through the - knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of Christ means the knowledge that - has been revealed about him—the gospel of Christ. Hence, through the - gospel God has not only given us all things that are essential to life - and godliness, but all things that pertain to life and godliness. If - there is, therefore, anything in your religion that did not come to - you through the gospel, it does not so much as pertain to life and - godliness. Is it not time to check up on our religion and see if we - have anything that we cannot find in the New Testament? Any person of - intelligence can do that for himself. - - - - - MATTHEW 16:28 EXPLAINED - - - Please explain Matt. 16:28. I have to contend with the Boll theory. - What I want to know is how the disciples were to “see” the Son of man - coming in his kingdom.—W. C. Anderson. - -Matthew 16:28. - -“Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who -shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in -his kingdom.” - -In this verse it is stated that some would _taste_ of death—some of them -would _see_ the Son of man coming in his kingdom. _Taste_ and _see_—are -these terms used literally? A little study of both words will help. “Oh -taste and see that Jehovah is good.” (Ps. 34:8.) “Sweet are thy words -unto my taste.” (Ps. 119:103.) “Tasted of the heavenly gift”; “tasted -the good word of God.” (Heb. 6:4, 5.) If you make _see_ represent the -actual functioning of one of the five senses, why not make _taste_ do -the same? No man actually tastes death as he tastes food. The -future-kingdom folks stress giving words their literal meaning, but even -they will not say that a man tastes Jehovah, his word, or death, as he -tastes food. So also the word _see_ has a variety of meanings, or uses. -To see often means to know. “Taste and see (know) that Jehovah is good.” -To see often means to experience. We see joy and we see a good time; we -see trouble and sorrow. Taste death—experience death, or suffer death. -The parallel passages, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, say: “Verily I say unto -you, There are some of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of -death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” “But I tell -you of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no -wise taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.” To see the Son of -man coming in his kingdom and to see the kingdom of God come with power -and to see the kingdom of God are different expressions of the same -idea. When the kingdom of God came with power, it was Christ coming in -his kingdom. Just as certain as some of those standing by would die -before the kingdom came, or the Son of man came in his kingdom, just -that certain some would live till that event occurred. Ye—those standing -by, not those of some future date—shall see the Son of man coming in his -kingdom, or see the kingdom of God come with power, and they would see -it before they died. The future-kingdom folks do not see that part of -what Jesus said; they see only “see the Son of man coming in his -kingdom.” And yet no man literally sees a kingdom, as he sees a material -object; for the “kingdom of God cometh not with observation”—that is, -not in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes; i. e., in a -visible manner. (Luke 17:20.) Jesus made that statement in answer to the -Pharisees’ question as to when the kingdom of God would come. Hence, -some of the disciples to whom Jesus was talking would see Jesus coming -in his kingdom; yet they would not see with their eyes. Jesus himself -declared that his kingdom would not come in that manner. - -The future-kingdom folks put stress on the statement: “They shall see -the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great -glory.” But notice the change in pronouns—“ye shall see,” “they shall -see.” They tell us that this coming on the clouds will be when he comes -in his kingdom. They also tell us that when he thus comes the wicked -dead will not see him, for they will not be raised till the end of a -thousand years. But there is a hitch in that. Certainly the high priest -who condemned Jesus to death belongs in the class of the wicked dead yet -Jesus said to him and to the court: “Ye shall see the Son of man sitting -at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Notice -the word _henceforth_—from now on. Notice, too that this wicked court -was henceforth to see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power. -No man sees him sitting with his natural eye. The word _see_ here has -two objects, _sitting_ and _coming_; or, rather, the same persons shall -see Jesus sitting and coming. Even a child should be able to see that -the word _see_ could not here mean a mental conception as to one of its -objects and an actual seeing with the eyes as to the other object. A -word may have several meanings, but it cannot have two meanings at one -and the same time. As some of the disciples then living were to see -Jesus coming in his kingdom and the Sanhedrin were to see him sitting on -the right hand of power, the Lord came in his kingdom during the -lifetime of these people. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - The apostles were practical men. Some were fishermen; one, a tax - collector. Both callings teach a person not to believe all he hears. - - - - - MATTHEW 19:28; 25:31; LUKE 22:28-30; 1 COR. 6:2 EXPLAINED - - -Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. Please explain—Owen -W. Smith. - -1. Matt. 19:28: “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that -ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall -sit on the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, -judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read the context. The rich young -man had refused to follow Jesus. Peter said: “We have left all, and -followed thee; what then shall we have?” The reply of Jesus does not -mean that they had followed him in the regeneration, for Jesus had -passed through no regeneration. Luke says they had followed him in his -temptation. Jesus was telling his apostles what they would have in the -regeneration. The regeneration is that period of time in which people -are being regenerated. The other passage in which the word -“regeneration” occurs shows that people are being regenerated in this -dispensation. (Tit. 3:5.) But it was during this time of regeneration -that Christ was to sit on the throne of his glory and the apostles were -to sit on thrones. Hence, both Jesus and his apostles are now on their -thrones, for all were to sit on thrones at the same time. On Pentecost, -Peter declared that God had raised up Jesus to sit on David’s throne and -had made him both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:30-36.) Jesus himself -declared that all authority had been given to him. Those who say that he -has all authority, but is not exercising it, overlook the _therefore_ in -the next verse. Suppose Jesus had expressed that idea, it would have -read something like this: “All authority has been given me, but I am not -exercising it; and because I am not exercising it, go into all the world -and make disciples of all the nations.” The command was based on his -having all authority. Some have overlooked the _therefore_. As Jesus is -on his throne, so are the apostles on their thrones. But how are they -judging? McGarvey says on this point: - - This statement of Paul that “the saints shall judge the world” (1 Cor. - 6:2) has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to - take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the - sitting on the thrones are declared to be contemporaneous with the - regeneration and with Christ’s sitting on his throne; and, therefore, - they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this, - of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing - decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom, - and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones, - because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they - judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True, - we have written communications from only part of them, but judgments - pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all - are the judgments of the entire bench. - -On the _twelve tribes_ he remarks: - - The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of - Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any - intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with - the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh; - consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve - tribes representing the church of God of which they were a type. - -In judging, the apostles declare who is free from guilt and who is -condemned. This is made plain in John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye -forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they -are retained.” - -2. Matt. 25:31: “But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and -all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.” -This verse is incomplete, and is really explained by the rest of the -chapter. He shall sit on the throne of judgment, and before him will be -gathered all nations for judgment; but the people will be judged as -individuals and not as nations. It is not a judgment of nations, or -governments, as has sometimes been said. Even a little attention to the -gender of the Greek words of the passage will show how ill-founded is -that assumption. “Nations” is neuter in the Greek; it cannot, therefore, -be the antecedent of _them_ in verse 32, for it is masculine. And so is -_ye blessed_ in verse 34, and _ye cursed_ in verse 41. Both _these_ and -_the righteous_ in verse 46 are masculine. It is, therefore, not a -judgment of nations, as such, but of the people. The passage is in -perfect harmony with 2 Thess. 1:6-10. Here he comes to take vengeance on -the wicked and to be glorified in his saints. It is, therefore, the -judgment at the last day. - -3. Luke 22:28-30: “But ye are they that have continued with me in my -temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father -appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; -and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read -the context. They had just eaten the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. A -contention had arisen between the disciples as to who would be accounted -the greatest; and Jesus had told them that there was to be no one among -them exercising lordship over the others, but that service would be the -thing that counted. The apostles had faithfully followed him in his -temptation; he would, therefore, appoint them a kingdom, and they would -eat and drink at his table in his kingdom. On account of the fact that -they had just eaten the Lord’s Supper we naturally associate the Lord’s -table with the Lord’s Supper. They, therefore, would eat the Lord’s -Supper in his kingdom. But the Lord’s Supper will not be eaten after he -comes again. But as they were to eat it in his kingdom, it is certain -that they ate it in his kingdom while they lived. The kingdom now in -existence is, therefore, the kingdom he appointed them. In Luke 12:32, -Jesus said: “Fear not little flock; for it is your Father’s good -pleasure to give you the kingdom.” The Father was to give this kingdom -to the “little flock.” This cannot mean that he will give his kingdom to -his followers at the end of this dispensation, when the little flock -shall have swelled into “a great multitude, which no man could number, -out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues.” (Rev. -7:9.) No; it was to be given to a little flock and not to a numberless -host, and the language clearly shows that it was to be given to those -who were then present. And that was the kingdom which he appointed to -them, and in which they sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes -of Israel. On this last point, see comments above on Matt. 19:28. - -4. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3: “Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? -and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest -matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? how much more, things -that pertain to this life?” - -Commentators have had no end of trouble over these verses, and there is -little agreement among them. In some sense saints judge the world and -angels, but how? and when? It is a hazardous and foolish thing to build -a theory on a difficult passage, especially when little, if any, light -on the point can be gained from other Scriptures. But it does not seem -possible that Christians will be judges in the last day, when all shall -be judged. From Matt. 25:31-46 we learn that the righteous will be -judged along with the wicked. Saints will not then occupy judgment -thrones, but will be gathered before the judgment throne. They cannot be -judges while being judged. After that they cannot judge the world, for -the world will already have been judged. And there is no Scripture that -teaches that the heavenly angels will then be judged by any one. But the -gospel is God’s law, and every time it is preached sinners are judged as -guilty, as are also the devil and his angels. And saints have this same -law by which to judge among themselves. These are facts, whether the -passage in question has that meaning or not. This view has the merit of -not being out of harmony with the general teaching of the New Testament. -But let us be sure not to build a theory on a difficult passage of -Scripture, nor use it in support of a theory. We might be found wresting -the Scripture to our own destruction. - - - - - QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JEWS, THE KINGDOM AND SALVATION - - -Tell me: When, or how, did Christ offer the Jews the kingdom? What -passage, or passages, or teaching as a whole do you think the -earth-kingdom advocates rely on to prove the statement that the kingdom -was offered the Jews? - -Was the kingdom offered the Jews in any sense that _salvation_ was not -offered them? - -Did they reject the kingdom in any sense they did not reject salvation? - -If the kingdom was offered the Jews, and they rejected it, and the Lord -for that reason postponed the kingdom, why is it he did not also -postpone the salvation offered?—X - -Perhaps I might as well answer the foregoing questions as a whole as to -answer each one separately. The querist has been doing some close -thinking, and his questions open up a field for some profitable -investigation. - -The querist evidently refers to the Jews as a nation, and not as -individuals. It is claimed by the kingdom speculators that Jesus offered -the kingdom to the Jewish nation on condition that the rulers and people -alike repent, but the assertion is not backed up by any definite proof. -The advocates of that notion arrive at such a conclusion by assumptions -and deductions. They assume that the prophets foretold the restoration -of the old kingdom of Israel, a kingdom that was born in rebellion -against God and in rejection of him as King! They assume that Jesus -offered the kingdom to the Jews as a nation, but they gave no proof that -Jesus offered that kingdom or anything else to a national Israel. But as -such a kingdom did not come into being, they conclude that both the king -and his kingdom were rejected. Matt. 3:2 is quoted in this connection, -but they do not show how that Scripture proves their contention. John -was preaching to individuals, and not to the nation as such. The fact is -that he never did go and preach to the rulers, nor did they come to him. -They did send a committee to inquire into his work. - -I see no way to separate the kingdom from salvation, nor can I see how -one can exist apart from the other. Of course the old kingdom had -citizens who were not in a saved state, but I do not see how that could -be true of the kingdom of Christ. However, we are told that only Jews -who are born again will be citizens of the kingdom which they suppose -Christ will set up when he comes again. In that respect, as well as in -many others, this supposed kingdom will not be like the old kingdom. - -That the future-kingdom advocates realize they have no certain proof of -their rejection and postponement theory is shown by the fact that they -do not agree on any certain Scripture, nor as to the time of this -supposed rejection and postponement. John R. Rice puts it in the tenth -chapter of Matthew; Scofield, in the eleventh; R. H. Boll, in the -twelfth. John R. Rice says the kingdom at hand was never preached after -the tenth chapter; the offer was then withdrawn. He should have read -what Jesus a year later instructed the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:11.) -In a note on Matt. 11:20-24 Scofield says: “The kingdom of heaven -announced ‘at hand’ by John the Baptist, by the King himself, and by the -twelve, and attended by mighty works, has been _morally_ rejected. The -places chosen for the testing of the nation—Chorazin, Bethsaida, -etc.—having rejected both John and Jesus, the rejected King now speaks -of judgment. The final official rejection is later. (Matt. 27:31-37).” -On verses 28-30 he says: “The new message of Jesus. The rejected King -now turns from the rejecting _nation_ and offers not the _kingdom_, but -_rest_ and _service_ to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It -is a pivotal point in the ministry of Jesus.” R. H. Boll says: “In -chapter twelve the antagonism of the Pharisees, stirred to its height by -his Sabbath healing, came to a terrible climax: they went out and took -counsel against him _how they might destroy him_. (12:14.) This was a -great turning point.” As they find no Scripture which says what they -claim, they depend on assumptions and deductions, and their deductions -do not agree. - -A PROPOSITION: The gospel plan of salvation is the scheme of redemption -foretold in promise and prophecy. - - - - - SOME QUESTIONS CONSIDERED - - -A brother has presented to me a few questions for my consideration. The -questions are about matters that are being much agitated these days. The -first question indicates that somebody thinks the Lord refused some -people the privilege of believing, lest he might get more followers on -his hands than he needed for future rulers! But to the questions: - -1. “Was there ever a time when God refused any one the privilege to -believe in Christ, as indicated in John 12:39, 40? If so, has he -revealed the purpose thereof?” - -The passage mentioned says: “For this cause they could not believe, for -that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened -their heart; lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with -their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.” The quotation is -from Isa. 6:10. In Isaiah’s day the people of Judah had become very -corrupt, and were growing worse. To these people Jehovah said: “Ah -sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, -children that deal corruptly! they have forsaken Jehovah, they have -despised the Holy One of Israel, they are estranged and gone backward.” -(Isa 1:4.) They had reached the point where they were utterly unfit to -manage their own affairs of government. The great majority were beyond -the hope of reformation. They would not even consider Jehovah, and were -more senseless as to their own good than the ox or the ass. “The ox -knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not -know, my people doth not consider.” (Verse 3.) When people reach that -stage, there is nothing to do but to hasten them on to their doom. -Hence, Jehovah said to Isaiah when he sent him to prophesy to the people -of Judah: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, -and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their -ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.” -(Isa. 6:10.) Isaiah could do this only by his teachings and warnings. -They were so determined in their rebellion that the more Isaiah warned -them, the harder their hearts became. Their sinfulness resulted in the -Babylonian captivity. The Jews had again become so sinful that a worse -calamity was soon to come upon them. The leaders rejected the preaching -of John and dogged the steps of Jesus every move he made. They were so -rebellious that the miracles and teaching of Jesus hardened their hearts -instead of converting them. There was no direct operation on their -hearts to keep them from believing. The things that made believers of -some hardened the hearts of others. The Lord never did keep any honest -heart from believing. The prophecy quoted in John 12:39, 40 is quoted by -the Savior in Matt. 13:14, 15 in such a way as to show that the people -were responsible for their hardness of heart. When people will not -believe the truth, God sends them strong delusions that they may believe -a lie and be damned. (See 2 Thess. 2:8-12.) The reason there are so many -fool notions believed now is because people will not believe the truth. -God will have all men to be saved, but they will not. - -2. “Did the crucifixion of Christ depend upon the Jews’ rejection of -him?” - -Jesus came at a time when everything was ready for the working out of -God’s plans. “But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his -Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” (Gal. 4:4). God was not -experimenting to see if his plans would work out. He knew what would be -done, and was not bothering his mind as to what he would have to do -about it, if the Jews did not reject and crucify Jesus, for he knew what -they would do. Then why should I worry my mind about it? I cannot -entertain an idea that implies that God did not know enough to know when -to send his Son, or that he did not know what would happen when he did -send him. Why people raise such questions is a puzzle, for no one can do -anything about it, no matter what might or might not have happened. - -3. “Did God anticipate their acceptance universally?” - -Suppose he did or did not, what can we do about it? People raise -questions that, in various ways, reflect on God. Being the all-wise God, -he knew that the Jews would not all accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Son -of God. Jesus himself said that only a few would find the narrow way. -Paul showed that the prophets taught that only a remnant of Israel would -be saved. (See Rom. 10:16-21; 11:1-10.) But what gives rise to such -questions? It grows out of the new speculation that Jesus came to -establish an earthly kingdom, or rather to restore the kingdom of -Israel, but failed in his purpose because the Jews rejected him. God -knew the Jews would crucify Jesus. (See Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:27.) - -4. “If they had, would he have set up an earthly kingdom?” - -There is not the least indication that God did not accomplish what he -intended to accomplish by sending his Son into the world, nor that the -kingdom he set up was not what he intended to set up. On the other hand, -there is plenty of evidence that he inaugurated the very system he had -in mind, and which he had foretold through the prophets. To say that his -plans did not work out as he intended is equal to saying that the things -he foretold through the prophets turned out to be false. If it be -replied that the prophets said nothing about what some call “the church -age,” it only shows that some people have read the Scriptures with -little profit. The evidence is abundant that the apostles and other -inspired preachers and writers taught that Christianity, or the gospel -plan of salvation, is exactly what the prophets foretold. On Pentecost, -Peter referred to certain prophecies as fulfilled on that day. Again: -“Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as -many as have spoken, they also told of these days.” (Acts 3:24.) In -preaching the gospel of Christ, Paul said nothing but what the prophets -and Moses did say should come. (Acts 26:22.) Paul also affirms that the -gospel which he preached God had “promised afore through his holy -prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom. 1:2.) But why offer more proof? -The apostles knew what they were talking about, or rather the Holy -Spirit, who spoke through them, knew. Yet the future-kingdom advocates -generally contend that the Old Testament prophecies center in an earthly -kingdom, and say nothing about Christianity as revealed through the -apostles. One writer said: “But the Old Testament knows nothing whatever -of Christianity.” Ponder this question: If God did not set up the -kingdom which they say the prophets foretold, but instead gave them -something the prophets said nothing about, is it any wonder that the -Jews rejected it? The wonder would be that any of them accepted it. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Notice the prayer of Asa; notice other prayers in the Bible. With the - exception of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple and the - prayer of Jesus on the night of his betrayal, all are very short. - Notice the manner in which they addressed Jehovah. No endearing terms - are used, but terms expressive of reverence for the power and majesty - of God. Such expressions as “our dear heavenly Father” are not found - in the Bible. Such expressions should have no place in our prayers - today. Christians need to know how to pray, and a study of the prayers - of the Bible will help us to pray as we ought. - - “Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as - touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my - Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:19.) Here it is supposed that they - agree on what to ask for before they pray. Would it not be a good - thing for a group of worshippers to know what they are going to pray - for, rather than for someone to lead out in a long, rambling prayer - that is supposed to be appropriate to all occasions, and is, - therefore, never appropriate to any occasion? Delivering an oration to - the Lord, under pretense of praying, is not praying at all. - - - - - THE OLIVE TREE FIGURE OF ROM. 11 - - - I wish you would give an explanation of Rom. 11. The part that I am - the most interested in is the figure of the olive tree. Is there - anything in this chapter, or in any other, that teaches that the Jews - as a nation will ever accept Christ?—Oklahoma. - -We cannot at present give space to a discussion of the entire chapter. -The verses containing the olive-tree illustration read as follows: - - But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild - olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them - of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the - branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that barest the root, - but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that - I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, - and thou standest by thy faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if - God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. - Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, - severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his - goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. And they also, if they - continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able - to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by - nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a - good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural - branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:17-24.) - -Care should be used in dealing with another man’s illustrations and -figures of speech. The language quoted is an illustration of God’s -dealings with Jews and Gentiles. Because of unbelief the Jews had been -severed from God’s favor; by faith the Gentiles had been brought into -union with God. Neither Jew nor Gentile has any special favors from God; -the standing of each depends on their faith. That is the point Paul is -making, and to make his illustration do service beyond the point -illustrated is to do violence to his language. - -But what is the olive tree? It is God’s favor. Read the connection. The -Hebrews had been in God’s favor all along till they were broken off -because of unbelief. Their fall, mentioned in verse 12, is the same -thing as this cutting off. But now, to both Jews and Gentiles alike, -God’s favor is manifested in Christ, and may be obtained by faith in -him. - -No people as a nation will or can accept Christ. Any people as a nation -must act as an organized government; those in authority determine what -shall be done. But no constituted authorities can decide that the nation -shall accept Christ; that is an individual matter. But even if a nation -could through its proper authorities accept Christ, the Jews could not -do so, for they have no one with authority to speak for the whole people -on anything. - -It is hard for some to see that God totally and finally rejected and -destroyed the Jewish nation, but did not irrevocably reject the Jews. -Paul gives himself as an example that God had not irrevocably cast off -the Jewish people. That he referred to himself as an example shows that -he had in mind the Jews as individuals and not as a nation. His case -shows that the door of salvation had not been closed against the -individual Jew. And his olive-tree illustration shows that he was -speaking of the individual Jew and not of the nation. Both Jews and -Gentiles were grafted into the same olive tree, and both by the same -process. Paul’s conclusion—“and so all Israel shall be saved”—has been -greatly perverted. The future-kingdom folks put the emphasis on _all -Israel_; Paul put the emphasis on _so_. _So_ is an adverb of manner. He -had been showing how the Jews might be saved, and not that the nation -would be restored. He had shown that Gentiles were grafted in by -faith—saved by faith in Christ. “And so”—in like manner—shall all Israel -be saved. Peter had made the same point before the Jerusalem brethren: -“But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord -Jesus, in like manner as they.” (Acts 15:11.) - -How many Jews may yet be converted to Christ, no one knows; but those -who are converted to Christ will be in the one body with all converted -Gentiles, “where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and -uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is -all, and in all.” (Col. 3:11.) - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Much is said about preaching the truth in love, and so it should be - preached. But in love of what? The preacher should so love the truth - that he will not sacrifice any of it nor pervert it, and he should so - love people that he will not withhold from them even an unpleasant - truth. He that does either of these things loves neither the truth nor - the people. We frequently fool ourselves; we think we do thus and so - to spare the feelings of others, when it is our own feelings that - prompt us. “Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; - rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” - - - - - ENDS OF THE AGES - - -What does Paul mean in the expression, “Upon whom the ends of the ages -are come”?