DISCUSSIONS
PREDICTION OR PROPHECY
The word “predict” comes from a compound Latin word that means, “to
say,” or “tell before”; hence, to prophesy. But many words in the course
of time have somewhat changed in meaning; “predict” is such a word. In
giving synonyms under “foretell” Webster says, “‘Foretell’ (Saxon) and
‘predict’ (Latin) are often interchangeable; but predict is now commonly
used when inference from facts (rather than occult processes) is
involved.” Hence when a man considers facts and trends and draws a
conclusion as to what will be the outcome, that is prediction. Did Bible
prophecies originate that way? No; “... knowing this first, that no
prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever
came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy
Spirit.” (2 Pet 1:19-21).
Verse 21 really explains verse 20. Prophecy was never a forecast of
events based on conditions and trends of the times; it was not a private
interpretation of the culmination of trends. It did not come (Greek,
“was not brought”) by the will of man; “but men spake from God, being
moved by the Holy Spirit.” Hence, no prophecy came as a result of a
man’s own private interpretation of trends and events of the times. If a
man should draw a conclusion from facts and trends, such conclusion
could, in a loose sense, be called a prophecy, a prophecy of private
interpretation, a prophecy that came by the will of man; but Peter
speaks of the prophecy of scripture. Such prophecy is not of the private
interpretation of facts and trends. Notice the contrast—“no prophecy of
scripture is of private interpretation ... but men spoke from God, being
moved by the Holy Spirit.” The passage has no reference to what should
be done about prophecy that had already been written, but to weave
together a mass of prophecies, most of which have been fulfilled, and
make a scheme for the future, practically amounts to a man-made
prophecy—a prophecy that comes by the will of man. Even the prophets did
not understand their own prophecies—did not know but that “the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow them, “was meant
for themselves,” till God revealed to them “that not unto themselves,
but unto you did they minister these things” (1 Pet. 1:10-12). But it
seems that a host of preachers and editors today think they know more
about the prophecies than did the prophets who uttered them.
Pointed Paragraphs:
A privilege is a right which we may exercise or not, as we choose.
Attending the annual feasts of the Jews was a privilege with the
women. They could stay at home or go, without guilt. To the men,
attending these feasts was not a privilege, but a duty. To fail
brought guilt. Christians should do some serious thinking to determine
their privileges and their duties. To say that a certain thing is both
a privilege and a duty is about as sensible as to say that a certain
thing is both black and white. To be baptized, to attend the
Lord’s-day worship, to give, to study God’s word, and to obey all
other commands are duties, and are not privileges in any proper sense
of the word.
PROPHECY
A prophecy is anything God reveals through an inspired spokesman. It
might be concerning future events or present duties and warnings. But in
this article I shall use the word in its common acceptation—namely, as a
revelation of things future as to the time the prophecy was given.
It was no uncommon thing for prophecies to be delivered in highly
figurative language. In such cases the prophecy was to be fulfilled in
the sense conveyed by the figurative language. It is a common saying
that the Bible means exactly what it says, but that is never true when
things are spoken in figurative language. We all use figurative
language. When Paul said, “Beware of the dogs,” no one thinks he
referred to literal dogs. When Jesus called Herod a “fox,” he used
figurative language, and no one thinks he meant that Herod was a literal
fox.
In his recent book on prophecy a certain brother says: “Expect a literal
fulfillment. This is God’s way of fulfilling prophecy. Every prophecy
which the Bible says has been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally.”
That is a broad statement. Can he make proof? Let him try his dictum on
Isa. 40:3, 4: “The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the
wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for
our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill
shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough
places a plain.” A literal fulfillment of that prophecy would require
mountains and hills to be torn down and valleys to be filled up. Now,
Luke (3:4, 5) quotes this prophecy and applies it to the work of John
the Baptist. And Matthew distinctly says that John the Baptist was the
one of whom Isaiah prophesied. (Matt. 3:3). This one fulfillment of
prophecy completely upsets his dictum, unless the author contends that
John had a contract to construct a literal highway, and literally
leveled mountains and hills and filled up valleys, as highway builders
do. But we had never thought of John the Baptist as a road contractor!
Another highly figurative prophecy is the following: “And the wolf shall
dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and
the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child
shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones
shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And
the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned
child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt nor
destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isa. 11:6-9). But
we are told that this must have its literal fulfillment, and that the
time will come when all beasts of prey shall be thoroughly changed and
gentled. If all prophecies must be literally fulfilled, what about the
first verse of this chapter? Will a literal shoot and branch come up
from the literal stock and roots of Jesse? And Isaiah (55:12) spoke of a
coming time when “the mountains and the hills shall break forth before
you into singing; and all the trees of the field shall clap their
hands.” And we are gravely admonished to expect a literal fulfillment of
all prophecies!
But what about the animals? The kings of Assyria and Babylon are called
“lions.” (Jer. 4:7; 50:17.) The princes in Jerusalem were called
“roaring lions,” and the judges “wolves.” (Zeph. 3:3.) The princes of
Israel were called “whelps,” and their mother “a lioness”; and one of
these whelps became a lion! (Ezek. 19:1-9.) David referred to certain of
his enemies as “bulls” (Ps. 22:12), and Amos refers to certain people as
the “kine of Bashan” (Amos 4:1). Jesus called certain people “wolves”
(Matt. 7:15; 10:16), and Paul said to the elders of Ephesus: “Grievous
wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29).
Will the future-kingdom advocates contend that this prophecy of Paul’s
was literally fulfilled? Had our brother been present, would he have
looked for literal wolves to destroy that church? If so, he would have
missed the force of Paul’s words entirely. If these elders had been
guided by the above dictum, they would have gone out on a literal wolf
hunt!
Men of ferocious disposition are to be tamed and gentled by the gospel
of Christ; but even that will not be universal, so far as this prophecy
indicates. The prophecy does not make any affirmation concerning the
whole world. The key to a proper understanding of the prophecy which is
quoted above is found in the last verse: “They shall not hurt nor
destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” It is in Jehovah’s
holy mountain where this gentleness shall be—where no hurt shall be
done. The mountain of Jehovah, in Isaiah’s language, refers to Jehovah’s
government: “And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the
mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall
flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go
up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he
will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.”
(Isa. 2:2, 3.) It is in this holy mountain, this church, or house, of
God, where “they shall not hurt nor destroy”; and the reason is given:
“For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters
cover the sea.” Certainly no one will contend that wild beasts will be
so full of the knowledge of God that they will not hurt nor destroy. But
ferocious men do become gentle under the influence of the gospel; they
must be thus gentled before they can enter Jehovah’s holy mountain.
One more thought. If, in studying prophecy, we are to expect a literal
fulfillment, and if that is God’s way of fulfilling all prophecies, then
what are we to do with Isa. 2:2, 3 and 40:3, 4? The mountains and hills
are to be leveled down, and yet Jehovah’s mountain is to be established
on the top of the mountains and exalted above the hills. How can both
things take place literally? So it appears that their dictum on the
literal fulfillment of prophecies makes it impossible for prophecies to
be literally fulfilled.
SHALL WE LOOK FOR A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF ALL PROPHECY?
The future-kingdom advocates put great stress on the literal application
of Old Testament prophecies. A Prophecy concerning Israel must be
applied to Israel in the flesh, and Jerusalem means the Jerusalem in
Palestine. Zion must have its literal application, and so with “throne”
and “kingdom”, etc. With them, there must be no “spiritualizing.” The
lamb and the lion must refer to literal lion and lamb. But will they
stick to that line? Hardly. Isaiah said: “Every valley shall be exalted,
and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be
made level, and the rough places plain.” (Isa. 40:4.) Now, the inspired
historians of the New Testament applied that Scripture to the work of
John the Baptist; yet we are told by the future-kingdom advocates that
every prophecy must have its plain, literal fulfillment. If so, the
inspired New Testament writers were mistaken on this point, and that
prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.
But we are told that the prophecies mean exactly what they say. Now, is
that really so? Then, what about the four beasts in Daniel 7? “Four
great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other.” Yes, it
is true that these matters were interpreted for us, but it is also true
that the interpretation shows that the four beasts were not actually
four beasts. It also shows, as do other passages, that many prophecies
are couched in highly figurative language. The prophecy concerning the
work of John (Isa. 40) shows how highly figurative some prophecies are.
Or will the future-kingdom folks say that even this prophecy must yet
have its literal fulfillment?
But it is contended that the throne of David means the rule over the
fleshly house of Israel in the land of Palestine, and that unless Christ
rules over the Jewish nation in the land of Palestine he does not occupy
the throne of David. He must have a civil government, with Israelites as
citizens and the land of Palestine as the territory; otherwise, he does
not occupy the same throne David did. This would imply that the kingdom
over which Christ rules must be an exact replica of the kingdom as it
was in the days of David. If not, why not? If it can be changed in one
particular, why not in others? It is argued that God’s oath to David
(Ps. 89:34, 35) precludes the possibility of any change in the kingdom.
But even after so arguing, do our future-kingdom advocates outline a
kingdom just like the kingdom of David? They do not. Here are a few
points wherein the kingdom of David differs from the future kingdom as
outlined by its advocates:
David’s reign was local; Christ’s reign to be worldwide.
Every kind of Israelite, good and bad, citizens in David’s kingdom: only
regenerated Israelites to be citizens in Christ’s kingdom.
Fleshly birth made citizens of David’s kingdom; a Jew must be born again
to be a citizen of Christ’s kingdom.
Every child of Hebrew parents was in David’s kingdom; children must be
old enough to voluntarily accept Christ to be in the future kingdom.
David was king, family of Aaron were priests then; Christ to be both
King and Priest.
Some rather unruly men were helpers in David’s kingdom; only true and
tried Christians are to reign with Christ. (Here the future kingdom as
outlined by its advocates radically differs from David’s kingdom.)
David’s kingdom was constantly beset by its enemies; no enemies to the
future kingdom.
David’s kingdom constantly organized for war; nothing like that in the
future kingdom.
In David’s kingdom they learned war; in the future kingdom they shall
learn war no more.
David reigned while the devil was loose and doing his worst; we are told
that Christ cannot begin his reign till Satan is bound.
Moses was the lawgiver of the old kingdom; Christ is to be the lawgiver
for the future kingdom.
And that is not all; but we grow weary of the task of enumerating the
differences. Yet we are told that, if there is any alteration, the
throne of the kingdom cannot be the throne of David.
