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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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?
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.
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.