— - -The dispensations are referred to as ages. There have been the -Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age, and also we now have the Christian -age. The ends, or aims, of both the Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age -looked forward to the Christian age. Christianity is the end of the -ages—it is the last. Yet the future-kingdom advocates would have us -believe that Paul was mistaken; that Christianity is not the end of the -ages, but there will be at least two more ages. But Paul, being -inspired, was right, and Christianity is the end of the ages. And that -settles the future-kingdom claims. This is the ends of the ages. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - “Here am I; send me.” To know the Lord and to realize our dependence - upon him makes us willing, even anxious, to do whatever he wants us to - do. There is something fearfully wrong with the heart of one who - inquires concerning any duty. Will it pay? Is it pleasant work? Will I - be thrown with the right sort of people? Will it enhance my - reputation? Is the work below my dignity? The true servant of the - Lord, like Isaiah, says: “Here am I; send me.” Like his Lord he can - say, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish - his work.” (John 4:34.) “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy - law is within my heart.” (Ps. 40:8.) - - - - - THE FOUR BEASTS - - -Will you please give a scriptural answer as to who or what the four -beasts refer in Rev. 4:6-9? Or give your idea as to what is meant by the -four beasts.—Lee Chumbley. - -The Scriptures do not tell us who or what the four beasts represent. -Instead of _beasts_ the American Standard Version has _living -creatures_. It could as well be translated _living beings_ or _living -ones_. But that does not tell us who or what they represent. If the -querist will read on through the sixth chapter, he will find some of the -things these living beings did. For one thing he will find that they had -the power of speech. But the person who tells who or what they represent -tells that which he does not know to be true. Brother Chumbley can find -preachers who will tell him, and he will also find that they do not -agree. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - A tragedy, to have any unity of action when played on the stage, must - be planned and written by one person—at least under the direction of - one person. Imagine, if you can, a play written by several men, - neither of whom knew what the other was writing, or that he was - writing at all. Yet the tragedy of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus - was so written by the prophets. And then the play—none of the actors - in the drama, save Jesus, knew that the part he was playing had been - written, yet each played his part according to the record. God knew - what would be done, and had the prophets to write it down. - - - - - POINTS IN REVELATION 12 - - -A letter of some length from a good sister, Mrs. L. E. Jones, tells -about some things that came up in a class of which she is a member. The -teacher holds to the future-kingdom theory. The class is going through -the book of Revelation. The letter mentions several things that came up -in their study of Chapter 12, and from the letter I glean the following -questions: - - 1. Is the accuser of verse 10 the devil? Is it because of this accuser - that Christ intercedes for us? It was so stated by a member of the - class, who also said that as God was not human, he did not know what - Christ suffered. Is that true? - - 2. Our teacher said that God was protecting and keeping the Jews, and - that he had something special in store for them (something nice). I - want you to answer in the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient. - - 3. Does the woman of verses 1-6, 13-17 represent the Jews? That was - our teacher’s idea. - -1. From what is said in the context it seems clear that the devil was -before God as the accuser of the brethren; but as he was cast down from -heaven to the earth, how can anyone figure out that he is now before God -accusing the brethren? He is, however, doing all he can to lead them -into sin. Hence, the admonition: “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary -the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may -devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8.) He is busying himself here on earth now. Jesus is -our advocate with the Father, but I would not think he was before God -engaged in a talk contest with the devil. - -2. As God is no respecter of persons, how can any believer in Christ -argue that a Jew, because he is a Jew, is yet to enjoy blessings that a -Gentile cannot hope to receive, no matter how faithful he is, simply -because he is not a Jew. The theory contradicts the fundamental -principles of the gospel. Those who hold to that theory judge after the -flesh—a thing Jesus condemned. (John 8:15.) The theory encourages the -Jew to glory in his fleshly descent from Abraham—to glory after the -flesh. Such glorying Paul said was foolishness. (2 Cor. 11:17, 18.) It -teaches the Jew to have confidence in the flesh, his Jewish flesh. Paul -had no such confidence; to him such relationship was but refuse. Or, as -the King James Version has it, he counted such dependence on Jewish -flesh as but dung. (Phil. 3:2-8.) Such is your teacher’s theory. Christ -died for all. (2 Cor. 5:15.) Now notice the next verse (verse 16): -“Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh.” Notice the force -of the word _henceforth_—from now on. Yes, the Jews are still in the -world; so are the Japanese and Chinamen. So what does that prove? The -person who assumes to know what God knows or does not know is about like -a worm assuming to know what Solomon knew and did not know. - -3. Any theory about the woman of chapter 12 is merely a guess, for the -record does not say who she was. Some commentators, perhaps the majority -of them, say she was the church, the dragon was the Roman Empire, and -the child was Constantine. I do not know. But if the woman was the -Jewish nation and the child was Jesus, then she was a very unnatural -mother, for she killed her child! But that leaves the dragon out of the -picture, and leaves us wondering about verse 6. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - - CREATING A DEMAND - - Sometime ago a Christian man asked a gospel preacher: “Why do we not - have great gospel sermons like those we used to hear?” The reply was: - “There is no demand for them.” Do that question and answer reveal - conditions as they are? Have we reached the point where preaching is - trimmed down to fit the demands of the times? Is preaching thus - reduced to a matter of trade? - - Some factories make only those articles that are in demand. But - occasionally an article is offered for sale for which there had been - no demand, but the makers of such articles proceed to create a demand. - They do extensive advertising; they extol the uses and virtues of - their article till people want it. And cannot we in the same way - create a demand for the pure gospel in communities where there is no - demand? We cannot do it by dealing in religious soup. There is a - demand for the unadulterated gospel, for great gospel sermons; but the - demand is not as extensive nor as intensive as it should be. Even in - some churches of Christ there is not as strong demand for gospel - sermons as there should be. When an elder can say, as some of them - have said, “So far as I am concerned, I do not care whether our - preacher can preach or not,” it is time we were waking up. - - - - - QUESTIONS ON REVELATION 20. - - -E. B. Taylor asks seven or eight questions on the twentieth chapter of -Revelation. To give answer to all these questions would require an -exegesis of the chapter. For me that is impossible. The chapter abounds -in figures of speech. Many have read into that chapter things that are -not in it. They also make some of it figurative and the rest literal, as -the needs of their theory require. With them a day in some of the -prophecies is a year, but they take the thousand years as literal. Yet -they will not say that the devil is a real snake, nor that the chain is -a literal chain, nor that the beast is a real four-footed animal. Here -are some of the things in this chapter that I do not know: Who the angel -is, what the key is, the great chain, why the devil is called a snake, -what the binding means, the thousand years, when the thousand years end, -the abyss and how it was sealed, length of the “little time,” who sat on -thrones, what judgment was given them, the extent of that judgment, what -the beast is, the image, mark of the beast, the war of verse 8, Gog and -Magog, the camp of the saints, how devoured by fire, the lake, the beast -of verse 10, who the false prophet is, nor how there can be day and -night in eternity. Yet the chapter makes some plain statements. - -We may not know who the martyrs are, yet it is affirmed of them, and of -no one else, that “they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand -years.” When or where this reigning is, was, or is to be, is not stated. -But it is stated in verse 6 that those who have part in the first -resurrection “shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign -with him a thousand years.” Hence, they are to be priests and to reign -at the same time—a royal priesthood. It is plain that they were to reign -while they were priests, but Christians are priests now. Leaving out _to -be_, words supplied by the translator, Revelations 1:6 reads thus: “He -made us a kingdom, priests unto his God and Father.” Being kings and -priests, Christians are a royal priesthood. (See 1 Pet. 2:9.) - -In 20:12, John saw the dead standing before the throne. _The dead_, not -a part of the dead. This is in perfect harmony with the Savior’s -description of the judgment in Matt. 25:31-46. It is argued by some that -this is a judgment of nations—kingdoms—instead of individuals. But -nations in the Greek is neuter; but the pronoun _them_ in verse 32 is -masculine, and, therefore, refers to people, and not to nations as such. -At the judgment, therefore, all—the small and the great—will stand -before the throne. This is also made clear in 2 Thess. 1:7-10. There it -is declared that Jesus will take vengeance on the wicked “when he shall -come to be glorified in his saints.” And the last verse in the twentieth -chapter of Revelations shows that some will be at that judgment, whose -names are written in the book of life. - - - - - SEVERAL QUESTIONS - - -1. Do you believe in the “secret rapture” theory? - -2. Will there be any life on the earth during the millennium period? - -1. The word _rapture_ is from a Latin word that means “to carry off by -force.” By some strange aberration some religious folks applied that -term to the Lord’s taking saints from the earth, as if they will have to -be forced to go or somebody or power will have to be forced to let them -go—a sort of seizing and carrying away. But I could not believe in the -“secret rapture” unless I had some evidence. That evidence is lacking. - -2. I have found no evidence that there is to be a thousand-year period -in which there will be no life on the earth. There is evidence, however, -that there will be life on the earth so long as the earth continues. -“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and -summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22.) A -careful reading of 2 Pet. 3:1-14 will show that so long as the earth -remaineth Christians are exhorted to be “looking for and earnestly -desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens -being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with -fervent heat.” Any student can find other evidence to the same import. - -But suppose one believes the affirmative of both these questions, what -is practical about such belief? If you hold to a notion that helps -neither your faith nor your practice, why waste time with it? Why -disturb others with it? - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Jesus came to save sinners, not to make sinners. People were sinners - before Jesus came, and they would have continued to be sinners had not - Jesus come. If people do not believe in him, they continue sinning - just as they would have done had he not come. - - Though Jesus was moved with compassion at the sight of human - suffering, his miracles of healing were not performed primarily to - relieve suffering. If that were so, he would cure all sick folks even - now, or cause that no one would ever be afflicted in any way. His - miracles were performed as signs that God was with him. - - Jesus put a higher value on man than on animals. “How much then is a - man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on - the sabbath day.” (Matt. 12:12.) There is something of vast worth in - man, else God would not have been mindful of him. - - - - - Part II - DISCUSSIONS - - - - - PREDICTION OR PROPHECY - - -The word “predict” comes from a compound Latin word that means, “to -say,” or “tell before”; hence, to prophesy. But many words in the course -of time have somewhat changed in meaning; “predict” is such a word. In -giving synonyms under “foretell” Webster says, “‘Foretell’ (Saxon) and -‘predict’ (Latin) are often interchangeable; but predict is now commonly -used when inference from facts (rather than occult processes) is -involved.” Hence when a man considers facts and trends and draws a -conclusion as to what will be the outcome, that is prediction. Did Bible -prophecies originate that way? No; “... knowing this first, that no -prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever -came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy -Spirit.” (2 Pet 1:19-21). - -Verse 21 really explains verse 20. Prophecy was never a forecast of -events based on conditions and trends of the times; it was not a private -interpretation of the culmination of trends. It did not come (Greek, -“was not brought”) by the will of man; “but men spake from God, being -moved by the Holy Spirit.” Hence, no prophecy came as a result of a -man’s own private interpretation of trends and events of the times. If a -man should draw a conclusion from facts and trends, such conclusion -could, in a loose sense, be called a prophecy, a prophecy of private -interpretation, a prophecy that came by the will of man; but Peter -speaks of the prophecy of scripture. Such prophecy is not of the private -interpretation of facts and trends. Notice the contrast—“no prophecy of -scripture is of private interpretation ... but men spoke from God, being -moved by the Holy Spirit.” The passage has no reference to what should -be done about prophecy that had already been written, but to weave -together a mass of prophecies, most of which have been fulfilled, and -make a scheme for the future, practically amounts to a man-made -prophecy—a prophecy that comes by the will of man. Even the prophets did -not understand their own prophecies—did not know but that “the -sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow them, “was meant -for themselves,” till God revealed to them “that not unto themselves, -but unto you did they minister these things” (1 Pet. 1:10-12). But it -seems that a host of preachers and editors today think they know more -about the prophecies than did the prophets who uttered them. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - A privilege is a right which we may exercise or not, as we choose. - Attending the annual feasts of the Jews was a privilege with the - women. They could stay at home or go, without guilt. To the men, - attending these feasts was not a privilege, but a duty. To fail - brought guilt. Christians should do some serious thinking to determine - their privileges and their duties. To say that a certain thing is both - a privilege and a duty is about as sensible as to say that a certain - thing is both black and white. To be baptized, to attend the - Lord’s-day worship, to give, to study God’s word, and to obey all - other commands are duties, and are not privileges in any proper sense - of the word. - - - - - PROPHECY - - -A prophecy is anything God reveals through an inspired spokesman. It -might be concerning future events or present duties and warnings. But in -this article I shall use the word in its common acceptation—namely, as a -revelation of things future as to the time the prophecy was given. - -It was no uncommon thing for prophecies to be delivered in highly -figurative language. In such cases the prophecy was to be fulfilled in -the sense conveyed by the figurative language. It is a common saying -that the Bible means exactly what it says, but that is never true when -things are spoken in figurative language. We all use figurative -language. When Paul said, “Beware of the dogs,” no one thinks he -referred to literal dogs. When Jesus called Herod a “fox,” he used -figurative language, and no one thinks he meant that Herod was a literal -fox. - -In his recent book on prophecy a certain brother says: “Expect a literal -fulfillment. This is God’s way of fulfilling prophecy. Every prophecy -which the Bible says has been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally.” -That is a broad statement. Can he make proof? Let him try his dictum on -Isa. 40:3, 4: “The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the -wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for -our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill -shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough -places a plain.” A literal fulfillment of that prophecy would require -mountains and hills to be torn down and valleys to be filled up. Now, -Luke (3:4, 5) quotes this prophecy and applies it to the work of John -the Baptist. And Matthew distinctly says that John the Baptist was the -one of whom Isaiah prophesied. (Matt. 3:3). This one fulfillment of -prophecy completely upsets his dictum, unless the author contends that -John had a contract to construct a literal highway, and literally -leveled mountains and hills and filled up valleys, as highway builders -do. But we had never thought of John the Baptist as a road contractor! - -Another highly figurative prophecy is the following: “And the wolf shall -dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and -the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child -shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones -shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And -the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned -child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt nor -destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the -knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isa. 11:6-9). But -we are told that this must have its literal fulfillment, and that the -time will come when all beasts of prey shall be thoroughly changed and -gentled. If all prophecies must be literally fulfilled, what about the -first verse of this chapter? Will a literal shoot and branch come up -from the literal stock and roots of Jesse? And Isaiah (55:12) spoke of a -coming time when “the mountains and the hills shall break forth before -you into singing; and all the trees of the field shall clap their -hands.” And we are gravely admonished to expect a literal fulfillment of -all prophecies! - -But what about the animals? The kings of Assyria and Babylon are called -“lions.” (Jer. 4:7; 50:17.) The princes in Jerusalem were called -“roaring lions,” and the judges “wolves.” (Zeph. 3:3.) The princes of -Israel were called “whelps,” and their mother “a lioness”; and one of -these whelps became a lion! (Ezek. 19:1-9.) David referred to certain of -his enemies as “bulls” (Ps. 22:12), and Amos refers to certain people as -the “kine of Bashan” (Amos 4:1). Jesus called certain people “wolves” -(Matt. 7:15; 10:16), and Paul said to the elders of Ephesus: “Grievous -wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). -Will the future-kingdom advocates contend that this prophecy of Paul’s -was literally fulfilled? Had our brother been present, would he have -looked for literal wolves to destroy that church? If so, he would have -missed the force of Paul’s words entirely. If these elders had been -guided by the above dictum, they would have gone out on a literal wolf -hunt! - -Men of ferocious disposition are to be tamed and gentled by the gospel -of Christ; but even that will not be universal, so far as this prophecy -indicates. The prophecy does not make any affirmation concerning the -whole world. The key to a proper understanding of the prophecy which is -quoted above is found in the last verse: “They shall not hurt nor -destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the -knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” It is in Jehovah’s -holy mountain where this gentleness shall be—where no hurt shall be -done. The mountain of Jehovah, in Isaiah’s language, refers to Jehovah’s -government: “And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the -mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the -mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall -flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go -up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he -will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of -Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.” -(Isa. 2:2, 3.) It is in this holy mountain, this church, or house, of -God, where “they shall not hurt nor destroy”; and the reason is given: -“For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters -cover the sea.” Certainly no one will contend that wild beasts will be -so full of the knowledge of God that they will not hurt nor destroy. But -ferocious men do become gentle under the influence of the gospel; they -must be thus gentled before they can enter Jehovah’s holy mountain. - -One more thought. If, in studying prophecy, we are to expect a literal -fulfillment, and if that is God’s way of fulfilling all prophecies, then -what are we to do with Isa. 2:2, 3 and 40:3, 4? The mountains and hills -are to be leveled down, and yet Jehovah’s mountain is to be established -on the top of the mountains and exalted above the hills. How can both -things take place literally? So it appears that their dictum on the -literal fulfillment of prophecies makes it impossible for prophecies to -be literally fulfilled. - - - - - SHALL WE LOOK FOR A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF ALL PROPHECY? - - -The future-kingdom advocates put great stress on the literal application -of Old Testament prophecies. A Prophecy concerning Israel must be -applied to Israel in the flesh, and Jerusalem means the Jerusalem in -Palestine. Zion must have its literal application, and so with “throne” -and “kingdom”, etc. With them, there must be no “spiritualizing.” The -lamb and the lion must refer to literal lion and lamb. But will they -stick to that line? Hardly. Isaiah said: “Every valley shall be exalted, -and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be -made level, and the rough places plain.” (Isa. 40:4.) Now, the inspired -historians of the New Testament applied that Scripture to the work of -John the Baptist; yet we are told by the future-kingdom advocates that -every prophecy must have its plain, literal fulfillment. If so, the -inspired New Testament writers were mistaken on this point, and that -prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. - -But we are told that the prophecies mean exactly what they say. Now, is -that really so? Then, what about the four beasts in Daniel 7? “Four -great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other.” Yes, it -is true that these matters were interpreted for us, but it is also true -that the interpretation shows that the four beasts were not actually -four beasts. It also shows, as do other passages, that many prophecies -are couched in highly figurative language. The prophecy concerning the -work of John (Isa. 40) shows how highly figurative some prophecies are. -Or will the future-kingdom folks say that even this prophecy must yet -have its literal fulfillment? - -But it is contended that the throne of David means the rule over the -fleshly house of Israel in the land of Palestine, and that unless Christ -rules over the Jewish nation in the land of Palestine he does not occupy -the throne of David. He must have a civil government, with Israelites as -citizens and the land of Palestine as the territory; otherwise, he does -not occupy the same throne David did. This would imply that the kingdom -over which Christ rules must be an exact replica of the kingdom as it -was in the days of David. If not, why not? If it can be changed in one -particular, why not in others? It is argued that God’s oath to David -(Ps. 89:34, 35) precludes the possibility of any change in the kingdom. -But even after so arguing, do our future-kingdom advocates outline a -kingdom just like the kingdom of David? They do not. Here are a few -points wherein the kingdom of David differs from the future kingdom as -outlined by its advocates: - -David’s reign was local; Christ’s reign to be worldwide. - -Every kind of Israelite, good and bad, citizens in David’s kingdom: only -regenerated Israelites to be citizens in Christ’s kingdom. - -Fleshly birth made citizens of David’s kingdom; a Jew must be born again -to be a citizen of Christ’s kingdom. - -Every child of Hebrew parents was in David’s kingdom; children must be -old enough to voluntarily accept Christ to be in the future kingdom. - -David was king, family of Aaron were priests then; Christ to be both -King and Priest. - -Some rather unruly men were helpers in David’s kingdom; only true and -tried Christians are to reign with Christ. (Here the future kingdom as -outlined by its advocates radically differs from David’s kingdom.) - -David’s kingdom was constantly beset by its enemies; no enemies to the -future kingdom. - -David’s kingdom constantly organized for war; nothing like that in the -future kingdom. - -In David’s kingdom they learned war; in the future kingdom they shall -learn war no more. - -David reigned while the devil was loose and doing his worst; we are told -that Christ cannot begin his reign till Satan is bound. - -Moses was the lawgiver of the old kingdom; Christ is to be the lawgiver -for the future kingdom. - -And that is not all; but we grow weary of the task of enumerating the -differences. Yet we are told that, if there is any alteration, the -throne of the kingdom cannot be the throne of David. - -When Jehovah called Israel out of Egypt, he told them that, if they -would obey his voice, they would be unto him “a kingdom of priests, and -a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But had not God always exercised -universal dominion over all the works of his hands? Certainly, but now -he was to rule in a special way over a special people. As this people -were to have no earthly head, they were not to be like the nations -around them, and were not to be reckoned among the Nations. God made -their laws, and gave direction for their execution. This state of things -continued till the days of Samuel. Then the people asked for a king that -they might be like the nations around them. That was a rejection of -Jehovah as their king. Saul was put on the throne, and the kingdom -became his. He was rejected and the kingdom given to David. These men -and the descendants of David occupied the throne that belonged -peculiarly and specially to Jehovah. Jehovah occupied that throne before -Saul or David, and that throne continued after the last son of David -reigned. The royal family of David fell into decay, but did Jehovah’s -rule over Israel cease? Did not his throne continue as it did before -Saul became king? It is true that the Jews were rarely independent, but -were they any less under the rule of Jehovah when they were subject to -other nations? Did not the kingdom continue with them? Before becoming -excited at these words, read Matt. 21:43: “Therefore say I unto you, the -kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a -nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” How could the kingdom be -taken from them, if it was not then with them? The Lord was then -developing that nation to whom the kingdom was to be given, and to whom -it was given on the first Pentecost after his resurrection. - -On Pentecost, Peter preached that God had raised up Jesus to sit on -David’s throne. It has been argued that Peter does not say that he then -sat upon that throne. If not, what point was there in mentioning it? -After mentioning it, Peter says: “Being therefore by the right hand of -God exalted,” etc. If that is not a conclusion from what he said about -the throne of David, why the “therefore”? Would Peter—would any -speaker—make an argument about the throne of David, and conclude that -“therefore” Jesus had been exalted to something else, something he had -not even mentioned? Are we seriously expected to believe such -absurdities? - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - By faith Noah built the ark. Faith only—that is, faith without - works—is dead. Such faith never would have built the ark; neither does - it ever accomplish anything nor bring any blessings. Faith prompted - and guided Noah in building the ark, and so it is said that he built - the ark by faith—a faith made perfect by works. - - God has always tested man’s willingness to do his will. To be a real - test, the thing commanded must be such that the person can see no - connection between the thing commanded and the result to be obtained. - Examples: The brazen serpent (Num. 21:4-9); Naaman’s dipping in the - Jordan (2 Kings 5:1-19). Baptism is such a test. - - “Religion” is a broad term. There are many religions, but only one - true religion. It would be better now to speak of “The place of - Christianity in a nation’s life.” - - - - - ABRAHAM AND THE LAND PROMISE - - -When God called Abraham out of the Chaldees, he made certain promises to -him, one of which is this: “In thee shall all the families of the earth -be blessed.” (Gen. 12:1-3). Then when Abraham stood the test about -offering up Isaac, God added this to the other promises: “In thy seed -shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” That this promise refers -to Christ is made clear by Paul: “Now to Abraham were the promises -spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as -of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Gal. 3:16). Paul’s language -shows clearly that the promised seed of Abraham was none other than -Christ Jesus. It is a perversion of the promise to make it refer to all -fleshly children of Abraham or to those who are children by faith. -Christians are blessings to others only as they allow Christ to use them -as his instruments. - -Universalists use the promise to Abraham in an effort to prove that all -people will be saved, but they ignore the conditionality of promises. It -is not my purpose to discuss Universalism, but call attention to these -statements: “Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.” (John -5:40). “He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). “And -these shall go away into eternal punishment.” (Matt. 25:46). A person -who will not believe these scriptures, and others that might be cited, -will not believe anything he does not want to believe. - -The future kingdom folks have twisted the land-promise in support of -their future plans for the Lord. The land-promise to Abraham did not -produce the speculation about the future return of the Jews to -Palestine; but their return is an essential part of the future kingdom -theory, and that made it necessary to claim that the land promise still -holds good. Let us look into this matter briefly. - -“And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give -this land.” (Gen. 12:7). “And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that -brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit -it.” (Gen. 15:7). But Abram did not believe Jehovah, and said, “O Lord -Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” For that -unbelief, God required him to prepare three animals and two birds for a -sacrifice, and then Jehovah did not honor his sacrifice with fire from -heaven; and Abram had to protect his sacrifices from birds of prey. Then -he fell into a deep sleep; “And lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon -him.” Then Jehovah revealed to him the future bondage of his seed, and -their deliverance. This showed Abram how God was displeased with Abram’s -unbelief. It is significant that God left Abram out of his next promise: -“In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed -have I given this land.” You see, Abram would have died long before they -returned from Egypt. As we proceed it is well to remember the wording of -this covenant-promise, and that Abraham is not included in it. Yet so -long as Abraham lived, he was included in the land promise. (See Gen. -17:8). And of course, when the land-promise was made to Isaac and to -Jacob after the death of Abraham, he was not included (Gen. 26:2, 3; -28:13). - -It is urged by some that God promised the land to Abraham as an -individual, yet Stephen says that God “gave him none inheritance in it, -no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:5). It is affirmed that -this promise must yet be fulfilled; yet Abraham had all the grazing -rights he needed. The land therefore was his to use. But the future -kingdom advocates overlook another statement Stephen made: After -mentioning Israel’s going down into Egypt, Stephen said, “But as the -time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the -people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” (verse 17). This was the land -promise which God made to Abraham—“God vouchsafed unto Abraham.” The -time for the fulfilling of that promise to Abraham had drawn nigh. The -language cannot be twisted to mean anything else: So the Lord led Israel -out of the land of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. Was this land -promise which was “vouchsafed to Abraham,” and which had drawn nigh -fulfilled? Joshua answers that question. “So Jehovah gave unto Israel -all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they -possessed it, dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of any good thing -which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” -(Josh. 21:43-45). In his farewell address Joshua said, “And, behold, -this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your -hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the -good things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to -pass unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14). -Language could not be plainer; or more emphatic. And a man who will not -believe what Joshua says will not believe anything he does not want to -believe. - -We have been told that the land promise was unconditional; but the fact -that the Jews were carried into captivity because of their sins and the -further fact that they are not now in Palestine, and also the fact that -at the beginning they had to drive the nations out, show how foolish it -is to say that the land promise was not conditional. The Jews increased -in their wickedness till they crucified Christ and tried to destroy his -church. For these crimes they lost the land and their national -existence; and now they have no more right to Palestine than to Italy, -or any other country. - -Notice the wording of God’s promise to Abraham: “I will give unto thee, -and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of -Canaan, for an everlasting possession.” (Gen. 17:8). “After thee”—does -that preposition “after” mean any thing to you? The land was given to -Abraham, and to his seed after him—a succession of ownership, first -Abraham and after him his seed. So if that promise is yet to be -fulfilled, then Abraham will first occupy the land, how long no one -knows, then it passes to his seed. Look at the language carefully, and -it will mean something to you. You cannot ignore that preposition -“after.” It is clear enough if you recognize the fact that Abraham had -full use of the land while he lived, and that after him his seed had the -land. - - - - - THE TIME OF PROMISE - - -In the discussion about the land promise made to Abraham, one plain -statement seems to have been overlooked. But, first, let us get before -us an argument that some make on that promise. It is argued that the -promise was made direct to Abraham and was meant to be fulfilled to him -in person, and yet Stephen informs us that God “gave him none -inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:5). -Assuming that the promise to Abraham meant that he would have title and -right to the land in his own person, it is therefore argued that he must -yet have it in his possession. It is therefore argued that the Jews must -return to Palestine, so that the promise to Abraham may be fulfilled. -But in thus making Abraham and the nation of Israel joint-owners of the -land at the same time—they overlook the promise as Stephen stated it: -“and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his -seed after him.” Notice that word _after_—first to Abraham, then to “his -seed _after_ him.” Notice again this word _after_ in Gen. 17:8 “I will -give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojourning, -all the land of Canaan.” Abraham first, then his seed after him. I -wonder how long these future kingdom folks think Abraham is to possess -the land before it comes into the possession of his seed after him! The -emphasis the future kingdom folks place on their idea that the land was -to be given to Abraham in person will not allow them to concede the -truth that the promise was made to him as the head or father of a nation -to be possessed by the nation of whom he was the father. The head or -father of a nation is sometimes put for the nation—is sometimes spoken -of as a nation. Before Jacob and Esau were born, Jehovah said to -Rebecca, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be -separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the -other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25:23). -These statements or promises concerning these unborn sons were to be -fulfilled centuries after they were born—fulfilled in their descendants. -To rebellious King Saul, Samuel said, “Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of -Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine, -that is better than thou.” (1 Sam. 15:28.) Yet that threat was never -visited upon Saul in person, for he continued to be king so long as he -lived. Now, that threat to Saul was as personal as was the land promise -to Abraham. Why does not some wild scribe argue that Saul must be raised -again and put on the throne of Israel, so God can fulfill his threat?!! -The threat was fulfilled in the family of Saul just as the land promise -to Abraham was fulfilled to his descendants. And that is exactly the way -the land promise to Abraham was fulfilled. After Stephen spoke of this -land promise, he said, “But as the time of the promise drew nigh which -God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” -(Acts 7:17.) “The time of the promise” can mean nothing else than the -_time for the fulfillment of the promise_. That time had drawn nigh, and -things began to shape up for the fulfillment of that promise. Those who -claim that the promise has not yet been fulfilled have a quarrel with -Stephen. - -At the proper time Moses was sent to lead Israel out of Egypt. In giving -instructions concerning the passover, Moses said, “And it shall come to -pass, when ye are come to the land which Jehovah will give you, -according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.” (Ex. -12:25.) Hence when they should come into their possessions in Canaan, -that was exactly what God had promised. Again Moses refers to Canaan as -the land which Jehovah “sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” (Ex. -13:5.) This same promise is referred to many times in Deuteronomy. A few -of the many passages: (6:3, 10, 18, 23; 8:1; 31:20.) These passages -teach plainly that the possession of the land of Canaan by Israel would -be the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and -Jacob. Joshua so understood it; for when the tribes of Israel came into -possession of the territories allotted them, he said, “And behold this -day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts -and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good -things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you: all are come to pass -unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof. And it shall come to pass, -that as all the good things are come upon you of which Jehovah your God -spake unto you, so will Jehovah bring upon you all the evil things, -until he have destroyed you from off this good land which Jehovah your -God hath given you.” (Josh. 23:14, 15.) - - - - - REBELLION OF ISRAEL—A KINGDOM BORN. - - -When Jehovah led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, he said to -them, “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on -eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will -obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own -possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye -shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:4-6.) -Of course, God, in a general way, ruled over all the works of his hands, -but in a special sense he ruled over the nation of Israel. For a long -time Jehovah was their only king. In emergencies he raised up judges to -deliver them from their enemies. But in the course of time they became -dissatisfied with that sort of thing. Their sins brought them into -trouble, and they thought that it was the efficiency of the governments -surrounding them. - -“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to -Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy -sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the -nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king -to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto -Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto -thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I -should not be king over them.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7.) Nevertheless, Jehovah -told Samuel to inform the people fully as to how the king which they -desired would oppress them, and Samuel did so. “But the people refused -to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will -have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that -our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.” -(Verses 19, 20.) Saul was selected as king, though some were not pleased -with the selection. - -Soon after being made king, Saul smashed the armies of the Ammonites in -a great battle. Then Samuel knew that it was an appropriate time to -gather the people together and “renew the kingdom.” They were called -together at Gilgal, and there Samuel resigned as judge in a solemn -address to the people. He told them that, although they had asked for a -king when Jehovah was their King, Jehovah would bless them and their -king, if they and their king obeyed his voice. His speech and the rain -that came at Samuel’s call so impressed the people that they said: “We -have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” (1 Sam. -12:19.) - -This kingdom, which was conceived in a desire to be like other nations, -born in open rebellion against God, and tolerated through the -forbearance of God, is the kingdom that some people would have us -believe God yet intends to restore and enlarge. That kingdom restored -is, we are told, the hope of Israel! That is the kingdom over which -Jesus and the church will yet rule, and through which all the world will -be blessed! Who can believe it? - -I am aware that a question like this may occur to some one: If that -kingdom was established in rebellion against God, how is it that Jehovah -promised the throne of David to the Christ? But if we were unable to -give a satisfactory answer to that question, it would not change what -the Lord says as to the spirit that brought that kingdom into existence. -But the question presents no real difficulty. Before the people called -for a king so as to be like the nations, Jehovah was their king; he -alone occupied the throne. Of course you understand that “throne” means -authority to rule, rulership, kingly authority. When Saul, David, or -Solomon ruled over God’s people, he occupied the throne of Jehovah. It -was called David’s throne because he occupied it, and not because it was -his by right. If people could ever get it settled in their minds that -David really sat on Jehovah’s throne, it would save them from some -confusion. But these two quotations show that the throne of David and -the throne of Jehovah are the same: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of -David his father.” (1 Kings 2:12.) “Then Solomon sat on the throne of -Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” (1 Chron. 29:23.) It is -plain that Jehovah’s throne was called David’s because he occupied it. -He who rules over God’s people occupies the same throne that David -occupied. No one will deny that Jesus now rules over God’s people or, if -you like the expression better, rules in the hearts of God’s people. To -acknowledge that he does so rule is to acknowledge that he sits on the -throne on which David sat. This truth has nothing to do with the fact -that the people of Israel sinned in wanting a king so as to be like the -nations around them. “I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have -taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:11.) - - - - - NEITHER—NOR - - -In the May issue of Word and Work, Stanford Chambers writes under the -above caption as follows: - - One was recently heard to say publicly: “I am neither a - premillennialist nor a postmillennialist.” I think I saw the same from - the pen of some writer. It is difficult to see how one can avoid being - one or the other. A man might say: “I am neither an immersionist nor a - nonimmersionist.” How could that be, unless he disregards baptism - entirely? Just so in regard to the return of our Lord; it is either - before the millennium, that is, premillennial, or it is after it, that - is, postmillennial. Whoever disavows the event of his coming until the - close of the millennium, whoever puts the millennium anywhere - preceding the coming, is a postmillennialist, whatever he disavows or - denies. - - Just because the Lord Jesus may come at any time, and because it is an - event he has commanded us to watch for and to pray about, I dare not - put a thousand years between me and the fulfillment. Hence, I am a - premillennial, and can no more help it than I can help being an - immersionist. - - “But what difference does it make whether I am ‘pre’ or ‘Post’?” I - should say not enough in and of itself, merely, for it to be made a - test of fellowship as has been attempted even by some “Neither ... - Nor’s.” But it might make a great deal of difference for a man to put - a thousand years between him and the coming of Jesus. Our Saviour - himself shows the likely effect for one to say: “My Lord delays his - coming.” Again, it might make a great deal of difference for him to - teach men so. It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s quoting, “The - Lord is at hand,” or “The Judge standeth before the door,” or “The end - of all things is at hand,” or “When ye see these things, know that he - is near.” Too much store is being set by this “what difference does it - make?” The postmillennial error has many attendant malinterpretations - it were well to avoid. As every truth of God’s word is helpful, so - every error is harmful, and _any_ error _may_ lead to fatality. “Prove - all things, hold fast that which is good.” - -Yes, I have said publicly, both orally and in print, that I am neither a -premillennialist nor a postmillenialist. The Gospel Advocate has been -all along making a heroic effort to steer clear of all party, or class, -names. But Brother Chambers thinks it cannot be done. He does not see -how a man can keep from being a premillennialist or a postmillennialist. -In his estimation a man cannot be simply a Christian; he must have some -sort of a descriptive term to designate what sort of Christian he is. -And so we have premillennial Christians and postmillennial Christians. -Here, then, is partyism in religion, the beginning of new denominations. -It will not help the situation any to say that these are merely -descriptive words, and not party names. Why the need of these -descriptive terms, if they are not intended to describe different -parties? _Methodist_ was first a descriptive term, and then a party -name. Premillennial Christian, postmillennial Christian, and Baptist -Christian; in principle, what is the difference? And herein we see one -of the evils of preaching speculative theories that create groups, -classes, or parties in the church. What right has any man or set of men -to create two parties, and then tell me that I must belong to one of -them? That these brethren of Word and Work have created conditions that -make it necessary in their judgment to use descriptive terms to -designate groups of brethren condemns the whole movement as divisive in -nature and sectarian in principle. If they think they have created -conditions in the church that make it necessary for the Gospel Advocate -to line up with one of these parties and be labeled, they are decidedly -mistaken. If, as Brother Chambers says, he cannot help wearing a party -label, he needs the help the Gospel Advocate is trying to give him. But -if he is just bound to be what he is, and cannot help it, what will he -do about it when the Lord comes, if the Lord does not follow the program -these brethren have marked out for him? And herein is another danger to -these brethren. Before Jesus came to earth, the learned Jews had things -mapped out; and because Jesus did not follow their program, they -believed him to be an imposter. Yes, there were program makers for his -first coming, and there are program makers for his second coming; and -the fatal blunder of the first program makers should be a warning to the -present program makers. - -But Brother Chambers thinks that neither “pre” nor “post” should be made -a test of fellowship. There is something pitiful and shaky about a plea -that one’s teaching or practice be not made a test of fellowship. The -plea itself is a confession of divergence. We have often heard that same -plea from the “progressives.” No matter from whom it comes, it sounds -like a plea for forbearance and mercy. The Gospel Advocate has never, in -its long history, felt the least need of making such a plea. Can you -imagine J. C. McQuiddy, T. B. Larimore, E. G. Sewell, or David Lipscomb -begging the brethren not to make some theory or practice of theirs a -test of fellowship? - -There has been a good deal of loose talk about tests of fellowship. To -raise the question as to an opinion or theory without giving any -attention to what is done with the opinion or theory does not meet the -issue. An opinion or practice might be very innocent, and yet a man -might make a great deal of trouble with it. It is not then his opinion -you must consider, but the use he makes of it. Suppose some man should -decide that dark clothing is conducive to piety and sober-mindedness, -and that light clothing makes the wearer light-hearted and gay, and that -flashy dress makes the wearer frivolous and giddy. Would you feel -disposed to make his notion or his practice a test of fellowship? But -suppose that peculiar notion of his becomes such an obsession with him -that he feels that he must advocate it everywhere? He becomes so carried -away with the idea that he becomes a nuisance, a trouble maker, and a -divider of churches; what then? What would Brother Chambers do about it? -Suppose he, while dividing churches with his peculiar theory, pleads -that the sort of dress a fellow wears should not be made a test of -fellowship; how would Brother Chambers answer him? It is supposed, of -course, that Brother Chambers cares enough for the peace and unity of -churches to do something about such a situation, but what would he do? -Would he fellowship the fellow, bid him Godspeed, and call him to hold -meetings? And it would be much worse if the fellow divided churches by -preaching hurtful and untrue theories. - -If brethren press a theory to the dividing of churches and then tell us -that we must let them alone, else they will have no fellowship with us, -what can we do about it? They have drawn the line, and issued a -“manifesto.” And yet they keep talking about tests of fellowship. - -What is their object in talking so much about tests of fellowship? Do -they live up to their plea? When has a church which indorses -whole-heartedly the Word and Work theory ever called one who opposed -such theory to hold their meeting? What fellowship do they extend to -preachers who do not indorse them? Why do they not call Foy E. Wallace, -Jr., C. R. Nichol, or men like these, to assist them in meetings? No -longer ago than last year some friends of mine wanted me to teach a -Bible class of nights in their meetinghouse. Two of the elders are -ardent admirers of Brother Boll and his teaching; they refused to allow -the class to be taught in the meetinghouse. Look at the matter any way -you please, and it was worse than a refusal to fellowship me. And the -only grounds of refusal was the fact that I was not a “pre.” Now, until -they show some fellowship toward those who oppose their theories, all -clear-thinking brethren will conclude that their talk about “tests of -fellowship” is indulged in merely to create prejudice in their favor. -Such a thing is cheap politics. - -“Our Savior himself shows the likely effect for one to say: ‘My Lord -delays his coming.’” Brother Chambers here quotes from the parable found -in Luke 12:42-48. These brethren quote, “My Lord delays his coming,” as -if that was the real crime of that wicked servant; whereas he merely -took advantage of his lord’s delay to give expression to the villainy -that was already in him. The use these brethren make of this seems to -indicate that they think the only thing that keeps people out of all -meanness is the expectation that the Lord might come any moment. But I -have never said that the Lord delays his coming, and, therefore, do not -belong in the class with that wicked servant. The word translated -_delayeth_ means “_to linger_, _delay_, _tarry_.”—Thayer. “_To spend -time_; _to continue_ or _last long_, _hold out_; _to persevere_ in -doing; especially, _to tarry_, _linger_, _delay_, _be slow_; _to -prolong_, _put off_.”—Liddell and Scott. This word would not be used -concerning an event that was not delayed beyond the time it was -expected. Now, these future-kingdom advocates tell us that the first -Christians were taught to expect Jesus to come again while they lived. -But he did not come then. According to their teaching, the Lord has -delayed his coming several hundred years beyond the time expected. Who -is it that says the Lord did not come at the time he was expected? They -are the ones, according to their own teaching, who say: “My Lord delays -his coming.” - -Brother Chambers says: “It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s -quoting, ‘The Lord is at hand,’ or ‘The Judge standeth before the door,’ -or ‘The end of all things is at hand,’ or ‘When ye see these things, -know that the end is near.’” Who opposes his quoting the Scriptures -referred to? When a man makes an implied charge of that nature, he is -honor bound to name the parties, when called on to do so. Will Brother -Chambers give the name of the person to whom he refers, or is he merely -insinuating things to create prejudice? - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - To write the word of Christ upon the heart, or, what is essentially - the same, to let it dwell in us richly, means more than to commit it - to memory. It is to make it the dominant factor in our thinking and in - our plans and purposes. - - - - - FUTURE KINGDOM DOCTRINE—REFLECTS ON INTEGRITY OF GOD - - -Sometimes a wrong theory does not look so bad till you begin to examine -its consequences and the side issues that are its necessary supports. -And sometimes theories so warp our thinking as to develop in us a wrong -conception of Jehovah and of his attitude toward man. Such theories are -extremely hurtful. There are some things about this future-kingdom -theory that are hurtful in more ways than one. - -The Theory Reflects on the Integrity of God. - -In his tract, “The Kingdom of Heaven,” page 13, Arthur W. Pink says: -“From a number of reasons which we shall state we are compelled to -believe that our Lord’s message, ‘Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is -at hand,’ signifies that _an offer of the Messianic kingdom_, as -foretold by the Old Testament prophets, _was then being made to the -Jews_. Let us remark that it is of the utmost importance that we pay -careful attention to the word ‘repent’ here. In this call to repentance, -our Lord, as the Baptist before him had done, _laid down the fundamental -terms on which the kingdom was being offered to Israel_.” Others make -the same plea. If they are correct, then God offered them the kingdom on -condition that they repent. Thousands of them did repent; but we are -told that God deferred the establishment of the kingdom because not all -repented. But what about his promise to them who did repent? God made -them a promise on condition; they performed that condition, but God did -not give them what he promised! It does not help any to say that the -nation rejected him. What about his promise to those who accepted him? -It will not do to say God dealt falsely with some because others dealt -falsely with him. We are told that the offer of the kingdom was made in -good faith. Some accepted the offer in good faith, but we are told that -they did not get what God had promised them. There is a serious defect -in a man’s faith who can thus reflect on the integrity of Jehovah. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Grubbing up false doctrines and unscriptural practices is as essential - as grubbing up noxious growths in the field, but a farmer can - impoverish himself by putting in all his time grubbing. And the man - who puts in all his time in opposing false doctrine and exposing wrong - practices will impoverish his character. The fundamental doctrine, or - teaching, is the framework around which the Christian character is - built. The framework must be there, or the character will not stand - up; the gentler graces must be built around the framework, or the - person is harsh and unattractive. - - Every time we judge a doctrine or another person, we judge ourselves. - In condemning evil, we declare ourselves righteous. In condemning - righteousness, we declare our sinfulness. In other words, every - judgment we deliver shows what sort of person we are. Our judgments on - others reveal our own standards. The character of the Jews was - revealed in their blaspheming the gospel. - - - - - THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND CHRISTIANITY - - -In his kingdom tract, page 15, Mr. Arthur W. Pink says: “The Old -Testament _knows nothing whatever of Christianity_!” So, then, there is -not a type or a prophecy in the Old Testament that points to the -religion of the Lord Jesus Christ! But that idea is not peculiar to Mr. -Pink; it is a part of the future-kingdom doctrine. To the ordinary -reader of the New Testament it sounds strange to hear some one argue -that the prophets of the Old Testament tell us nothing of the gospel of -Christ, the New Covenant (or New Testament), the kingdom as it now is, -or anything else that pertains to the present plan of salvation through -Christ. But such teaching is one of the necessary supports to the -future-kingdom theory. It must be made to appear that the entire plan of -God for the world’s redemption centered in a material kingdom, in which -the Jews would be the citizens and over which Jesus would rule on the -throne of David in Jerusalem. It would be the kingdom of David literally -restored. Other nations would be blessed only through Israel and in -subservience to them. Of course the theory contemplates the return of -the Jews to Palestine and their conversion to Christ. And we are taught -by the future-kingdom advocates that the Old Testament prophets speak -only of that sort of thing. - -Let the reader think closely as he reads the following quotation: “About -the middle of Acts occurs an event of first importance. The acceptance -of the Gentiles into the church—into the favor of God as joint sharers -of the blessings of Israel’s Christ—was a most terrible perplexity to -all believing Jews. It was, in fact, a _mystery_. It had never been -revealed that such a thing would happen. (Eph. 3:4-6.) That the Gentiles -were to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery; _that_ had been -previously revealed. But the observant reader of the prophets will -notice that it is always after the national restoration and exaltation -of Israel, and always through restored Israel and in subservience to -Israel that the Gentiles were to be so blessed.” (“The Kingdom of God,” -by R. H. Boll, page 63.) So they would have us believe that the Old -Testament prophets said nothing of the gospel as revealed in the New -Testament, nothing of the new covenant of which the apostles are -ministers and of which Christ is mediator, and that the covenant of -which Jeremiah prophesied (chapter 31) has not yet been made. Yet Paul -quotes that prophecy in the eighth chapter of Hebrews, and informs us -that Christ is now the mediator of that covenant. - -But the theory is wrong, absurdly wrong. In Luke’s record of the great -commission (24:46, 47) Jesus said: “Thus it is written, that the Christ -should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that -repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all -the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Here Jesus plainly declares that -it had been written that repentance and remission of sins should be -preached in his name unto all the nations. Paul declares that he had -been “separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through -his prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom. 1:1, 2.) Here Paul plainly -declares that the gospel which he preached had been promised through the -prophets. In reporting Paul’s preaching at Berea, Luke says: “Now these -were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the -word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether -these things were so.” (Acts 17:11.) How could they determine that Paul -was preaching in harmony with the prophets, if the prophets said nothing -of the gospel which he preached? In that case, would not their searching -the Scriptures cause them to reject his preaching? If Paul had held to -the future-kingdom theory, his honesty would have led him to tell these -honest-hearted Bereans that they could not find anything in the -Scriptures about the gospel which he was preaching. At the house of -Cornelius, Peter said: “To him bear all the prophets witness, that -through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission -of sins.” (Acts 10:43.) Peter (1 Pet. 1:10-12) tells us that the -prophets searched diligently to understand their prophecies concerning -this salvation, “To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but -unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced -unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy -Spirit sent forth from heaven.” Paul preached the gospel—preached -Christianity in its fullness, and yet he affirmed that he said “nothing -but what the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (Acts 26:22, 23.) -He preached salvation through faith in Christ, and that there was no -distinction between Jew and Gentile: “But now apart from the law a -righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law -and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus -Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.” (Rom. -3:21, 22.) So this very plan of salvation which Paul preached, in which -there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile, was foretold in both -the Law and the prophets. Paul quotes Moses as prophesying that -disobedient Israel would be provoked to jealousy by the obedience of a -people other than the Jews. (Rom. 10:19.) Paul applies that prophecy to -the obedience of the Gentiles. And then he shows that Isaiah foretold -that the Gentiles would be blessed while Israel remained rebellious: -“And Isaiah is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me -not; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me. But as to Israel -he saith, All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient -and gainsaying people.” And yet we are told that the prophets foretold -that only through restored Israel were the Gentiles to be blessed. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - We can know that Deity united with humanity in the person of Jesus, - though we cannot understand just how the two natures were united. But - we can believe what the Bible says and adjust our lives to its - teaching. Herein lies our salvation. - - We can know that there are three persons in the Godhead, though we - cannot comprehend their nature and unity. The finite cannot understand - the infinite. - - - - - THE FUTURE-KINGDOM PERVERSIONS AND DISLOCATIONS OF PROPHECY - - -Much is said these days about modernism and fundamentalism. I hope to be -allowed to live in a modern world without being called a “modernist” and -to hold to fundamental truths without being dubbed a “fundamentalist.” -These “fundamentalists” have formed a program for the Lord, mixed in a -few truths, and named the mixture “fundamentalism,” and its advocates -“fundamentalists.” If their theory is as old as the Bible, why the new -names for it and its advocates? Old ideas and doctrines do not require -new names: anything new requires a new name. Now, “modernism” and -“modernist” are older words than “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist.” -Religiously, I am no “modernist”; and the term “fundamentalism” is too -new for a Bible lover to accept. It is even newer than the term -“modernism.” It would be interesting to hear Mr. Rice explain how his -doctrine is so ancient, since the name of it is more modern than is the -term “modernism.” In name, they out modern the modernists! When a -doctrine is more modern than modernism, it is too modern for me. - -In Mr. Rice’s tract, “Christ’s Literal Reign on Earth from David’s -Throne at Jerusalem,” he claims to prove “from the Scriptures the -premillennial coming of Christ; that he has not yet set up his kingdom -on earth, but that he will reign from a literal throne at Jerusalem, in -his literal human body, over the entire earth.” He assumes much, argues -little, and makes many scattering assertions. It would be easier to -review his tract, if more care and thought had gone into its making. - -The trouble with him and his future-kingdom advocates, is not -speculating about unfulfilled prophecies, but a perversion and -dislocation of prophecies that have been fulfilled. When a man takes -prophecies that have been fulfilled and makes them do service in some -future program, he is not speculating about unfulfilled prophecies. To -call such perversion “speculation about unfulfilled prophecies” is to -yield to him his claim that they have not been fulfilled. This is not, -therefore, a discussion on “unfulfilled prophecies,” but an effort to -show that Mr. Rice and others have, in the interest of a theory, -dislocated promises and prophecies, some of which have been fulfilled. - -Mr. Rice quotes Gen. 13:14, 15; 17:8, and comments: “You will notice -from the context that it was the literal land over which Abraham walked -and which he saw, called by the name, ‘the land of Canaan.’ The promise -is unconditional, and utterly without time limit. It is ‘for an -everlasting possession’.” And if Mr. Rice will read Josh. 21:43-45; -23:14, he will notice both from the text and the context that God -fulfilled this promise to the letter—not one thing failed of all that -God had promised. Yet the Jews are not in that land now. Why? Mr. Rice -says the promise of the land to Abram’s seed was unconditional and -without time limit. Who broke the covenant? If Mr. Rice is correct, the -seed of Abraham did not break the land covenant, for there were no -conditions for them to break. If Mr. Rice is correct, God was the only -one that could break the covenant. God promised them unconditional -possession of the land, and then dispossessed them of it. That is a -reflection on the integrity of Jehovah. - -Mr. Rice says: “The Lord foretold in Deut. 28:63-68 the dispersion of -Israel ‘among all the peoples, from one end of the earth even unto the -other;’ but in Deut. 30:1-6, the regathering of Israel to their own land -to possess it is plainly foretold.” Why did Mr. Rice refer to so small a -part of each of these chapters? Was he afraid the reader might discover -something in the rest of these chapters that would upset his theory? -Their dispersion was one of the curses that would come upon them if they -disobeyed the law Moses gave them. (See Deut. 28:15.) Read Deut. 30:8, -10, and you will see that their return was conditioned on their keeping -the commandments which Moses commanded them, and that after their return -they were to keep all the commandments of the law of Moses. This -condition is now impossible of fulfillment, for the law of Moses is not -in force. If Mr. Rice will read Neh. 1:8, 9, he will find that the -regathering here spoken of took place when the Jews returned from -Babylonian captivity. Surely he will not take issue with Nehemiah. The -other passages relied on to prove the future gathering of the Jews to -Palestine refer to the same event. - -Moses plainly told the Israelites that if they forgot God and turned -from his commandments, they would as surely perish as that the nations -whom they drove out of Palestine perished. (Deut. 8:19, 20.) These -nations perished utterly as nations, and Moses said the nation of Israel -would perish as they did. Because of their sins they were carried into -captivity. Later, all who desired to return to Palestine were permitted -to do so. They again fell into sin; and in John’s day they had again -grown so corrupt that he told them the ax then lay at the root of the -tree. (Matt. 3:10.) Then the Jewish nation murdered the Son of God—that -is, the high court of the nation procured his murder. Under God’s law -the penalty for murder was death. As this was murder by the nation, -nothing but national death would satisfy divine justice. The tree had -become wholly bad, and God used the Roman armies as the ax with which to -cut down that tree. According to these future-kingdom advocates, the -most glorious period of Jewish history is yet to be; but Jesus tells us -that the last state of that race will be worse than the first. (See -Matt. 12:43-45.) - -The Jews were broken off from God’s favor because of sin—unbelief. Now -both Jew and Gentile stand on an equal footing before God. God is not a -respecter of persons. Religiously, we know no man after the flesh. These -future-kingdom folks seek to keep up this racial distinction which -Christianity was meant to destroy. In Paul’s allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) the -handmaid and her son represented Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and -Paul uses that allegory to show that the handmaid and her son were cast -out. Christians are children of the free woman. Paul then affirms: “The -son of the handmaid (Jewish nation) shall not inherit with the son of -the freewoman.” Hence, the Jewish nation, as such, is left out of any -further inheritance. Jesus plainly told the Jews: “Therefore say I unto -you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a -nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matt. 21:43.) Believers in -Christ are now “sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) “and heirs according to the -promise” (Gal. 3:29). The Jewish nation, as such, is not now an heir of -anything. By unbelief the Jews were broken off from God’s favor. (Rom. -11:20.) Gentiles were grafted in by faith. “And so”—in the same -manner—“all Israel shall be saved.” - -There is not a hint in the New Testament that the Jews will be restored -to Palestine and be the only citizens of this fantastic future kingdom, -with other people subject to them. That would be fleshly distinction -with a vengeance. “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is -the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. 6:2.) Think of the nature of this kingdom -these men set forth as the object of our highest hope: “The kingdom of -Christ is to be as literal as David’s kingdom.... It is to be as literal -and earthly as Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, and Rome.” So says Mr. -Rice. That would please well the carnal nature of man. It is a pitiful -thing to see men delude themselves with such false hopes. - -Mr. Rice says: “Jesus, David’s son, is to restore David’s kingdom.” Yet -he says: “The present world system will have to be destroyed before -Christ can have his kingdom on this earth.” David ruled without having -the present world system destroyed. If Christ is to have the same -kingdom, why cannot he do the same? Is it possible that Mr. Rice thinks -David could do a thing that Christ will be unable to do? The theory -belittles Christ. - -Here are two statements from Mr. Rice: “Jesus will restore all Israel to -their own land, the land of Canaan, and will rule over them from David’s -throne.” “Jesus is not now sitting in his throne, but in his Father’s -throne, according to Rev. 3:21.” His idea is that when Jesus comes again -he will descend from that universal throne which he now occupies with -the father and sit on David’s throne as king of the Jews, thus -exchanging a higher for a lower. And they call that exaltation of -Christ! Exalted to a lower place! “Throne” means kingly authority. -David’s throne and Jehovah’s throne are the same. In I Kings it is said -that “Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father.” In 1 Chron. -29:23 it is said that “Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king -instead of his father.” That which was called David’s throne was -Jehovah’s throne. It was called David’s throne simply because he ruled -over God’s people. The effort to make a distinction between God’s throne -and David’s throne is a miserable perversion of Bible truth. As Jesus -now rules over God’s people, he occupies the same position that David -occupied. - -When did Jesus begin his reign? On Pentecost, Peter reminded his hearers -that God had promised David to place one of his seed upon his throne, -and that David, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ. -Jesus was therefore raised up to sit on David’s throne. Read Acts -2:29-38. Verse 33: “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, -and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he -hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.” To Peter the coming of -the Holy Spirit on that day was proof that Jesus had been exalted to -David’s throne. From John 7:37-39 we learn that the Holy Spirit would be -given when Jesus was glorified. Read Mat. 20:20, 21 and Mark 10:35-37, -and you will see that sitting with Jesus in his kingdom and sitting with -him in his glory mean the same thing. As the giving of the Holy Spirit -on the day of Pentecost was proof that he had entered into his glory, it -is also proof that he had been exalted to rulership in his kingdom. - -But it has been said that Jesus was then anointed, but did not then -begin to reign, just as David was anointed some time before he began his -reign. But here is a fatal defect in that illustration: Not one thing -was done in the name of David as king till he actually assumed the reins -of government. Acts were to begin to be performed in the name of Christ -at Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came. (Luke 24:46-49.) On that day -Peter commanded the people to repent and be baptized in the name of -Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38.) Was Peter guilty of -forging the name of Christ to a pardon proclamation? He had no right to -so do, and his act was forgery, if Jesus had not authorized him to do -so. And Jesus could not have authorized him to proclaim pardon in his -name, if Jesus was not then occupying the throne. Not one future-kingdom -advocate, nor all of them together, can answer this one argument, -neglected or overlooked though it has been. It settles the whole matter -as to the fact of his reigning now and as to when his reign began. - -Mr. Rice says: “John the Baptist came preaching ‘Repent ye: for the -kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ (Matt. 3:2.) Jesus began to preach from -the same text in his early ministry. (Matt. 4:17.) We find that the -command to repent is repeated many times on through the rest of the New -Testament, but the statement, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ was -dropped and not repeated any more, though the kingdom is mentioned -dozens of times. The reason is that the Jews rejected Christ, their -King, and the kingdom was postponed. (Luke 13:34, 35.)” “At hand” means -“near.” In the third year of his public ministry Christ sent the seventy -out to preach, “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” (Luke -10:1-10.) That was during the last year of his ministry. Certainly, -after the first Pentecost after the resurrection the kingdom was not -preached as “at hand” any more, for the simple reason that it had come. -Paul says that Christians have been “delivered out of the power of -darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” (Col. -1:13.) Christ is now “The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, -and Lord of lords.” (1 Tim. 6:15.) As he is the “only Potentate,” he -alone rules in this kingdom. Hence, it is his kingdom, and the throne is -his throne. - -But Mr. Rice would have us believe that when John and Jesus announced -that the kingdom had come nigh they missed it a long way. Jesus also -preached “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” -(Mark 1:15.) If Mr. Rice is correct, the kingdom was not at hand—the -time for it to come was not fulfilled. He would have us believe that -Jesus did not know what he was talking about. But that is not the worst -reflection on Jesus that this theory makes. They were assured of the -kingdom on condition that they repent and believe the gospel—that is, -that they repent and accept Christ. Some of them, in good faith, -trusting the words of John and Jesus, did repent, and accepted Christ. -But, according to the adherents of the future-kingdom theory, they did -not get what God had promised them. It will not relieve the situation to -say that most of them rejected him. What about his word to those who did -accept him? They did their part; did God do his? Mr. Rice says he did -not. I am unalterably opposed to any theory that thus makes out God a -liar to those who faithfully do his commands and trust his promises. - -The postponement theory belittles the church and makes it an -afterthought, a sort of emergency measure. According to Mr. Rice, God -meant to establish a material kingdom just like other world kingdoms, -but the Jews did not make it possible for him to do so. The church was -then established to continue till the time was ripe for the kingdom, -according to the theory. The church, then, was not God’s original plan. -But what saith the Scriptures? Was that God’s original intent? “To the -intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly -places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of -God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus -our Lord.” (Eph. 3:10, 11.) Thus we see that it was the eternal purpose -of God to make known his wisdom through the church. And how long will -this continue? “Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus -unto all generations forever and ever.” (Eph. 3:21.) The church, then, -will not be superseded by another institution so long as generations -come and go. - -Mr. Rice quotes Acts 15:13-16 to prove that “the restoration of the -kingdom of David is to be after this Gentile church age.” Had he given -the full quotation James made from Amos, it would have proved the very -opposite of what he claims. James was justifying the acceptance of the -Gentiles, and quoted Amos to prove that since the royal family of David -was re-established the Gentiles might come into the church. Read verses -17 and 18 and see how miserably Mr. Rice perverts the argument of James. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - A life spent in entertaining and being entertained is an empty and - useless life. The satisfaction that comes from knowing that one is of - help to his fellow man is some reward within itself. How useless must - a person feel who never does anything useful! How boresome such a life - must be! - - People sometimes say that this plan or that plan will not work. - Certainly not; no plan will work. But people may work a plan, or work - according to a plan, or they may work without any prearranged plan. A - plan is not as necessary as a purpose. - - - - - YOUR FAITH AND YOUR CONFESSION - - -The promises and prophecies recorded in God’s revelation to the Jews led -them to confidently expect the coming of a Deliverer, the Messiah. They -have planted that expectation in the hearts of many Gentiles. (Of course -the reader understands that “Messiah” in Hebrew is the same as “Christ” -in Greek.) But the Jews had no clear conception as to what the Christ -would be and do. In fact they had many very erroneous ideas about the -promised Christ. Hence, when Jesus appeared in their midst, they were so -blinded by their theories that they rejected him as the Christ—that is, -the majority of the Jews would not accept him as the Christ, while many -of them believed on him as the Christ. To the most of them Jesus was a -puzzle, a stone of stumbling. They could not deny his mighty miracles -nor controvert successfully his teaching. Denying the only truth that -would have explained him, they dealt in many conjectures as to who he -was. Some said he was Elijah; some John the Baptist; others, that he was -Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. But when Jesus put the question direct -to his disciples, “But who say ye that I am?” Peter unhesitatingly -answered: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.” But the -majority of the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the Christ, and -looked forward to the coming of the Christ. - -Upon the great truth that Jesus is the Christ the church is built; upon -that truth the whole system of Christianity rests. If he be not the -Christ, the gospel is a baseless fabrication and the church is without -excuse for existence. It is this foundation truth that we believe and -confess. - -There was no controversy among the Jews as to whether the expected -Christ would be called “the Son of God.” Any Jew would confess that he -believed the expected Christ to be the Son of God. But they deny that -Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Any of those Jews who rejected and -crucified Jesus would have readily said: “I believe the Christ is the -Son of God.” I was startled to hear a preacher ask a number of -candidates for baptism this question: “Do you believe that Christ is the -Son of God?” Now that question misses the point entirely. Any orthodox -Jew could give an affirmative answer to that question; but ask him if he -believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and he will answer -with an emphatic “No.” The great question is: “Do you believe that Jesus -is the Christ, the Son of the living God?” The great answer, the great -confession of faith is: “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living -God.” - -That confession should not be so abridged as to leave any doubt as to -who you believe is the Christ, the Son of God. If you believe that Jesus -is the Christ, say so. To say that you believe that Christ is the Son of -God is really no confession at all. - -The confession should not be extended so as to include more than this -great truth. Mr. Russell extended that confession. He taught that the -Christ is Jesus and the church; with him, Jesus was only the head of a -body that is called “the Christ.” With him, it took both the head and -the body to constitute the Christ. Some gospel preachers took up with -that idea and thus weakened their faith by extending their confession. -Certainly, if a man believes that theory, his confession is not full and -complete when he says: “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of -the living God.” That is really not what he believes. If he makes his -confession as broad as his faith, he will say: “I believe that Jesus and -the church is the Christ.” - -Do the foregoing points seem to you to be matters of small import? If -so, I envy not your discernment. Notice carefully the purpose for which -John wrote: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the -disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, -that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that -believing ye may have life in his name.” (John 20:30, 31.) - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - “For ye were going astray like sheep.” The idea expressed in the - original Greek is not that they were going astray, but they were - astray. When a living thing is astray, it is lost; at least, it is not - in its proper place, not where it belongs. Sin is not the proper - element for people; they do not rightly belong there; it is not their - natural habitat. Righteousness is man’s natural habitat; that is where - God originally placed him. When he wanders off into sin, he is on - foreign soil. - - The Hebrew kingdom never would have been divided if all had adhered - strictly to the law of God. People do not divide when all are - determined to do right. When churches divide, there is unrighteousness - somewhere. - - - - - THE CHRIST OF THE FUTURE-KINGDOM ADVOCATES - - -One of the great evils of the future-kingdom advocates is their idea as -to the Christ. When I first read Pastor Russell’s idea of the Christ, I -was astonished, but later I found that others had adopted his idea. Mr. -Russell says: “Thus the saints of the gospel age are an anointed -company—anointed to be kings and priests unto God (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Pet. -2:9); and together with Jesus, their chief and Lord, they constitute -Jehovah’s Anointed—the Christ.” (“The Divine Plan of the Ages,” pages -81, 82.) Also “The Christ includes all anointed of the Spirit.” Now note -the following from “The Book of Revelation,” by R. H. Boll: “That the -man-child of chapter 12:5 is none other than the Christ; but not the -individual Christ alone, but his body, the church, also, seen as -connected with him.” Page 44: “This mystic man-child is not simply the -Child that was born at Bethlehem, but the Christ as including both -himself, the head, and the church, his spiritual body, which is one with -him.” In the estimation of these writers the Christ is composed of Jesus -and the church. If a person espouses that theory, he should make his -confession as comprehensive and extensive as his faith. If he says, “I -believe that Jesus is the Christ,” his confession is not full. To fully -confess his faith in the Christ, he must say: “I believe that Jesus and -his church is the Christ.” That is evident to any one who will read -carefully what these writers say. Read the quotation again. Now, shall -we revise our confession to make it fit this future-kingdom idea? - - - - - IS SALVATION NOW OFFERED TO ALL? - - -A man does not always realize fully the consequences of his doctrine. It -seems to me that a person cannot believe the future-kingdom theory as -now advocated and also believe that God now seeks the salvation of all -men. If I understand this theory, and I think I do, the faithful -Christians are to be rulers with Christ, and that to each one will be -given territory commensurate with his development as a servant of God. -Some, at least, seem to take the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:13-27) -in a very literal sense. “Have thou authority over ten cities”; “Be thou -also over five cities.” As there will be a limit to the number of -cities, there will, of necessity, be a limit to the number of rulers -needed. Mr. Russell was consistent and bold enough to plainly and openly -declare that God is not now seeking to convert the mass of mankind, but -is only getting a ruling class ready. His position on this point is so -well known that I shall not here take space to quote from him. Some do -not speak so plainly on this point as Mr. Russell, and yet they speak -plainly enough to be understood, as the following from Brother R. H. -Boll will show: “That the ‘new song’ of Rev. 5:9, 10 views the work of -purchasing unto God with his own blood men out of every nation as -finished. The selection is seen as completed; the full number of the -chosen ones seen as constituting a kingdom of priests unto God, as -reigning on earth. This then prophetically foreviews the time when God -shall have done visiting ‘the Gentiles’ (the nations) to _take out of -them_ a people for his name. (Acts 15:14.) The church is an election, -_called out_.” Again: “He has a mystery—that is, a secret—to tell us: to -wit, that Israel’s hardening is limited as to extent and as to time: as -to extent, for it is ‘in part;’ as to time, for it is ‘until’ something -is accomplished—namely, until the full count of the elect Gentiles shall -have come in. Then Israel’s tide shall turn.” So it seems that the Lord -has a certain number of Gentiles to be called, and the present order -must continue till the “full count of the elect Gentiles shall have come -in.” But all such teaching is essential to the future-kingdom theory as -now advocated. The theory necessitates the doctrine that now is the time -of salvation for only the needed number of rulers. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - That the gospel succeeded so well in superstitious Ephesus need not - surprise anyone. In superstition there is reverence for supernatural - things. In fact, superstition is ignorant reverence. By teaching these - people the gospel, Paul guided their reverence to the right - objectives. Superstition is reverence without reason; rationalism is - reason without reverence. It is easier to enlighten ignorant reverence - than it is to reestablish reverence in a heart from which it has been - banished. - - With some religionists of today custom and tradition have greater - weight than the plain word of God. Assail baptism, a thing positively - commanded, and they applaud; assail their unscriptural teachings and - practices, and they become greatly offended. Some churches of Christ - have had troubles over customs and traditions. - - - - - THE COMING OF THE LORD - - -In the Christian Standard of March 19, 1932, Brother H. H. Peters, -secretary of the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, says: “As -already intimated, the plan of the Millenial Harbinger was different -from that of its predecessor. It was unique in the journalism of -America, religious or otherwise. Its very name indicates that its editor -partook somewhat of the spirit that was abroad in the land, which -expected the immediate return of the Lord and the establishment of his -millenial reign. Mr. Campbell never became a dogmatist on this point, -nor did the brotherhood ever take up any of the fantastic views of -Miller and others, but it was impossible in that day to do any kind of -religious work without partaking somewhat of the spirit that expected -the immediate return of the Lord.” It would be hard to crowd into fewer -words more historic errors than the foregoing extract contains. Mr. -Campbell did not believe that Jesus would return to earth and then reign -a thousand years. He did believe that, before the coming of the Lord, -there would be a thousand years of universal peace and righteousness. -Mr. Campbell was not a premillennialist; neither did he believe the Lord -would return immediately. On these matters he wrote extensively. He -cited a number of prophecies which he believed had not been fulfilled, -but must be fulfilled before the coming of the Lord. One wonders where -Mr. Peters got authority for his statements. However, when a person gets -intoxicated with the future-kingdom idea, he can see authority for -statements that no sober-minded person can discover. They even tell us -that the apostles taught the early Christians to expect the immediate -return of the Lord. - -Because some do not hold to the theories propagated by the -premillennialists, they are charged with not believing in the second -coming of the Lord at all. From one writer we have the following: “The -thought of his coming has faded out of the minds of men.” Again: “In the -eighteenth century, however, there came a man named ‘Daniel Whitby.’... -He taught that the gospel would spread and spread until the whole world -would be converted; then would follow a thousand years of blessedness -and peace, and after all this Jesus would come and wind things up. Then -the hope of his coming died again everywhere as this doctrine became the -general teaching.” That is such a manifest misrepresentation of the -great body of Christians that I shall make no attempt to disprove it. As -Mr. Campbell was accused of holding the same views as Whitby, it will be -seen that Mr. Peters misrepresents him in the quotation at the beginning -of this article. - -We are told that “they were hoping for him, and they were looking for -his return in the days of the apostles.” We are asked to believe that -the Christians began to expect his return any moment after he went away, -and that they were taught by the apostles to do so. They think they find -such teaching in what the apostles said about looking for his coming and -hoping for his coming; but the theory discredits the inspiration of the -apostles. Jesus did not come again during that period. If the apostles -were mistaken on that point, how can we be sure they taught the truth on -anything? If the infidel were to point to this as evidence that the -apostles were not infallible in their teaching, how would these men meet -the argument? On this point the learned commentator, James McKnight, -says: “Grotius, Locke, and others, have affirmed that the apostles of -Christ believed the end of the world was to happen in their time, and -that they have declared this to be their belief, in various passages of -their epistles. But these learned men and all who join them in that -opinion have fallen into a most pernicious error. For thereby they -destroy the authority of the gospel revelation, at least so far as it is -contained in the discourses and writings of the apostles; because, if -they have erred in a matter of such importance, and which they affirm -was revealed to them by Christ, they may have been mistaken in other -matters also, where their inspiration is not more strongly asserted by -them than in this instance. In imputing this mistake to the apostles, -the deists have heartily joined the learned men above mentioned, because -a mistake of this sort effectually overthrows the apostle’s pretensions -to inspiration. It is therefore necessary to clear them from so -injurious an imputation.” - -Such use has been made of the parable recorded in Luke 12:42-48 as to -make it appear that the servant was unfaithful, in that he said: “My -Lord delayeth his coming.” But they miss the point. As a matter of fact, -the Lord has delayed his coming far beyond the time they tell us the -inspired apostles said he might come. There was certainly nothing sinful -in what the servant said, when it was true that his lord had delayed his -coming. There could be no unfaithfulness in his saying what was actually -true. But his unfaithfulness consisted in his taking advantage of that -delay to do wrong. His wrong doing was his unfaithfulness. Not what he -said about that delay, but what he did during that delay, constituted -his unfaithfulness. But their use of this parable illustrates the -strained interpretations men will put upon the Scripture to propagate a -theory. - -But another statement in that parable has some bearing on the matter -under discussion: “The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he -expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him -asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.” This statement -applies to all unfaithful servants, and not simply those who will be -alive when the Lord comes again. To make this apply only to those who -are alive at the Lord’s second coming would leave many unfaithful -servants that would not suffer the fate that this one did, for more -shall have died before the Lord comes again than will be alive when he -does come. It can apply to all unfaithful servants only in the sense -that the Lord comes to all at death. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Instead of being afraid of our enemies, let us trust in Jehovah. Why - worry overmuch about the evils that we cannot possibly remedy? “Fret - not thyself because of evil-doers, neither be thou envious against - them that work unrighteousness.” (Ps. 37:1.) - - - - - THE “TWO STAGES” THEORY EXAMINED - - -It would not be fair to myself nor to the reader to charge that any -Christian does not believe that the Lord will come again. That event is -so plainly taught in the Bible that no one who believes the Book thinks -otherwise. But some have engaged in so much speculation about what will -occur when the Lord does come that, so it seems to me, their theories -virtually deny much of what has already taken place. In some respects -the various angles of their theory fail to connect, or even to -harmonize. - -I have a rather artistic diagram, prepared by a Baptist preacher of some -ability, in Houston, Texas. In this diagram the Lord is represented as -coming to the air surrounding the earth, where he is met by the living -saints, now changed, and the dead saints, now raised from the dead; and -there the diagram represents them as remaining some years, or during the -time of the “great tribulation” on earth, after which they come on to -the earth. Brother R. H. Boll has a diagram in which he sets forth the -same idea. The coming of the Lord is thus represented as composed of two -“stages”—coming for his saints, and then coming on to earth with his -saints. But another angle to the theory does not fit into this, as will -be seen. - -The theory has the Lord with his saints back in heaven between the two -“stages” of his coming. Because we so represent matters, some, who do -not consider all the angles of the theory, say we are guilty of serious -misrepresentation. Let us not be too hasty. There is another angle to -this theory. - -The theory represents the whole of the book of Revelation from the -beginning of the fourth chapter to the close as dealing with things yet -future, and that from the beginning of chapter four to the end of -chapter nineteen it tells of things that will occur between the “two -stages” of the Lord’s coming; and that is at the time another angle of -the theory has the Lord with his saints in the air surrounding the -earth. If a man believes that Rev. 4:1 to chapter 19, inclusive, speaks -of what is to occur between the two “stages” of their theory, he cannot -believe that the Lord remains in the air with his saints during that -time. Brother Boll himself does not so believe. “To see these future -things John is called up to heaven. For it is in heaven that the plans -and counsels of God are laid; and the things that transpire on the earth -have their secret source and origin there.... So all the great events of -which the book of Revelation tells come from above, first decreed and -decided on in God’s council chamber in heaven.” John first saw God -sitting upon his throne surrounded by twenty-four other thrones, upon -which sat twenty-four elders. “That these are saints, representatives of -all saints, seems perfectly evident.” And so there were saints in -heaven, around the throne of God, while another angle of the theory has -them in the air that surrounds the earth. Then John saw in the right -hand of God as he sat on the throne a book, close-sealed with seven -seals. None other than the Lord Jesus Christ was found that could open -that book. He came and took the book out of the hand of him who sat on -the throne. So Jesus was up in heaven, in the presence of the throne of -God, at the very time one angle of the theory has him in the air. And -Brother Boll believes he was there, for he says: “When John lifts up his -eyes to see the mighty Lion, he discerns, for the first time, in the -midst of the central glory of the Throne, the figure of ‘a lamb -standing.’” From that time on we see Jesus taking an active part in all -that transpires around the throne in heaven. And then we come to chapter -19. We here quote some comments made by Brother Boll on that chapter: -“With him are armies—the armies which are in heaven.... But who are -these ‘holy ones’ (that is, saints), and who are these armies of heaven -that follow in his train ‘upon white horses clothed in fine linen, white -and pure’? The answer is indicated to us a few verses above (1-9). In -heaven, the saints previously taken up, have joined their Lord in an -eternal wedlock.... It is in this ‘fine linen, white and pure,’ that we -see the armies of heaven arrayed, who follow him as he comes forth. -These armies are not angels; they are his saints composing His Bride, -‘the Lamb’s wife.’” Here, then, we have Jesus in heaven with his saints -ready to come forth from heaven, but another angle of the theory has the -Lord and his armies of saints in the air ready to make the second stage -of his journey! Again: “So from heaven, riding forth for Israel’s help, -comes their Messiah at the head of the heavenly host.” - -I do not refer to these matters to provoke any controversy, but to show -that we have not misrepresented any one, and also to show that one angle -of the future-kingdom theory does not harmonize with another angle of -the theory. If a theory contradicts itself, we should be excused if we -contradict the theory. Both angles of this theory cannot be true, and no -man can put these angles together in such a way as to make the theory -look good to one who knows that God’s truth is in perfect harmony with -itself. - -But the theory has the marriage of Christ to his bride yet future. -According to the theory, the church is only _engaged_ to Christ now. If -that be so, in what sense is he now Lord of his bride? - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - The Bible does not idealize humanity—not even its heroes. It - impartially records the good and the bad. It records the drunkenness - of Noah and the falsehood of Abraham, and gives us a full picture of - the awful sin of David. It tells of Peter’s denial of Christ and of - his hypocrisy at Antioch. It tells how Moses tried to find a way to - keep from carrying out God’s orders. No human productions are so - impartial. - - There is something radically wrong with a man’s religion when it - drives out of his heart all sympathy, kindness, and mercy. The hatred - of the lawyers and the Pharisees toward Jesus was greater than their - desire to see a sufferer healed. - - Forbearance is characteristic of a Christian. It is to be exercised - toward those who in some way make themselves unpleasant in a personal - way. - - - - - HOPE OF THE LORD’S COMING - - -Inspired men did teach that the Lord is coming again; but when men -affirm that the Holy Spirit taught the early Christians to expect the -Lord to come the second time in their day, they virtually accuse the -Holy Spirit of raising hopes that they knew would not be realized. We -would expect infidels to argue that inspired men taught things that -turned out not to be true. But the idea is so abhorrent to any one who -believes in the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the absolute -truthfulness of everything he taught that it seems that no one could for -a moment regard it as a harmless guess or as a matter about which we -need not be concerned. However, if the apostles did teach such doctrine, -we will have to acknowledge that they did, even though it leads us to -discredit the certainty of their teaching. But did they teach it? Is -there any justice, reason, or foundation for putting them under such a -cloud of suspicion? Emphatically, no! - -An argument to support the theory is built on a misunderstanding of the -word “hope.” We are told that the apostles taught the early Christians -to hope for the Lord’s coming, and that hope is made up of desire and -expectation, all of which is true. But they assume that to hope for a -thing is to expect it immediately, or at any moment. Their own -contention on the word “hope” robs them of any hope of a millenial -kingdom; for they all contend that the Jews must return to Palestine, -Rome be developed again into a great empire, and then some years of -great tribulation must pass before the millenial kingdom is set up. With -their idea of hope, they can hope for nothing except that which may -occur at any moment. But they are wrong in their contention on hope. We -plant a crop, hoping for a good harvest; but no one is simple enough to -think the harvest may come at any moment. The man who gives a large sum -of money to build a college or hospital hopes to benefit generations -unborn. We may lend, hoping to receive. Certainly no one makes a loan -expecting the return at any moment. They are, therefore, wrong in -assuming that imminency inheres in expectancy. And they are wrong also -as to the basis of expectation. Expectation must have more than -conjecture, more than mere probability, for a basis. I earnestly desire -the Lord to come while I live, but I do not expect him to do so, for I -have nothing on which to base such an expectation. But you ask, “Do you -not think that the Lord might come while you live?” Certainly, but -expectation must be based on something more substantial than what may or -may not be. If the Lord should plainly tell me that he would come while -I live, I would have grounds for expecting him to come before I die. But -the Lord has never told any generation that he would come during the -life of that generation, and for that reason no one has ever expected -the Lord to come while he lived. If the apostles had taught the early -Christians that the Lord would come in their day, then they could have -expected him to come. But if the apostles had so taught, they would have -taught falsely, for the Lord did not come then. But they did not so -teach, and therefore the early Christians did not expect his return in -their day. And yet they did, as do all Christians today, expect him to -come at some period, for he said he would. They may have desired that he -come in their day, and we may desire him to come in our day; but they -had no grounds upon which to expect him to come then, neither have we -any grounds for expecting him to come in our day. - -The coming of the Lord is to be earnestly desired, and yet the thought -of his coming fills one with dread and awe. Yet we are told that such -feelings indicate that there is something wrong with us, just as there -is something wrong with a wife if she feels uneasy at the home-coming of -a good husband. We are reminded that the faithful wife gladly meets the -devoted husband when he returns from a journey, and that children -joyfully run to meet their father when he comes home, and this should be -our attitude and feeling when the Lord comes. If we tremble at his -presence, there is something wrong! Is it possible that any one so -thinks? Does any one really think that we can meet the Lord on the same -basis that one human being meets another? To teach that we should have -such feeling of familiarity as a wife has toward her husband or as -children have toward their father is hurtful to piety and reverence. If -the author of the foregoing illustrations does not mean all this, his -illustrations do not mean anything. For years I have had an earnest -desire that the Lord come while I live, and yet I know that when I -appear before him in his majesty and glory, I shall, like the beloved -John, fall at his feet as one dead. (Rev. 1:17.) I cannot think that any -Christian will feel otherwise. When Jehovah spoke to Moses out of the -burning bush, “Moses trembled, and durst not behold.” (Acts 7:32.) Was -there something wrong with Moses and the beloved John? But the author -who presented the aforementioned illustrations is wrong, as he himself -will learn when he appears in the presence of the Judge of all the -earth. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Perhaps you have wondered what people do in heaven. The redeemed are - before God’s throne, ready always to do his bidding. In teaching his - disciples how to pray, Jesus put in this petition: “Thy will be done, - as in heaven, so on earth.” Heaven is not, therefore, a place of - idleness. But obedience is a thing that must be learned. “Though he - was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” The - service of God in this life is the school in which we learn obedience; - we must learn to serve here, or we will not have the joy of service - over there. “He that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle - over them.” They will be secure in his service—have his constant care. - - Are all people subject to their environs in the development of their - character? Yes and no. Environment makes some people what they are; - others, like Asa, get busy, and make their environment. - - - - - PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS ON THE LORD’S RETURN - - -These Thessalonians had “turned unto God from idols, to serve a living -God, and to wait for his Son from heaven.” To wait for the coming of the -Lord does not mean that we are to remain in idleness till he comes. To -wait on the Lord in any matter is to remain steadfast in the hope that -he will fulfill that which he promised. It is a forward-looking attitude -of mind and heart, with confidence that God will fulfill his word, -whether soon or late. - -In reading the Bible, we frequently allow the chapter divisions to -influence our conclusions. We forget for the time that writers of the -Bible made no division into chapters and verses. In our study we should -absolutely disregard the chapter divisions, for the discussion of a -point begun in one chapter frequently runs into the next. In the first -Thessalonian letter Paul’s discussion of the events connected with the -Lord’s return begins with the thirteenth verse of the fourth chapter and -ends with the eleventh verse of the fifth chapter. If we ignore this -fact, we deal unfairly with Paul. - -When Paul planted the church at Thessalonica, he did not have time to -fully instruct the new converts, for he was soon driven away by fierce -persecution. Before he wrote his first letter to them, some of their -number had died. They did not know what would become of these at the -Lord’s coming. Concerning them, they had no hope; for they had no -information upon which to base any hope. Paul’s purpose in writing the -section under consideration was to teach them that they would “sorrow -not, even as the rest, who have no hope.” Through or by Jesus, God would -bring these dead saints to heaven; for the dead saints would be raised -from the dead, and, together with the living saints, would be caught up -in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. “Wherefore comfort ye one -another with these words.” - -Then Paul says that it is not necessary to say anything to them about -the times and seasons. “The times and the seasons” of what? Of that -concerning which he had just told them about—namely, the coming of the -Lord and the resurrection of the dead saints, and the ascension of all -saints to meet him in the air. But that day would come as a thief in the -night; then what? “When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden -destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and -they shall in no wise escape.” So, then, in that day in which the Lord -comes to gather to himself his saints, sudden destruction will come upon -the rest of mankind. “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that -day should overtake you as a thief.” What day? The day of which he was -speaking, the day in which the saints shall be taken up and the wicked -shall suddenly be destroyed. Some would have us believe that the saints -will be secure in the day when sudden destruction is visited upon the -wicked, because they shall have already been taken up to meet the Lord -in the air some years before that day of destruction of the ungodly. But -Paul tells us that that day of destruction will not come upon them as a -thief, for they are all sons of light—they are ready and watching. To -fit the theory, Paul should have said that that day would not overtake -them, because they would not be there, having already been caught up to -meet the Lord in the air. - -Some people look at this Scripture so carelessly that they actually -think that Paul says the dead saints will be raised before the wicked -are raised. One good brother, a friend of mine, quoted Scripture, to me -as follows: “The dead in Christ shall rise first, and the rest of the -dead lived not again till the thousand years are passed.” But Paul was -not contrasting the resurrection of the saints and the wicked, but was -speaking of the dead saints and those living when Christ comes. Will the -living saints leave the dead in their graves? No, the dead saints will -be raised first—that is, before the living ascend; and then all shall be -caught up to meet the Lord. Whether the wicked were to be raised then, -or were never to be raised, was not so much as hinted at. But the -passage does teach this: When the Lord comes, the saints will be caught -up to meet him in the air, and the wicked will be destroyed in that day. -And that agrees with what Paul says in his second letter to the -Thessalonians. - -In Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians he gives some additional -information concerning the coming of the Lord and our gathering together -unto him. From the first verse of the second chapter we learn that the -coming of the Lord referred to is that coming in which the saints are -gathered together unto him. Paul would not have them troubled by -thinking that that day was “just at hand.” One writer, well known to the -Gospel Advocate readers, makes this comment on the phrase, “at hand”: -“In every translation known to me, except the Douay, the King James, and -the American Revised Version, this reads ‘the day of the Lord is now -present.’ Some one had made those Thessalonians believe that the day of -the Lord had already broken in upon them.” I know that some translations -have “present” instead of “at hand”, but they are not so numerous as the -foregoing quotation would have us believe. The following translations -have “at hand”: Latin Vulgate, Bible Union, Living Oracles, Sharpe, -George R. Noyes (Harvard University teacher), Anderson, Syriac, Sawyer, -and James MacKnight. So far as scholarship goes, it is very likely that -the scholarship back of the American Standard Version outweighs the -scholarship of all the translations referred to in the foregoing -quotation, with the exception of the English Revision. - -But it matters little to us what those Thessalonian brethren thought -about the matter; it does not affect Paul’s teaching on the subject. -Paul tells us that a falling away must come first and the man of sin be -revealed. This must be, he tells us, before the coming of the Lord Jesus -Christ and our gathering together unto him. But the theory that is now -so attractive to some people has this man of sin developed after the -saints are taken up to meet the Lord in the air; the man of sin is then -to be destroyed at what is termed the second stage of his coming. But -Paul plainly says that the coming he is here talking about is the coming -in which the saints are gathered together unto the Lord. It is strange -that a theory will so blind people that they cannot see a plain -statement in the very passages from which they claim to deduce their -teaching. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Jesus and Paul were not contentious, yet they contended earnestly for - the truth. They were the greatest fighters of all time. They were - moved by two Loves. They loved man so much that they fought with - determination anything and everything that would hurt man. They loved - the truth so much that they fought everything that was in the way of - its progress. And they stirred people as none others ever did. - - It has been said that it is useless to quote the Bible to one who - disbelieves it. But Jesus quoted it to the devil. There is power in an - appropriate passage of Scripture that even a disbeliever cannot evade. - - Before following any advice it is better to find out the character of - him who gives the advice and what possible interest he may have in our - following his advice. - - - - - RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD - - -The following question came to me recently: - - Brother Whiteside: Do you not think that the expression, “resurrection - from the dead,” has reference to the death state, rather than the - meaning that some will come “out from among” the other dead ones? Say - something to us in the Gospel Advocate along this line. John S. Clark. - -In the growth of language it is common for words to take on additional -meanings. This, of course, is common knowledge and needs no proof. - -In the phrase, “from the dead” (ek nekron), the word “dead” is plural in -the Greek, but by a sort of figure of speech, or extension of the -meaning of the word, it applies to the state of death; at least, some -passages of Scripture set forth that idea. In Rom. 6:13 we have the -phrase, “alive from the dead,” and in I John 3:14 we have the phrase, -“passed out of death into life.” In both passages the meaning is the -same; yet in Romans the Greek word from which we have “dead” is plural, -and in John we have another word in the singular. The Romans had been -dead in sins, but were made alive from that death. The Cambridge Greek -Testament has this note: “Ek nekron, as men that are alive after being -dead.” Bloomfield: “Ex nekron zontas, as those who, after having been -(spiritually) dead, are now alive.” Thayer: “Zeen ek nekron, tropically, -out of moral death to enter upon a new life, dedicated and acceptable to -God (Rom. 6:13.)” In defining “ek,” Thayer has this: “5. Of the -condition or state out of which one comes or is brought: ... zontes ek -nekron, alive from being dead—i. e., who had been dead and were alive -again (Rom. 6:13.)” It is plain, therefore, that the word “dead” in Rom. -6:13 refers to the death state. It is true that it refers here to -spiritual death, but its use in describing the state of the sinner is a -figurative use of the same expression that is applied to the state of -those who are dead physically. - -We have the same phrase in Rom. 11:15—“life from the dead” (ek nekron). -On this passage Thayer has this: “Zoa ek nekron, life breaking forth -from the abode of the dead.” Bloomfield gives the following as the sense -of the whole verse: “If their _sin_, which occasioned this casting away, -has been the means of reconciling the world, by bringing about the death -of Christ, what shall the _receiving of them again into the divine favor -be_ (whenever it shall take place), but so happy a change, both to -themselves and to the Gentiles, as may, in a manner, be said to raise -the whole world from death to life? Zoe ek nekron, by a figure common to -all languages, denotes (as Turretin and Stuart explain) something great -and surprising, like what a general resurrection from the dead would -be.” So, according to Bloomfield, “life from the dead” is life from -death. - -But it is contended by all the future-kingdom folks that the phrase, -“resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron), applies to the righteous and -never to the wicked. Their cause depends upon their repudiating the idea -that the word “dead” refers to the death state. They tell us that the -righteous are raised before the wicked, and are, therefore, raised “out -from among” dead ones. But their contention is not conclusive, even if -“ek nekron” should be rendered “out of the dead ones.” In the first -place, to make “ek” mean _out from among_ is stretching that little word -too much. Again, before the resurrection, the dead ones are made up of -both the righteous and the wicked. Their contention will not allow that -the righteous come “out from among” the righteous dead. They do not, -then, come “out from among” the dead, but “out from among” only a part -of the dead. But “out from among” is not even good English. - -Again, granting, for argument’s sake, that “from the dead” means “out of -dead ones,” their contention then does not hold good. We view the field -of the dead; they are all there—the righteous, the sinners, the infants, -and all irresponsible people. They all arise at once; have they not come -out of the dead? They were dead ones, now they are live ones; out of the -dead ones came the living ones. The apostles preached a resurrection of -both the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15). In Acts 4:2 “ek nekron” is -used in connection with the resurrection of all the dead. The Sadducees -were sorely troubled because the apostles “proclaimed in Jesus the -resurrection from the dead.” - -I have never seen any provision, or place, for the resurrection of -infants and irresponsibles in the future-kingdom theory, nor have I seen -any place for such in their future-kingdom. They cannot be rulers, for -they have not been tested and proved worthy of such place; the most of -them cannot be citizens, for they are not Jews. Will they be raised -before the millennial kingdom begins? If so, what will be their status -in that kingdom, or will they be any part of it? - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Contrary to all human tendencies, God would have us celebrate the - death of Christ instead of his birth. Had he wanted us to celebrate - his birth, he would not have left its date in obscurity. A little - attention to the history or manner of shepherding in Palestine will - convince anyone that December 25 is not the correct date. In the - Lord’s Supper, we celebrate his death; in observing the Supper on the - Lord’s day, we celebrate his resurrection. We honor Jesus by following - in his steps and by doing his will; we dishonor him and disgrace his - cause by celebrating his birth in the way it is usually done. - - Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any daughter of the heathen - surrounding him; neither did Isaac and Rebekah want their two sons to - do so. The marriage relation is so close that no Christian should - marry a person whose influence would be hurtful instead of helpful. - - - - - THEORY OF TWO RESURRECTIONS CONSIDERED - - -In a former article it was shown that the word “dead” in the phrase, -“resurrection from the dead,” sometimes, at least, refers to the death -state. People are raised from the dead—that is, the death state. But it -is contended by the future-kingdom folks that there will be two -resurrections—the righteous to be raised from among the dead, and the -rest of the dead will be raised later. They insist that the phrase, -“from the dead,” shows that some of the dead will be left. But their -arguments have never seemed conclusive to me. - -It would be hard to get two resurrections more than a thousand years -apart out of the following language of the Savior: “Marvel not at this: -for the hour cometh, in which all that are in their tombs shall hear his -voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the -resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the -resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29.) There is to be an hour, or -period, in which all, both good and bad shall come forth from the dead -at the call of Jesus. The same thought—that is, that both will be raised -at the same time—is presented in Acts 4:1, 2: “And as they spake unto -the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees -came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and -proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” Here we have the -phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron). The priests and the -captain of the temple were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in -the resurrection of anybody. With them death ended all. Are we to -believe that they stirred up all this trouble because the apostles -taught that the righteous would be raised before the wicked? That point -did not concern them, but to preach that the dead would be raised did -disturb them. The apostles preached in Jesus a universal resurrection -from the dead. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be -made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22.) Before Felix, Paul preached that he had -hope toward God that there would be a resurrection both of the just and -the unjust. (Acts 24:15.) It was that sort of preaching that so -exasperated the Sadducees. Hence, when the apostles at Jerusalem -preached that all would be raised from the dead (ek nekron), it -infuriated the Sadducees. But the Pharisees believed in a universal -resurrection. Paul took advantage of this difference between the -Sadducees and Pharisees, when he was brought before the council in -Jerusalem, and said: “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: -touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” -(Acts 23:6.) - -The two-resurrectionists seek to make a point on Paul’s effort to -“attain unto the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil. 3:11.) After -quoting Phil. 3:10-14, Charles M. Neal says: “To present and emphasize -this thought, Paul invents a new word. This word, ‘exanastasis,’ occurs -but this one time in the New Testament. The phrase ‘resurrection from -the dead,’ is translated by Rotherham as ‘out-resurrection from among -the dead,’ and in the Emphatic Diaglott as ‘resurrection from among the -dead’.” It is true that the word occurs in the New Testament only in -this one place. But we become somewhat doubtful of one who quotes as -authority the Emphatic Diaglott, a translation that is printed and sold -by the Russellites. And surely no one would seriously put Rotherham up -against the great body of scholars who gave the American Standard -Version. - -But to seek to make “exanastasis” mean _out-resurrection from_ is to -venture beyond the lexicons. Liddell and Scott gives the New Testament -meaning as the _resurrection_. Thayer: _a rising up; a rising again; -resurrection_. Thus it is seen that Thayer, though himself a -premillennialist, gives no support to the idea in defining the word. -When a man gives a definition of a word that is not sustained by either -of these lexicons, nor by the greatest body of scholars that was ever -gathered for any purpose, he puts entirely too much stress upon himself. - -It is true that “ek” or “ex” when standing alone as a preposition, -usually has the general meaning of “out of”; but when used as a part of -a compound word, as in ’exanastasis’, it sometimes merely intensifies -the meaning of the word to which it is joined, giving the idea of -“utterly, entirely.” See Thayer and Liddell and Scott. If one has the -time and opportunity, he may also examine Winer (page 429) and -Robertson’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (pages 562-4, 596). If -“ex” adds any meaning to the word here, it merely means that Paul was -striving to obtain a complete resurrection, a perfect resurrection—that -is, a resurrection to life that is life indeed. In that respect there is -a decided difference between the resurrection of a faithful Christian -and a sinner, for a sinner is not raised to real life. - -Sometimes the preposition adds nothing to the meaning of the word with -which it is compounded—that is, so far as we can see. Take, for -illustration, the verb from which we have “exanastasis.” It occurs in -Mark 12:19 and Luke 20:28—“raised up seed unto his brother.” Here we -have “ex” joined to the verb; but in the parallel passage in Matt. -22:24, where the meaning is bound to be exactly the same, the -preposition “ex” is left off. If adding “ex” to the verb does not change -this verb, how can one dogmatically argue that it changes the noun that -is derived from the verb? The argument built on “exanastasis” is about -as flimsy an argument as one could find. A cause that depends on such -arguments cannot have a substantial basis. But a wild theory is often -supported by very tame arguments. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - One preacher can do very little toward establishing a church in a - great city. It is perhaps harder now than ever. We have seen it tried. - It would be better to take Antioch as an example. Notice the number of - workers that concentrated their efforts on that city. They got - results. Paul generally had a group of helpers with him. Together they - did work in cities where one man would have failed, or practically so. - Ignoring this divine example and putting one man in a city without - real help, we have wasted much effort. - - - - - CHURCH AGES - - -When a man tries to sustain a false theory in religion he cannot do so -by correct application of the scriptures. He will make false arguments -and pervert the scriptures. A striking example of this is seen in the -efforts of some to find prophetic symbolisms in the letters to the seven -churches in Asia. These letters were written to seven churches in seven -cities of Asia Minor, and they are recorded in the second and third -chapters of Revelation. Here is what Scofield says in his Bible: “The -messages to the seven churches have a fourfold application: (1) Local, -to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in -all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state -in the sight of God; (3) personal, in exhortations to him ‘that hath an -ear,’ and in the promises ‘to him that overcometh’; (4) prophetic as -disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, -say, A. D. 96 to the end.” - -Of course, when these men talk about the church they include all that -they call branches of the church. They claim that we are now living in -the period symbolized by the church at Laodicea. There is not even a -hint that there were any prophetic symbolisms in the condition of these -churches. Of course they do not claim that the condition of the church -at Ephesus was prophetic of a future period—its condition merely -portrayed the condition of the churches then. That is absurd, for the -six other churches mentioned were not like Ephesus—in fact, there is not -a hint that the Ephesus church was like any other church of that day, -and yet the theory requires that the condition of the church at Ephesus -correctly represented all the churches of that period. And then the -other six churches are said to represent, or symbolize, or forecast the -condition of the church at certain periods. The marking off the period -that each church is supposed to represent is purely arbitrary. No one -can prove, even if the theory were true, that we live in the Laodicean -period. But the whole theory is fantastic, absurd, and a reflection on -God. - -Think what the theory involves. How could a church then determine the -character of the whole church during a certain period hundreds of years -later? Or did God by direct miraculous power make these churches to be -like what he knew the whole church would be at different periods? Or did -he by direct power make the periods to be like the churches of Asia? In -either case people had to be what God by direct power chose to make -them. Where then is there room for freedom of will, or freedom of -action? Any one who can believe that each of these churches was a -forecast of the whole church at a certain period can believe any -foolish, fantastic, absurd thing that the wildest imagination can -conceive. He does not have to have any evidence—he just lets his -imagination run riot. I would like for some of its advocates to tell me -when that notion was hatched out, and by whom. - - - - - PHILADELPHIA AND THE HOUR OF TRIAL - - -Foy E. Wallace, Jr., passes over to me a document which was written in -Detroit with a request that I say something about it. The document would -fill my page. As much of it has no special bearing on the points sought -to be made, I will make liberal and fair quotations from it. The passage -commented upon first is Rev. 3:10: “Because thou didst keep the word of -my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour -which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the -earth.” I quote: - -“The promise. ‘The hour of trial’ was ahead, but Philadelphia was to be -kept from it. Not saved through it, but kept from it.... - -“That Hour. (1) It is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘the’. (2) It -is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘trial’, for it is ‘to try them -that dwell upon the earth.’ (4) It is yet future; ‘to come upon the -whole world.’ Nothing has since occurred in history filling out this -picture.... (5) the Philadelphia type of saints will escape.... Those -who keep his word are of the Philadelphia type of saints. The church -that is true to the word is a church of the Philadelphian type and can -lay claim to this same promise.” - -John wrote seven letters, dictated by the Lord, to seven churches in -Asia; the church at Philadelphia was one of these churches. The Lord -made a definite promise to the church at Philadelphia. Naturally the -members of that church would understand that the promise was to them; -but that church long ago ceased to exist. And yet we are told that the -promise made to those brethren is yet future. If that be so, then that -promise was not for those brethren at all! They are all dead; was that -the way the Lord was going to keep them from the hour of trial? No, no; -according to the foregoing quotation, the promise was not meant for the -church at Philadelphia at all, but for the churches of the Philadelphian -type! Such juggling with the record is both taking away from and adding -to the words of the book. The promise was not made to the “Philadelphian -type of saints”, but to the church at Philadelphia. It is true that some -promises, general in their nature, though not to one individual or group -of individuals, are to be enjoyed by all who fulfill the conditions; but -certainly the ones to whom the promise is directly made are included in -the promise! But, strange to say, according to the foregoing quotation, -the church at Philadelphia to whom the promise was made was not included -in the promise made directly to them! That promise is yet future, so we -are told. - -But the implication of the quotation is that the promise was made to the -Philadelphian type of churches, and that it is to be fulfilled in “the -rapture.” And what is it that a person cannot prove, if he is allowed to -juggle words to suit his theory? If the hour of trial is yet future, the -Lord kept Philadelphia from it by deferring it till all those saints -died. But he conjures up a peculiar method of escape for those saints -who long ago died: (7) “The method of escape is found in such passages -as 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is often called the rapture, and properly so, -from the expression ‘caught up,’ which rapture means.” But would not the -saints of Philadelphia escape that supposed three and a half years of -tribulation if they should remain in their graves? - -I quote again: “Other Designations. Jesus used the term ‘that day,’ also -the term ‘tribulation.’ Daniel calls it ‘a time of trouble’ such as is -unequaled and never repeated. In Jer. 30:7 it is ‘the time of Jacob’s -trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.’ Here is a parallel to the -escape of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace. Those who are ‘saved -out of it’ are distinct from those who are kept from it. John has a -vision of a number who ‘come out of the great tribulation,’ but the -Philadelphians are kept from it!” - -He affirms that the various terms he names applies to one certain period -that is yet to be; but he gives not one word of proof. The terms, “that -day,” “in that day,” “day of trouble,” “tribulation,” “tribulations,” -“that hour,” are used many times in the Bible, and certainly do not all -refer to the same period of time. Why then pick out a term here and -there and arbitrarily apply them to one certain time? THE REASON: a -certain theory demands it. And if the writer will examine the Greek in -Jer. 30:7 and Rev. 3:10, he will find apo, from, in Jeremiah, and ek, -out of, in Revelation, which completely reverses the point he seeks to -make on the use of prepositions. - -Again I quote: “Chronology.... The order of some outstanding things -foretold is revealed. To get this order saves confusion. From Jesus’ -prophecy on the mount (Matt. 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21) avoiding all -forced interpretations, we learn ‘the tribulation of those days’ leads -up to the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars of the -heaven, the powers of the heaven being shaken, and the glorious -appearing of the Son of man. Note the expression ‘immediately after’ in -Matt. 24:29. Note also Mark 13:24-27 ... even up to the tribulation -there are foretold ‘wars and rumors of wars,’ and ‘nation shall rise -against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.’ Again, attention is called -to the fact that those days of unprecedented tribulation ‘shall be -shortened.’ Obviously they are terminated by the Son of man in -connection with his appearing. The times foretold in this connection -constitute ‘the days of the Son of man.’ (see Luke 17:26.) The ‘rapture’ -precedes ‘the tribulation of those days,’ ‘the days of the Son of man.’ -And the rapture awaits nothing that is foretold.” - -There are difficulties in the discourse Jesus delivered to the disciples -on Olivet; but it is certain that no one will get a correct idea of what -was said if he ignores the questions that gave rise to the speech. Jesus -was answering questions put to him by the disciples. The disciples had -called his attention to the temple and its adornments. Jesus said: “As -for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there -shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown -down.” When they had crossed to the mount of Olives, Peter, James, John, -and Andrew said to him: “Teacher, when therefore shall these things be? -and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?” -Put yourself in the place of these disciples: would you not understand -that everything Jesus said was in answer to those two questions? Would -Jesus confuse them by saying a lot of things which they would understand -to be in answer to their questions, but were not? In Mark’s record we -have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign -when these things are about to be accomplished?” To say that most of the -answer Jesus gave related to something about which they had not inquired -is to accuse Jesus of not dealing fairly with them. In Matthew’s record -we have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the -sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” For the last clause -the marginal reading has, “Or, _the consummation of the age_.” To say -that Matthew’s report of these questions does not mean the same as the -reports of Mark and Luke is to accuse some one of making a false report -of the questions.[1] - -It is singular that so many commentators take it for granted that the -disciples were, in Matthew’s report, asking about the second coming of -Christ; but that could not be. Jesus had not taught them anything about -his second coming; besides, they had never believed that he would be put -to death! The Jews held to the idea that when the Messiah came, he would -abide, forever, ruling as a great king in Jerusalem. How then could the -disciples have been asking questions about the second coming of Christ, -when they did not believe he would go away? It is astonishing that -commentators have overlooked this plain fact. The disciples referred to -his coming in judgment on Jerusalem. The tribulation was the suffering -of the Jews when the Romans destroyed their nation and Jerusalem. The -temple was utterly destroyed. The Jewish nation ended; darkness and -gloom settled down over the people. The fulfillment of what Jesus had -said was a sign that he was what he claimed to be—that the Son of man -was also the Christ, the Son of God. For the natural phenomena mentioned -you get some explanation by reading Isa. 13:1-10. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - The treatment Joseph received at home would tend to make him arrogant - and overbearing. To serve the purpose God had in view, these traits - had to be toned down. A period of slavery, followed by a rather long - stay in prison, would reduce his pride and feeling of importance. In - both slavery and imprisonment he learned to work under men, and at the - same time he learned to manage men. He also learned business - principles. A petted son does not have much opportunity to learn any - of these useful things. Joseph had to be torn away from his father in - order to learn to be useful. - - - - - NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM - - -Nebuchadnezzar had a wonderful dream, and required, on penalty of death, -that the wise men tell him the dream and its interpretation. None but -Daniel could do so. To the king Daniel said: “Thou, O king, sawest, and, -behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose -brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was -terrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and -its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron, -its feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone -was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were -of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, -the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and -became like chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried -them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote -the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Dan. -2:31-35.) - -Before we read the interpretation of this dream, let us observe: (1) -that Nebuchadnezzar saw the complete image, as if all its parts existed -at the same time; (2) that the stone smote the image on the feet; (3) -that the whole image from feet to head was broken in pieces and -scattered as dust; (4) and that no place was found for them—no place for -such parts as composed that image. - -_The Interpretation_—“Thou art the head of gold. And after thee shall -arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of -brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom -shall be strong as iron, for as much as iron breaketh in pieces and -subdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it break -in pieces and crush.... And in the days of those kings shall the God of -heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the -sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in -pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. For -as much as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without -hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the -silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what -shall come to pass hereafter.” (Verses 36-45.) - -This dream and the interpretation have furnished a starting point for -many sermons by gospel preachers. Till recently they all contended that -the kingdom of this prophecy was set up in Jerusalem on the first -Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and then and there entered -upon the work which Daniel said it would accomplish. It is now argued by -a few brethren that when Jesus comes again the kingdom of this prophecy -will then have its real beginning, and will then destroy the image of -Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. But is there anything in the interpretation to -warrant such a radical change from a century of gospel preaching? - -The four world kingdoms represented in the image—Babylon, Medo-Persia, -Greece, and Rome—came and fell in the order mentioned. Yet -Nebuchadnezzar saw them in the image, as if all existed at the same -time. The stone is represented as breaking in pieces the whole -image—that is, the kingdom of God is represented as destroying all of -the four world kingdoms. “It broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the -clay, the silver, and the gold.” In truth, it was an image of world -empire, and that was broken in pieces, never to be made whole again. -Every attempt at world empire, since Rome, has ended in failure, and -will continue to fail. - -It is also plainly stated that in the days of these kings—that is, while -the image still remained—the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, and -that this kingdom would destroy the image. The Roman Empire embodied all -that was in the other three kingdoms of the image. So long as Rome -existed the image stood. The stone smote the image on the feet, but -destroyed every part of the image. Every kingdom represented in that -image has ceased to be; the image has been entirely destroyed—not a -vestige of it remains. It follows, then, with the force of a -demonstration, that the kingdom of God has been set up. Even though it -be claimed that another world empire is yet to be, it cannot, by any -juggling of words or flight of the imagination, be made a part of the -image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. In that image each kingdom merged into -the one following it till Rome; then the stone smote the image and -destroyed it. As the kingdom was to be set up during the existence of -that image, and as that image has been destroyed, it proves beyond a -doubt that the God of heaven has set up his kingdom. - -So far as the interpretation of the dream shows, the kingdom of God was -to destroy only the kingdoms of the image; and it could destroy the -first three only as they were represented in the Roman Empire. World -Empires died with Rome. The principles of the kingdom of Christ have so -modified human thinking as to destroy the possibility of world empire. - -But we are told that Daniel’s language shows that these kingdoms are to -be destroyed suddenly, and by violent impact. But it cannot be shown -that Daniel’s language requires such method of destruction. The kingdom -was to grind them to dust. Does that only imply destruction? Besides, -the future-kingdom idea is that the kingdom of God will be ushered in in -full power; whereas the dream represents it as a stone that destroyed -the image and then grew into a mountain that filled the earth. If you -still insist that Daniel’s language shows that the kingdoms are to be -destroyed by violent impact, then I ask you to consider carefully the -language of Jer. 1:9, 10: “Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched -my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy -mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the -kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, -to build and to plant.” That is as strong language as Daniel uses in -describing the work of the kingdom of God; yet we know that Jeremiah -destroyed nothing by violent impact. Yet how these future-kingdom -advocates would have stressed this language if it had been used to -describe the work of the kingdom instead of the work of Jeremiah! It -would be interesting to see them try to show how Dan. 2:44, 45 requires -violence, but Jer. 1:9, 10 means “peaceful penetration.” - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - A thing gained through deceit or fraud cannot bring contentment and - satisfaction. Jacob never enjoyed any real happiness in possessing the - birthright, and the blessings he obtained from Isaac by fraud made him - an exile and caused him much worry and distress. One cannot see - wherein it was any real satisfaction to him. - - We get into trouble when we scheme and plan to help God work out his - plans. When God announced, even before Esau and Jacob were born, his - purposes concerning these two prospective sons of Isaac and Rebekah, - Rebekah should have realized that God would work out his plans in his - own way; but she thought she must do some scheming to help God work - out his plans. In so doing she lost the company of her beloved son and - caused him untold misery. - - - - - MILLIGAN ON NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM - - -After I wrote my recent article on “Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its -interpretation,” I found a series of articles on the kingdom, written by -Robert Milligan and published in the Millenial Harbinger of 1858. That -the reader may see that the positions set forth in my article are -neither new nor fanciful, I quote some extracts from Bro. Milligan’s -articles. Concerning the establishment of the kingdom foretold in -Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, Mr. Milligan says: - - The prophet limits the chronology of the event to “The days of these - kings.” But who are they? When did they reign? What was the beginning, - the duration, the end of their administration? - - Many writers on prophecy, and even some of our own brethren, for whose - opinions we entertain very great respect, refer all this to the - future. They suppose by “_these kings_” are meant the ten kingdoms - into which the Roman Empire was divided, and which they suppose were - symbolized by the ten toes of the image.... But with all due respect - for these good brethren, we are constrained to dissent from such an - interpretation of the passage. To us there appear to lie against it - many objections, some of which are the following: - - 1. The notion that the toes of the image were designed to represent - the ten fragments of the Western Roman Empire is a mere hypothesis. It - may possibly be true; but certain it is that the evidence is - wanting.... But ten toes on one foot would be rather incongruous. - - 2. But even if it could be satisfactorily shown that the ten toes were - designed to represent the fragments of the ten kingdoms that arose out - of the Western Empire, it would by no means follow that these are - identical with the kings named in the text. The reverse of this is - certainly true. The limiting adjective, “_these_,” implies that the - subject to which it refers had been clearly designated.... But the - only kings fairly implied in the whole connection are those of the - four universal monarchies.... - - From these premises we infer that the phrase, “_these kings_,” has no - reference to the monarchs of modern Europe. Nor does it, as some have - supposed, refer exclusively to the Caesars. These are not in this - connection made the subject of a distinct prophecy. The phrase - evidently refers to all the rulers of the four universal monarchies, - and comprehends the kings of Babylon, and Persia, and Macedonia, as - well as those of Rome. - - The meaning of this passage, then, is simply this: that at some epoch - during the lifetime of that human monster, or between the time of - Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of the Roman Empire in the year of Christ - 476, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom in the world. - -After some discussion of the events of the first Pentecost after the -resurrection of Christ, Brother Milligan says: - - According, then, to the testimony of Peter, Jesus Christ was, on the - day of Pentecost, seated on the throne of David, not in Jerusalem, as - the Jews anticipated, but in heaven at the right hand of God. He was - exalted to the rank and dignity of a Prince as well as a Savior. And - hence, for the first time in the history of the world, those who - gladly received his word were commanded to be baptized in _the name of - Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins_. - -In his second article Brother Milligan quotes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and -Daniel’s interpretation thereof, and then comments as follows: - - The image was then smitten upon the feet. The wound was mortal. The - tyrant that had governed the world from the days of Nebuchadnezzar - till that hour was slain. His spirit was subdued, and his whole - physical organization, consisting of gold, and silver, and brass, and - iron, and clay, was then broken into fragments. - - Since that time Charlemagne, Napoleon, and many others, have attempted - to revive the spirit and reunite the scattered fragments of this - fallen image. But all such attempts have been in vain.... It is true, - the spirit of war still exists: blood is often shed for the most - trivial causes. But let any prince or potentate now attempt to revive - the spirit of this fallen image; let him attempt, like Nebuchadnezzar, - Cyrus, Alexander, and Caesar, to subdue the world, and to govern it on - the principle that “might makes right;” and if not treated as a maniac - by his own subjects, he will, at least, find arrayed against him the - combined powers of Christendom. - -In view of what happened to the Kaiser when he tried to conquer the -world, the last statement of Brother Milligan looks almost like -prophecy. But it was not a prophecy, but merely a statement based on -Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. - -I invite the future-kingdom advocates to consider the following: - -1. The image, as it stood before Nebuchadnezzar, represented four world -empires. That is, of course, admitted. - -2. The kingdom of God was to be set up while that image stood, and was -to destroy the image. On that point no one can mistake what Daniel says. - -3. That image has been destroyed—there has not been a world empire since -the days of Rome. - -4. It is certain, therefore, that the kingdom of God has been -established, and that the principles of that kingdom have broken down -and destroyed world empires. - -It is a pity that a man will become so obsessed with a speculative idea -as to say that the image has been destroyed, but the kingdom of God had -nothing to do with its destruction. To me it looks like a flat denial of -what Daniel says. - - - - - A LEADING DOCTRINE OF THIS CURRENT REFORMATION - - -When I was a young man, the gospel preachers who were then active in -preaching the ancient gospel preached often on the establishment of the -kingdom. As I recall those sermons, they usually began with the dream of -Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel’s interpretation thereof, as recorded in the -second chapter of Daniel. It was argued that the kingdom foretold in -verse 44 began on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. -That was one position on which there was no disagreement among -“Christians only” in those days. It is true that there had been some -speculations to the contrary in the days of Alexander Campbell. One Dr. -John Thomas was a leading spirit in that agitation. It was contended -that the restoration of the Israelites to a kingdom of their own in -Palestine was the hope—the Elpis—of Israel. While we do not recognize -Mr. Campbell as authority in matters of faith, we do recognize him as a -teacher of great ability. It will do us good to read carefully some -things Mr. Campbell wrote on the kingdom question. Note how the -following fits into the present agitation on this question: - - I will receive it as a favor from any person, to be informed of any - people or preacher, on this continent or in the European world, that - clearly or definitely stated or announced, in unequivocal affirmation, - that the Christian church did not commence, and, consequently, was - never organized, till the first Pentecost after the crucifixion, - death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of the Lord - Jesus Christ; that then placed upon the throne of David, and upon the - throne of God, he commenced his reign _personally_ in heaven and - _spiritually_ upon the earth, by the mission of the Holy Spirit to his - apostles, and through them to his church, which is now his natural and - earthly body—the fullness, or manhood development, of Him who fills - all things, in all places, with life, and beauty, and happiness. - -The foregoing is taken from the Millenial Harbinger of February, 1852. -In a footnote to the foregoing quotation we have the following from Mr. -Campbell: - - To prevent misconception of this allusion to the throne of David, I - simply remark for the present, to be developed, probably more fully - again, that the _throne of David_ was, in fact, the _earthly throne of - God_, in the midst of ancient Israel. David was his viceroy—that is, - _the Lord’s anointed_—a fact not well understood by the church, and - still less by some untaught and unteachable dogmatists of the present - day. It was necessary to the plans of Jehovah, which are all sublimely - grand and wonderful, that he should have two thrones—one on earth and - one in heaven—for a time occupied one above, by himself, and one - below, by his vicegerent, called or constituted by him; and therefore - his solemn oath or covenant with David, that he would raise out of his - person, in fullness of time, one that would occupy both thrones. - Hence, said the inspired bard of Israel, “Jehovah said to my Jehovah, - Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool.” It is - beautifully in accordance with this fact that Mary the Virgin was the - last bud on the tree of David which could blossom and fructify, and - bring forth a representative of David. So that, if Jesus be not the - heir of David’s throne, there never can be one born, and God’s - covenant has failed. This is a death blow to Jewish infidelity, if - their eyes were not closed and their ears sealed. But Jesus was the - Son of David, and born to be a King, as he told Caesar’s - representative. On the throne of David, as King of kings, he now sits, - and also on the throne of God; for he has all crowns upon his head, - and affirms that all authority in heaven and on earth is given him. - - Any one who desires to peruse the most conceited, consequential, and - dogmatical treaties, based upon hallucination, and parody of the words - “Elpis Israel,” will, if he have a dollar to throw away, have a - demonstration of a disease called in Kentucky “the _big head_,” - probably unequaled in this century; making the _hope of - Israel_—indeed, the hope of the gospel in full development—to consist - in raising up again a throne of David in Palestine in Jerusalem; as if - that throne had been vacant now for eighteen hundred years, or as if - Jesus Christ would remove his throne out of the heavenly Jerusalem, to - rebuild and locate it in old Jerusalem, and there to aggrandize the - empire of the universe! But this only in passing, as one of the - specimens of the power of the love of notoriety or of the marvelous, - in wrecking and bewildering the human mind. We regard this development - of the passion for notoriety as one of the most admonitory - dispensations in our immediate circle of observation. It has made a - man, that might have been useful, worthless to himself, worthless to - his friends, and worse than worthless to the world. - -In the January Harbinger (1851) Mr. Campbell reports a sermon which he -preached at Bloomington, Ind., from which I glean the following -excerpts: - - “On Saturday night our subject was the promised advocacy of the - Spirit, after the return and coronation of the Messiah in heaven; the - commencement of his kingdom, and the peculiarities of the Christian - dispensation, in contrast with the patriarchal and Jewish - institutions. We gave reasons why Christianity, or the kingdom of - Christ, could not be developed till he received all authority in - heaven and earth—till he received the kingdom and government of the - universe.” “The kingdom has come, and the king has been on the throne - of David now more than eighteen hundred years: still, myriads are yet - praying, ‘Thy kingdom come’!” “Thus Jesus, after he had expiated our - sins on earth, entered heaven, and basing his intercession, _as our - high priest_, upon his sacrifice, he sat down a priest upon his - throne, ‘after the order of Melchizedek;’ a high priest forever, - ‘according to the power of an endless life.’ This, as set forth, is a - leading doctrine of this current reformation.... It is pregnant with - great revolutionizing and regenerating principles.” - -If Jesus is not now our anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, he is not -yet the Christ. Do you believe Jesus to be the Christ now, or the Christ -that is yet to be? - - - - - IS THE CHURCH THE KINGDOM? - - -Bro. Ira C. Moore, in F. F. of June 17, (190?) says “No.” He reasons -that because these two words are from Greek words of different meanings, -and because the two words themselves have no meaning in common, -therefore they can not apply to the same thing. He says the meaning of a -word may be substituted by the word and make sense, and refers to our -use of this principle in reference to baptism and sprinkling. The -principle is true in the main, but Bro. Moore’s reasoning from it is as -fallacious as can be. No one claims that the words kingdom and church -mean the same. To describe or define a specific act words must of -necessity be synonymous, yet words very different in meaning may be -applied to the same person or thing, owing to the different relations -that a person or thing sustains to the world. Man, husband, father, -citizen, author, and president are words very different in their -meanings, yet all of them apply to one person Theodore Roosevelt. In the -different positions of life he occupies the relation that each of these -words indicates. Because all these words are appropriately applied to -him does that mean that you can take a sentence in which one of them is -used and replace it with either of the words and make sense. “I, -Theodore Roosevelt, husband, or author, or father of the United States,” -etc. How is that? “Nonsense,” did you say? Just so. - -Apostle, Author, Shepherd, Bishop, Bread of Life, Bridegroom, Star, -Captain, Christ, Corner Stone, Counselor, Governor, Head of the Church, -High Priest, King, Master, Mediator, Prophet, Physician, and a number of -other names and designations apply to one Being yet they differ in -meaning. In different relations different words apply to Him. Just so -with the church. It is called body, family, temple, house, kingdom, etc. -Viewing it from different standpoints, you use different scripture -words. Being “called out,” it is the church, as an organization, it is -the body of Christ; as a government, having Christ as its King; it is -the kingdom of Christ. - -This is enough—you see the point. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - People spend much time and energy in worrying about things that are - entirely in the hands of God. We worry about the weather, and we worry - about how God will work out his plans in the final windup of all - earthly matters. If we believe in God and in Christ, why worry? - - Wherein God invites us to trust him, he will not betray us. To doubt - him is sin. He is not slack concerning his promises. He rewards - abundantly those who put their trust in him—those who love him serve - him. - - If by faith we could see the Lord as he is and could realize our own - weakness and dependence upon him, all the praise and adulation that - men could heap upon us would seem empty and vain. To know that our - Lord looked upon us with favor would be sufficient. - - - - - THIS GOVERNMENT AND JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES - - - Dear Brother Whiteside: - - It seems to me that we ought not to oppose any move upon the part of - the government to respect the conscience of sincere individuals. There - are too many people in this country who would like to see us stop - preaching for us to help further any movement which would deny the - right to preach to certain religious groups. - - There have been efforts in some cities to make it illegal for the - “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to distribute their literature or to sell it on - the streets. These, in so far as they have come to my attention, have - been declared unconstitutional. For this I am thankful, for I know - once such laws are placed upon the books that they will be used by - people against us in certain sections of the country. I have met - people who would have invoked legal aid, if they had the power to do - so, to prevent us from preaching in certain places by means of the - tract. It seems to me that laws which might be passed and used against - “Jehovah’s Witnesses” could be easily used in the hands of vested - interests and tricky lawyers to rob the church of Christ of the - liberty of free speech. - - Then, too, it would be easy for an intense patriot to label the - teachings of the New Testament, and thus of the church of Christ, as - subversive. They could point out that the New Testament teaches that— - - 1. Christians are kings and priests. (Rev. 1:6.) - - 2. That we are endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States - which is world-wide in its mission and which acknowledges as its - supreme ruler Jesus Christ instead of Washington. - - 3. That this kingdom has been antagonistic, to say the least, to some - governments of the past. (Dan. 2:44.) - - 4. That members of this kingdom believe that it was prophesied by - Isaiah, who said that, among other things, its members would beat - their swords into plowshares and cease to learn the ways of war. (Isa. - 2:2-4.) - - 5. That they are not allowed to take vengeance. (Rom. 12:19.) From - this they could draw conclusions which would lead many people to take - steps to curtail our religious freedom. - - For these reasons, if for no other, it seems to me that your article - in the Gospel Advocate for March 26, 1942, was unnecessary. It helps - encourage a movement which could easily result in opposition to the - gospel. - - Of course I do not accept the peculiar doctrines of the “Jehovah’s - Witnesses.” I think we ought to teach them, among other things, Paul’s - teaching concerning the proper attitude to civil powers. (Rom. - 13:1.)—James D. Bales. - -Brother Bales surely has not thought this thing through. As I see it, if -“Jehovah’s Witnesses” are to be allowed unmolested to distribute their -literature of opposition to all human governments, neither should a -rabid German propagandist be molested in this country. - -I made no effort to “oppose any move on the part of the government to -respect the conscience” of any citizen of this government. So far the -government has been as considerate as could be expected. But suppose a -citizen of Germany, one wholly loyal to his government, were doing -propaganda work on the streets of our cities, he would certainly be -conscientiously opposed to doing military service for this government. -Would Brother Bales think this government should so respect his -conscience as to let him go on with his subversive activities? He is an -individual, and he has a conscience, and he would certainly be sincere -in his devotion to his government. Brother Bales makes no exceptions -when he speaks of “the conscience of sincere individuals.” Do you say he -was speaking of citizens of this government? If so, he leaves “Jehovah’s -Witnesses” out, they themselves being witnesses, as a glance at their -teaching will show. - -Both Russell and Rutherford taught that “the times of the Gentiles,” of -which the Bible speaks, is the time in which God permitted the Gentiles -to rule in the governments of the earth. Their language is too plain to -admit of any misunderstanding. Mr. Russell taught that the saints should -be submissive to Gentile governments up to the close of the times of the -Gentiles, or to the limit of their right to rule. With these people the -times of the Gentiles began “when the diadem was taken from Zedekiah,” -and lasted till A. D. 1914. In the 1912 edition of _The Time Is at -Hand_, Vol. 2, (“copyright 1889”), Mr. Russell says: “In this chapter we -present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the -Gentiles—i. e., the full end of their lease of dominion—will be reached -in A. D. 1914; and that date will be the fartherest limit of the rule of -imperfect men.” (Pages 76, 77.) “So, then, Gentile rule had a beginning, -will last for a _fixed time_, and will end at the time appointed.” (Page -78.) During the times of the Gentiles the saints were to “render to them -due respect and obedience,” but “to keep separate from the kingdoms of -this world as strangers, pilgrims, and foreigners.” That eliminates them -from citizenship in any government of the world, in so far as one can -eliminate himself. “Foreigners” are not citizens. And their submission -to Gentile governments was to end when the times of the Gentiles ended, -when this new order would enter in full force. In the “Finished -Mystery,” published in 1917, we have this: “Their united testimony is -that the times of the Gentiles have expired, the reign of Christ has -begun, all earthly potentates—civil, social, ecclesiastical, and -financial—must give way to the new order of things, and will not give -way peaceably, but must be ejected.” (Page 231.) This volume was written -and published after Russell’s death. After all the date setting for the -end of Gentile governments, we have this: “There is evidence that the -establishments of the kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten -years later than we once calculated.” (“Finished Mystery,” page 128.) - -In “Our Lord’s return” Rutherford says: “The word ‘world’ means the -social and political order or rule governing the people.” (Page 35.) -“The end of the Gentile rule, therefore, would mark necessarily the -legal end of the present order; therefore, the end of the world”—that -is, the end of the “social and political order or rule governing the -people.” (Page 37.) “This does not mean the end of trouble, but it does -mean, according to Jesus’ words, that the old world legally ended in -1914.” (“Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” page 19.) Hence, according -to Rutherford, no government now has any right to exist; they are all -usurpers and in rebellion against the world’s rightful ruler. Who is the -rightful ruler? In passages too numerous to quote they tell us that -Christ would be the universal king when the times of the Gentiles ended -in 1914. But who is the Christ of Rutherford? “The Christ consists of -Jesus glorified, the head, and the members of his body, which constitute -the church.” (Page 76.) Russell taught the same. The church and Jesus -constitute the Christ, and they are now the rightful rulers of the -world; no other government has any right to exist. That is their -teaching. They, therefore, claim to owe no allegiance to any human -government, but are opposed to all human governments. If any of our -brethren who are conscientious objectors hold to positions similar to -the foregoing, then they should have registered as aliens, as should all -followers of Rutherford. - -At the risk of making this too long, I wish to notice by number the -items listed by Brother Bales. - -1. Read the American Standard Version on Rev. 1:6, then look at the -Greek. “Kingdom,” not “kings.” - -2. I am not endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States. - -3. I know not what Brother Bales means by “antagonistic”; that is a -strong word. - -4. We have not space here to discuss this passage, (Isa. 2:2-4) but -trust to do so later. - -5. No individual is allowed to take vengeance; even this government -forbids that. God takes vengeance through his appointed channel, the -human government. - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Israel fell because of its own internal corruption, and so has many - another nation fallen. That is the greatest danger facing our nation - today. When God is ruled out of the educational, social, and business - life of a nation all sorts of corruption follows, and corruption means - decay and death. - - - - - THE NEW TESTAMENT WORD FLESH - - -In the New Testament the word _flesh_ does not always have the same -significance. Sometimes it refers to our material bodies, and sometimes -to the bodies of other living things. (1 Cor. 15:39.) It sometimes -refers to that state or condition in which the gratifying of the -appetites and passions of our bodies is our chief concern—strictly a -worldly life. (Romans 7:5, 8:6-9.) It is to mind the flesh—a contrast -with a spiritual life. And some times the word _flesh_ refers to a race -or nation, as distinguished from another race or nation. Paul speaks of -the Jews as “my flesh”. (Rom. 11:14.) “As concerning the flesh”, Christ -was of the fathers of the Jewish race—that is, as to his flesh he was a -Jew. After stating that Christ died for all, Paul adds, “Wherefore we -henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ -after the flesh, yet now know him so no more.” In Christ there are no -fleshly distinctions—no race discriminations. “For there is no -distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of All.” -(Rom. 10:12.) And as Christ is the savior of both Jew and Gentile, and -is Lord of all—king over all, we can no longer regard him as a Jew—we no -longer think of him as a Jew, or in any way identified with fleshly -Israel. Yet the future Kingdom advocates still identify him with fleshly -Israel and speak of him as “Israel’s Christ,” “Israel’s Messiah,” -“Israel’s King.” They encourage the Jew to glory in the fact that he is -a Jew. They would have the Jew to believe that the Jewish nation is even -yet God’s chosen people, a nation with glorious future, exalted above -all others subservient to them. But not so with Paul. - -Some of the early professed Christians gloried in the Jewish nation with -all its traditions and every thing Jewish, and tried to bind these on -Gentile Christians. Concerning their attitude and his own ideal Paul -said, “For not even they who receive circumcision do themselves keep the -law; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in -your flesh. But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our -Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, -and I unto the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor -uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as shall walk by this -rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Gal. -6:13-16.) These Judaizers gloried in the flesh, gloried in the fact that -they were Jews: and they were prototypes of those who now encourage the -Jews to glory in the fact that they are Jews; but Paul gloried only in -the cross of Christ, and pronounced peace upon all who followed his -rule. Disturbance and strife followed those ancient Judaizing preachers, -as it does those today who glory in the modern version of that nation. -The Judaizers did so much harm in the churches of Galatia where Paul had -done so much labor, that it so stirred Paul’s feelings that he said, “I -would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision,” or -as the marginal reading has, “Greek, _mutilate themselves_.” (Gal. -5:12.) Concerning this same class of men, he said to the Philippians, -“beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the -concision,” and then adds, “for we are the circumcision, who worship by -the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in -the flesh.” The context shows plainly that Paul had no confidence in his -Jewish flesh—no confidence in the fact that he was a Jew, even though he -had more grounds for such confidence than did the Judaizing disturbers. -“... if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet -more.” And then Paul gives the grounds on which he might, if it were -worth anything, have more confidence in the flesh than his Judaizing -enemies: “circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the -tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews.” In his fleshly relations he had -all the advantages that any Jew could have had. “Howbeit what things -were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yet verily, I -count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of -Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do -count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him.” -(Read Phil. 3:2-11.) Paul gave up his fleshly connection and all that -pertained to it, as refuse, or dung, that he might gain Christ; he could -not gain Christ and justification by faith in him without so doing. And -yet all over this country, in the press, in the pulpit and over the -radio, men are teaching that to the Jew belongs the glory of that -supposed kingdom. In that kingdom only the Jews will be citizens; other -people will be subservient to them, and will have to come to the Jews -for favors! That really teaches the Jew to have confidence in the -flesh—to glory in the fact that he is a Jew. It cannot develop in him a -spirit of humility, and therefore hinders his conversion. He must, as -Paul did, give all that up, or he can never gain Christ. - -Recently I heard David L. Cooper, who, Dr. Weber said, is the greatest -living Bible scholar, answer some questions in a radio speech. In giving -answer to a question as to the setting up of the kingdom, he said that -the spiritual kingdom which John announced as at hand was set up on the -first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, but that when Christ -returns to earth he will set up his visible kingdom, and that there -would be no peace on the earth till that was done. In answering another -question he said that Christ will not come till national Israel confess -their national sin of rejecting him. If this last statement is true, -then the coming of Christ is not imminent, but likely it is far in the -future, for there are no signs now that the Jews will ever make such a -confession. And if Cooper is right the Jews have the peace of the world -in their keeping; for according to him the peace of the world depends on -Christ’s second coming, and his coming depends on the conversion of the -Jews. So Christ’s second coming is not imminent, and the Jews hold the -destiny of the world in their hands! And I see no chance for the Jews to -act nationally in anything—how can they? - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - Here is one lesson that Israel never did learn, nor has the world yet - learned it: “O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; - it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” (Jer. 10:23.) - - - - - FUTURE-KINGDOM DOCTRINES - - -A brother in Tennessee wants to know the difference, if any, between the -church and the kingdom of Christ. A brother in Florida writes an article -about long enough to fill my page, seeking to prove that the prophets -foretold a kingdom yet future. Occasionally a brother over in Arkansas -has written me along the same lines. The scheme argued by these two -brethren is along the same lines argued by other future-kingdom -advocates. - -In its broadest sense the church is that body of people who have been -called out of sin into the service of Christ. As Jesus rules over this -body of people, it is his kingdom. - -“Now when John heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent his -disciples, and said unto him, art thou he that cometh, or look we for -another?” In similar fashion let us ask, Is Christianity the scheme of -redemption that was to come, or look we for another? The future-kingdom -advocates have answered, No, we must look for another. On that point -they speak in no uncertain terms. It is argued that, though Jesus came -to establish his kingdom in Jerusalem and to deliver the Jews from -oppression, they rejected him, and he postponed the establishment of his -kingdom till the time of his second coming. On this assumption their use -of the prophecies is a puzzle. If the prophecies foretold the -establishment of his kingdom at his first coming, then they did not -foretell its establishment at his second coming; and the future-kingdom -advocates discredit the prophets by seeking to make it appear that their -prophecies can be shifted from one period to another. And yet they have -the audacity to tell us that if things do not work out according to -their theory, no dependence can be placed in what the prophets say. -Well, half of their theory has failed—the kingdom was not established, -we are told, at his first coming! Now they must shift the prophecies to -some future date. - -Arthur Pink represents F. W. Grant as saying, in the “Numerical Bible,” -that Matthew shows, that because Israel rejected Christ, the kingdom of -heaven would be taken from them, “and assume the mystery form in which -it was unknown to the prophets of Israel.” (page 2). Again (p. 13) Pink -says, “But the Old Testament _knows nothing whatsoever of -Christianity_!” All future-kingdom advocates from whom I quote hold this -same idea. In fact their theory makes it necessary for them to deny that -any Old Testament promise or prophecy referred to the scheme of -redemption preached by the apostles. In the Word and Work (January 1945) -J. Edward Boyd says, “The prophets had clearly seen and foretold the -kingdom gloriously triumphant, all opposition crushed, universal in its -sway; but this present aspect of the kingdom, the church, although in -the mind of God all along, they had not been permitted to see.” - -It is a well known fact that the Jews expected the old kingdom to be -restored and enlarged with the Messiah on the throne in Jerusalem; and -R. H. Boll says, “Their expectations and conceptions of the king and -kingdom had their origin in these Old Testament prophecies.” (Kingdom of -God, p. 25.) “They saw in him that promised Coming One of David’s line -who would free his nation from the Gentile’s yoke and reign over the -house of Jacob, and through it over all the nations of the earth. For so -it was promised.” (p. 26). “The Old Testament prophecies and promises of -the kingdom were the theme of our preceding studies.... By such -predictions as those was the kingdom-hope of Israel created; and that -most justly and nationally. When John the Baptist lifted up his voice in -the wilderness of Judea and announced ‘the kingdom at hand’ he used a -phraseology which was already common and current among the Jews, and -which was perfectly understood by all.” Read that again. If the phrase -“the kingdom of heaven” was “common and current among the Jews,” it was -a phrase of their own invention, for no Old Testament prophecy contains -the phrase. Matt. 3:2 is the first place it occurs in the Bible. Again -(p. 34): “But if the Jewish expectations had been utterly wrong (which, -as we have seen in our former articles, was not the case), even then a -sense of justice would suggest that God would not have left the people -under such