When Jehovah called Israel out of Egypt, he told them that, if they
would obey his voice, they would be unto him “a kingdom of priests, and
a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But had not God always exercised
universal dominion over all the works of his hands? Certainly, but now
he was to rule in a special way over a special people. As this people
were to have no earthly head, they were not to be like the nations
around them, and were not to be reckoned among the Nations. God made
their laws, and gave direction for their execution. This state of things
continued till the days of Samuel. Then the people asked for a king that
they might be like the nations around them. That was a rejection of
Jehovah as their king. Saul was put on the throne, and the kingdom
became his. He was rejected and the kingdom given to David. These men
and the descendants of David occupied the throne that belonged
peculiarly and specially to Jehovah. Jehovah occupied that throne before
Saul or David, and that throne continued after the last son of David
reigned. The royal family of David fell into decay, but did Jehovah’s
rule over Israel cease? Did not his throne continue as it did before
Saul became king? It is true that the Jews were rarely independent, but
were they any less under the rule of Jehovah when they were subject to
other nations? Did not the kingdom continue with them? Before becoming
excited at these words, read Matt. 21:43: “Therefore say I unto you, the
kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” How could the kingdom be
taken from them, if it was not then with them? The Lord was then
developing that nation to whom the kingdom was to be given, and to whom
it was given on the first Pentecost after his resurrection.
On Pentecost, Peter preached that God had raised up Jesus to sit on
David’s throne. It has been argued that Peter does not say that he then
sat upon that throne. If not, what point was there in mentioning it?
After mentioning it, Peter says: “Being therefore by the right hand of
God exalted,” etc. If that is not a conclusion from what he said about
the throne of David, why the “therefore”? Would Peter—would any
speaker—make an argument about the throne of David, and conclude that
“therefore” Jesus had been exalted to something else, something he had
not even mentioned? Are we seriously expected to believe such
absurdities?
Pointed Paragraphs:
By faith Noah built the ark. Faith only—that is, faith without
works—is dead. Such faith never would have built the ark; neither does
it ever accomplish anything nor bring any blessings. Faith prompted
and guided Noah in building the ark, and so it is said that he built
the ark by faith—a faith made perfect by works.
God has always tested man’s willingness to do his will. To be a real
test, the thing commanded must be such that the person can see no
connection between the thing commanded and the result to be obtained.
Examples: The brazen serpent (Num. 21:4-9); Naaman’s dipping in the
Jordan (2 Kings 5:1-19). Baptism is such a test.
“Religion” is a broad term. There are many religions, but only one
true religion. It would be better now to speak of “The place of
Christianity in a nation’s life.”
ABRAHAM AND THE LAND PROMISE
When God called Abraham out of the Chaldees, he made certain promises to
him, one of which is this: “In thee shall all the families of the earth
be blessed.” (Gen. 12:1-3). Then when Abraham stood the test about
offering up Isaac, God added this to the other promises: “In thy seed
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” That this promise refers
to Christ is made clear by Paul: “Now to Abraham were the promises
spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as
of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Gal. 3:16). Paul’s language
shows clearly that the promised seed of Abraham was none other than
Christ Jesus. It is a perversion of the promise to make it refer to all
fleshly children of Abraham or to those who are children by faith.
Christians are blessings to others only as they allow Christ to use them
as his instruments.
Universalists use the promise to Abraham in an effort to prove that all
people will be saved, but they ignore the conditionality of promises. It
is not my purpose to discuss Universalism, but call attention to these
statements: “Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.” (John
5:40). “He that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16). “And
these shall go away into eternal punishment.” (Matt. 25:46). A person
who will not believe these scriptures, and others that might be cited,
will not believe anything he does not want to believe.
The future kingdom folks have twisted the land-promise in support of
their future plans for the Lord. The land-promise to Abraham did not
produce the speculation about the future return of the Jews to
Palestine; but their return is an essential part of the future kingdom
theory, and that made it necessary to claim that the land promise still
holds good. Let us look into this matter briefly.
“And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give
this land.” (Gen. 12:7). “And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that
brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit
it.” (Gen. 15:7). But Abram did not believe Jehovah, and said, “O Lord
Jehovah, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” For that
unbelief, God required him to prepare three animals and two birds for a
sacrifice, and then Jehovah did not honor his sacrifice with fire from
heaven; and Abram had to protect his sacrifices from birds of prey. Then
he fell into a deep sleep; “And lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon
him.” Then Jehovah revealed to him the future bondage of his seed, and
their deliverance. This showed Abram how God was displeased with Abram’s
unbelief. It is significant that God left Abram out of his next promise:
“In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed
have I given this land.” You see, Abram would have died long before they
returned from Egypt. As we proceed it is well to remember the wording of
this covenant-promise, and that Abraham is not included in it. Yet so
long as Abraham lived, he was included in the land promise. (See Gen.
17:8). And of course, when the land-promise was made to Isaac and to
Jacob after the death of Abraham, he was not included (Gen. 26:2, 3;
28:13).
It is urged by some that God promised the land to Abraham as an
individual, yet Stephen says that God “gave him none inheritance in it,
no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:5). It is affirmed that
this promise must yet be fulfilled; yet Abraham had all the grazing
rights he needed. The land therefore was his to use. But the future
kingdom advocates overlook another statement Stephen made: After
mentioning Israel’s going down into Egypt, Stephen said, “But as the
time of the promise drew nigh which God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the
people grew and multiplied in Egypt.” (verse 17). This was the land
promise which God made to Abraham—“God vouchsafed unto Abraham.” The
time for the fulfilling of that promise to Abraham had drawn nigh. The
language cannot be twisted to mean anything else: So the Lord led Israel
out of the land of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. Was this land
promise which was “vouchsafed to Abraham,” and which had drawn nigh
fulfilled? Joshua answers that question. “So Jehovah gave unto Israel
all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they
possessed it, dwelt therein.... There failed not aught of any good thing
which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.”
(Josh. 21:43-45). In his farewell address Joshua said, “And, behold,
this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your
hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the
good things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to
pass unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14).
Language could not be plainer; or more emphatic. And a man who will not
believe what Joshua says will not believe anything he does not want to
believe.
We have been told that the land promise was unconditional; but the fact
that the Jews were carried into captivity because of their sins and the
further fact that they are not now in Palestine, and also the fact that
at the beginning they had to drive the nations out, show how foolish it
is to say that the land promise was not conditional. The Jews increased
in their wickedness till they crucified Christ and tried to destroy his
church. For these crimes they lost the land and their national
existence; and now they have no more right to Palestine than to Italy,
or any other country.
Notice the wording of God’s promise to Abraham: “I will give unto thee,
and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession.” (Gen. 17:8). “After thee”—does
that preposition “after” mean any thing to you? The land was given to
Abraham, and to his seed after him—a succession of ownership, first
Abraham and after him his seed. So if that promise is yet to be
fulfilled, then Abraham will first occupy the land, how long no one
knows, then it passes to his seed. Look at the language carefully, and
it will mean something to you. You cannot ignore that preposition
“after.” It is clear enough if you recognize the fact that Abraham had
full use of the land while he lived, and that after him his seed had the
land.
THE TIME OF PROMISE
In the discussion about the land promise made to Abraham, one plain
statement seems to have been overlooked. But, first, let us get before
us an argument that some make on that promise. It is argued that the
promise was made direct to Abraham and was meant to be fulfilled to him
in person, and yet Stephen informs us that God “gave him none
inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:5).
Assuming that the promise to Abraham meant that he would have title and
right to the land in his own person, it is therefore argued that he must
yet have it in his possession. It is therefore argued that the Jews must
return to Palestine, so that the promise to Abraham may be fulfilled.
But in thus making Abraham and the nation of Israel joint-owners of the
land at the same time—they overlook the promise as Stephen stated it:
“and he promised that he would give it to him in possession, and to his
seed after him.” Notice that word _after_—first to Abraham, then to “his
seed _after_ him.” Notice again this word _after_ in Gen. 17:8 “I will
give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojourning,
all the land of Canaan.” Abraham first, then his seed after him. I
wonder how long these future kingdom folks think Abraham is to possess
the land before it comes into the possession of his seed after him! The
emphasis the future kingdom folks place on their idea that the land was
to be given to Abraham in person will not allow them to concede the
truth that the promise was made to him as the head or father of a nation
to be possessed by the nation of whom he was the father. The head or
father of a nation is sometimes put for the nation—is sometimes spoken
of as a nation. Before Jacob and Esau were born, Jehovah said to
Rebecca, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be
separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the
other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25:23).
These statements or promises concerning these unborn sons were to be
fulfilled centuries after they were born—fulfilled in their descendants.
To rebellious King Saul, Samuel said, “Jehovah hath rent the kingdom of
Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine,
that is better than thou.” (1 Sam. 15:28.) Yet that threat was never
visited upon Saul in person, for he continued to be king so long as he
lived. Now, that threat to Saul was as personal as was the land promise
to Abraham. Why does not some wild scribe argue that Saul must be raised
again and put on the throne of Israel, so God can fulfill his threat?!!
The threat was fulfilled in the family of Saul just as the land promise
to Abraham was fulfilled to his descendants. And that is exactly the way
the land promise to Abraham was fulfilled. After Stephen spoke of this
land promise, he said, “But as the time of the promise drew nigh which
God vouchsafed unto Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt.”
(Acts 7:17.) “The time of the promise” can mean nothing else than the
_time for the fulfillment of the promise_. That time had drawn nigh, and
things began to shape up for the fulfillment of that promise. Those who
claim that the promise has not yet been fulfilled have a quarrel with
Stephen.
At the proper time Moses was sent to lead Israel out of Egypt. In giving
instructions concerning the passover, Moses said, “And it shall come to
pass, when ye are come to the land which Jehovah will give you,
according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.” (Ex.
12:25.) Hence when they should come into their possessions in Canaan,
that was exactly what God had promised. Again Moses refers to Canaan as
the land which Jehovah “sware unto thy fathers to give thee.” (Ex.
13:5.) This same promise is referred to many times in Deuteronomy. A few
of the many passages: (6:3, 10, 18, 23; 8:1; 31:20.) These passages
teach plainly that the possession of the land of Canaan by Israel would
be the fulfillment of the land promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob. Joshua so understood it; for when the tribes of Israel came into
possession of the territories allotted them, he said, “And behold this
day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts
and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good
things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you: all are come to pass
unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof. And it shall come to pass,
that as all the good things are come upon you of which Jehovah your God
spake unto you, so will Jehovah bring upon you all the evil things,
until he have destroyed you from off this good land which Jehovah your
God hath given you.” (Josh. 23:14, 15.)
REBELLION OF ISRAEL—A KINGDOM BORN.
When Jehovah led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, he said to
them, “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on
eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will
obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own
possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:4-6.)
Of course, God, in a general way, ruled over all the works of his hands,
but in a special sense he ruled over the nation of Israel. For a long
time Jehovah was their only king. In emergencies he raised up judges to
deliver them from their enemies. But in the course of time they became
dissatisfied with that sort of thing. Their sins brought them into
trouble, and they thought that it was the efficiency of the governments
surrounding them.
“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to
Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him, Behold thou art old, and thy
sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the
nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king
to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto
Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto
thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I
should not be king over them.” (1 Sam. 8:4-7.) Nevertheless, Jehovah
told Samuel to inform the people fully as to how the king which they
desired would oppress them, and Samuel did so. “But the people refused
to hearken unto the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will
have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that
our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.”
(Verses 19, 20.) Saul was selected as king, though some were not pleased
with the selection.
Soon after being made king, Saul smashed the armies of the Ammonites in
a great battle. Then Samuel knew that it was an appropriate time to
gather the people together and “renew the kingdom.” They were called
together at Gilgal, and there Samuel resigned as judge in a solemn
address to the people. He told them that, although they had asked for a
king when Jehovah was their King, Jehovah would bless them and their
king, if they and their king obeyed his voice. His speech and the rain
that came at Samuel’s call so impressed the people that they said: “We
have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” (1 Sam.
12:19.)
This kingdom, which was conceived in a desire to be like other nations,
born in open rebellion against God, and tolerated through the
forbearance of God, is the kingdom that some people would have us
believe God yet intends to restore and enlarge. That kingdom restored
is, we are told, the hope of Israel! That is the kingdom over which
Jesus and the church will yet rule, and through which all the world will
be blessed! Who can believe it?
I am aware that a question like this may occur to some one: If that
kingdom was established in rebellion against God, how is it that Jehovah
promised the throne of David to the Christ? But if we were unable to
give a satisfactory answer to that question, it would not change what
the Lord says as to the spirit that brought that kingdom into existence.
But the question presents no real difficulty. Before the people called
for a king so as to be like the nations, Jehovah was their king; he
alone occupied the throne. Of course you understand that “throne” means
authority to rule, rulership, kingly authority. When Saul, David, or
Solomon ruled over God’s people, he occupied the throne of Jehovah. It
was called David’s throne because he occupied it, and not because it was
his by right. If people could ever get it settled in their minds that
David really sat on Jehovah’s throne, it would save them from some
confusion. But these two quotations show that the throne of David and
the throne of Jehovah are the same: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of
David his father.” (1 Kings 2:12.) “Then Solomon sat on the throne of
Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” (1 Chron. 29:23.) It is
plain that Jehovah’s throne was called David’s because he occupied it.
He who rules over God’s people occupies the same throne that David
occupied. No one will deny that Jesus now rules over God’s people or, if
you like the expression better, rules in the hearts of God’s people. To
acknowledge that he does so rule is to acknowledge that he sits on the
throne on which David sat. This truth has nothing to do with the fact
that the people of Israel sinned in wanting a king so as to be like the
nations around them. “I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have
taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:11.)
NEITHER—NOR
In the May issue of Word and Work, Stanford Chambers writes under the
above caption as follows:
One was recently heard to say publicly: “I am neither a
premillennialist nor a postmillennialist.” I think I saw the same from
the pen of some writer. It is difficult to see how one can avoid being
one or the other. A man might say: “I am neither an immersionist nor a
nonimmersionist.” How could that be, unless he disregards baptism
entirely? Just so in regard to the return of our Lord; it is either
before the millennium, that is, premillennial, or it is after it, that
is, postmillennial. Whoever disavows the event of his coming until the
close of the millennium, whoever puts the millennium anywhere
preceding the coming, is a postmillennialist, whatever he disavows or
denies.
Just because the Lord Jesus may come at any time, and because it is an
event he has commanded us to watch for and to pray about, I dare not
put a thousand years between me and the fulfillment. Hence, I am a
premillennial, and can no more help it than I can help being an
immersionist.
“But what difference does it make whether I am ‘pre’ or ‘Post’?” I
should say not enough in and of itself, merely, for it to be made a
test of fellowship as has been attempted even by some “Neither ...
Nor’s.” But it might make a great deal of difference for a man to put
a thousand years between him and the coming of Jesus. Our Saviour
himself shows the likely effect for one to say: “My Lord delays his
coming.” Again, it might make a great deal of difference for him to
teach men so. It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s quoting, “The
Lord is at hand,” or “The Judge standeth before the door,” or “The end
of all things is at hand,” or “When ye see these things, know that he
is near.” Too much store is being set by this “what difference does it
make?” The postmillennial error has many attendant malinterpretations
it were well to avoid. As every truth of God’s word is helpful, so
every error is harmful, and _any_ error _may_ lead to fatality. “Prove
all things, hold fast that which is good.”
Yes, I have said publicly, both orally and in print, that I am neither a
premillennialist nor a postmillenialist. The Gospel Advocate has been
all along making a heroic effort to steer clear of all party, or class,
names. But Brother Chambers thinks it cannot be done. He does not see
how a man can keep from being a premillennialist or a postmillennialist.
In his estimation a man cannot be simply a Christian; he must have some
sort of a descriptive term to designate what sort of Christian he is.
And so we have premillennial Christians and postmillennial Christians.
Here, then, is partyism in religion, the beginning of new denominations.
It will not help the situation any to say that these are merely
descriptive words, and not party names. Why the need of these
descriptive terms, if they are not intended to describe different
parties? _Methodist_ was first a descriptive term, and then a party
name. Premillennial Christian, postmillennial Christian, and Baptist
Christian; in principle, what is the difference? And herein we see one
of the evils of preaching speculative theories that create groups,
classes, or parties in the church. What right has any man or set of men
to create two parties, and then tell me that I must belong to one of
them? That these brethren of Word and Work have created conditions that
make it necessary in their judgment to use descriptive terms to
designate groups of brethren condemns the whole movement as divisive in
nature and sectarian in principle. If they think they have created
conditions in the church that make it necessary for the Gospel Advocate
to line up with one of these parties and be labeled, they are decidedly
mistaken. If, as Brother Chambers says, he cannot help wearing a party
label, he needs the help the Gospel Advocate is trying to give him. But
if he is just bound to be what he is, and cannot help it, what will he
do about it when the Lord comes, if the Lord does not follow the program
these brethren have marked out for him? And herein is another danger to
these brethren. Before Jesus came to earth, the learned Jews had things
mapped out; and because Jesus did not follow their program, they
believed him to be an imposter. Yes, there were program makers for his
first coming, and there are program makers for his second coming; and
the fatal blunder of the first program makers should be a warning to the
present program makers.
But Brother Chambers thinks that neither “pre” nor “post” should be made
a test of fellowship. There is something pitiful and shaky about a plea
that one’s teaching or practice be not made a test of fellowship. The
plea itself is a confession of divergence. We have often heard that same
plea from the “progressives.” No matter from whom it comes, it sounds
like a plea for forbearance and mercy. The Gospel Advocate has never, in
its long history, felt the least need of making such a plea. Can you
imagine J. C. McQuiddy, T. B. Larimore, E. G. Sewell, or David Lipscomb
begging the brethren not to make some theory or practice of theirs a
test of fellowship?
There has been a good deal of loose talk about tests of fellowship. To
raise the question as to an opinion or theory without giving any
attention to what is done with the opinion or theory does not meet the
issue. An opinion or practice might be very innocent, and yet a man
might make a great deal of trouble with it. It is not then his opinion
you must consider, but the use he makes of it. Suppose some man should
decide that dark clothing is conducive to piety and sober-mindedness,
and that light clothing makes the wearer light-hearted and gay, and that
flashy dress makes the wearer frivolous and giddy. Would you feel
disposed to make his notion or his practice a test of fellowship? But
suppose that peculiar notion of his becomes such an obsession with him
that he feels that he must advocate it everywhere? He becomes so carried
away with the idea that he becomes a nuisance, a trouble maker, and a
divider of churches; what then? What would Brother Chambers do about it?
Suppose he, while dividing churches with his peculiar theory, pleads
that the sort of dress a fellow wears should not be made a test of
fellowship; how would Brother Chambers answer him? It is supposed, of
course, that Brother Chambers cares enough for the peace and unity of
churches to do something about such a situation, but what would he do?
Would he fellowship the fellow, bid him Godspeed, and call him to hold
meetings? And it would be much worse if the fellow divided churches by
preaching hurtful and untrue theories.
If brethren press a theory to the dividing of churches and then tell us
that we must let them alone, else they will have no fellowship with us,
what can we do about it? They have drawn the line, and issued a
“manifesto.” And yet they keep talking about tests of fellowship.
What is their object in talking so much about tests of fellowship? Do
they live up to their plea? When has a church which indorses
whole-heartedly the Word and Work theory ever called one who opposed
such theory to hold their meeting? What fellowship do they extend to
preachers who do not indorse them? Why do they not call Foy E. Wallace,
Jr., C. R. Nichol, or men like these, to assist them in meetings? No
longer ago than last year some friends of mine wanted me to teach a
Bible class of nights in their meetinghouse. Two of the elders are
ardent admirers of Brother Boll and his teaching; they refused to allow
the class to be taught in the meetinghouse. Look at the matter any way
you please, and it was worse than a refusal to fellowship me. And the
only grounds of refusal was the fact that I was not a “pre.” Now, until
they show some fellowship toward those who oppose their theories, all
clear-thinking brethren will conclude that their talk about “tests of
fellowship” is indulged in merely to create prejudice in their favor.
Such a thing is cheap politics.
“Our Savior himself shows the likely effect for one to say: ‘My Lord
delays his coming.’” Brother Chambers here quotes from the parable found
in Luke 12:42-48. These brethren quote, “My Lord delays his coming,” as
if that was the real crime of that wicked servant; whereas he merely
took advantage of his lord’s delay to give expression to the villainy
that was already in him. The use these brethren make of this seems to
indicate that they think the only thing that keeps people out of all
meanness is the expectation that the Lord might come any moment. But I
have never said that the Lord delays his coming, and, therefore, do not
belong in the class with that wicked servant. The word translated
_delayeth_ means “_to linger_, _delay_, _tarry_.”—Thayer. “_To spend
time_; _to continue_ or _last long_, _hold out_; _to persevere_ in
doing; especially, _to tarry_, _linger_, _delay_, _be slow_; _to
prolong_, _put off_.”—Liddell and Scott. This word would not be used
concerning an event that was not delayed beyond the time it was
expected. Now, these future-kingdom advocates tell us that the first
Christians were taught to expect Jesus to come again while they lived.
But he did not come then. According to their teaching, the Lord has
delayed his coming several hundred years beyond the time expected. Who
is it that says the Lord did not come at the time he was expected? They
are the ones, according to their own teaching, who say: “My Lord delays
his coming.”
Brother Chambers says: “It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s
quoting, ‘The Lord is at hand,’ or ‘The Judge standeth before the door,’
or ‘The end of all things is at hand,’ or ‘When ye see these things,
know that the end is near.’” Who opposes his quoting the Scriptures
referred to? When a man makes an implied charge of that nature, he is
honor bound to name the parties, when called on to do so. Will Brother
Chambers give the name of the person to whom he refers, or is he merely
insinuating things to create prejudice?
Pointed Paragraphs:
To write the word of Christ upon the heart, or, what is essentially
the same, to let it dwell in us richly, means more than to commit it
to memory. It is to make it the dominant factor in our thinking and in
our plans and purposes.
FUTURE KINGDOM DOCTRINE—REFLECTS ON INTEGRITY OF GOD
Sometimes a wrong theory does not look so bad till you begin to examine
its consequences and the side issues that are its necessary supports.
And sometimes theories so warp our thinking as to develop in us a wrong
conception of Jehovah and of his attitude toward man. Such theories are
extremely hurtful. There are some things about this future-kingdom
theory that are hurtful in more ways than one.
The Theory Reflects on the Integrity of God.
In his tract, “The Kingdom of Heaven,” page 13, Arthur W. Pink says:
“From a number of reasons which we shall state we are compelled to
believe that our Lord’s message, ‘Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand,’ signifies that _an offer of the Messianic kingdom_, as
foretold by the Old Testament prophets, _was then being made to the
Jews_. Let us remark that it is of the utmost importance that we pay
careful attention to the word ‘repent’ here. In this call to repentance,
our Lord, as the Baptist before him had done, _laid down the fundamental
terms on which the kingdom was being offered to Israel_.” Others make
the same plea. If they are correct, then God offered them the kingdom on
condition that they repent. Thousands of them did repent; but we are
told that God deferred the establishment of the kingdom because not all
repented. But what about his promise to them who did repent? God made
them a promise on condition; they performed that condition, but God did
not give them what he promised! It does not help any to say that the
nation rejected him. What about his promise to those who accepted him?
It will not do to say God dealt falsely with some because others dealt
falsely with him. We are told that the offer of the kingdom was made in
good faith. Some accepted the offer in good faith, but we are told that
they did not get what God had promised them. There is a serious defect
in a man’s faith who can thus reflect on the integrity of Jehovah.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Grubbing up false doctrines and unscriptural practices is as essential
as grubbing up noxious growths in the field, but a farmer can
impoverish himself by putting in all his time grubbing. And the man
who puts in all his time in opposing false doctrine and exposing wrong
practices will impoverish his character. The fundamental doctrine, or
teaching, is the framework around which the Christian character is
built. The framework must be there, or the character will not stand
up; the gentler graces must be built around the framework, or the
person is harsh and unattractive.
Every time we judge a doctrine or another person, we judge ourselves.
In condemning evil, we declare ourselves righteous. In condemning
righteousness, we declare our sinfulness. In other words, every
judgment we deliver shows what sort of person we are. Our judgments on
others reveal our own standards. The character of the Jews was
revealed in their blaspheming the gospel.
THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS AND CHRISTIANITY
In his kingdom tract, page 15, Mr. Arthur W. Pink says: “The Old
Testament _knows nothing whatever of Christianity_!” So, then, there is
not a type or a prophecy in the Old Testament that points to the
religion of the Lord Jesus Christ! But that idea is not peculiar to Mr.
Pink; it is a part of the future-kingdom doctrine. To the ordinary
reader of the New Testament it sounds strange to hear some one argue
that the prophets of the Old Testament tell us nothing of the gospel of
Christ, the New Covenant (or New Testament), the kingdom as it now is,
or anything else that pertains to the present plan of salvation through
Christ. But such teaching is one of the necessary supports to the
future-kingdom theory. It must be made to appear that the entire plan of
God for the world’s redemption centered in a material kingdom, in which
the Jews would be the citizens and over which Jesus would rule on the
throne of David in Jerusalem. It would be the kingdom of David literally
restored. Other nations would be blessed only through Israel and in
subservience to them. Of course the theory contemplates the return of
the Jews to Palestine and their conversion to Christ. And we are taught
by the future-kingdom advocates that the Old Testament prophets speak
only of that sort of thing.
Let the reader think closely as he reads the following quotation: “About
the middle of Acts occurs an event of first importance. The acceptance
of the Gentiles into the church—into the favor of God as joint sharers
of the blessings of Israel’s Christ—was a most terrible perplexity to
all believing Jews. It was, in fact, a _mystery_. It had never been
revealed that such a thing would happen. (Eph. 3:4-6.) That the Gentiles
were to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery; _that_ had been
previously revealed. But the observant reader of the prophets will
notice that it is always after the national restoration and exaltation
of Israel, and always through restored Israel and in subservience to
Israel that the Gentiles were to be so blessed.” (“The Kingdom of God,”
by R. H. Boll, page 63.) So they would have us believe that the Old
Testament prophets said nothing of the gospel as revealed in the New
Testament, nothing of the new covenant of which the apostles are
ministers and of which Christ is mediator, and that the covenant of
which Jeremiah prophesied (chapter 31) has not yet been made. Yet Paul
quotes that prophecy in the eighth chapter of Hebrews, and informs us
that Christ is now the mediator of that covenant.
But the theory is wrong, absurdly wrong. In Luke’s record of the great
commission (24:46, 47) Jesus said: “Thus it is written, that the Christ
should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all
the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Here Jesus plainly declares that
it had been written that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name unto all the nations. Paul declares that he had
been “separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through
his prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom. 1:1, 2.) Here Paul plainly
declares that the gospel which he preached had been promised through the
prophets. In reporting Paul’s preaching at Berea, Luke says: “Now these
were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the
word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether
these things were so.” (Acts 17:11.) How could they determine that Paul
was preaching in harmony with the prophets, if the prophets said nothing
of the gospel which he preached? In that case, would not their searching
the Scriptures cause them to reject his preaching? If Paul had held to
the future-kingdom theory, his honesty would have led him to tell these
honest-hearted Bereans that they could not find anything in the
Scriptures about the gospel which he was preaching. At the house of
Cornelius, Peter said: “To him bear all the prophets witness, that
through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission
of sins.” (Acts 10:43.) Peter (1 Pet. 1:10-12) tells us that the
prophets searched diligently to understand their prophecies concerning
this salvation, “To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but
unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced
unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy
Spirit sent forth from heaven.” Paul preached the gospel—preached
Christianity in its fullness, and yet he affirmed that he said “nothing
but what the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (Acts 26:22, 23.)
He preached salvation through faith in Christ, and that there was no
distinction between Jew and Gentile: “But now apart from the law a
righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law
and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.” (Rom.
3:21, 22.) So this very plan of salvation which Paul preached, in which
there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile, was foretold in both
the Law and the prophets. Paul quotes Moses as prophesying that
disobedient Israel would be provoked to jealousy by the obedience of a
people other than the Jews. (Rom. 10:19.) Paul applies that prophecy to
the obedience of the Gentiles. And then he shows that Isaiah foretold
that the Gentiles would be blessed while Israel remained rebellious:
“And Isaiah is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me
not; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me. But as to Israel
he saith, All the day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient
and gainsaying people.” And yet we are told that the prophets foretold
that only through restored Israel were the Gentiles to be blessed.
Pointed Paragraphs:
We can know that Deity united with humanity in the person of Jesus,
though we cannot understand just how the two natures were united. But
we can believe what the Bible says and adjust our lives to its
teaching. Herein lies our salvation.
We can know that there are three persons in the Godhead, though we
cannot comprehend their nature and unity. The finite cannot understand
the infinite.
THE FUTURE-KINGDOM PERVERSIONS AND DISLOCATIONS OF PROPHECY
Much is said these days about modernism and fundamentalism. I hope to be
allowed to live in a modern world without being called a “modernist” and
to hold to fundamental truths without being dubbed a “fundamentalist.”
These “fundamentalists” have formed a program for the Lord, mixed in a
few truths, and named the mixture “fundamentalism,” and its advocates
“fundamentalists.” If their theory is as old as the Bible, why the new
names for it and its advocates? Old ideas and doctrines do not require
new names: anything new requires a new name. Now, “modernism” and
“modernist” are older words than “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist.”
Religiously, I am no “modernist”; and the term “fundamentalism” is too
new for a Bible lover to accept. It is even newer than the term
“modernism.” It would be interesting to hear Mr. Rice explain how his
doctrine is so ancient, since the name of it is more modern than is the
term “modernism.” In name, they out modern the modernists! When a
doctrine is more modern than modernism, it is too modern for me.
In Mr. Rice’s tract, “Christ’s Literal Reign on Earth from David’s
Throne at Jerusalem,” he claims to prove “from the Scriptures the
premillennial coming of Christ; that he has not yet set up his kingdom
on earth, but that he will reign from a literal throne at Jerusalem, in
his literal human body, over the entire earth.” He assumes much, argues
little, and makes many scattering assertions. It would be easier to
review his tract, if more care and thought had gone into its making.
The trouble with him and his future-kingdom advocates, is not
speculating about unfulfilled prophecies, but a perversion and
dislocation of prophecies that have been fulfilled. When a man takes
prophecies that have been fulfilled and makes them do service in some
future program, he is not speculating about unfulfilled prophecies. To
call such perversion “speculation about unfulfilled prophecies” is to
yield to him his claim that they have not been fulfilled. This is not,
therefore, a discussion on “unfulfilled prophecies,” but an effort to
show that Mr. Rice and others have, in the interest of a theory,
dislocated promises and prophecies, some of which have been fulfilled.
Mr. Rice quotes Gen. 13:14, 15; 17:8, and comments: “You will notice
from the context that it was the literal land over which Abraham walked
and which he saw, called by the name, ‘the land of Canaan.’ The promise
is unconditional, and utterly without time limit. It is ‘for an
everlasting possession’.” And if Mr. Rice will read Josh. 21:43-45;
23:14, he will notice both from the text and the context that God
fulfilled this promise to the letter—not one thing failed of all that
God had promised. Yet the Jews are not in that land now. Why? Mr. Rice
says the promise of the land to Abram’s seed was unconditional and
without time limit. Who broke the covenant? If Mr. Rice is correct, the
seed of Abraham did not break the land covenant, for there were no
conditions for them to break. If Mr. Rice is correct, God was the only
one that could break the covenant. God promised them unconditional
possession of the land, and then dispossessed them of it. That is a
reflection on the integrity of Jehovah.
Mr. Rice says: “The Lord foretold in Deut. 28:63-68 the dispersion of
Israel ‘among all the peoples, from one end of the earth even unto the
other;’ but in Deut. 30:1-6, the regathering of Israel to their own land
to possess it is plainly foretold.” Why did Mr. Rice refer to so small a
part of each of these chapters? Was he afraid the reader might discover
something in the rest of these chapters that would upset his theory?
Their dispersion was one of the curses that would come upon them if they
disobeyed the law Moses gave them. (See Deut. 28:15.) Read Deut. 30:8,
10, and you will see that their return was conditioned on their keeping
the commandments which Moses commanded them, and that after their return
they were to keep all the commandments of the law of Moses. This
condition is now impossible of fulfillment, for the law of Moses is not
in force. If Mr. Rice will read Neh. 1:8, 9, he will find that the
regathering here spoken of took place when the Jews returned from
Babylonian captivity. Surely he will not take issue with Nehemiah. The
other passages relied on to prove the future gathering of the Jews to
Palestine refer to the same event.
Moses plainly told the Israelites that if they forgot God and turned
from his commandments, they would as surely perish as that the nations
whom they drove out of Palestine perished. (Deut. 8:19, 20.) These
nations perished utterly as nations, and Moses said the nation of Israel
would perish as they did. Because of their sins they were carried into
captivity. Later, all who desired to return to Palestine were permitted
to do so. They again fell into sin; and in John’s day they had again
grown so corrupt that he told them the ax then lay at the root of the
tree. (Matt. 3:10.) Then the Jewish nation murdered the Son of God—that
is, the high court of the nation procured his murder. Under God’s law
the penalty for murder was death. As this was murder by the nation,
nothing but national death would satisfy divine justice. The tree had
become wholly bad, and God used the Roman armies as the ax with which to
cut down that tree. According to these future-kingdom advocates, the
most glorious period of Jewish history is yet to be; but Jesus tells us
that the last state of that race will be worse than the first. (See
Matt. 12:43-45.)
The Jews were broken off from God’s favor because of sin—unbelief. Now
both Jew and Gentile stand on an equal footing before God. God is not a
respecter of persons. Religiously, we know no man after the flesh. These
future-kingdom folks seek to keep up this racial distinction which
Christianity was meant to destroy. In Paul’s allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) the
handmaid and her son represented Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and
Paul uses that allegory to show that the handmaid and her son were cast
out. Christians are children of the free woman. Paul then affirms: “The
son of the handmaid (Jewish nation) shall not inherit with the son of
the freewoman.” Hence, the Jewish nation, as such, is left out of any
further inheritance. Jesus plainly told the Jews: “Therefore say I unto
you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matt. 21:43.) Believers in
Christ are now “sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) “and heirs according to the
promise” (Gal. 3:29). The Jewish nation, as such, is not now an heir of
anything. By unbelief the Jews were broken off from God’s favor. (Rom.
11:20.) Gentiles were grafted in by faith. “And so”—in the same
manner—“all Israel shall be saved.”
There is not a hint in the New Testament that the Jews will be restored
to Palestine and be the only citizens of this fantastic future kingdom,
with other people subject to them. That would be fleshly distinction
with a vengeance. “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is
the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. 6:2.) Think of the nature of this kingdom
these men set forth as the object of our highest hope: “The kingdom of
Christ is to be as literal as David’s kingdom.... It is to be as literal
and earthly as Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, and Rome.” So says Mr.
Rice. That would please well the carnal nature of man. It is a pitiful
thing to see men delude themselves with such false hopes.
Mr. Rice says: “Jesus, David’s son, is to restore David’s kingdom.” Yet
he says: “The present world system will have to be destroyed before
Christ can have his kingdom on this earth.” David ruled without having
the present world system destroyed. If Christ is to have the same
kingdom, why cannot he do the same? Is it possible that Mr. Rice thinks
David could do a thing that Christ will be unable to do? The theory
belittles Christ.
Here are two statements from Mr. Rice: “Jesus will restore all Israel to
their own land, the land of Canaan, and will rule over them from David’s
throne.” “Jesus is not now sitting in his throne, but in his Father’s
throne, according to Rev. 3:21.” His idea is that when Jesus comes again
he will descend from that universal throne which he now occupies with
the father and sit on David’s throne as king of the Jews, thus
exchanging a higher for a lower. And they call that exaltation of
Christ! Exalted to a lower place! “Throne” means kingly authority.
David’s throne and Jehovah’s throne are the same. In I Kings it is said
that “Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father.” In 1 Chron.
29:23 it is said that “Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king
instead of his father.” That which was called David’s throne was
Jehovah’s throne. It was called David’s throne simply because he ruled
over God’s people. The effort to make a distinction between God’s throne
and David’s throne is a miserable perversion of Bible truth. As Jesus
now rules over God’s people, he occupies the same position that David
occupied.
When did Jesus begin his reign? On Pentecost, Peter reminded his hearers
that God had promised David to place one of his seed upon his throne,
and that David, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ.
Jesus was therefore raised up to sit on David’s throne. Read Acts
2:29-38. Verse 33: “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted,
and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he
hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.” To Peter the coming of
the Holy Spirit on that day was proof that Jesus had been exalted to
David’s throne. From John 7:37-39 we learn that the Holy Spirit would be
given when Jesus was glorified. Read Mat. 20:20, 21 and Mark 10:35-37,
and you will see that sitting with Jesus in his kingdom and sitting with
him in his glory mean the same thing. As the giving of the Holy Spirit
on the day of Pentecost was proof that he had entered into his glory, it
is also proof that he had been exalted to rulership in his kingdom.
But it has been said that Jesus was then anointed, but did not then
begin to reign, just as David was anointed some time before he began his
reign. But here is a fatal defect in that illustration: Not one thing
was done in the name of David as king till he actually assumed the reins
of government. Acts were to begin to be performed in the name of Christ
at Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came. (Luke 24:46-49.) On that day
Peter commanded the people to repent and be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38.) Was Peter guilty of
forging the name of Christ to a pardon proclamation? He had no right to
so do, and his act was forgery, if Jesus had not authorized him to do
so. And Jesus could not have authorized him to proclaim pardon in his
name, if Jesus was not then occupying the throne. Not one future-kingdom
advocate, nor all of them together, can answer this one argument,
neglected or overlooked though it has been. It settles the whole matter
as to the fact of his reigning now and as to when his reign began.
Mr. Rice says: “John the Baptist came preaching ‘Repent ye: for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ (Matt. 3:2.) Jesus began to preach from
the same text in his early ministry. (Matt. 4:17.) We find that the
command to repent is repeated many times on through the rest of the New
Testament, but the statement, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ was
dropped and not repeated any more, though the kingdom is mentioned
dozens of times. The reason is that the Jews rejected Christ, their
King, and the kingdom was postponed. (Luke 13:34, 35.)” “At hand” means
“near.” In the third year of his public ministry Christ sent the seventy
out to preach, “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” (Luke
10:1-10.) That was during the last year of his ministry. Certainly,
after the first Pentecost after the resurrection the kingdom was not
preached as “at hand” any more, for the simple reason that it had come.
Paul says that Christians have been “delivered out of the power of
darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” (Col.
1:13.) Christ is now “The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings,
and Lord of lords.” (1 Tim. 6:15.) As he is the “only Potentate,” he
alone rules in this kingdom. Hence, it is his kingdom, and the throne is
his throne.
But Mr. Rice would have us believe that when John and Jesus announced
that the kingdom had come nigh they missed it a long way. Jesus also
preached “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
(Mark 1:15.) If Mr. Rice is correct, the kingdom was not at hand—the
time for it to come was not fulfilled. He would have us believe that
Jesus did not know what he was talking about. But that is not the worst
reflection on Jesus that this theory makes. They were assured of the
kingdom on condition that they repent and believe the gospel—that is,
that they repent and accept Christ. Some of them, in good faith,
trusting the words of John and Jesus, did repent, and accepted Christ.
But, according to the adherents of the future-kingdom theory, they did
not get what God had promised them. It will not relieve the situation to
say that most of them rejected him. What about his word to those who did
accept him? They did their part; did God do his? Mr. Rice says he did
not. I am unalterably opposed to any theory that thus makes out God a
liar to those who faithfully do his commands and trust his promises.
The postponement theory belittles the church and makes it an
afterthought, a sort of emergency measure. According to Mr. Rice, God
meant to establish a material kingdom just like other world kingdoms,
but the Jews did not make it possible for him to do so. The church was
then established to continue till the time was ripe for the kingdom,
according to the theory. The church, then, was not God’s original plan.
But what saith the Scriptures? Was that God’s original intent? “To the
intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly
places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of
God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus
our Lord.” (Eph. 3:10, 11.) Thus we see that it was the eternal purpose
of God to make known his wisdom through the church. And how long will
this continue? “Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus
unto all generations forever and ever.” (Eph. 3:21.) The church, then,
will not be superseded by another institution so long as generations
come and go.
Mr. Rice quotes Acts 15:13-16 to prove that “the restoration of the
kingdom of David is to be after this Gentile church age.” Had he given
the full quotation James made from Amos, it would have proved the very
opposite of what he claims. James was justifying the acceptance of the
Gentiles, and quoted Amos to prove that since the royal family of David
was re-established the Gentiles might come into the church. Read verses
17 and 18 and see how miserably Mr. Rice perverts the argument of James.
Pointed Paragraphs:
A life spent in entertaining and being entertained is an empty and
useless life. The satisfaction that comes from knowing that one is of
help to his fellow man is some reward within itself. How useless must
a person feel who never does anything useful! How boresome such a life
must be!
People sometimes say that this plan or that plan will not work.
Certainly not; no plan will work. But people may work a plan, or work
according to a plan, or they may work without any prearranged plan. A
plan is not as necessary as a purpose.
YOUR FAITH AND YOUR CONFESSION
The promises and prophecies recorded in God’s revelation to the Jews led
them to confidently expect the coming of a Deliverer, the Messiah. They
have planted that expectation in the hearts of many Gentiles. (Of course
the reader understands that “Messiah” in Hebrew is the same as “Christ”
in Greek.) But the Jews had no clear conception as to what the Christ
would be and do. In fact they had many very erroneous ideas about the
promised Christ. Hence, when Jesus appeared in their midst, they were so
blinded by their theories that they rejected him as the Christ—that is,
the majority of the Jews would not accept him as the Christ, while many
of them believed on him as the Christ. To the most of them Jesus was a
puzzle, a stone of stumbling. They could not deny his mighty miracles
nor controvert successfully his teaching. Denying the only truth that
would have explained him, they dealt in many conjectures as to who he
was. Some said he was Elijah; some John the Baptist; others, that he was
Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. But when Jesus put the question direct
to his disciples, “But who say ye that I am?” Peter unhesitatingly
answered: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.” But the
majority of the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the Christ, and
looked forward to the coming of the Christ.
Upon the great truth that Jesus is the Christ the church is built; upon
that truth the whole system of Christianity rests. If he be not the
Christ, the gospel is a baseless fabrication and the church is without
excuse for existence. It is this foundation truth that we believe and
confess.
There was no controversy among the Jews as to whether the expected
Christ would be called “the Son of God.” Any Jew would confess that he
believed the expected Christ to be the Son of God. But they deny that
Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Any of those Jews who rejected and
crucified Jesus would have readily said: “I believe the Christ is the
Son of God.” I was startled to hear a preacher ask a number of
candidates for baptism this question: “Do you believe that Christ is the
Son of God?” Now that question misses the point entirely. Any orthodox
Jew could give an affirmative answer to that question; but ask him if he
believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and he will answer
with an emphatic “No.” The great question is: “Do you believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of the living God?” The great answer, the great
confession of faith is: “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living
God.”
That confession should not be so abridged as to leave any doubt as to
who you believe is the Christ, the Son of God. If you believe that Jesus
is the Christ, say so. To say that you believe that Christ is the Son of
God is really no confession at all.
The confession should not be extended so as to include more than this
great truth. Mr. Russell extended that confession. He taught that the
Christ is Jesus and the church; with him, Jesus was only the head of a
body that is called “the Christ.” With him, it took both the head and
the body to constitute the Christ. Some gospel preachers took up with
that idea and thus weakened their faith by extending their confession.
Certainly, if a man believes that theory, his confession is not full and
complete when he says: “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
the living God.” That is really not what he believes. If he makes his
confession as broad as his faith, he will say: “I believe that Jesus and
the church is the Christ.”
Do the foregoing points seem to you to be matters of small import? If
so, I envy not your discernment. Notice carefully the purpose for which
John wrote: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the
disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written,
that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
believing ye may have life in his name.” (John 20:30, 31.)
Pointed Paragraphs:
“For ye were going astray like sheep.” The idea expressed in the
original Greek is not that they were going astray, but they were
astray. When a living thing is astray, it is lost; at least, it is not
in its proper place, not where it belongs. Sin is not the proper
element for people; they do not rightly belong there; it is not their
natural habitat. Righteousness is man’s natural habitat; that is where
God originally placed him. When he wanders off into sin, he is on
foreign soil.
The Hebrew kingdom never would have been divided if all had adhered
strictly to the law of God. People do not divide when all are
determined to do right. When churches divide, there is unrighteousness
somewhere.
THE CHRIST OF THE FUTURE-KINGDOM ADVOCATES
One of the great evils of the future-kingdom advocates is their idea as
to the Christ. When I first read Pastor Russell’s idea of the Christ, I
was astonished, but later I found that others had adopted his idea. Mr.
Russell says: “Thus the saints of the gospel age are an anointed
company—anointed to be kings and priests unto God (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 Pet.
2:9); and together with Jesus, their chief and Lord, they constitute
Jehovah’s Anointed—the Christ.” (“The Divine Plan of the Ages,” pages
81, 82.) Also “The Christ includes all anointed of the Spirit.” Now note
the following from “The Book of Revelation,” by R. H. Boll: “That the
man-child of chapter 12:5 is none other than the Christ; but not the
individual Christ alone, but his body, the church, also, seen as
connected with him.” Page 44: “This mystic man-child is not simply the
Child that was born at Bethlehem, but the Christ as including both
himself, the head, and the church, his spiritual body, which is one with
him.” In the estimation of these writers the Christ is composed of Jesus
and the church. If a person espouses that theory, he should make his
confession as comprehensive and extensive as his faith. If he says, “I
believe that Jesus is the Christ,” his confession is not full. To fully
confess his faith in the Christ, he must say: “I believe that Jesus and
his church is the Christ.” That is evident to any one who will read
carefully what these writers say. Read the quotation again. Now, shall
we revise our confession to make it fit this future-kingdom idea?
IS SALVATION NOW OFFERED TO ALL?
A man does not always realize fully the consequences of his doctrine. It
seems to me that a person cannot believe the future-kingdom theory as
now advocated and also believe that God now seeks the salvation of all
men. If I understand this theory, and I think I do, the faithful
Christians are to be rulers with Christ, and that to each one will be
given territory commensurate with his development as a servant of God.
Some, at least, seem to take the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:13-27)
in a very literal sense. “Have thou authority over ten cities”; “Be thou
also over five cities.” As there will be a limit to the number of
cities, there will, of necessity, be a limit to the number of rulers
needed. Mr. Russell was consistent and bold enough to plainly and openly
declare that God is not now seeking to convert the mass of mankind, but
is only getting a ruling class ready. His position on this point is so
well known that I shall not here take space to quote from him. Some do
not speak so plainly on this point as Mr. Russell, and yet they speak
plainly enough to be understood, as the following from Brother R. H.
Boll will show: “That the ‘new song’ of Rev. 5:9, 10 views the work of
purchasing unto God with his own blood men out of every nation as
finished. The selection is seen as completed; the full number of the
chosen ones seen as constituting a kingdom of priests unto God, as
reigning on earth. This then prophetically foreviews the time when God
shall have done visiting ‘the Gentiles’ (the nations) to _take out of
them_ a people for his name. (Acts 15:14.) The church is an election,
_called out_.” Again: “He has a mystery—that is, a secret—to tell us: to
wit, that Israel’s hardening is limited as to extent and as to time: as
to extent, for it is ‘in part;’ as to time, for it is ‘until’ something
is accomplished—namely, until the full count of the elect Gentiles shall
have come in. Then Israel’s tide shall turn.” So it seems that the Lord
has a certain number of Gentiles to be called, and the present order
must continue till the “full count of the elect Gentiles shall have come
in.” But all such teaching is essential to the future-kingdom theory as
now advocated. The theory necessitates the doctrine that now is the time
of salvation for only the needed number of rulers.
Pointed Paragraphs:
That the gospel succeeded so well in superstitious Ephesus need not
surprise anyone. In superstition there is reverence for supernatural
things. In fact, superstition is ignorant reverence. By teaching these
people the gospel, Paul guided their reverence to the right
objectives. Superstition is reverence without reason; rationalism is
reason without reverence. It is easier to enlighten ignorant reverence
than it is to reestablish reverence in a heart from which it has been
banished.
With some religionists of today custom and tradition have greater
weight than the plain word of God. Assail baptism, a thing positively
commanded, and they applaud; assail their unscriptural teachings and
practices, and they become greatly offended. Some churches of Christ
have had troubles over customs and traditions.
THE COMING OF THE LORD
In the Christian Standard of March 19, 1932, Brother H. H. Peters,
secretary of the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, says: “As
already intimated, the plan of the Millenial Harbinger was different
from that of its predecessor. It was unique in the journalism of
America, religious or otherwise. Its very name indicates that its editor
partook somewhat of the spirit that was abroad in the land, which
expected the immediate return of the Lord and the establishment of his
millenial reign. Mr. Campbell never became a dogmatist on this point,
nor did the brotherhood ever take up any of the fantastic views of
Miller and others, but it was impossible in that day to do any kind of
religious work without partaking somewhat of the spirit that expected
the immediate return of the Lord.” It would be hard to crowd into fewer
words more historic errors than the foregoing extract contains. Mr.
Campbell did not believe that Jesus would return to earth and then reign
a thousand years. He did believe that, before the coming of the Lord,
there would be a thousand years of universal peace and righteousness.
Mr. Campbell was not a premillennialist; neither did he believe the Lord
would return immediately. On these matters he wrote extensively. He
cited a number of prophecies which he believed had not been fulfilled,
but must be fulfilled before the coming of the Lord. One wonders where
Mr. Peters got authority for his statements. However, when a person gets
intoxicated with the future-kingdom idea, he can see authority for
statements that no sober-minded person can discover. They even tell us
that the apostles taught the early Christians to expect the immediate
return of the Lord.
Because some do not hold to the theories propagated by the
premillennialists, they are charged with not believing in the second
coming of the Lord at all. From one writer we have the following: “The
thought of his coming has faded out of the minds of men.” Again: “In the
eighteenth century, however, there came a man named ‘Daniel Whitby.’...
He taught that the gospel would spread and spread until the whole world
would be converted; then would follow a thousand years of blessedness
and peace, and after all this Jesus would come and wind things up. Then
the hope of his coming died again everywhere as this doctrine became the
general teaching.” That is such a manifest misrepresentation of the
great body of Christians that I shall make no attempt to disprove it. As
Mr. Campbell was accused of holding the same views as Whitby, it will be
seen that Mr. Peters misrepresents him in the quotation at the beginning
of this article.
We are told that “they were hoping for him, and they were looking for
his return in the days of the apostles.” We are asked to believe that
the Christians began to expect his return any moment after he went away,
and that they were taught by the apostles to do so. They think they find
such teaching in what the apostles said about looking for his coming and
hoping for his coming; but the theory discredits the inspiration of the
apostles. Jesus did not come again during that period. If the apostles
were mistaken on that point, how can we be sure they taught the truth on
anything? If the infidel were to point to this as evidence that the
apostles were not infallible in their teaching, how would these men meet
the argument? On this point the learned commentator, James McKnight,
says: “Grotius, Locke, and others, have affirmed that the apostles of
Christ believed the end of the world was to happen in their time, and
that they have declared this to be their belief, in various passages of
their epistles. But these learned men and all who join them in that
opinion have fallen into a most pernicious error. For thereby they
destroy the authority of the gospel revelation, at least so far as it is
contained in the discourses and writings of the apostles; because, if
they have erred in a matter of such importance, and which they affirm
was revealed to them by Christ, they may have been mistaken in other
matters also, where their inspiration is not more strongly asserted by
them than in this instance. In imputing this mistake to the apostles,
the deists have heartily joined the learned men above mentioned, because
a mistake of this sort effectually overthrows the apostle’s pretensions
to inspiration. It is therefore necessary to clear them from so
injurious an imputation.”
Such use has been made of the parable recorded in Luke 12:42-48 as to
make it appear that the servant was unfaithful, in that he said: “My
Lord delayeth his coming.” But they miss the point. As a matter of fact,
the Lord has delayed his coming far beyond the time they tell us the
inspired apostles said he might come. There was certainly nothing sinful
in what the servant said, when it was true that his lord had delayed his
coming. There could be no unfaithfulness in his saying what was actually
true. But his unfaithfulness consisted in his taking advantage of that
delay to do wrong. His wrong doing was his unfaithfulness. Not what he
said about that delay, but what he did during that delay, constituted
his unfaithfulness. But their use of this parable illustrates the
strained interpretations men will put upon the Scripture to propagate a
theory.
But another statement in that parable has some bearing on the matter
under discussion: “The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he
expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him
asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.” This statement
applies to all unfaithful servants, and not simply those who will be
alive when the Lord comes again. To make this apply only to those who
are alive at the Lord’s second coming would leave many unfaithful
servants that would not suffer the fate that this one did, for more
shall have died before the Lord comes again than will be alive when he
does come. It can apply to all unfaithful servants only in the sense
that the Lord comes to all at death.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Instead of being afraid of our enemies, let us trust in Jehovah. Why
worry overmuch about the evils that we cannot possibly remedy? “Fret
not thyself because of evil-doers, neither be thou envious against
them that work unrighteousness.” (Ps. 37:1.)
THE “TWO STAGES” THEORY EXAMINED
It would not be fair to myself nor to the reader to charge that any
Christian does not believe that the Lord will come again. That event is
so plainly taught in the Bible that no one who believes the Book thinks
otherwise. But some have engaged in so much speculation about what will
occur when the Lord does come that, so it seems to me, their theories
virtually deny much of what has already taken place. In some respects
the various angles of their theory fail to connect, or even to
harmonize.
I have a rather artistic diagram, prepared by a Baptist preacher of some
ability, in Houston, Texas. In this diagram the Lord is represented as
coming to the air surrounding the earth, where he is met by the living
saints, now changed, and the dead saints, now raised from the dead; and
there the diagram represents them as remaining some years, or during the
time of the “great tribulation” on earth, after which they come on to
the earth. Brother R. H. Boll has a diagram in which he sets forth the
same idea. The coming of the Lord is thus represented as composed of two
“stages”—coming for his saints, and then coming on to earth with his
saints. But another angle to the theory does not fit into this, as will
be seen.
The theory has the Lord with his saints back in heaven between the two
“stages” of his coming. Because we so represent matters, some, who do
not consider all the angles of the theory, say we are guilty of serious
misrepresentation. Let us not be too hasty. There is another angle to
this theory.
The theory represents the whole of the book of Revelation from the
beginning of the fourth chapter to the close as dealing with things yet
future, and that from the beginning of chapter four to the end of
chapter nineteen it tells of things that will occur between the “two
stages” of the Lord’s coming; and that is at the time another angle of
the theory has the Lord with his saints in the air surrounding the
earth. If a man believes that Rev. 4:1 to chapter 19, inclusive, speaks
of what is to occur between the two “stages” of their theory, he cannot
believe that the Lord remains in the air with his saints during that
time. Brother Boll himself does not so believe. “To see these future
things John is called up to heaven. For it is in heaven that the plans
and counsels of God are laid; and the things that transpire on the earth
have their secret source and origin there.... So all the great events of
which the book of Revelation tells come from above, first decreed and
decided on in God’s council chamber in heaven.” John first saw God
sitting upon his throne surrounded by twenty-four other thrones, upon
which sat twenty-four elders. “That these are saints, representatives of
all saints, seems perfectly evident.” And so there were saints in
heaven, around the throne of God, while another angle of the theory has
them in the air that surrounds the earth. Then John saw in the right
hand of God as he sat on the throne a book, close-sealed with seven
seals. None other than the Lord Jesus Christ was found that could open
that book. He came and took the book out of the hand of him who sat on
the throne. So Jesus was up in heaven, in the presence of the throne of
God, at the very time one angle of the theory has him in the air. And
Brother Boll believes he was there, for he says: “When John lifts up his
eyes to see the mighty Lion, he discerns, for the first time, in the
midst of the central glory of the Throne, the figure of ‘a lamb
standing.’” From that time on we see Jesus taking an active part in all
that transpires around the throne in heaven. And then we come to chapter
19. We here quote some comments made by Brother Boll on that chapter:
“With him are armies—the armies which are in heaven.... But who are
these ‘holy ones’ (that is, saints), and who are these armies of heaven
that follow in his train ‘upon white horses clothed in fine linen, white
and pure’? The answer is indicated to us a few verses above (1-9). In
heaven, the saints previously taken up, have joined their Lord in an
eternal wedlock.... It is in this ‘fine linen, white and pure,’ that we
see the armies of heaven arrayed, who follow him as he comes forth.
These armies are not angels; they are his saints composing His Bride,
‘the Lamb’s wife.’” Here, then, we have Jesus in heaven with his saints
ready to come forth from heaven, but another angle of the theory has the
Lord and his armies of saints in the air ready to make the second stage
of his journey! Again: “So from heaven, riding forth for Israel’s help,
comes their Messiah at the head of the heavenly host.”
I do not refer to these matters to provoke any controversy, but to show
that we have not misrepresented any one, and also to show that one angle
of the future-kingdom theory does not harmonize with another angle of
the theory. If a theory contradicts itself, we should be excused if we
contradict the theory. Both angles of this theory cannot be true, and no
man can put these angles together in such a way as to make the theory
look good to one who knows that God’s truth is in perfect harmony with
itself.
But the theory has the marriage of Christ to his bride yet future.
According to the theory, the church is only _engaged_ to Christ now. If
that be so, in what sense is he now Lord of his bride?
Pointed Paragraphs:
The Bible does not idealize humanity—not even its heroes. It
impartially records the good and the bad. It records the drunkenness
of Noah and the falsehood of Abraham, and gives us a full picture of
the awful sin of David. It tells of Peter’s denial of Christ and of
his hypocrisy at Antioch. It tells how Moses tried to find a way to
keep from carrying out God’s orders. No human productions are so
impartial.
There is something radically wrong with a man’s religion when it
drives out of his heart all sympathy, kindness, and mercy. The hatred
of the lawyers and the Pharisees toward Jesus was greater than their
desire to see a sufferer healed.
Forbearance is characteristic of a Christian. It is to be exercised
toward those who in some way make themselves unpleasant in a personal
way.
HOPE OF THE LORD’S COMING
Inspired men did teach that the Lord is coming again; but when men
affirm that the Holy Spirit taught the early Christians to expect the
Lord to come the second time in their day, they virtually accuse the
Holy Spirit of raising hopes that they knew would not be realized. We
would expect infidels to argue that inspired men taught things that
turned out not to be true. But the idea is so abhorrent to any one who
believes in the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the absolute
truthfulness of everything he taught that it seems that no one could for
a moment regard it as a harmless guess or as a matter about which we
need not be concerned. However, if the apostles did teach such doctrine,
we will have to acknowledge that they did, even though it leads us to
discredit the certainty of their teaching. But did they teach it? Is
there any justice, reason, or foundation for putting them under such a
cloud of suspicion? Emphatically, no!
An argument to support the theory is built on a misunderstanding of the
word “hope.” We are told that the apostles taught the early Christians
to hope for the Lord’s coming, and that hope is made up of desire and
expectation, all of which is true. But they assume that to hope for a
thing is to expect it immediately, or at any moment. Their own
contention on the word “hope” robs them of any hope of a millenial
kingdom; for they all contend that the Jews must return to Palestine,
Rome be developed again into a great empire, and then some years of
great tribulation must pass before the millenial kingdom is set up. With
their idea of hope, they can hope for nothing except that which may
occur at any moment. But they are wrong in their contention on hope. We
plant a crop, hoping for a good harvest; but no one is simple enough to
think the harvest may come at any moment. The man who gives a large sum
of money to build a college or hospital hopes to benefit generations
unborn. We may lend, hoping to receive. Certainly no one makes a loan
expecting the return at any moment. They are, therefore, wrong in
assuming that imminency inheres in expectancy. And they are wrong also
as to the basis of expectation. Expectation must have more than
conjecture, more than mere probability, for a basis. I earnestly desire
the Lord to come while I live, but I do not expect him to do so, for I
have nothing on which to base such an expectation. But you ask, “Do you
not think that the Lord might come while you live?” Certainly, but
expectation must be based on something more substantial than what may or
may not be. If the Lord should plainly tell me that he would come while
I live, I would have grounds for expecting him to come before I die. But
the Lord has never told any generation that he would come during the
life of that generation, and for that reason no one has ever expected
the Lord to come while he lived. If the apostles had taught the early
Christians that the Lord would come in their day, then they could have
expected him to come. But if the apostles had so taught, they would have
taught falsely, for the Lord did not come then. But they did not so
teach, and therefore the early Christians did not expect his return in
their day. And yet they did, as do all Christians today, expect him to
come at some period, for he said he would. They may have desired that he
come in their day, and we may desire him to come in our day; but they
had no grounds upon which to expect him to come then, neither have we
any grounds for expecting him to come in our day.
The coming of the Lord is to be earnestly desired, and yet the thought
of his coming fills one with dread and awe. Yet we are told that such
feelings indicate that there is something wrong with us, just as there
is something wrong with a wife if she feels uneasy at the home-coming of
a good husband. We are reminded that the faithful wife gladly meets the
devoted husband when he returns from a journey, and that children
joyfully run to meet their father when he comes home, and this should be
our attitude and feeling when the Lord comes. If we tremble at his
presence, there is something wrong! Is it possible that any one so
thinks? Does any one really think that we can meet the Lord on the same
basis that one human being meets another? To teach that we should have
such feeling of familiarity as a wife has toward her husband or as
children have toward their father is hurtful to piety and reverence. If
the author of the foregoing illustrations does not mean all this, his
illustrations do not mean anything. For years I have had an earnest
desire that the Lord come while I live, and yet I know that when I
appear before him in his majesty and glory, I shall, like the beloved
John, fall at his feet as one dead. (Rev. 1:17.) I cannot think that any
Christian will feel otherwise. When Jehovah spoke to Moses out of the
burning bush, “Moses trembled, and durst not behold.” (Acts 7:32.) Was
there something wrong with Moses and the beloved John? But the author
who presented the aforementioned illustrations is wrong, as he himself
will learn when he appears in the presence of the Judge of all the
earth.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Perhaps you have wondered what people do in heaven. The redeemed are
before God’s throne, ready always to do his bidding. In teaching his
disciples how to pray, Jesus put in this petition: “Thy will be done,
as in heaven, so on earth.” Heaven is not, therefore, a place of
idleness. But obedience is a thing that must be learned. “Though he
was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.” The
service of God in this life is the school in which we learn obedience;
we must learn to serve here, or we will not have the joy of service
over there. “He that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle
over them.” They will be secure in his service—have his constant care.
Are all people subject to their environs in the development of their
character? Yes and no. Environment makes some people what they are;
others, like Asa, get busy, and make their environment.
PAUL TO THE THESSALONIANS ON THE LORD’S RETURN
These Thessalonians had “turned unto God from idols, to serve a living
God, and to wait for his Son from heaven.” To wait for the coming of the
Lord does not mean that we are to remain in idleness till he comes. To
wait on the Lord in any matter is to remain steadfast in the hope that
he will fulfill that which he promised. It is a forward-looking attitude
of mind and heart, with confidence that God will fulfill his word,
whether soon or late.
In reading the Bible, we frequently allow the chapter divisions to
influence our conclusions. We forget for the time that writers of the
Bible made no division into chapters and verses. In our study we should
absolutely disregard the chapter divisions, for the discussion of a
point begun in one chapter frequently runs into the next. In the first
Thessalonian letter Paul’s discussion of the events connected with the
Lord’s return begins with the thirteenth verse of the fourth chapter and
ends with the eleventh verse of the fifth chapter. If we ignore this
fact, we deal unfairly with Paul.
When Paul planted the church at Thessalonica, he did not have time to
fully instruct the new converts, for he was soon driven away by fierce
persecution. Before he wrote his first letter to them, some of their
number had died. They did not know what would become of these at the
Lord’s coming. Concerning them, they had no hope; for they had no
information upon which to base any hope. Paul’s purpose in writing the
section under consideration was to teach them that they would “sorrow
not, even as the rest, who have no hope.” Through or by Jesus, God would
bring these dead saints to heaven; for the dead saints would be raised
from the dead, and, together with the living saints, would be caught up
in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. “Wherefore comfort ye one
another with these words.”
Then Paul says that it is not necessary to say anything to them about
the times and seasons. “The times and the seasons” of what? Of that
concerning which he had just told them about—namely, the coming of the
Lord and the resurrection of the dead saints, and the ascension of all
saints to meet him in the air. But that day would come as a thief in the
night; then what? “When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden
destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and
they shall in no wise escape.” So, then, in that day in which the Lord
comes to gather to himself his saints, sudden destruction will come upon
the rest of mankind. “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that
day should overtake you as a thief.” What day? The day of which he was
speaking, the day in which the saints shall be taken up and the wicked
shall suddenly be destroyed. Some would have us believe that the saints
will be secure in the day when sudden destruction is visited upon the
wicked, because they shall have already been taken up to meet the Lord
in the air some years before that day of destruction of the ungodly. But
Paul tells us that that day of destruction will not come upon them as a
thief, for they are all sons of light—they are ready and watching. To
fit the theory, Paul should have said that that day would not overtake
them, because they would not be there, having already been caught up to
meet the Lord in the air.
Some people look at this Scripture so carelessly that they actually
think that Paul says the dead saints will be raised before the wicked
are raised. One good brother, a friend of mine, quoted Scripture, to me
as follows: “The dead in Christ shall rise first, and the rest of the
dead lived not again till the thousand years are passed.” But Paul was
not contrasting the resurrection of the saints and the wicked, but was
speaking of the dead saints and those living when Christ comes. Will the
living saints leave the dead in their graves? No, the dead saints will
be raised first—that is, before the living ascend; and then all shall be
caught up to meet the Lord. Whether the wicked were to be raised then,
or were never to be raised, was not so much as hinted at. But the
passage does teach this: When the Lord comes, the saints will be caught
up to meet him in the air, and the wicked will be destroyed in that day.
And that agrees with what Paul says in his second letter to the
Thessalonians.
In Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians he gives some additional
information concerning the coming of the Lord and our gathering together
unto him. From the first verse of the second chapter we learn that the
coming of the Lord referred to is that coming in which the saints are
gathered together unto him. Paul would not have them troubled by
thinking that that day was “just at hand.” One writer, well known to the
Gospel Advocate readers, makes this comment on the phrase, “at hand”:
“In every translation known to me, except the Douay, the King James, and
the American Revised Version, this reads ‘the day of the Lord is now
present.’ Some one had made those Thessalonians believe that the day of
the Lord had already broken in upon them.” I know that some translations
have “present” instead of “at hand”, but they are not so numerous as the
foregoing quotation would have us believe. The following translations
have “at hand”: Latin Vulgate, Bible Union, Living Oracles, Sharpe,
George R. Noyes (Harvard University teacher), Anderson, Syriac, Sawyer,
and James MacKnight. So far as scholarship goes, it is very likely that
the scholarship back of the American Standard Version outweighs the
scholarship of all the translations referred to in the foregoing
quotation, with the exception of the English Revision.
But it matters little to us what those Thessalonian brethren thought
about the matter; it does not affect Paul’s teaching on the subject.
Paul tells us that a falling away must come first and the man of sin be
revealed. This must be, he tells us, before the coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ and our gathering together unto him. But the theory that is now
so attractive to some people has this man of sin developed after the
saints are taken up to meet the Lord in the air; the man of sin is then
to be destroyed at what is termed the second stage of his coming. But
Paul plainly says that the coming he is here talking about is the coming
in which the saints are gathered together unto the Lord. It is strange
that a theory will so blind people that they cannot see a plain
statement in the very passages from which they claim to deduce their
teaching.
Pointed Paragraphs:
Jesus and Paul were not contentious, yet they contended earnestly for
the truth. They were the greatest fighters of all time. They were
moved by two Loves. They loved man so much that they fought with
determination anything and everything that would hurt man. They loved
the truth so much that they fought everything that was in the way of
its progress. And they stirred people as none others ever did.
It has been said that it is useless to quote the Bible to one who
disbelieves it. But Jesus quoted it to the devil. There is power in an
appropriate passage of Scripture that even a disbeliever cannot evade.
Before following any advice it is better to find out the character of
him who gives the advice and what possible interest he may have in our
following his advice.
RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD
The following question came to me recently:
Brother Whiteside: Do you not think that the expression, “resurrection
from the dead,” has reference to the death state, rather than the
meaning that some will come “out from among” the other dead ones? Say
something to us in the Gospel Advocate along this line. John S. Clark.
In the growth of language it is common for words to take on additional
meanings. This, of course, is common knowledge and needs no proof.
In the phrase, “from the dead” (ek nekron), the word “dead” is plural in
the Greek, but by a sort of figure of speech, or extension of the
meaning of the word, it applies to the state of death; at least, some
passages of Scripture set forth that idea. In Rom. 6:13 we have the
phrase, “alive from the dead,” and in I John 3:14 we have the phrase,
“passed out of death into life.” In both passages the meaning is the
same; yet in Romans the Greek word from which we have “dead” is plural,
and in John we have another word in the singular. The Romans had been
dead in sins, but were made alive from that death. The Cambridge Greek
Testament has this note: “Ek nekron, as men that are alive after being
dead.” Bloomfield: “Ex nekron zontas, as those who, after having been
(spiritually) dead, are now alive.” Thayer: “Zeen ek nekron, tropically,
out of moral death to enter upon a new life, dedicated and acceptable to
God (Rom. 6:13.)” In defining “ek,” Thayer has this: “5. Of the
condition or state out of which one comes or is brought: ... zontes ek
nekron, alive from being dead—i. e., who had been dead and were alive
again (Rom. 6:13.)” It is plain, therefore, that the word “dead” in Rom.
6:13 refers to the death state. It is true that it refers here to
spiritual death, but its use in describing the state of the sinner is a
figurative use of the same expression that is applied to the state of
those who are dead physically.
We have the same phrase in Rom. 11:15—“life from the dead” (ek nekron).
On this passage Thayer has this: “Zoa ek nekron, life breaking forth
from the abode of the dead.” Bloomfield gives the following as the sense
of the whole verse: “If their _sin_, which occasioned this casting away,
has been the means of reconciling the world, by bringing about the death
of Christ, what shall the _receiving of them again into the divine favor
be_ (whenever it shall take place), but so happy a change, both to
themselves and to the Gentiles, as may, in a manner, be said to raise
the whole world from death to life? Zoe ek nekron, by a figure common to
all languages, denotes (as Turretin and Stuart explain) something great
and surprising, like what a general resurrection from the dead would
be.” So, according to Bloomfield, “life from the dead” is life from
death.
But it is contended by all the future-kingdom folks that the phrase,
“resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron), applies to the righteous and
never to the wicked. Their cause depends upon their repudiating the idea
that the word “dead” refers to the death state. They tell us that the
righteous are raised before the wicked, and are, therefore, raised “out
from among” dead ones. But their contention is not conclusive, even if
“ek nekron” should be rendered “out of the dead ones.” In the first
place, to make “ek” mean _out from among_ is stretching that little word
too much. Again, before the resurrection, the dead ones are made up of
both the righteous and the wicked. Their contention will not allow that
the righteous come “out from among” the righteous dead. They do not,
then, come “out from among” the dead, but “out from among” only a part
of the dead. But “out from among” is not even good English.
Again, granting, for argument’s sake, that “from the dead” means “out of
dead ones,” their contention then does not hold good. We view the field
of the dead; they are all there—the righteous, the sinners, the infants,
and all irresponsible people. They all arise at once; have they not come
out of the dead? They were dead ones, now they are live ones; out of the
dead ones came the living ones. The apostles preached a resurrection of
both the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15). In Acts 4:2 “ek nekron” is
used in connection with the resurrection of all the dead. The Sadducees
were sorely troubled because the apostles “proclaimed in Jesus the
resurrection from the dead.”
I have never seen any provision, or place, for the resurrection of
infants and irresponsibles in the future-kingdom theory, nor have I seen
any place for such in their future-kingdom. They cannot be rulers, for
they have not been tested and proved worthy of such place; the most of
them cannot be citizens, for they are not Jews. Will they be raised
before the millennial kingdom begins? If so, what will be their status
in that kingdom, or will they be any part of it?
Pointed Paragraphs: