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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.