QUESTIONS
HAVE ALL PROPHECIES OF OLD TESTAMENT BEEN FULFILLED?
1. Have all the prophecies of the Old Testament been fulfilled?—Beaumont
And I might ask: When is a prophecy fulfilled? Some prophecies are
fulfilled in a simple act, or event. The prophecies concerning the birth
of Christ were fulfilled when he was born, and the prophecies concerning
his death were fulfilled when he was crucified. Other prophecies
concerning single events will occur to the reader. But some prophecies
spoke of conditions that were to prevail over a long period of time.
Study the prophecies concerning Babylon and Tyre. (Isa. 13:17-22; Jer.
51:60-62; Ezek. 26:7-14.) These cities were destroyed, as foretold; but
they were to remain in desolation forever. That part of the prophecy is
still being fulfilled. Certain prophecies concerning Christ, which began
to be fulfilled on the first Pentecost after his resurrection, will go
on being fulfilled as long as time shall last. He was to establish a
kingdom; that prophecy has been fulfilled. But the prophecy further
says: “Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no
end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it,
and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth
even for ever.” (Isa. 9:7.) This prophecy began to be fulfilled when
Jesus took his seat upon David’s throne and established his kingdom. But
the prophecy says he was to reign upon that throne forever. That
prophecy covers the whole period of time, from the time Jesus began to
reign till he surrenders up the kingdom to his Father. And he is still
saving the people, as the prophets foretold that he would.
But the prophecies concerning the Jews that the future-kingdom folks
harp on so much have been fulfilled.
Pointed Paragraphs:
One fact is made to stand out clearly in the New Testament—namely,
that the Law of Moses, with all its legal enactments, all its forms,
ceremonies, and penalties, ended at the cross; and it is surprising
that any one who professes to believe the New Testament should think
otherwise. If interested, read Rom. 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:4-18; Gal.
3:11-22; 4:21-31; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14. A thoughtful reading of the
letter to the Hebrews will convince any one that the old covenant
passed away and that we now have a new and living way.
Christ loved the church, bought it with his own blood, and prayed for
its oneness. So far as we can, we should love the church as he loved
it.
GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON OLD TESTAMENT KINGDOM
It is some times difficult to determine just what information is wanted.
There are, however, some things about “the Old Testament kingdom” that
should be carefully considered.
When God called Israel out of Egypt, he said to them: “Now therefore, if
ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be
mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine:
and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex.
19:5, 6.) For a long period of time after they settled in Canaan they
had no king but Jehovah; they were, therefore, Jehovah’s kingdom. But
there came a time when they wanted a change; they wanted a centralized
government, with a man as their king. At that time they had an excuse
for demanding a king. Read carefully the eighth chapter of First Samuel.
Samuel was old, and his sons were corrupt. “Then all the elders of
Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah; and
they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy
ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But this
thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And
Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto
the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have
not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king
over them.” Samuel was commanded to show them the nature of the
government they were demanding. When Samuel had done so, the people
said: “Nay; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like
all the nations.” Jehovah selected Saul as their first king. When the
day of his anointing came, Samuel said to the people: “See ye him whom
Jehovah hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the
people?... Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and
wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Jehovah.” (1 Sam. 10:24, 25.)
Thus Israel became a kingdom among kingdoms, and was then reckoned as
such.
Israel had not only sinned against Jehovah, but had rejected him as
their king. The kingdom thus established was not Jehovah’s kingdom.
While Saul reigned, it was the kingdom of Saul. (1 Chron. 12:23.) It was
transferred to David because of Saul’s sins; it was then David’s
kingdom. Any time thereafter it was the kingdom of the man who was king.
It is strange that some people yet look for that kingdom to be
restored—a kingdom that was conceived in sin and brought forth in
rebellion against Jehovah! On one occasion, when Israel was in great
distress, Jehovah said to them: “Where now is thy king, that he may save
thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a
king and princes? I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken
him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:10, 11.) With what emotions do they
expect the Lord to restore that kingdom?
PROMISE TO ABRAHAM: GEN. 13:14, 15 AND ACTS 7:5
Since Abraham bought even a burying place for Sarah, and Stephen, in
Acts 7:5, says, “He (God) gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so
much as to set his foot on,” in what sense, if any, did he receive the
promise contained in Gen. 13:14, 15?—Mrs. Mary B. Robins.
Personally, Abraham did not receive actual title to the land of promise,
though the Lord, in some sense, did give him the land, as will be seen
by reading Gen. 28:4; 35:12. He enjoyed its productiveness as fully as
if he had been its actual owner. His vast herds fattened on its grass
and drank water from the wells which his servants digged. Had God driven
out all the nations and turned the land over to Abraham, he could not
have possessed it nor have made any more use of it than he did. Stephen
certainly did not mean to say that God had failed in his promise to
Abraham. It seems that Stephen’s point was that the promise was not to
Abraham as an individual, but to him as the founder of a nation—to his
seed. The time for the promise to be fulfilled would come when Abraham’s
posterity became sufficiently numerous to possess the land. That was
clearly Stephen’s point, for he adds: “But as the time of the promise
drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and
multiplied in Egypt.” (Acts 7:17.) This shows that the time for the
fulfillment of that promise was when the people grew and multiplied, and
that the time for its fulfillment was not in Abraham’s day, nor is it
yet in the future. It was fulfilled when the nations were driven out of
Canaan and the land divided between the tribes of Israel. “So Jehovah
gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers;
and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of
any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel.”
(Josh. 21:43, 45.)
Yet in the face of all this, it has been argued that the land promise to
Abraham must yet be fulfilled, and that Abraham must be raised and the
Jews restored to Palestine in order for this promise to be fulfilled.
But the argument is mixed. It starts out to prove that the land must be
given to Abraham, and winds up with his sharing it with the Jews. But
Stephen’s language destroys that conclusion, for his language shows
plainly that Abraham and his seed were not to possess it jointly at the
same time. Notice the language: “He promised that he would give to him
in possession, and to his seed after him.” Not with him, but “after
him.” The future-kingdom folks will have a hard time showing how Abraham
will possess the land of Canaan during a millennium and then his seed
possess it after him.
Pointed Paragraphs:
There are only two things that a person can do with a command—he can
obey it or disobey it. One whose heart is right toward God will do
whatever God commands him to do.
THE JEWS AND THEIR KINGDOM
For some time I have had on hand some letters from an aged Texas
brother, an ardent advocate of the future-kingdom theory and its allied
theories. These letters contain seven closely written pages—too much for
this page. In his last letter the brother says: “You answer questions
for others, but it seems that my questions are a little too hard for
you.... We recall that some months ago you said that the kingdom of
David and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same kingdom, and that Solomon
sat on the throne of Jehovah. Solomon sat on the throne of David.” (1
Kings 2:12, 24.)
When a person asks for information, I give his question attention as
soon as possible; but when a person is merely trying to flunk me on what
he considers a hard examination, I take the examination when it suits
me. Besides, those who ask for information should have first
consideration. The editor assigned me the task of answering questions,
and not to carry on debates; but I must break over this time and stand
the examination, and also do a little debating.
But the brother’s memory seems to be at fault. I do not recall saying
that the kingdom of David and the kingdom of Jehovah were the same. At
least, that is not my idea at all. In a general sense God rules in all
the universe, but in a special sense he ruled Israel for a time. At
Mount Sinai, Jehovah said: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice
indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from
among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a
kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) Later they
rejected Jehovah as their king. Jehovah said: “They have rejected me,
that I should not be king over them.” (See 1 Samuel 8:4-22.) God
permitted them to have a king. The resultant kingdom was conceived in
sin and brought forth in rebellion against Jehovah. The people dethroned
Jehovah, so to speak, and organized a kingdom of their own. “It is thy
destruction, O Israel, that thou art against me, against thy help. Where
now is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy
judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I have given
thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos.
13:9-11.) And yet all the time of that kingdom the right to rule the
people was Jehovah’s. The king sat on Jehovah’s throne over Israel.
But our brother does not think Solomon sat on Jehovah’s throne, but on
David’s throne. It is strange that these future-kingdom advocates can
see 1 Kings 2:12, 24, but cannot see 1 Chron. 29:23: “Then Solomon sat
on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” This
language shows also that David had sat on the throne of Jehovah. It was
really Jehovah’s throne, but was called David’s throne because he
occupied it. And while Solomon occupied it, it was also his throne.
Concerning Solomon, Jehovah said: “I will establish his throne forever.”
It was Jehovah’s throne, David’s throne, and then Solomon’s throne.
Hence, God had allowed the people to have their way and put a king on
his throne. The management of the affairs of the kingdom was in the
hands of the king. “Now when Saul had taken the kingdom over Israel.” (1
Sam. 14:47.) The whole organization of the kingdom was in the king’s
hands. But enough of this. Here are the questions:
1. “Was the kingdom of David a material, visible kingdom, or an
invisible spirit kingdom?”
It was a kingdom like other kingdoms. The people said: “We will have a
king over us, that we may be like all the nations.” And Jehovah said to
Samuel: “Hearken unto their voice.” (1 Sam. 8:18-22.) That settles it.
It was a kingdom patterned after other kingdoms. That kingdom was
destroyed and how any sane person should expect God to restore a kingdom
that was organized in rebellion against him is one of the mysteries.
2. “God destroyed it, but said he would restore it as in the days of
old. (Amos 9:11-15.) Has it been restored as it was?”
God did not say that he would restore that rebellious kingdom as it was.
The tabernacle of David was the royal family of David. The royal house,
or family, of David fell. It was set up again when Jesus, of the royal
family of David, was exalted at God’s right hand and made both Lord and
Messiah. (Acts 2:29-36.) According to James, this had to be done before
the gospel could be preached to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:13-19.) That
prophecy of Amos has been fulfilled.
3. “Have all Israel been gathered from the nations and given possession
of their land, with David as their king, as prophesied in Ezek.
37:10-24?”
Ezekiel uttered that prophecy while Israel was in captivity. Any
Israelite who heard or read that prophecy would understand him to be
referring to their then existing captivity. Our brother does not believe
that the same David of old would be again their king, but that one of
the seed of David would be king. Jesus was of the seed of David, and is
now king. Neither are the Jews now in captivity. It is strange that any
one would take a passage that speaks of delivering the Jews from
captivity and apply it to the Jews of today or of tomorrow. In the
prophecy referred to, Jehovah said: “I will take the children of Israel
from among the nations, whither they are gone.” They were among the
nations at that time, and from that condition Jehovah would deliver
them. As to whether they then became a glorious nation would be
determined by their own conduct. “And at what instant I shall speak
concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice,
then will I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.”
(Jer. 18:9, 10.) This prophecy was spoken direct to Israel as a warning
to them.
4. “If the kingdom was restored at Pentecost, why did every apostle
after Pentecost that spoke of the return of Christ put it in the
future?”
The old kingdom was not restored, but the kingdom of God was set up on
Pentecost. Christ is on the throne, where he will sit till all his
enemies are subdued. (Acts 2:35.) The last enemy to be abolished is
death. (1 Cor. 15:26.) Death will be destroyed when the whole human
family is raised from the dead. Jesus will occupy his present throne
till that event is consummated. He will deliver up the kingdom to the
Father. (1 Cor. 15:26-28.) That leaves no room for Jesus to reign on
another throne before all the dead are raised. Yes, the apostles spoke
of the return of Christ as future; but, unfortunately for the
future-kingdom theory, they did not put the establishment of his kingdom
in the future. Neither did these ambassadors for Christ tell us that the
Jews would yet be restored to Palestine.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Instead of recognizing that God was working out through them his plan
for the redemption of the world, the Jews concluded God cared for no
other people. The promise to Abraham and their own prophets should
have taught them the truth, but they were too much wrapped up in
themselves to see the truth.
From the things we learn from God’s dealings with nations, it can be
safely said that no nation falls so long as it serves a purpose in
God’s plans. That was true anciently, and it is true today.
WILL JEWS RETURN TO JERUSALEM?
From Tennessee comes this question: “Do the Scriptures teach that the
Jews will return to Jerusalem and then Christ will come and rebuild
the temple there?”
We learn from a note accompanying the question that a Holy Roller or
some similar kind of preacher is creating a little confusion by teaching
that the Jews will return to Jerusalem and Christ will soon come and
rebuild the temple.
There is no way to keep fanatics from making wild guesses, nor to keep
speculators from perverting the word of God. But if people studied the
Bible as they should, such fellows would create very little confusion.
It is hard to tell just why such a high fever has lately developed about
the future of the Jews. Some preachers seem not to have much thought for
any one but the Jews.
God promised Abraham to make of his seed a great nation and to give to
them the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17.) After Israel came out
of Egypt, God entered into a covenant with them, promising to make of
them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, on condition that they
obeyed his voice and kept his covenant. (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But as they
neared Canaan, Jehovah said to them: “And it shall be, if thou shalt
forget Jehovah thy God, and walk after other Gods, and serve them, and
worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely
perish. As the nations that Jehovah maketh to perish before you, so
shall ye perish; because ye would not hearken unto the voice of Jehovah
your God.” (Deut. 8:19, 20.) The nations spoken of perished permanently,
never to inhabit Canaan again. Israel was to perish as they did, if they
turned from Jehovah in rebellion against him. I think one can safely say
that not a future-kingdom advocate believes that Scripture just as it
reads.
Some, at least, of those who look for the return of the Jews to
Palestine and the restoration of their old kingdom tell us that the land
promise to Abraham and his seed was an unconditional promise. If so, why
have the Jews been deprived of their land for eighteen and a half
centuries? If the Jews were driven out because of their conduct, then
the land covenant, or promise, was conditional. It seems to me that
their theory virtually charges God with a failure to carry out an
unconditional promise. Just here the interested reader should read
carefully Deut. 27 and 28. But some will tell us that the land promise
and the national promises have not yet been fulfilled to the Jews; but
in so contending they run squarely against plain statements of
Scripture.
After Israel had conquered the land of Palestine and each tribe had
entered into its inheritance, Joshua called the people together and made
an address to them, in which he said: “And behold, this day I am going
the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your
souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which
Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you,
not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14.) Joshua had already
declared: “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to
give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein....
There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto
the house of Israel; all came to pass.” (Josh. 21:43-45.) Hence, they
had come into possession of all that God had sworn to their fathers to
give them. All of God’s promises to them have been fulfilled, even
though they never again see the land of Palestine.
Some centuries after they came into possession of Palestine the
Israelites became so corrupt and rebellious that they were carried into
captivity. Many of the prophets foretold this carrying away into
captivity, and there were numerous prophecies that they would be brought
back into their own land. These prophecies, long ago fulfilled, are now
brought forward to prove that the Jews will again be brought back into
their own land. It is a miserable perversion of prophecies that have had
their fulfillment in the restoration of the Jews from their Babylonian
captivity. Why should any one call it speculation about unfulfilled
prophecy?
The contention that the Jews are yet God’s chosen people, and that he
yet has in store for them special blessings that are not obtainable by
other people, is in direct contradiction to God’s whole plan of
salvation through Christ. The plain teaching of the New Testament is
against such an idea, and yet it is God’s final revelation to man, and
shows the full development and perfection of all the plans and purposes
which God began in the Old Testament to outline in promise, prophecy,
and type. Hence, if God has yet in store some special blessings for the
Jews, he certainly would have told us about it in the New Testament; but
instead of giving us such information, the New Testament distinctly and
emphatically teaches that now fleshly relations count for nothing.
Although Paul was “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a
Hebrew of the Hebrews,” he counted such fleshly relations as but refuse,
and declared that he had no confidence in the flesh—that is, in any
fleshly relations. (Phil. 3:2-8.) In 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, Paul declares that
Christ died for all, and because of that fact he adds, “Wherefore we
henceforth know no man after the flesh”—we give no distinction to any
man because of his nationality. “Even though we have known Christ after
the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.” (verse 16.) No one thinks of
Christ as a Jew with a Jew’s narrow nationalistic traits, but as a world
savior. That he so often referred to himself as the _Son of man_, and
not as a Jew, is more significant than many think. It sets him before us
as equally related to all men and as equally interested in all men.
Jehovah is not a tribal God and Jesus is not a tribal king, as most of
the future-kingdom folks seem to believe.
Jesus himself gives us a picture of the latter end of the Jews. Read
Matt. 12:43-45. The unclean spirit, having been driven out of the man,
returns to the man with seven other spirits worse than himself. “And the
last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it
be also unto this evil generation.” If the word here translated
_generation_ means _race_, as it often does, the future of the Jewish
race is dark indeed.
In applying the lesson of the parable of the householder, Jesus said:
“Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from
you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
(See Matt. 21:33-43.) This nation is the new Israel of God, the church.
Christians are now the circumcision. (Phil. 3:3.) Christians are now
“Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” (Gal. 3:29.) The promises
and prophecies that have not been fulfilled to fleshly Israel are to be
fulfilled to the church, which is now God’s Israel.
It has already been shown that there is no ground for expecting the Jews
to return to Palestine. Instead of finding any teaching to that effect
in the New Testament, as we would expect to find if such is to take
place, we find the weight of New Testament teaching to be against such
an event.
The return of the Jews to Palestine, the rebuilding of the temple, and
the restoration of the Jewish kingdom are all so interwoven in the
program of the future-kingdom advocates that they stand or fall
together. It is a significant fact that the prophecies relied on to
prove the fore-going propositions were all uttered before the Babylonian
captivity or during that captivity. The Babylonian captivity had often
been foretold. Therefore, when any prophet spoke of the regathering of
the Jews to Palestine and the rebuilding of their temple, every Jew of
that time would understand the prophet to be speaking of their return
from Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of their temple then.
Ezekiel prophesied during the captivity, being himself one of the early
captives. Of course, anything he said about the return of the Jews and
the rebuilding of the temple would be understood by every Jew of that
time as referring to their deliverance from their present captivity.
Without some special words of explanation they could not have understood
it otherwise. But no such words of explanation were given. The prophets
knew how the Jews would understand them, and yet they let it go at that.
Are we to understand that God, through his prophets, deceived the Jews?
Surely not. The prophets foretold the return of the Jews from captivity.
The Jews would understand them to refer to their return from Babylonian
captivity. What then? Sound principles of exegesis demand that these
circumstances and conditions be taken into consideration in the
application of these prophecies. This the future-kingdom advocates fail
to do. But they tell us that some of the promises in these prophecies
concerning the return of the Jews from captivity have not yet been
fulfilled. But such an affirmation ignores the conditionality of God’s
promises. It is the same blunder that is made by the advocates of the
impossibility of apostasy. Even if it could be shown that some things
promised to the Jews on their return to Palestine were never fulfilled,
that would not prove that they will yet be fulfilled. The human side
must be taken into consideration. Hear the Lord through Jeremiah:
“Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house
of Israel.... And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and
concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is
evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the
good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jer. 18:5-10.) This is
God’s warning to Israel, but it has no weight with the future-kingdom
advocates.
The Lord brought the Jews back from captivity and planted them in their
land. They would have had God’s choicest blessings had they obeyed his
voice; but they failed him, and plunged into the grossest sins. This
criminality culminated in their murdering the Son of God and many of his
saints. It was not the crimes of individuals here and there, but the
deliberate crimes of the nation. Death is the punishment for deliberate
murder. National murder demanded national death. The Jewish nation
suffered that death in the destruction of Jerusalem.
When God sent his Son into the world, he did not send him to reorganize
the Jewish kingdom, but to open up a way of salvation for sinners. He
did not fail to accomplish what he was sent to do, as the future-kingdom
advocates claim. Hear his own words: “I glorified thee on the earth,
having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.” (John
17:4.) That statement should settle a lot of speculation about the
rejected king and the postponed kingdom.
When Jesus comes again, he will not come to rebuild the temple in
Jerusalem, but to render judgment. (Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:6-10.)
His temple is here now. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matt.
16:18.) That church is his temple. “Know ye not that ye are a temple of
God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth
the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy,
and such are ye.” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17.) “Being built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner
stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth
into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for
a habitation of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:20-22.) In the old material
temple, animal sacrifices and other material sacrifices were offered; in
this new spiritual temple, spiritual sacrifices are offered. “Ye also,
as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through
Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 2:5.) Can any one believe that we are to give up
this glorious spiritual temple for the old material temple? this
spiritual worship for the carnal ordinances of the material temple? If
so, he has poor taste for the spiritual.
The temple in Jerusalem was but a type, a shadow, of this glorious
spiritual temple. (Heb. 9:1-10.) This spiritual house is a “greater and
more perfect tabernacle.” (Heb. 9:11.) Now, we are gravely told that in
the millennium we will exchange this glorious spiritual temple for the
material temple with its animal sacrifices, give up the substance for
the shadow, give up the gospel of grace for the law of the temple, which
means the law of Moses. That temple, we are informed, will be again
sanctified by the blood of animals. Such material conceptions as this
whole future-kingdom idea suits very well such materialists as the
Russellites, but has no place in the thinking of one who glories in the
cross of Christ and in his blood-bought church.
As a sample of the passages relied on to prove that the Jews are yet to
be restored to Palestine and their temple rebuilt, read Ezek. 34:11-31;
also chapters 37; 39:21-29, and to the close of Ezekiel. Remember, as
you read, that Ezekiel prophesied while he and his nation were in
captivity. In the temple of which Ezekiel speaks there were to be all
the offerings and ceremonies required by the law of Moses. The blood of
the animal sacrifices served the same purposes as the law specified. The
priests were of the tribe of Levi. This cannot refer to the future, for
no Jew now knows to what tribe he belongs. With the blood of animals
atonement was to be made for the people. If a man can believe all this
is yet future, he can believe anything that suits his fancy; facts will
be no barrier to anything he wants to believe.
Pointed Paragraphs:
From Alabama comes this request: “Explain Ezek. 37, concerning the dry
bones and sticks. When did this take place?”
The children of Israel were then in captivity; from that captivity
they were to be delivered. (See verses 21, 22.) The dry bones coming
to life represented their return from captivity. Their return would be
as if they were coming alive from the dead. Their captivity was their
burial; their return would be as if they were coming from their
graves. They had been divided into two kingdoms. Joining the two
sticks into one stick represented the joining of the two peoples into
one nation after their return. Their return is told in Ezra and
Nehemiah. After that return they were one people. And they would have
had a glorious kingdom had they obeyed Jehovah. The prophecies of the
Old Testament concerning the fate of the Jews in their disobedience
are being fulfilled all down the ages.
PROPHECY OF AMOS 9:13-15
Has the prophecy in Amos 9:13-15 been fulfilled?—Mrs. X, Detroit.
Amos 9:13-15: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the plowman
shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth
seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall
melt. And I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel, and they
shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant
vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall make gardens, and eat
the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall
no more be plucked up out of their land, which I have given them, saith
Jehovah thy God.”
Amos had gone from his home at Tekoa to Bethel to prophesy against the
kingdom of Israel, which had become very corrupt, and to warn the people
of their coming doom. (Amos 1:1; 7:7-17.) They were to be sifted,
scattered, among the nations. As Amos was speaking of their captivity,
which they later suffered, it seems reasonable to conclude that the
verses in question referred to their return from that captivity. All who
wanted to return from that captivity to their own land had abundant
opportunity. There is no evidence that the Jews will again be carried
out of their own land into captivity, so as to be brought out of
captivity in the future. All the prophecies that speak of a return of
the Jews out of captivity have been fulfilled. One thing is sure: they
are not now in captivity; therefore, they could not now be brought out
of captivity, unless again carried into captivity.
Pointed Paragraphs:
ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN
“Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that
pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that
called us by his own glory and virtue.” (2 Pet. 1:3.) We are in the
habit of saying that God has given us in the gospel everything that is
essential to life and godliness; but Peter goes a little farther than
that and affirms that God has given us all things that pertain to life
and godliness. There is a difference. To illustrate: There are certain
things that are essential to an automobile; and there are other things
that pertain to an automobile; but are not essential to it. When you
have all things that are essential to an automobile, you can go to a
supply house and purchase a lot of extras that pertain to an
automobile. But suppose you have all the essentials of an automobile,
and then you add all the things that pertain to an automobile, nothing
else could be added that would make it any more complete. God has not
only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but
he has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.
But do religious people believe it? If so, why all these flummeries
that God has said nothing about? If you will read the verse again, you
will notice that he has given us all these things through the
knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of Christ means the knowledge that
has been revealed about him—the gospel of Christ. Hence, through the
gospel God has not only given us all things that are essential to life
and godliness, but all things that pertain to life and godliness. If
there is, therefore, anything in your religion that did not come to
you through the gospel, it does not so much as pertain to life and
godliness. Is it not time to check up on our religion and see if we
have anything that we cannot find in the New Testament? Any person of
intelligence can do that for himself.
MATTHEW 16:28 EXPLAINED
Please explain Matt. 16:28. I have to contend with the Boll theory.
What I want to know is how the disciples were to “see” the Son of man
coming in his kingdom.—W. C. Anderson.
Matthew 16:28.
“Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who
shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in
his kingdom.”
In this verse it is stated that some would _taste_ of death—some of them
would _see_ the Son of man coming in his kingdom. _Taste_ and _see_—are
these terms used literally? A little study of both words will help. “Oh
taste and see that Jehovah is good.” (Ps. 34:8.) “Sweet are thy words
unto my taste.” (Ps. 119:103.) “Tasted of the heavenly gift”; “tasted
the good word of God.” (Heb. 6:4, 5.) If you make _see_ represent the
actual functioning of one of the five senses, why not make _taste_ do
the same? No man actually tastes death as he tastes food. The
future-kingdom folks stress giving words their literal meaning, but even
they will not say that a man tastes Jehovah, his word, or death, as he
tastes food. So also the word _see_ has a variety of meanings, or uses.
To see often means to know. “Taste and see (know) that Jehovah is good.”
To see often means to experience. We see joy and we see a good time; we
see trouble and sorrow. Taste death—experience death, or suffer death.
The parallel passages, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, say: “Verily I say unto
you, There are some of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of
death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” “But I tell
you of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no
wise taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.” To see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom and to see the kingdom of God come with power
and to see the kingdom of God are different expressions of the same
idea. When the kingdom of God came with power, it was Christ coming in
his kingdom. Just as certain as some of those standing by would die
before the kingdom came, or the Son of man came in his kingdom, just
that certain some would live till that event occurred. Ye—those standing
by, not those of some future date—shall see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom, or see the kingdom of God come with power, and they would see
it before they died. The future-kingdom folks do not see that part of
what Jesus said; they see only “see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom.” And yet no man literally sees a kingdom, as he sees a material
object; for the “kingdom of God cometh not with observation”—that is,
not in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes; i. e., in a
visible manner. (Luke 17:20.) Jesus made that statement in answer to the
Pharisees’ question as to when the kingdom of God would come. Hence,
some of the disciples to whom Jesus was talking would see Jesus coming
in his kingdom; yet they would not see with their eyes. Jesus himself
declared that his kingdom would not come in that manner.
The future-kingdom folks put stress on the statement: “They shall see
the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory.” But notice the change in pronouns—“ye shall see,” “they shall
see.” They tell us that this coming on the clouds will be when he comes
in his kingdom. They also tell us that when he thus comes the wicked
dead will not see him, for they will not be raised till the end of a
thousand years. But there is a hitch in that. Certainly the high priest
who condemned Jesus to death belongs in the class of the wicked dead yet
Jesus said to him and to the court: “Ye shall see the Son of man sitting
at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Notice
the word _henceforth_—from now on. Notice, too that this wicked court
was henceforth to see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power.
No man sees him sitting with his natural eye. The word _see_ here has
two objects, _sitting_ and _coming_; or, rather, the same persons shall
see Jesus sitting and coming. Even a child should be able to see that
the word _see_ could not here mean a mental conception as to one of its
objects and an actual seeing with the eyes as to the other object. A
word may have several meanings, but it cannot have two meanings at one
and the same time. As some of the disciples then living were to see
Jesus coming in his kingdom and the Sanhedrin were to see him sitting on
the right hand of power, the Lord came in his kingdom during the
lifetime of these people.
Pointed Paragraphs:
The apostles were practical men. Some were fishermen; one, a tax
collector. Both callings teach a person not to believe all he hears.
MATTHEW 19:28; 25:31; LUKE 22:28-30; 1 COR. 6:2 EXPLAINED
Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. Please explain—Owen
W. Smith.
1. Matt. 19:28: “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that
ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall
sit on the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read the context. The rich young
man had refused to follow Jesus. Peter said: “We have left all, and
followed thee; what then shall we have?” The reply of Jesus does not
mean that they had followed him in the regeneration, for Jesus had
passed through no regeneration. Luke says they had followed him in his
temptation. Jesus was telling his apostles what they would have in the
regeneration. The regeneration is that period of time in which people
are being regenerated. The other passage in which the word
“regeneration” occurs shows that people are being regenerated in this
dispensation. (Tit. 3:5.) But it was during this time of regeneration
that Christ was to sit on the throne of his glory and the apostles were
to sit on thrones. Hence, both Jesus and his apostles are now on their
thrones, for all were to sit on thrones at the same time. On Pentecost,
Peter declared that God had raised up Jesus to sit on David’s throne and
had made him both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:30-36.) Jesus himself
declared that all authority had been given to him. Those who say that he
has all authority, but is not exercising it, overlook the _therefore_ in
the next verse. Suppose Jesus had expressed that idea, it would have
read something like this: “All authority has been given me, but I am not
exercising it; and because I am not exercising it, go into all the world
and make disciples of all the nations.” The command was based on his
having all authority. Some have overlooked the _therefore_. As Jesus is
on his throne, so are the apostles on their thrones. But how are they
judging? McGarvey says on this point:
This statement of Paul that “the saints shall judge the world” (1 Cor.
6:2) has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to
take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the
sitting on the thrones are declared to be contemporaneous with the
regeneration and with Christ’s sitting on his throne; and, therefore,
they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this,
of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing
decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom,
and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones,
because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they
judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True,
we have written communications from only part of them, but judgments
pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all
are the judgments of the entire bench.
On the _twelve tribes_ he remarks:
The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of
Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any
intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with
the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh;
consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve
tribes representing the church of God of which they were a type.
In judging, the apostles declare who is free from guilt and who is
condemned. This is made plain in John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye
forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they
are retained.”
2. Matt. 25:31: “But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and
all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.”
This verse is incomplete, and is really explained by the rest of the
chapter. He shall sit on the throne of judgment, and before him will be
gathered all nations for judgment; but the people will be judged as
individuals and not as nations. It is not a judgment of nations, or
governments, as has sometimes been said. Even a little attention to the
gender of the Greek words of the passage will show how ill-founded is
that assumption. “Nations” is neuter in the Greek; it cannot, therefore,
be the antecedent of _them_ in verse 32, for it is masculine. And so is
_ye blessed_ in verse 34, and _ye cursed_ in verse 41. Both _these_ and
_the righteous_ in verse 46 are masculine. It is, therefore, not a
judgment of nations, as such, but of the people. The passage is in
perfect harmony with 2 Thess. 1:6-10. Here he comes to take vengeance on
the wicked and to be glorified in his saints. It is, therefore, the
judgment at the last day.
3. Luke 22:28-30: “But ye are they that have continued with me in my
temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father
appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom;
and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read
the context. They had just eaten the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. A
contention had arisen between the disciples as to who would be accounted
the greatest; and Jesus had told them that there was to be no one among
them exercising lordship over the others, but that service would be the
thing that counted. The apostles had faithfully followed him in his
temptation; he would, therefore, appoint them a kingdom, and they would
eat and drink at his table in his kingdom. On account of the fact that
they had just eaten the Lord’s Supper we naturally associate the Lord’s
table with the Lord’s Supper. They, therefore, would eat the Lord’s
Supper in his kingdom. But the Lord’s Supper will not be eaten after he
comes again. But as they were to eat it in his kingdom, it is certain
that they ate it in his kingdom while they lived. The kingdom now in
existence is, therefore, the kingdom he appointed them. In Luke 12:32,
Jesus said: “Fear not little flock; for it is your Father’s good
pleasure to give you the kingdom.” The Father was to give this kingdom
to the “little flock.” This cannot mean that he will give his kingdom to
his followers at the end of this dispensation, when the little flock
shall have swelled into “a great multitude, which no man could number,
out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues.” (Rev.
7:9.) No; it was to be given to a little flock and not to a numberless
host, and the language clearly shows that it was to be given to those
who were then present. And that was the kingdom which he appointed to
them, and in which they sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes
of Israel. On this last point, see comments above on Matt. 19:28.
4. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3: “Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?
and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest
matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? how much more, things
that pertain to this life?”
Commentators have had no end of trouble over these verses, and there is
little agreement among them. In some sense saints judge the world and
angels, but how? and when? It is a hazardous and foolish thing to build
a theory on a difficult passage, especially when little, if any, light
on the point can be gained from other Scriptures. But it does not seem
possible that Christians will be judges in the last day, when all shall
be judged. From Matt. 25:31-46 we learn that the righteous will be
judged along with the wicked. Saints will not then occupy judgment
thrones, but will be gathered before the judgment throne. They cannot be
judges while being judged. After that they cannot judge the world, for
the world will already have been judged. And there is no Scripture that
teaches that the heavenly angels will then be judged by any one. But the
gospel is God’s law, and every time it is preached sinners are judged as
guilty, as are also the devil and his angels. And saints have this same
law by which to judge among themselves. These are facts, whether the
passage in question has that meaning or not. This view has the merit of
not being out of harmony with the general teaching of the New Testament.
But let us be sure not to build a theory on a difficult passage of
Scripture, nor use it in support of a theory. We might be found wresting
the Scripture to our own destruction.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JEWS, THE KINGDOM AND SALVATION
Tell me: When, or how, did Christ offer the Jews the kingdom? What
passage, or passages, or teaching as a whole do you think the
earth-kingdom advocates rely on to prove the statement that the kingdom
was offered the Jews?
Was the kingdom offered the Jews in any sense that _salvation_ was not
offered them?
Did they reject the kingdom in any sense they did not reject salvation?
If the kingdom was offered the Jews, and they rejected it, and the Lord
for that reason postponed the kingdom, why is it he did not also
postpone the salvation offered?—X
Perhaps I might as well answer the foregoing questions as a whole as to
answer each one separately. The querist has been doing some close
thinking, and his questions open up a field for some profitable
investigation.
The querist evidently refers to the Jews as a nation, and not as
individuals. It is claimed by the kingdom speculators that Jesus offered
the kingdom to the Jewish nation on condition that the rulers and people
alike repent, but the assertion is not backed up by any definite proof.
The advocates of that notion arrive at such a conclusion by assumptions
and deductions. They assume that the prophets foretold the restoration
of the old kingdom of Israel, a kingdom that was born in rebellion
against God and in rejection of him as King! They assume that Jesus
offered the kingdom to the Jews as a nation, but they gave no proof that
Jesus offered that kingdom or anything else to a national Israel. But as
such a kingdom did not come into being, they conclude that both the king
and his kingdom were rejected. Matt. 3:2 is quoted in this connection,
but they do not show how that Scripture proves their contention. John
was preaching to individuals, and not to the nation as such. The fact is
that he never did go and preach to the rulers, nor did they come to him.
They did send a committee to inquire into his work.
I see no way to separate the kingdom from salvation, nor can I see how
one can exist apart from the other. Of course the old kingdom had
citizens who were not in a saved state, but I do not see how that could
be true of the kingdom of Christ. However, we are told that only Jews
who are born again will be citizens of the kingdom which they suppose
Christ will set up when he comes again. In that respect, as well as in
many others, this supposed kingdom will not be like the old kingdom.
That the future-kingdom advocates realize they have no certain proof of
their rejection and postponement theory is shown by the fact that they
do not agree on any certain Scripture, nor as to the time of this
supposed rejection and postponement. John R. Rice puts it in the tenth
chapter of Matthew; Scofield, in the eleventh; R. H. Boll, in the
twelfth. John R. Rice says the kingdom at hand was never preached after
the tenth chapter; the offer was then withdrawn. He should have read
what Jesus a year later instructed the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:11.)
In a note on Matt. 11:20-24 Scofield says: “The kingdom of heaven
announced ‘at hand’ by John the Baptist, by the King himself, and by the
twelve, and attended by mighty works, has been _morally_ rejected. The
places chosen for the testing of the nation—Chorazin, Bethsaida,
etc.—having rejected both John and Jesus, the rejected King now speaks
of judgment. The final official rejection is later. (Matt. 27:31-37).”
On verses 28-30 he says: “The new message of Jesus. The rejected King
now turns from the rejecting _nation_ and offers not the _kingdom_, but
_rest_ and _service_ to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It
is a pivotal point in the ministry of Jesus.” R. H. Boll says: “In
chapter twelve the antagonism of the Pharisees, stirred to its height by
his Sabbath healing, came to a terrible climax: they went out and took
counsel against him _how they might destroy him_. (12:14.) This was a
great turning point.” As they find no Scripture which says what they
claim, they depend on assumptions and deductions, and their deductions
do not agree.
A PROPOSITION: The gospel plan of salvation is the scheme of redemption
foretold in promise and prophecy.
SOME QUESTIONS CONSIDERED
A brother has presented to me a few questions for my consideration. The
questions are about matters that are being much agitated these days. The
first question indicates that somebody thinks the Lord refused some
people the privilege of believing, lest he might get more followers on
his hands than he needed for future rulers! But to the questions:
1. “Was there ever a time when God refused any one the privilege to
believe in Christ, as indicated in John 12:39, 40? If so, has he
revealed the purpose thereof?”
The passage mentioned says: “For this cause they could not believe, for
that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened
their heart; lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with
their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.” The quotation is
from Isa. 6:10. In Isaiah’s day the people of Judah had become very
corrupt, and were growing worse. To these people Jehovah said: “Ah
sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers,
children that deal corruptly! they have forsaken Jehovah, they have
despised the Holy One of Israel, they are estranged and gone backward.”
(Isa 1:4.) They had reached the point where they were utterly unfit to
manage their own affairs of government. The great majority were beyond
the hope of reformation. They would not even consider Jehovah, and were
more senseless as to their own good than the ox or the ass. “The ox
knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not
know, my people doth not consider.” (Verse 3.) When people reach that
stage, there is nothing to do but to hasten them on to their doom.
Hence, Jehovah said to Isaiah when he sent him to prophesy to the people
of Judah: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy,
and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.”
(Isa. 6:10.) Isaiah could do this only by his teachings and warnings.
They were so determined in their rebellion that the more Isaiah warned
them, the harder their hearts became. Their sinfulness resulted in the
Babylonian captivity. The Jews had again become so sinful that a worse
calamity was soon to come upon them. The leaders rejected the preaching
of John and dogged the steps of Jesus every move he made. They were so
rebellious that the miracles and teaching of Jesus hardened their hearts
instead of converting them. There was no direct operation on their
hearts to keep them from believing. The things that made believers of
some hardened the hearts of others. The Lord never did keep any honest
heart from believing. The prophecy quoted in John 12:39, 40 is quoted by
the Savior in Matt. 13:14, 15 in such a way as to show that the people
were responsible for their hardness of heart. When people will not
believe the truth, God sends them strong delusions that they may believe
a lie and be damned. (See 2 Thess. 2:8-12.) The reason there are so many
fool notions believed now is because people will not believe the truth.
God will have all men to be saved, but they will not.
2. “Did the crucifixion of Christ depend upon the Jews’ rejection of
him?”
Jesus came at a time when everything was ready for the working out of
God’s plans. “But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his
Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” (Gal. 4:4). God was not
experimenting to see if his plans would work out. He knew what would be
done, and was not bothering his mind as to what he would have to do
about it, if the Jews did not reject and crucify Jesus, for he knew what
they would do. Then why should I worry my mind about it? I cannot
entertain an idea that implies that God did not know enough to know when
to send his Son, or that he did not know what would happen when he did
send him. Why people raise such questions is a puzzle, for no one can do
anything about it, no matter what might or might not have happened.
3. “Did God anticipate their acceptance universally?”
Suppose he did or did not, what can we do about it? People raise
questions that, in various ways, reflect on God. Being the all-wise God,
he knew that the Jews would not all accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Son
of God. Jesus himself said that only a few would find the narrow way.
Paul showed that the prophets taught that only a remnant of Israel would
be saved. (See Rom. 10:16-21; 11:1-10.) But what gives rise to such
questions? It grows out of the new speculation that Jesus came to
establish an earthly kingdom, or rather to restore the kingdom of
Israel, but failed in his purpose because the Jews rejected him. God
knew the Jews would crucify Jesus. (See Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:27.)
4. “If they had, would he have set up an earthly kingdom?”
There is not the least indication that God did not accomplish what he
intended to accomplish by sending his Son into the world, nor that the
kingdom he set up was not what he intended to set up. On the other hand,
there is plenty of evidence that he inaugurated the very system he had
in mind, and which he had foretold through the prophets. To say that his
plans did not work out as he intended is equal to saying that the things
he foretold through the prophets turned out to be false. If it be
replied that the prophets said nothing about what some call “the church
age,” it only shows that some people have read the Scriptures with
little profit. The evidence is abundant that the apostles and other
inspired preachers and writers taught that Christianity, or the gospel
plan of salvation, is exactly what the prophets foretold. On Pentecost,
Peter referred to certain prophecies as fulfilled on that day. Again:
“Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as
many as have spoken, they also told of these days.” (Acts 3:24.) In
preaching the gospel of Christ, Paul said nothing but what the prophets
and Moses did say should come. (Acts 26:22.) Paul also affirms that the
gospel which he preached God had “promised afore through his holy
prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom. 1:2.) But why offer more proof?
The apostles knew what they were talking about, or rather the Holy
Spirit, who spoke through them, knew. Yet the future-kingdom advocates
generally contend that the Old Testament prophecies center in an earthly
kingdom, and say nothing about Christianity as revealed through the
apostles. One writer said: “But the Old Testament knows nothing whatever
of Christianity.” Ponder this question: If God did not set up the
kingdom which they say the prophets foretold, but instead gave them
something the prophets said nothing about, is it any wonder that the
Jews rejected it? The wonder would be that any of them accepted it.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Notice the prayer of Asa; notice other prayers in the Bible. With the
exception of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple and the
prayer of Jesus on the night of his betrayal, all are very short.
Notice the manner in which they addressed Jehovah. No endearing terms
are used, but terms expressive of reverence for the power and majesty
of God. Such expressions as “our dear heavenly Father” are not found
in the Bible. Such expressions should have no place in our prayers
today. Christians need to know how to pray, and a study of the prayers
of the Bible will help us to pray as we ought.
“Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as
touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:19.) Here it is supposed that they
agree on what to ask for before they pray. Would it not be a good
thing for a group of worshippers to know what they are going to pray
for, rather than for someone to lead out in a long, rambling prayer
that is supposed to be appropriate to all occasions, and is,
therefore, never appropriate to any occasion? Delivering an oration to
the Lord, under pretense of praying, is not praying at all.
THE OLIVE TREE FIGURE OF ROM. 11
I wish you would give an explanation of Rom. 11. The part that I am
the most interested in is the figure of the olive tree. Is there
anything in this chapter, or in any other, that teaches that the Jews
as a nation will ever accept Christ?—Oklahoma.
We cannot at present give space to a discussion of the entire chapter.
The verses containing the olive-tree illustration read as follows:
But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them
of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the
branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that barest the root,
but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that
I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off,
and thou standest by thy faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if
God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee.
Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell,
severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his
goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. And they also, if they
continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able
to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by
nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural
branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:17-24.)
Care should be used in dealing with another man’s illustrations and
figures of speech. The language quoted is an illustration of God’s
dealings with Jews and Gentiles. Because of unbelief the Jews had been
severed from God’s favor; by faith the Gentiles had been brought into
union with God. Neither Jew nor Gentile has any special favors from God;
the standing of each depends on their faith. That is the point Paul is
making, and to make his illustration do service beyond the point
illustrated is to do violence to his language.
But what is the olive tree? It is God’s favor. Read the connection. The
Hebrews had been in God’s favor all along till they were broken off
because of unbelief. Their fall, mentioned in verse 12, is the same
thing as this cutting off. But now, to both Jews and Gentiles alike,
God’s favor is manifested in Christ, and may be obtained by faith in
him.
No people as a nation will or can accept Christ. Any people as a nation
must act as an organized government; those in authority determine what
shall be done. But no constituted authorities can decide that the nation
shall accept Christ; that is an individual matter. But even if a nation
could through its proper authorities accept Christ, the Jews could not
do so, for they have no one with authority to speak for the whole people
on anything.
It is hard for some to see that God totally and finally rejected and
destroyed the Jewish nation, but did not irrevocably reject the Jews.
Paul gives himself as an example that God had not irrevocably cast off
the Jewish people. That he referred to himself as an example shows that
he had in mind the Jews as individuals and not as a nation. His case
shows that the door of salvation had not been closed against the
individual Jew. And his olive-tree illustration shows that he was
speaking of the individual Jew and not of the nation. Both Jews and
Gentiles were grafted into the same olive tree, and both by the same
process. Paul’s conclusion—“and so all Israel shall be saved”—has been
greatly perverted. The future-kingdom folks put the emphasis on _all
Israel_; Paul put the emphasis on _so_. _So_ is an adverb of manner. He
had been showing how the Jews might be saved, and not that the nation
would be restored. He had shown that Gentiles were grafted in by
faith—saved by faith in Christ. “And so”—in like manner—shall all Israel
be saved. Peter had made the same point before the Jerusalem brethren:
“But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord
Jesus, in like manner as they.” (Acts 15:11.)
How many Jews may yet be converted to Christ, no one knows; but those
who are converted to Christ will be in the one body with all converted
Gentiles, “where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and
uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is
all, and in all.” (Col. 3:11.)
Pointed Paragraphs:
Much is said about preaching the truth in love, and so it should be
preached. But in love of what? The preacher should so love the truth
that he will not sacrifice any of it nor pervert it, and he should so
love people that he will not withhold from them even an unpleasant
truth. He that does either of these things loves neither the truth nor
the people. We frequently fool ourselves; we think we do thus and so
to spare the feelings of others, when it is our own feelings that
prompt us. “Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season;
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”
ENDS OF THE AGES
What does Paul mean in the expression, “Upon whom the ends of the ages
are come”?—
The dispensations are referred to as ages. There have been the
Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age, and also we now have the Christian
age. The ends, or aims, of both the Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age
looked forward to the Christian age. Christianity is the end of the
ages—it is the last. Yet the future-kingdom advocates would have us
believe that Paul was mistaken; that Christianity is not the end of the
ages, but there will be at least two more ages. But Paul, being
inspired, was right, and Christianity is the end of the ages. And that
settles the future-kingdom claims. This is the ends of the ages.
Pointed Paragraphs:
“Here am I; send me.” To know the Lord and to realize our dependence
upon him makes us willing, even anxious, to do whatever he wants us to
do. There is something fearfully wrong with the heart of one who
inquires concerning any duty. Will it pay? Is it pleasant work? Will I
be thrown with the right sort of people? Will it enhance my
reputation? Is the work below my dignity? The true servant of the
Lord, like Isaiah, says: “Here am I; send me.” Like his Lord he can
say, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish
his work.” (John 4:34.) “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy
law is within my heart.” (Ps. 40:8.)
THE FOUR BEASTS
Will you please give a scriptural answer as to who or what the four
beasts refer in Rev. 4:6-9? Or give your idea as to what is meant by the
four beasts.—Lee Chumbley.
The Scriptures do not tell us who or what the four beasts represent.
Instead of _beasts_ the American Standard Version has _living
creatures_. It could as well be translated _living beings_ or _living
ones_. But that does not tell us who or what they represent. If the
querist will read on through the sixth chapter, he will find some of the
things these living beings did. For one thing he will find that they had
the power of speech. But the person who tells who or what they represent
tells that which he does not know to be true. Brother Chumbley can find
preachers who will tell him, and he will also find that they do not
agree.
Pointed Paragraphs:
A tragedy, to have any unity of action when played on the stage, must
be planned and written by one person—at least under the direction of
one person. Imagine, if you can, a play written by several men,
neither of whom knew what the other was writing, or that he was
writing at all. Yet the tragedy of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus
was so written by the prophets. And then the play—none of the actors
in the drama, save Jesus, knew that the part he was playing had been
written, yet each played his part according to the record. God knew
what would be done, and had the prophets to write it down.
POINTS IN REVELATION 12
A letter of some length from a good sister, Mrs. L. E. Jones, tells
about some things that came up in a class of which she is a member. The
teacher holds to the future-kingdom theory. The class is going through
the book of Revelation. The letter mentions several things that came up
in their study of Chapter 12, and from the letter I glean the following
questions:
1. Is the accuser of verse 10 the devil? Is it because of this accuser
that Christ intercedes for us? It was so stated by a member of the
class, who also said that as God was not human, he did not know what
Christ suffered. Is that true?
2. Our teacher said that God was protecting and keeping the Jews, and
that he had something special in store for them (something nice). I
want you to answer in the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient.
3. Does the woman of verses 1-6, 13-17 represent the Jews? That was
our teacher’s idea.
1. From what is said in the context it seems clear that the devil was
before God as the accuser of the brethren; but as he was cast down from
heaven to the earth, how can anyone figure out that he is now before God
accusing the brethren? He is, however, doing all he can to lead them
into sin. Hence, the admonition: “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary
the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may
devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8.) He is busying himself here on earth now. Jesus is
our advocate with the Father, but I would not think he was before God
engaged in a talk contest with the devil.
2. As God is no respecter of persons, how can any believer in Christ
argue that a Jew, because he is a Jew, is yet to enjoy blessings that a
Gentile cannot hope to receive, no matter how faithful he is, simply
because he is not a Jew. The theory contradicts the fundamental
principles of the gospel. Those who hold to that theory judge after the
flesh—a thing Jesus condemned. (John 8:15.) The theory encourages the
Jew to glory in his fleshly descent from Abraham—to glory after the
flesh. Such glorying Paul said was foolishness. (2 Cor. 11:17, 18.) It
teaches the Jew to have confidence in the flesh, his Jewish flesh. Paul
had no such confidence; to him such relationship was but refuse. Or, as
the King James Version has it, he counted such dependence on Jewish
flesh as but dung. (Phil. 3:2-8.) Such is your teacher’s theory. Christ
died for all. (2 Cor. 5:15.) Now notice the next verse (verse 16):
“Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh.” Notice the force
of the word _henceforth_—from now on. Yes, the Jews are still in the
world; so are the Japanese and Chinamen. So what does that prove? The
person who assumes to know what God knows or does not know is about like
a worm assuming to know what Solomon knew and did not know.
3. Any theory about the woman of chapter 12 is merely a guess, for the
record does not say who she was. Some commentators, perhaps the majority
of them, say she was the church, the dragon was the Roman Empire, and
the child was Constantine. I do not know. But if the woman was the
Jewish nation and the child was Jesus, then she was a very unnatural
mother, for she killed her child! But that leaves the dragon out of the
picture, and leaves us wondering about verse 6.
Pointed Paragraphs:
CREATING A DEMAND
Sometime ago a Christian man asked a gospel preacher: “Why do we not
have great gospel sermons like those we used to hear?” The reply was:
“There is no demand for them.” Do that question and answer reveal
conditions as they are? Have we reached the point where preaching is
trimmed down to fit the demands of the times? Is preaching thus
reduced to a matter of trade?
Some factories make only those articles that are in demand. But
occasionally an article is offered for sale for which there had been
no demand, but the makers of such articles proceed to create a demand.
They do extensive advertising; they extol the uses and virtues of
their article till people want it. And cannot we in the same way
create a demand for the pure gospel in communities where there is no
demand? We cannot do it by dealing in religious soup. There is a
demand for the unadulterated gospel, for great gospel sermons; but the
demand is not as extensive nor as intensive as it should be. Even in
some churches of Christ there is not as strong demand for gospel
sermons as there should be. When an elder can say, as some of them
have said, “So far as I am concerned, I do not care whether our
preacher can preach or not,” it is time we were waking up.
QUESTIONS ON REVELATION 20.
E. B. Taylor asks seven or eight questions on the twentieth chapter of
Revelation. To give answer to all these questions would require an
exegesis of the chapter. For me that is impossible. The chapter abounds
in figures of speech. Many have read into that chapter things that are
not in it. They also make some of it figurative and the rest literal, as
the needs of their theory require. With them a day in some of the
prophecies is a year, but they take the thousand years as literal. Yet
they will not say that the devil is a real snake, nor that the chain is
a literal chain, nor that the beast is a real four-footed animal. Here
are some of the things in this chapter that I do not know: Who the angel
is, what the key is, the great chain, why the devil is called a snake,
what the binding means, the thousand years, when the thousand years end,
the abyss and how it was sealed, length of the “little time,” who sat on
thrones, what judgment was given them, the extent of that judgment, what
the beast is, the image, mark of the beast, the war of verse 8, Gog and
Magog, the camp of the saints, how devoured by fire, the lake, the beast
of verse 10, who the false prophet is, nor how there can be day and
night in eternity. Yet the chapter makes some plain statements.
We may not know who the martyrs are, yet it is affirmed of them, and of
no one else, that “they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand
years.” When or where this reigning is, was, or is to be, is not stated.
But it is stated in verse 6 that those who have part in the first
resurrection “shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign
with him a thousand years.” Hence, they are to be priests and to reign
at the same time—a royal priesthood. It is plain that they were to reign
while they were priests, but Christians are priests now. Leaving out _to
be_, words supplied by the translator, Revelations 1:6 reads thus: “He
made us a kingdom, priests unto his God and Father.” Being kings and
priests, Christians are a royal priesthood. (See 1 Pet. 2:9.)
In 20:12, John saw the dead standing before the throne. _The dead_, not
a part of the dead. This is in perfect harmony with the Savior’s
description of the judgment in Matt. 25:31-46. It is argued by some that
this is a judgment of nations—kingdoms—instead of individuals. But
nations in the Greek is neuter; but the pronoun _them_ in verse 32 is
masculine, and, therefore, refers to people, and not to nations as such.
At the judgment, therefore, all—the small and the great—will stand
before the throne. This is also made clear in 2 Thess. 1:7-10. There it
is declared that Jesus will take vengeance on the wicked “when he shall
come to be glorified in his saints.” And the last verse in the twentieth
chapter of Revelations shows that some will be at that judgment, whose
names are written in the book of life.
SEVERAL QUESTIONS
1. Do you believe in the “secret rapture” theory?
2. Will there be any life on the earth during the millennium period?
1. The word _rapture_ is from a Latin word that means “to carry off by
force.” By some strange aberration some religious folks applied that
term to the Lord’s taking saints from the earth, as if they will have to
be forced to go or somebody or power will have to be forced to let them
go—a sort of seizing and carrying away. But I could not believe in the
“secret rapture” unless I had some evidence. That evidence is lacking.
2. I have found no evidence that there is to be a thousand-year period
in which there will be no life on the earth. There is evidence, however,
that there will be life on the earth so long as the earth continues.
“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and
summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22.) A
careful reading of 2 Pet. 3:1-14 will show that so long as the earth
remaineth Christians are exhorted to be “looking for and earnestly
desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens
being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat.” Any student can find other evidence to the same import.
But suppose one believes the affirmative of both these questions, what
is practical about such belief? If you hold to a notion that helps
neither your faith nor your practice, why waste time with it? Why
disturb others with it?
Pointed Paragraphs:
Jesus came to save sinners, not to make sinners. People were sinners
before Jesus came, and they would have continued to be sinners had not
Jesus come. If people do not believe in him, they continue sinning
just as they would have done had he not come.
Though Jesus was moved with compassion at the sight of human
suffering, his miracles of healing were not performed primarily to
relieve suffering. If that were so, he would cure all sick folks even
now, or cause that no one would ever be afflicted in any way. His
miracles were performed as signs that God was with him.
Jesus put a higher value on man than on animals. “How much then is a
man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on
the sabbath day.” (Matt. 12:12.) There is something of vast worth in
man, else God would not have been mindful of him.