misapprehension without a clear protest and correction.” Read -that again. Does he mean to say, that if God announced a kingdom -different from what the Jews expected without telling them so, he did -not have a proper sense of justice? Or does he mean that his own sense -of justice would suggest that God should have made the explanation -suggested? In either case, he crosses himself up; for he says that Jesus -began in Matthew thirteen to talk about the mystery form of the kingdom. -But Jesus did not give any hint, that as the Jews had rejected him, the -kingdom they expected was now postponed and an entirely new sort of -kingdom would be presented. And strange to say, he kept on using the -term “kingdom of heaven,” without telling them he was now using the term -in an entirely new sense. In fact the Jewish idea remained with the -disciples up to the ascension of Christ. Now, what about that sense of -justice? - -AT HAND:—John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye; for the kingdom of -heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus preached, “The time is fulfilled, -and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:14, 15) This plain language -gives the future kingdom advocates a lot of trouble. According to John -R. Rice, they soon quit preaching “the kingdom at hand.” He presents -this question: “Is there a single time after tenth chapter of Matthew -... that they preached that the kingdom of heaven is at hand? I say it -isn’t there.” Again, “After Jesus was rejected definitely by the nation, -the kingdom was no longer at hand.” He argues that the kingdom was -postponed till the second coming of Christ. But he overlooked what Jesus -told the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:1-11). Verse 9: “The kingdom of God -is come nigh unto you.” Verse 11: “nevertheless know this, that the -kingdom of God is come nigh.” This preaching was done during the last -year of Christ’s personal ministry. So what Rice says “isn’t there,” is -there; and he would have seen it if he had been looking for truth -instead of proof to sustain a theory. - -The following sentence from Brother R. H. Boll shows that he realized -the difficulty and tried to hedge against it: “If it be felt a -difficulty that the kingdom, though announced as ‘at hand’, has never -yet appeared, we shall find an explanation unforced and natural, and one -which will cast no reflection on the truth and goodness of God.” (K. p. -34). That statement shows clearly that he realized some explanation was -needed to keep his theory from casting reflection on the truth and -goodness of God; but it seems to me that his attempt at an “unforced and -natural” explanation helps not at all. Hear him: “Since the kingdom -promise was national, the preparatory repentance must of course also be -national: the rulers and the rank and file of the people to all of whom -the kingdom was dear, must now sincerely turn and return to God.” -Passing by his assertion that “the kingdom promise was national,” I call -attention to the “national repentance” idea. Nowhere is there even a -hint that John and Jesus told the people that the establishment of the -kingdom depended on “national repentance.” Neither said, “The time is -fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand, provided the nation repents; -otherwise it will be postponed to some future time.” But not a word -about national repentance, not a word about national rejection and its -results, not a word about postponing the kingdom; and yet in the absence -of any such warning, we are told that the kingdom was postponed. Now, -what about that sense of justice? Quoting again: “The announcement of -the kingdom thus became the basis of the call to repentance.” One motive -to cause them to repent was the promised kingdom. Vast multitudes were -moved by that promise to repent and be baptized. (Mark 1:5; John 4:1, -2). Multitudes did as commanded; and yet according to the future kingdom -advocates none of them received what was promised of them. It seems to -me that the explanation reflects seriously on their proposition, and -really charges that God did not make good on his promises. The -explanation does not explain. What about that sense of justice? - -Paul preached the gospel to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Boll -says this was a terrible perplexity to all believing Jews. He adds: -“That the Gentiles were to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery; -_that_ had been previously revealed. But the observant reader of the -prophets will notice that it is always _after_ the national restoration -and exaltation of Israel, and always through restored Israel and in -subservience to Israel, that the Gentiles were to be blessed.” But why -quote more. - -For a long time I have been preaching that all that the prophets said -about a plan of human redemption is fulfilled in the plan of salvation -preached by Christ and his apostles and is recorded in the New -Testament. I have offered to affirm this proposition: THE PLAN OF -SALVATION SET FORTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE SCHEME OF HUMAN -REDEMPTION FORETOLD BY THE PROPHETS; or, for _foretold by the prophets_ -substitute _foretold in promise and prophecy_. Here is a fair -proposition that covers every point involved in the discussion of the -future-kingdom theory. When it is proved to be true, then the whole -future-kingdom theory is proved to be false. Why put in time showing -that the various phases of the theory are false when one proposition -fully established proves the whole theory false? Why show that their use -of this prophecy and that prophecy is wrong when you can with even more -ease show that the New Testament contradicts their use of the -prophecies? - -Before giving the proof of the correctness of my proposition I wish to -mention another matter. Perhaps a few personal words will not be out of -place. When I was in the Nashville Bible School out on Spruce street, I -had a family—my wife and two children. We had very little money, but we -managed by much self-denial to pay rent on a little house, to buy enough -groceries to keep us alive, and to pay every dollar of tuition. My -youngest brother was with me, and he paid his part of board and rent, -and his tuition. Some of the able bodied boys (students) paid neither -board nor tuition. - -During those days Brother R. H. Boll and I became good friends, and -continued to be so for years. He played the mandolin and his pal Robert -Mahan played the guitar. Frequently they would come to our little home -and entertain us with music. We enjoyed their music, and was glad for -them to come. I liked the two Roberts, but became more intimate with -Robert Boll. Some years later he began to write for the Gospel Advocate, -but a break came between him and the Advocate over what the Advocate -called his “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies.” Brother Boll -started up his Word and Work, but I did not see many copies of it. There -continued to be references to Boll’s “speculating about unfulfilled -prophecies.” I remember distinctly that I thought, “Well, if speculating -about _unfulfilled_ prophecies is all that is the matter with him, why -worry? What he said about unfulfilled prophecies might be as near right -as what any body else said. No one could be sure about an _unfulfilled_ -prophecy. So why the fuss?” You cannot imagine my surprise when I began -to study his booklets to see what he did say. I found that “speculating -about unfulfilled prophecies” was not what was the matter with him at -all. With him the land promise to the Jews is yet to be realized, the -Jews are yet to return to Palestine, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 has not -yet been set up, that Christ has not been seated on David’s throne. To -say that his teaching is speculation about unfulfilled prophecy is to -concede the point. If his teaching that the prophecies concerning the -throne of David are yet unfulfilled is speculating about _unfulfilled -prophecy_, then Christ is not yet on David’s throne. If he is on David’s -throne, then Boll is misapplying prophecy instead of speculating about -unfulfilled prophecy. His trouble is speculating about fulfilled -prophecy—making prophecies that have been fulfilled apply to some -imaginary future scheme of things. Speculating about unfulfilled -prophecy indeed! You have an argument with him about prophecies that you -believe have been fulfilled, and he says they are yet to be fulfilled; -and then you virtually give up your contention by calling it an argument -about unfulfilled prophecy! It makes the heart sick. What unfulfilled -prophecies has Boll been speculating about? When a man seeks to prove by -the prophets that the Jews are yet to be restored to Palestine, that -Christ is yet to be placed on David’s throne, that the new covenant is -yet to be established, that Christ is to be a world ruler with the Jews -as citizens of his kingdom and all others as serfs, that the Gentiles -were to be blessed only through restored Israel and in subservience to -Israel, that Christ is now seeking to convert and train only enough -people to supply the needed number of rulers for a future kingdom, is he -speculating about unfulfilled prophecy? It seems to me that Boll does -very little speculating about unfulfilled prophecy compared with his use -of prophecies that have been fulfilled. How can intelligent people be so -dense? - -In the early part of 1925 Brother C. R. Nichol and I made the first real -attempt that was made to review Brother Boll’s teaching. We worked -together, and no two men ever tried harder to understand exactly what -another man had written. And yet some people, who should have known -better, said we misrepresented Brother Boll and did much to hinder the -effectiveness of our work. An example: A few brethren were talking -together on the sidewalk in Nashville. An aged preacher of considerable -ability and fame charged that we misrepresented Brother Boll, and was -very caustic in his remarks. One of the group, a friend of ours, said: -“Did you ever read their review?” Critic: “No, no; I never read it.” -Friend: “Well, did you read what Boll said?” Critic: “No, no, I never -read it.” Friend: “Well, you are not in a position to say anything about -it.” And that ended the conversation. - -No, we did not misrepresent Brother Boll. But herein is a peculiar -thing. Many who said we misrepresented Boll said they did not believe -his theories. If so, then they believed he misrepresented the -Bible—misrepresented God; and yet in the estimation of some of them he -was a very godly and pious man, even though he did misrepresent God. But -they fancied that we misrepresented Brother Boll, we greatly sinned! Can -you beat it? I can honestly claim that we were as sincere and honest in -dealing With Brother Boll’s writings as his most devoted friends can -claim honesty and sincerity for him in his dealings with the inspired -writings. - -One of the strangest, if not the zaniest things in all this controversy -is that some brethren not only misrepresent themselves, but actually -contradict themselves. An example out of many: A written discussion was -had with Brother Boll in which Brother Boll contended that the land -promise to Abraham is yet unfulfilled, that the prophecies concerning -the seating of Christ on David’s throne are unfulfilled, and so on. Then -that debate was published in a book form with the title, “A Debate About -Unfulfilled Prophecy!” And thus unwittingly the whole issue was -surrendered, virtually saying to Brother Boll, “You are right; the -prophecies we have been debating about are unfulfilled.” Can you top -that? - - - Pointed Paragraphs: - - If you are inclined to think that denominations are the branches Jesus - spoke of, a little reflection will show you how impossible that is. He - meant individuals, not denominations. And the diversity among the - denominations also shows that they are not branches of the vine. No - one ever saw a vine with branches so different as are the - denominations. They are not alike, and they bear different kinds of - fruit. It is impossible for them to be natural branches of the same - vine. - - - - - A PROPOSITION AND ITS PROOF - - -THE PROPOSITION: The plan of Salvation preached by Christ and his -apostles is the scheme of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy. - -This proposition needs no defining. I am aware of the fact that some -future-kingdom advocates do not go so far as to say that none of the -prophecies referred Christianity; but the ones from whom I quoted in the -preceding article, as well as many others, boldly teach that -Christianity is unknown to the prophets. In so arguing they commit -themselves to the fact that only one scheme of redemption was foretold -by the prophets. On this point we agree. Hence, to prove that -Christianity was foretold by the prophets is to eliminate any other -scheme yet to be. In establishing my proposition I shall rely solely on -what is said in the New Testament, for Jesus and his inspired -representatives are the infallible interpreters of the prophets. - -They tell us that Jesus, in Matt. 13, began to set forth a new plan, the -plan of which the prophets said nothing; yet in his speech Jesus said: -“But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. -For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men desired -to see the things which ye see and saw them not; and to hear the things -which ye hear, and heard them not.” (Matt. 13:16, 17.) Now how could -these prophets and righteous men have desired to see and to hear what -these disciples were then seeing and hearing if it had never been -revealed to them that such things would be? - -Late in the day on which Jesus arose from the dead two of his disciples -went out to Emmaus. They knew that the body of Jesus was missing, but it -seems that they did not know he had been seen alive. Along the way Jesus -joined them, but they did not recognize him. They related to him what -they knew of recent events, and added: “But we hoped that it was he who -should redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:21.) They had hoped for freedom from -Rome—redemption for the nation from Roman rule. These are the opening -words of a speech that Jesus made to them: “O foolish men, and slow of -heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (verse 25). Does -not that virtually say that they, in thinking the prophets spoke of -political deliverance, had not really believed what Moses and the -prophets had foretold? They had believed that Jesus would give them an -earthly kingdom; they had not believed what Moses and the prophets had -foretold. They needed a better understanding of Moses and the prophets. -“And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them -in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” If we had that -speech! - -In the great commission Jesus commanded the apostles to make disciples -of all the nations—to preach the gospel to the whole creation. This was -a demand for world-wide evangelism, regardless of race or nationality. -Had such evangelism been foretold by the prophets? What saith the Lord? -In Luke’s account of this commission he quotes Jesus as saying: “Thus it -is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead -the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be -preached in his name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are -witnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my -Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with -power from on high.” (Luke 24:46-49.) Notice what Jesus says had been -written in the prophets—his death and resurrection, and that repentance -and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations, -and that this preaching should begin from Jerusalem. So then, this -world-wide evangelism, which was commanded by Christ and preached first -by his apostles at Jerusalem, had been foretold by the prophets. And -this began to be preached on Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit filled -them with power from on high. Here a plan of salvation was preached, and -this plan had been foretold by the prophets. As only one plan was -foretold by the prophets, they foretold no other plan than the one which -began to be preached at Jerusalem. - -In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter showed that Joel had -prophesied of that day. He also quotes a prophecy of David, which he -interprets to refer to the resurrection of Christ and his being seated -on the throne of David, and then draws this conclusion: “Being therefore -by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the -promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and -hear.” (Acts 2:33.) His argument was that Jesus had been raised up to -sit on David’s throne, and he concludes that he had, therefore, been -exalted. Yet Boll says: “To him, and to him exclusively, the throne of -David belongs by every right. But that he is now already occupying that -throne is precisely that which Peter does not say.” What, then, is the -connection between Peter’s argument and his conclusion? Peter’s argument -followed immediately by _therefore_ is significant. Can any one believe -that Peter argued from David’s prophecy that Jesus had been raised up to -sit on David’s throne, and conclude that he had _therefore_ been exalted -to something else? - -On that day, and in the city of Jerusalem, repentance and remission of -sins in the name of Christ began to be preached, and Jesus tells us that -the prophets had foretold this very thing. Because he was now -anointed—made both Lord and Christ—things began to be done in his name. -Hear Boll again: “He is the anointed King of David’s line, the Christ -appointed for Israel. (Acts 3:20.) But neither is that saying that he -now sits and reigns on David’s throne. David had been anointed God’s -king long before he actually sat upon his rightful throne over Israel, -suffering indignities and persecution at the hands of Saul, and -rejection at the hands of the people; and he never took the government -until the people themselves willingly sought his rule and chose him and -submitted.” But Bro. Boll overlooks the decisive point. Nothing in the -kingdom was done in the name of David till he actually “took the -government.” When he actually became king, things began to be done in -his name and by his authority. If Boll could show that nothing is yet -done in the name of Christ, there would be some point in what he says -about David. The fact that pardon was offered the enemies of Christ on -the condition that they would repent and be baptized shows that he was -then actually the reigning king. In Boll’s theory Jesus is only the heir -apparent. - -When Peter first preached to the Gentiles, he went against the -prejudices of all Jews, including himself. Could he quote any prophecy -to fit the occasion? He was preaching to the Gentiles independent of -Israel and against the prejudices of Israel, and yet he said: “To him -bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that -believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43.) This -inspired apostle understood that the prophets foretold the very thing -that he was then doing—namely, offering salvation to the Gentiles -independent of Israel. Hence, the only plan of salvation foretold by the -prophets was then in operation. - -When the Jews of Antioch of Pisidia “contradicted the things which were -spoken by Paul, and blasphemed,” he said to them: “Lo we turn to the -Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee for -a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the -uttermost part of the earth.” - -Hence, in preaching salvation to the Gentiles, Paul was carrying out the -prophecy of Isaiah. (Acts 13:44-47.) - -Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles alike, and affirmed that there was no -distinction; and the people of Berea searched the Scriptures daily to -see whether his preaching was so. This led many of them to believe. -(Acts 17:10-12.) Now, if the prophets had said nothing concerning the -plan of salvation Paul was preaching, but had always foretold that -Gentiles would be blessed only through Israel restored and in -subservience to Israel, their searching the Scriptures would have led -these Bereans to the conclusion that Paul was wrong. - -Paul was sent to preach especially to the Gentiles; he was the apostle -to the Gentiles. Not only did he preach to the Gentiles independent of -the Jews, but in spite of them. “For this cause,” said he to Agrippa, -“the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. Having -therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day -testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets -and Moses did say should come: how that the Christ should suffer, and -how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light -both to the people and to the Gentiles.” The gospel which he preached -was foretold by the prophets and Moses, and he preached nothing that had -not been foretold by them. Because of this he said to Agrippa: “King -Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.” - -“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated unto the -gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy -scriptures.” Paul’s call is recorded in Acts 26:12-20. Concerning this -call he later said: “But when it was the good pleasure of God, who -separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his -grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the -Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood.” (Gal. 1:15, -16.) And Paul fought hard to keep the gospel of Christ free from all -taint of Judaism and to maintain his right to preach the gospel to the -Gentiles; and he pronounced a curse upon those Judaizing Christians who -would corrupt the gospel by mixing it with Judaism (Gal. 1:6-9); and he -affirms that this gospel which he preached was the gospel which God -“promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” The whole -theory of the future-kingdom advocates, as well as some things they -boldly affirm, is an emphatic denial of what Paul here says. It is plain -to any thoughtful person that the plan of salvation which Paul preached -is the scheme of redemption foretold by the prophets. - -Notice the _now_ in the following: “But now apart from the law a -righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law -and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus -Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.” (Rom. -3:21, 22.) This righteousness of God, which had now been manifested, was -to all believers without race or national distinction; and this -righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is witnessed by the law and -the prophets; and as the law and the prophets gave witness to only one -scheme of redemption, it is plain that the future-kingdom hopes have no -basis. - -Paul shows that the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled in those who -are children of God by faith in Christ. (Gal. 3:22-29; 4:28-31.) And it -seems that the book of Hebrews was written to counteract the teaching of -the Judaizers of the church. That letter plainly shows that the types -and shadows of the law pointed definitely to the church—to this plan of -salvation through Christ. And in the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters -the writer shows that the new covenant, or New Testament, foretold by -Jeremiah is now in force; yet Boll says concerning the new birth: “It is -the universal requirement of acceptance with God, and characteristic of -the new covenant which now in its principle applies to the church, and -which the Lord will make with the house of Israel and with the house of -Judah ‘after those days’.” The new covenant now applies to us only in -principle—it is yet to be made! To what extremes people will go to -maintain a groundless theory! Jesus is now the mediator of a better -covenant, “which hath been enacted upon better promises,” not will be -enacted. “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By -which will we have been sanctified.” (Heb. 10:9, 10.) The man who can -read the book of Hebrews and not see that the types and shadows of the -law pointed to Christianity as we have it now simply does not see what -he reads. They desire to be teachers of the prophecies and the law, -“though they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they -confidently affirm.” - -“Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, -who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what -time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did -point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and -the glories that should follow them. To whom it was revealed, that not -unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now -have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto -you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.” (1 Pet. 1:10-12.) While -the prophets were foretelling the blessings that were to come, they were -“searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which -was in them did point unto.” Many of the future-kingdom advocates do not -profess to know the time of the fulfillment of what they say these -prophets foretold, but they, with one accord, profess to know exactly -the manner of the time—a thing the prophets themselves did not know! -They have that all figured out—oh, so much wiser than the prophets! They -tell us in no uncertain terms the manner of that time, as they have it -figured out. But Peter explodes their theory by telling us that these -prophets were ministering to us, and that the things they foretold had -been announced through them that preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit -sent forth from Heaven. As the prophets foretold only one scheme of -redemption, and that scheme has been announced through them that -preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit, it is certain that there will be -no future scheme in operation. Hence— - -The plan of salvation preached by Christ and his apostles is the scheme -of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy. Nor have I relied on my -interpretation of the prophecies to prove the proposition. - - - - - FOOTNOTES - - -[1]For a full discussion of these questions, see “Doctrinal Discourses” - pp. 294-298. - - - - - SCRIPTURE INDEX - - - GENESIS - Page - 8:22 69 - 12:1-3 32, 84 - 12:7 85 - 13:14-17 32 - 15:7 85 - 17:8 85, 87, 88 - 25:23 89 - 26:2, 3 86 - 28:4 25 - 28:13 86 - 35:12 25 - - - EXODUS - 12:25 90 - 13:5 90 - 19:4-6 91 - 19:5, 6 23, 28, 32, 81 - - - NUMBERS - 21:4-9 83 - - - DEUTERONOMY - 6:3, 10, 18, 23 90 - 8:1 90 - 8:19, 20 33, 108 - Chs. 27 & 28 33 - 28:15 108 - 30:8, 10 108 - 31:20 90 - - - JOSHUA - 21:43-45 26, 34, 86, 107 - 23:14 33, 87, 107 - 23:14, 15 90 - - - I SAMUEL - Ch. 8 23 - 8:4-7 91 - 8:4-22 28 - 8:18-22 29 - 8:19, 20 92 - 10:24, 25 24 - 12:19 92 - 14:47 29 - 15:28 89 - - - I KINGS - 2:12 93 - 2:12, 24 27, 28 - - - II KINGS - 5:1-19 83 - - - I CHRONICLES - 12:23 24 - 29:23 28, 93, 111 - - - NEHEMIAH - 1:8, 9 108 - - - PSALMS - 22:12 77 - 37:1 125 - 34:8 43 - 40:8 62 - 89:34, 35 80 - 119:103 43 - - - ISAIAH - 1:3 10, 55 - 1:4 54 - 2:2, 3 78 - 6:10 54, 55 - 9:7 21 - 11:6-9 76 - 13:1-10 154 - 13:17-22 21 - 40:4 79 - 40:3, 4 75, 78 - 55:12 76 - - - JEREMIAH - 1:9, 10 158, 159 - 2:13 10 - 4:7 77 - 18:5-10 37 - 18:9, 10 30 - 20:7-9 11 - 30:7 151 - Ch. 31 103 - 38:4 11 - 50:17 77 - 51:60-62 21 - - - EZEKIEL - 19:1-9 77 - 26:7-14 21 - 34:11-31 40 - 37:21, 22 40 - Chs. 37 to 39:21-29 40 - - - DANIEL - 2:31-35 155 - 2:36-45 156 - 2:44, 45 159 - 2:44 163 - Ch. 7 79 - - - HOSEA - 13:9-11 28 - 13:10, 11 24 - 13:11 93 - - - AMOS - 1:1 41 - 4:1 77 - 7:7-17 41 - 9:11-15 29 - 9:13-15 41 - - - ZEPHANIAH - 3:3 77 - - - MATTHEW - 3:2 52, 179, 180 - 3:3 76 - 3:10 109 - 7:15 77 - 10:16 77 - 12:43-45 35, 109 - 13:14, 15 55 - 13:16, 17 187 - 16:18 38 - 16:28 43 - 18:19 58 - 19:28 46, 49 - 20:20, 21 112 - 21:33-43 36 - 21:43 82, 110 - 22:24 146 - 25:31-46 38, 50, 68 - 25:31, 32, 41, 46 48 - 25:46 48, 84 - - - MARK - 1:5 181 - 1:14, 15 180 - 1:15 113 - 9:1 43 - 10:35-37 112 - 12:19 146 - 16:16 84 - - - LUKE - 3:4, 5 76 - 9:27 43 - 10:1-10 113 - 10:1-11 180 - 10:11 53, 180 - 12:32 49 - 12:42-48 98, 124 - 17:20 44 - 19:13-27 120 - 20:28 146 - 22:28-30 48 - 24:21 188 - 24:25 188 - 24:46, 47 103 - 24:46-49 112, 189 - - - JOHN - 3:14 139 - 4:1, 2 181 - 4:34 62 - 5:28, 29 143 - 5:40 84 - 6:44, 45 16 - 7:37-39 112 - 8:15 65 - 12:39, 40 54, 55 - 17:4 38 - 20:23 47 - 20:30, 31 118 - - - ACTS - 2:23 57 - 2:29-36 29 - 2:29-38 111 - 2:30-36 46 - 2:33 111, 189 - 2:35 31 - 2:38 112 - 3:24 57 - 4:1, 2 143 - 4:2 141 - 4:27, 28 57 - 7:5 86, 88 - 7:17 25, 86, 89 - 7:32 133 - 10:43 104, 191 - 11:13, 14 15 - 13:27 57 - 13:44-47 191 - 15:11 61 - 15:13-16 115 - 15:13-19 29 - 15:17, 18 115 - 17:10-12 191 - 17:11 104 - 20:29 77 - 23:6 144 - 24:15 141, 144 - 26:12-20 192 - 26:22 57, 104 - 26:22, 23 104 - - - ROMANS - 1:2 57 - 1:1, 2 104 - 1:16 15 - 3:21 22, 105, 193 - 6:13 139 - 7:5 173 - 7:1-6 22 - 8:6-9 173 - 10:12 173 - 10:16-21 56 - 10:19 105 - 11:1-10 56 - 11:12 60 - 11:14 173 - 11:15 140 - 11:17-24 59 - 11:20 110 - - - I CORINTHIANS - 3:16, 17 39 - 6:2, 3 49 - 15:22 144 - 15:26-28 31 - 15:39 173 - - - II CORINTHIANS - 3:4-18 22 - 5:14, 15 35 - 5:15 65 - 5:16 35, 65 - 6:2 110 - 11:17, 18 65 - - - GALATIANS - 1:6-9 193 - 1:15, 16 192 - 3:7 110 - 3:11-22 22 - 3:16 84 - 3:22-29 193 - 3:29 36, 110 - 4:4 56 - 4:21-31 22, 109 - 4:28-31 193 - 5:12 174 - 6:13-16 174 - - - EPHESIANS - 2:14-16 22 - 2:20-22 39 - 3:10, 11 114 - 3:21 115 - - - PHILIPPIANS - 2:13 15 - 3:2-8 35, 65 - 3:2-11 175 - 3:3 36 - 3:10-14 144 - - - COLOSSIANS - 1:13 113 - 2:14 22 - 3:11 61 - - - I THESSALONIANS - 4:13-5:11 134 - - - II THESSALONIANS - 1:6-10 38, 48 - 1:7-10 68 - 2:1 136 - 2:8-12 55 - - - I TIMOTHY - 6:15 113 - - - II TIMOTHY - 4:1-5 7 - - - TITUS - 3:5 46 - - - HEBREWS - 6:4, 5 43 - Ch. 8 103, 193 - Chs. 8, 9, 10 193 - 9:1-10 39 - 9:11 39 - 10:9, 10 194 - - - JAMES - 1:21 15 - - - I PETER - 1:10-12 74, 104, 194 - 2:5 39 - 2:9 68 - 5:8 64 - - - II PETER - 1:3 42 - 1:19-21 73 - 3:1-14 69 - - - REVELATION - 1:6 68, 172 - 1:17 132 - 3:10 151 - 3:21 111 - 4:6-9 63 - 7:9 49 - Ch. 12 64, 65, 66 - 20:8, 10, 12 67, 68 - - - - - Transcriber’s Notes - - -—Silently corrected a few typos. - -—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook - is public-domain in the country of publication. - -—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by - _underscores_. - - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KINGDOM OF PROMISE AND -PROPHECY *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |