Contrary to all human tendencies, God would have us celebrate the

death of Christ instead of his birth. Had he wanted us to celebrate

his birth, he would not have left its date in obscurity. A little

attention to the history or manner of shepherding in Palestine will

convince anyone that December 25 is not the correct date. In the

Lord’s Supper, we celebrate his death; in observing the Supper on the

Lord’s day, we celebrate his resurrection. We honor Jesus by following

in his steps and by doing his will; we dishonor him and disgrace his

cause by celebrating his birth in the way it is usually done.

Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any daughter of the heathen

surrounding him; neither did Isaac and Rebekah want their two sons to

do so. The marriage relation is so close that no Christian should

marry a person whose influence would be hurtful instead of helpful.

THEORY OF TWO RESURRECTIONS CONSIDERED

In a former article it was shown that the word “dead” in the phrase,

“resurrection from the dead,” sometimes, at least, refers to the death

state. People are raised from the dead—that is, the death state. But it

is contended by the future-kingdom folks that there will be two

resurrections—the righteous to be raised from among the dead, and the

rest of the dead will be raised later. They insist that the phrase,

“from the dead,” shows that some of the dead will be left. But their

arguments have never seemed conclusive to me.

It would be hard to get two resurrections more than a thousand years

apart out of the following language of the Savior: “Marvel not at this:

for the hour cometh, in which all that are in their tombs shall hear his

voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the

resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the

resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29.) There is to be an hour, or

period, in which all, both good and bad shall come forth from the dead

at the call of Jesus. The same thought—that is, that both will be raised

at the same time—is presented in Acts 4:1, 2: “And as they spake unto

the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees

came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and

proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” Here we have the

phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron). The priests and the

captain of the temple were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in

the resurrection of anybody. With them death ended all. Are we to

believe that they stirred up all this trouble because the apostles

taught that the righteous would be raised before the wicked? That point

did not concern them, but to preach that the dead would be raised did

disturb them. The apostles preached in Jesus a universal resurrection

from the dead. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be

made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22.) Before Felix, Paul preached that he had

hope toward God that there would be a resurrection both of the just and

the unjust. (Acts 24:15.) It was that sort of preaching that so

exasperated the Sadducees. Hence, when the apostles at Jerusalem

preached that all would be raised from the dead (ek nekron), it

infuriated the Sadducees. But the Pharisees believed in a universal

resurrection. Paul took advantage of this difference between the

Sadducees and Pharisees, when he was brought before the council in

Jerusalem, and said: “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees:

touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.”

(Acts 23:6.)

The two-resurrectionists seek to make a point on Paul’s effort to

“attain unto the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil. 3:11.) After

quoting Phil. 3:10-14, Charles M. Neal says: “To present and emphasize

this thought, Paul invents a new word. This word, ‘exanastasis,’ occurs

but this one time in the New Testament. The phrase ‘resurrection from

the dead,’ is translated by Rotherham as ‘out-resurrection from among

the dead,’ and in the Emphatic Diaglott as ‘resurrection from among the

dead’.” It is true that the word occurs in the New Testament only in

this one place. But we become somewhat doubtful of one who quotes as

authority the Emphatic Diaglott, a translation that is printed and sold

by the Russellites. And surely no one would seriously put Rotherham up

against the great body of scholars who gave the American Standard

Version.

But to seek to make “exanastasis” mean _out-resurrection from_ is to

venture beyond the lexicons. Liddell and Scott gives the New Testament

meaning as the _resurrection_. Thayer: _a rising up; a rising again;

resurrection_. Thus it is seen that Thayer, though himself a

premillennialist, gives no support to the idea in defining the word.

When a man gives a definition of a word that is not sustained by either

of these lexicons, nor by the greatest body of scholars that was ever

gathered for any purpose, he puts entirely too much stress upon himself.

It is true that “ek” or “ex” when standing alone as a preposition,

usually has the general meaning of “out of”; but when used as a part of

a compound word, as in ’exanastasis’, it sometimes merely intensifies

the meaning of the word to which it is joined, giving the idea of

“utterly, entirely.” See Thayer and Liddell and Scott. If one has the

time and opportunity, he may also examine Winer (page 429) and

Robertson’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (pages 562-4, 596). If

“ex” adds any meaning to the word here, it merely means that Paul was

striving to obtain a complete resurrection, a perfect resurrection—that

is, a resurrection to life that is life indeed. In that respect there is

a decided difference between the resurrection of a faithful Christian

and a sinner, for a sinner is not raised to real life.

Sometimes the preposition adds nothing to the meaning of the word with

which it is compounded—that is, so far as we can see. Take, for

illustration, the verb from which we have “exanastasis.” It occurs in

Mark 12:19 and Luke 20:28—“raised up seed unto his brother.” Here we

have “ex” joined to the verb; but in the parallel passage in Matt.

22:24, where the meaning is bound to be exactly the same, the

preposition “ex” is left off. If adding “ex” to the verb does not change

this verb, how can one dogmatically argue that it changes the noun that

is derived from the verb? The argument built on “exanastasis” is about

as flimsy an argument as one could find. A cause that depends on such

arguments cannot have a substantial basis. But a wild theory is often

supported by very tame arguments.

Pointed Paragraphs:

One preacher can do very little toward establishing a church in a

great city. It is perhaps harder now than ever. We have seen it tried.

It would be better to take Antioch as an example. Notice the number of

workers that concentrated their efforts on that city. They got

results. Paul generally had a group of helpers with him. Together they

did work in cities where one man would have failed, or practically so.

Ignoring this divine example and putting one man in a city without

real help, we have wasted much effort.

CHURCH AGES

When a man tries to sustain a false theory in religion he cannot do so

by correct application of the scriptures. He will make false arguments

and pervert the scriptures. A striking example of this is seen in the

efforts of some to find prophetic symbolisms in the letters to the seven

churches in Asia. These letters were written to seven churches in seven

cities of Asia Minor, and they are recorded in the second and third

chapters of Revelation. Here is what Scofield says in his Bible: “The

messages to the seven churches have a fourfold application: (1) Local,

to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in

all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state

in the sight of God; (3) personal, in exhortations to him ‘that hath an

ear,’ and in the promises ‘to him that overcometh’; (4) prophetic as

disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from,

say, A. D. 96 to the end.”

Of course, when these men talk about the church they include all that

they call branches of the church. They claim that we are now living in

the period symbolized by the church at Laodicea. There is not even a

hint that there were any prophetic symbolisms in the condition of these

churches. Of course they do not claim that the condition of the church

at Ephesus was prophetic of a future period—its condition merely

portrayed the condition of the churches then. That is absurd, for the

six other churches mentioned were not like Ephesus—in fact, there is not

a hint that the Ephesus church was like any other church of that day,

and yet the theory requires that the condition of the church at Ephesus

correctly represented all the churches of that period. And then the

other six churches are said to represent, or symbolize, or forecast the

condition of the church at certain periods. The marking off the period

that each church is supposed to represent is purely arbitrary. No one

can prove, even if the theory were true, that we live in the Laodicean

period. But the whole theory is fantastic, absurd, and a reflection on

God.

Think what the theory involves. How could a church then determine the

character of the whole church during a certain period hundreds of years

later? Or did God by direct miraculous power make these churches to be

like what he knew the whole church would be at different periods? Or did

he by direct power make the periods to be like the churches of Asia? In

either case people had to be what God by direct power chose to make

them. Where then is there room for freedom of will, or freedom of

action? Any one who can believe that each of these churches was a

forecast of the whole church at a certain period can believe any

foolish, fantastic, absurd thing that the wildest imagination can

conceive. He does not have to have any evidence—he just lets his

imagination run riot. I would like for some of its advocates to tell me

when that notion was hatched out, and by whom.

PHILADELPHIA AND THE HOUR OF TRIAL

Foy E. Wallace, Jr., passes over to me a document which was written in

Detroit with a request that I say something about it. The document would

fill my page. As much of it has no special bearing on the points sought

to be made, I will make liberal and fair quotations from it. The passage

commented upon first is Rev. 3:10: “Because thou didst keep the word of

my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour

which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the

earth.” I quote:

“The promise. ‘The hour of trial’ was ahead, but Philadelphia was to be

kept from it. Not saved through it, but kept from it....

“That Hour. (1) It is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘the’. (2) It

is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘trial’, for it is ‘to try them

that dwell upon the earth.’ (4) It is yet future; ‘to come upon the

whole world.’ Nothing has since occurred in history filling out this

picture.... (5) the Philadelphia type of saints will escape.... Those

who keep his word are of the Philadelphia type of saints. The church

that is true to the word is a church of the Philadelphian type and can

lay claim to this same promise.”

John wrote seven letters, dictated by the Lord, to seven churches in

Asia; the church at Philadelphia was one of these churches. The Lord

made a definite promise to the church at Philadelphia. Naturally the

members of that church would understand that the promise was to them;

but that church long ago ceased to exist. And yet we are told that the

promise made to those brethren is yet future. If that be so, then that

promise was not for those brethren at all! They are all dead; was that

the way the Lord was going to keep them from the hour of trial? No, no;

according to the foregoing quotation, the promise was not meant for the

church at Philadelphia at all, but for the churches of the Philadelphian

type! Such juggling with the record is both taking away from and adding

to the words of the book. The promise was not made to the “Philadelphian

type of saints”, but to the church at Philadelphia. It is true that some

promises, general in their nature, though not to one individual or group

of individuals, are to be enjoyed by all who fulfill the conditions; but

certainly the ones to whom the promise is directly made are included in

the promise! But, strange to say, according to the foregoing quotation,

the church at Philadelphia to whom the promise was made was not included

in the promise made directly to them! That promise is yet future, so we

are told.

But the implication of the quotation is that the promise was made to the

Philadelphian type of churches, and that it is to be fulfilled in “the

rapture.” And what is it that a person cannot prove, if he is allowed to

juggle words to suit his theory? If the hour of trial is yet future, the

Lord kept Philadelphia from it by deferring it till all those saints

died. But he conjures up a peculiar method of escape for those saints

who long ago died: (7) “The method of escape is found in such passages

as 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is often called the rapture, and properly so,

from the expression ‘caught up,’ which rapture means.” But would not the

saints of Philadelphia escape that supposed three and a half years of

tribulation if they should remain in their graves?

I quote again: “Other Designations. Jesus used the term ‘that day,’ also

the term ‘tribulation.’ Daniel calls it ‘a time of trouble’ such as is

unequaled and never repeated. In Jer. 30:7 it is ‘the time of Jacob’s

trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.’ Here is a parallel to the

escape of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace. Those who are ‘saved

out of it’ are distinct from those who are kept from it. John has a

vision of a number who ‘come out of the great tribulation,’ but the

Philadelphians are kept from it!”

He affirms that the various terms he names applies to one certain period

that is yet to be; but he gives not one word of proof. The terms, “that

day,” “in that day,” “day of trouble,” “tribulation,” “tribulations,”

“that hour,” are used many times in the Bible, and certainly do not all

refer to the same period of time. Why then pick out a term here and

there and arbitrarily apply them to one certain time? THE REASON: a

certain theory demands it. And if the writer will examine the Greek in

Jer. 30:7 and Rev. 3:10, he will find apo, from, in Jeremiah, and ek,

out of, in Revelation, which completely reverses the point he seeks to

make on the use of prepositions.

Again I quote: “Chronology.... The order of some outstanding things

foretold is revealed. To get this order saves confusion. From Jesus’

prophecy on the mount (Matt. 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21) avoiding all

forced interpretations, we learn ‘the tribulation of those days’ leads

up to the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars of the

heaven, the powers of the heaven being shaken, and the glorious

appearing of the Son of man. Note the expression ‘immediately after’ in

Matt. 24:29. Note also Mark 13:24-27 ... even up to the tribulation

there are foretold ‘wars and rumors of wars,’ and ‘nation shall rise

against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.’ Again, attention is called

to the fact that those days of unprecedented tribulation ‘shall be

shortened.’ Obviously they are terminated by the Son of man in

connection with his appearing. The times foretold in this connection

constitute ‘the days of the Son of man.’ (see Luke 17:26.) The ‘rapture’

precedes ‘the tribulation of those days,’ ‘the days of the Son of man.’

And the rapture awaits nothing that is foretold.”

There are difficulties in the discourse Jesus delivered to the disciples

on Olivet; but it is certain that no one will get a correct idea of what

was said if he ignores the questions that gave rise to the speech. Jesus

was answering questions put to him by the disciples. The disciples had

called his attention to the temple and its adornments. Jesus said: “As

for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there

shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown

down.” When they had crossed to the mount of Olives, Peter, James, John,

and Andrew said to him: “Teacher, when therefore shall these things be?

and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?”

Put yourself in the place of these disciples: would you not understand

that everything Jesus said was in answer to those two questions? Would

Jesus confuse them by saying a lot of things which they would understand

to be in answer to their questions, but were not? In Mark’s record we

have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign

when these things are about to be accomplished?” To say that most of the

answer Jesus gave related to something about which they had not inquired

is to accuse Jesus of not dealing fairly with them. In Matthew’s record

we have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the

sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” For the last clause

the marginal reading has, “Or, _the consummation of the age_.” To say

that Matthew’s report of these questions does not mean the same as the

reports of Mark and Luke is to accuse some one of making a false report

of the questions.[1]

It is singular that so many commentators take it for granted that the

disciples were, in Matthew’s report, asking about the second coming of

Christ; but that could not be. Jesus had not taught them anything about

his second coming; besides, they had never believed that he would be put

to death! The Jews held to the idea that when the Messiah came, he would

abide, forever, ruling as a great king in Jerusalem. How then could the

disciples have been asking questions about the second coming of Christ,

when they did not believe he would go away? It is astonishing that

commentators have overlooked this plain fact. The disciples referred to

his coming in judgment on Jerusalem. The tribulation was the suffering

of the Jews when the Romans destroyed their nation and Jerusalem. The

temple was utterly destroyed. The Jewish nation ended; darkness and

gloom settled down over the people. The fulfillment of what Jesus had

said was a sign that he was what he claimed to be—that the Son of man

was also the Christ, the Son of God. For the natural phenomena mentioned

you get some explanation by reading Isa. 13:1-10.

Pointed Paragraphs:

The treatment Joseph received at home would tend to make him arrogant

and overbearing. To serve the purpose God had in view, these traits

had to be toned down. A period of slavery, followed by a rather long

stay in prison, would reduce his pride and feeling of importance. In

both slavery and imprisonment he learned to work under men, and at the

same time he learned to manage men. He also learned business

principles. A petted son does not have much opportunity to learn any

of these useful things. Joseph had to be torn away from his father in

order to learn to be useful.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM

Nebuchadnezzar had a wonderful dream, and required, on penalty of death,

that the wise men tell him the dream and its interpretation. None but

Daniel could do so. To the king Daniel said: “Thou, O king, sawest, and,

behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose

brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was

terrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and

its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron,

its feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone

was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were

of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay,

the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and

became like chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried

them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote

the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Dan.

2:31-35.)

Before we read the interpretation of this dream, let us observe: (1)

that Nebuchadnezzar saw the complete image, as if all its parts existed

at the same time; (2) that the stone smote the image on the feet; (3)

that the whole image from feet to head was broken in pieces and

scattered as dust; (4) and that no place was found for them—no place for

such parts as composed that image.

_The Interpretation_—“Thou art the head of gold. And after thee shall

arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of

brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom

shall be strong as iron, for as much as iron breaketh in pieces and

subdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it break

in pieces and crush.... And in the days of those kings shall the God of

heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the

sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in

pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. For

as much as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without

hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the

silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what

shall come to pass hereafter.” (Verses 36-45.)

This dream and the interpretation have furnished a starting point for

many sermons by gospel preachers. Till recently they all contended that

the kingdom of this prophecy was set up in Jerusalem on the first

Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and then and there entered

upon the work which Daniel said it would accomplish. It is now argued by

a few brethren that when Jesus comes again the kingdom of this prophecy

will then have its real beginning, and will then destroy the image of

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. But is there anything in the interpretation to

warrant such a radical change from a century of gospel preaching?

The four world kingdoms represented in the image—Babylon, Medo-Persia,

Greece, and Rome—came and fell in the order mentioned. Yet

Nebuchadnezzar saw them in the image, as if all existed at the same

time. The stone is represented as breaking in pieces the whole

image—that is, the kingdom of God is represented as destroying all of

the four world kingdoms. “It broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the

clay, the silver, and the gold.” In truth, it was an image of world

empire, and that was broken in pieces, never to be made whole again.

Every attempt at world empire, since Rome, has ended in failure, and

will continue to fail.

It is also plainly stated that in the days of these kings—that is, while

the image still remained—the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, and

that this kingdom would destroy the image. The Roman Empire embodied all

that was in the other three kingdoms of the image. So long as Rome

existed the image stood. The stone smote the image on the feet, but

destroyed every part of the image. Every kingdom represented in that

image has ceased to be; the image has been entirely destroyed—not a

vestige of it remains. It follows, then, with the force of a

demonstration, that the kingdom of God has been set up. Even though it

be claimed that another world empire is yet to be, it cannot, by any

juggling of words or flight of the imagination, be made a part of the

image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. In that image each kingdom merged into

the one following it till Rome; then the stone smote the image and

destroyed it. As the kingdom was to be set up during the existence of

that image, and as that image has been destroyed, it proves beyond a

doubt that the God of heaven has set up his kingdom.

So far as the interpretation of the dream shows, the kingdom of God was

to destroy only the kingdoms of the image; and it could destroy the

first three only as they were represented in the Roman Empire. World

Empires died with Rome. The principles of the kingdom of Christ have so

modified human thinking as to destroy the possibility of world empire.

But we are told that Daniel’s language shows that these kingdoms are to

be destroyed suddenly, and by violent impact. But it cannot be shown

that Daniel’s language requires such method of destruction. The kingdom

was to grind them to dust. Does that only imply destruction? Besides,

the future-kingdom idea is that the kingdom of God will be ushered in in

full power; whereas the dream represents it as a stone that destroyed

the image and then grew into a mountain that filled the earth. If you

still insist that Daniel’s language shows that the kingdoms are to be

destroyed by violent impact, then I ask you to consider carefully the

language of Jer. 1:9, 10: “Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched

my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy

mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the

kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow,

to build and to plant.” That is as strong language as Daniel uses in

describing the work of the kingdom of God; yet we know that Jeremiah

destroyed nothing by violent impact. Yet how these future-kingdom

advocates would have stressed this language if it had been used to

describe the work of the kingdom instead of the work of Jeremiah! It

would be interesting to see them try to show how Dan. 2:44, 45 requires

violence, but Jer. 1:9, 10 means “peaceful penetration.”

Pointed Paragraphs:

A thing gained through deceit or fraud cannot bring contentment and

satisfaction. Jacob never enjoyed any real happiness in possessing the

birthright, and the blessings he obtained from Isaac by fraud made him

an exile and caused him much worry and distress. One cannot see

wherein it was any real satisfaction to him.

We get into trouble when we scheme and plan to help God work out his

plans. When God announced, even before Esau and Jacob were born, his

purposes concerning these two prospective sons of Isaac and Rebekah,

Rebekah should have realized that God would work out his plans in his

own way; but she thought she must do some scheming to help God work

out his plans. In so doing she lost the company of her beloved son and

caused him untold misery.

MILLIGAN ON NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM

After I wrote my recent article on “Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its

interpretation,” I found a series of articles on the kingdom, written by

Robert Milligan and published in the Millenial Harbinger of 1858. That

the reader may see that the positions set forth in my article are

neither new nor fanciful, I quote some extracts from Bro. Milligan’s

articles. Concerning the establishment of the kingdom foretold in

Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, Mr. Milligan says:

The prophet limits the chronology of the event to “The days of these

kings.” But who are they? When did they reign? What was the beginning,

the duration, the end of their administration?

Many writers on prophecy, and even some of our own brethren, for whose

opinions we entertain very great respect, refer all this to the

future. They suppose by “_these kings_” are meant the ten kingdoms

into which the Roman Empire was divided, and which they suppose were

symbolized by the ten toes of the image.... But with all due respect

for these good brethren, we are constrained to dissent from such an

interpretation of the passage. To us there appear to lie against it

many objections, some of which are the following:

1. The notion that the toes of the image were designed to represent

the ten fragments of the Western Roman Empire is a mere hypothesis. It

may possibly be true; but certain it is that the evidence is

wanting.... But ten toes on one foot would be rather incongruous.

2. But even if it could be satisfactorily shown that the ten toes were

designed to represent the fragments of the ten kingdoms that arose out

of the Western Empire, it would by no means follow that these are

identical with the kings named in the text. The reverse of this is

certainly true. The limiting adjective, “_these_,” implies that the

subject to which it refers had been clearly designated.... But the

only kings fairly implied in the whole connection are those of the

four universal monarchies....

From these premises we infer that the phrase, “_these kings_,” has no

reference to the monarchs of modern Europe. Nor does it, as some have

supposed, refer exclusively to the Caesars. These are not in this

connection made the subject of a distinct prophecy. The phrase

evidently refers to all the rulers of the four universal monarchies,

and comprehends the kings of Babylon, and Persia, and Macedonia, as

well as those of Rome.

The meaning of this passage, then, is simply this: that at some epoch

during the lifetime of that human monster, or between the time of

Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of the Roman Empire in the year of Christ

476, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom in the world.

After some discussion of the events of the first Pentecost after the

resurrection of Christ, Brother Milligan says:

According, then, to the testimony of Peter, Jesus Christ was, on the

day of Pentecost, seated on the throne of David, not in Jerusalem, as

the Jews anticipated, but in heaven at the right hand of God. He was

exalted to the rank and dignity of a Prince as well as a Savior. And

hence, for the first time in the history of the world, those who

gladly received his word were commanded to be baptized in _the name of

Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins_.

In his second article Brother Milligan quotes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and

Daniel’s interpretation thereof, and then comments as follows:

The image was then smitten upon the feet. The wound was mortal. The

tyrant that had governed the world from the days of Nebuchadnezzar

till that hour was slain. His spirit was subdued, and his whole

physical organization, consisting of gold, and silver, and brass, and

iron, and clay, was then broken into fragments.

Since that time Charlemagne, Napoleon, and many others, have attempted

to revive the spirit and reunite the scattered fragments of this

fallen image. But all such attempts have been in vain.... It is true,

the spirit of war still exists: blood is often shed for the most

trivial causes. But let any prince or potentate now attempt to revive

the spirit of this fallen image; let him attempt, like Nebuchadnezzar,

Cyrus, Alexander, and Caesar, to subdue the world, and to govern it on

the principle that “might makes right;” and if not treated as a maniac

by his own subjects, he will, at least, find arrayed against him the

combined powers of Christendom.

In view of what happened to the Kaiser when he tried to conquer the

world, the last statement of Brother Milligan looks almost like

prophecy. But it was not a prophecy, but merely a statement based on

Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

I invite the future-kingdom advocates to consider the following:

1. The image, as it stood before Nebuchadnezzar, represented four world

empires. That is, of course, admitted.

2. The kingdom of God was to be set up while that image stood, and was

to destroy the image. On that point no one can mistake what Daniel says.

3. That image has been destroyed—there has not been a world empire since

the days of Rome.

4. It is certain, therefore, that the kingdom of God has been

established, and that the principles of that kingdom have broken down

and destroyed world empires.

It is a pity that a man will become so obsessed with a speculative idea

as to say that the image has been destroyed, but the kingdom of God had

nothing to do with its destruction. To me it looks like a flat denial of

what Daniel says.

A LEADING DOCTRINE OF THIS CURRENT REFORMATION

When I was a young man, the gospel preachers who were then active in

preaching the ancient gospel preached often on the establishment of the

kingdom. As I recall those sermons, they usually began with the dream of

Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel’s interpretation thereof, as recorded in the

second chapter of Daniel. It was argued that the kingdom foretold in

verse 44 began on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ.

That was one position on which there was no disagreement among

“Christians only” in those days. It is true that there had been some

speculations to the contrary in the days of Alexander Campbell. One Dr.

John Thomas was a leading spirit in that agitation. It was contended

that the restoration of the Israelites to a kingdom of their own in

Palestine was the hope—the Elpis—of Israel. While we do not recognize

Mr. Campbell as authority in matters of faith, we do recognize him as a

teacher of great ability. It will do us good to read carefully some

things Mr. Campbell wrote on the kingdom question. Note how the

following fits into the present agitation on this question:

I will receive it as a favor from any person, to be informed of any

people or preacher, on this continent or in the European world, that

clearly or definitely stated or announced, in unequivocal affirmation,

that the Christian church did not commence, and, consequently, was

never organized, till the first Pentecost after the crucifixion,

death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of the Lord

Jesus Christ; that then placed upon the throne of David, and upon the

throne of God, he commenced his reign _personally_ in heaven and

_spiritually_ upon the earth, by the mission of the Holy Spirit to his

apostles, and through them to his church, which is now his natural and

earthly body—the fullness, or manhood development, of Him who fills

all things, in all places, with life, and beauty, and happiness.

The foregoing is taken from the Millenial Harbinger of February, 1852.

In a footnote to the foregoing quotation we have the following from Mr.

Campbell:

To prevent misconception of this allusion to the throne of David, I

simply remark for the present, to be developed, probably more fully

again, that the _throne of David_ was, in fact, the _earthly throne of

God_, in the midst of ancient Israel. David was his viceroy—that is,

_the Lord’s anointed_—a fact not well understood by the church, and

still less by some untaught and unteachable dogmatists of the present

day. It was necessary to the plans of Jehovah, which are all sublimely

grand and wonderful, that he should have two thrones—one on earth and

one in heaven—for a time occupied one above, by himself, and one

below, by his vicegerent, called or constituted by him; and therefore

his solemn oath or covenant with David, that he would raise out of his

person, in fullness of time, one that would occupy both thrones.

Hence, said the inspired bard of Israel, “Jehovah said to my Jehovah,

Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool.” It is

beautifully in accordance with this fact that Mary the Virgin was the

last bud on the tree of David which could blossom and fructify, and

bring forth a representative of David. So that, if Jesus be not the

heir of David’s throne, there never can be one born, and God’s

covenant has failed. This is a death blow to Jewish infidelity, if

their eyes were not closed and their ears sealed. But Jesus was the

Son of David, and born to be a King, as he told Caesar’s

representative. On the throne of David, as King of kings, he now sits,

and also on the throne of God; for he has all crowns upon his head,

and affirms that all authority in heaven and on earth is given him.

Any one who desires to peruse the most conceited, consequential, and

dogmatical treaties, based upon hallucination, and parody of the words

“Elpis Israel,” will, if he have a dollar to throw away, have a

demonstration of a disease called in Kentucky “the _big head_,”

probably unequaled in this century; making the _hope of

Israel_—indeed, the hope of the gospel in full development—to consist

in raising up again a throne of David in Palestine in Jerusalem; as if

that throne had been vacant now for eighteen hundred years, or as if

Jesus Christ would remove his throne out of the heavenly Jerusalem, to

rebuild and locate it in old Jerusalem, and there to aggrandize the

empire of the universe! But this only in passing, as one of the

specimens of the power of the love of notoriety or of the marvelous,

in wrecking and bewildering the human mind. We regard this development

of the passion for notoriety as one of the most admonitory

dispensations in our immediate circle of observation. It has made a

man, that might have been useful, worthless to himself, worthless to

his friends, and worse than worthless to the world.

In the January Harbinger (1851) Mr. Campbell reports a sermon which he

preached at Bloomington, Ind., from which I glean the following

excerpts:

“On Saturday night our subject was the promised advocacy of the

Spirit, after the return and coronation of the Messiah in heaven; the

commencement of his kingdom, and the peculiarities of the Christian

dispensation, in contrast with the patriarchal and Jewish

institutions. We gave reasons why Christianity, or the kingdom of

Christ, could not be developed till he received all authority in

heaven and earth—till he received the kingdom and government of the

universe.” “The kingdom has come, and the king has been on the throne

of David now more than eighteen hundred years: still, myriads are yet

praying, ‘Thy kingdom come’!” “Thus Jesus, after he had expiated our

sins on earth, entered heaven, and basing his intercession, _as our

high priest_, upon his sacrifice, he sat down a priest upon his

throne, ‘after the order of Melchizedek;’ a high priest forever,

‘according to the power of an endless life.’ This, as set forth, is a

leading doctrine of this current reformation.... It is pregnant with

great revolutionizing and regenerating principles.”

If Jesus is not now our anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, he is not

yet the Christ. Do you believe Jesus to be the Christ now, or the Christ

that is yet to be?

IS THE CHURCH THE KINGDOM?

Bro. Ira C. Moore, in F. F. of June 17, (190?) says “No.” He reasons

that because these two words are from Greek words of different meanings,

and because the two words themselves have no meaning in common,

therefore they can not apply to the same thing. He says the meaning of a

word may be substituted by the word and make sense, and refers to our

use of this principle in reference to baptism and sprinkling. The

principle is true in the main, but Bro. Moore’s reasoning from it is as

fallacious as can be. No one claims that the words kingdom and church

mean the same. To describe or define a specific act words must of

necessity be synonymous, yet words very different in meaning may be

applied to the same person or thing, owing to the different relations

that a person or thing sustains to the world. Man, husband, father,

citizen, author, and president are words very different in their

meanings, yet all of them apply to one person Theodore Roosevelt. In the

different positions of life he occupies the relation that each of these

words indicates. Because all these words are appropriately applied to

him does that mean that you can take a sentence in which one of them is

used and replace it with either of the words and make sense. “I,

Theodore Roosevelt, husband, or author, or father of the United States,”

etc. How is that? “Nonsense,” did you say? Just so.

Apostle, Author, Shepherd, Bishop, Bread of Life, Bridegroom, Star,

Captain, Christ, Corner Stone, Counselor, Governor, Head of the Church,

High Priest, King, Master, Mediator, Prophet, Physician, and a number of

other names and designations apply to one Being yet they differ in

meaning. In different relations different words apply to Him. Just so

with the church. It is called body, family, temple, house, kingdom, etc.

Viewing it from different standpoints, you use different scripture

words. Being “called out,” it is the church, as an organization, it is

the body of Christ; as a government, having Christ as its King; it is

the kingdom of Christ.

This is enough—you see the point.

Pointed Paragraphs:

People spend much time and energy in worrying about things that are

entirely in the hands of God. We worry about the weather, and we worry

about how God will work out his plans in the final windup of all

earthly matters. If we believe in God and in Christ, why worry?

Wherein God invites us to trust him, he will not betray us. To doubt

him is sin. He is not slack concerning his promises. He rewards

abundantly those who put their trust in him—those who love him serve

him.

If by faith we could see the Lord as he is and could realize our own

weakness and dependence upon him, all the praise and adulation that

men could heap upon us would seem empty and vain. To know that our

Lord looked upon us with favor would be sufficient.

THIS GOVERNMENT AND JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

Dear Brother Whiteside:

It seems to me that we ought not to oppose any move upon the part of

the government to respect the conscience of sincere individuals. There

are too many people in this country who would like to see us stop

preaching for us to help further any movement which would deny the

right to preach to certain religious groups.

There have been efforts in some cities to make it illegal for the

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” to distribute their literature or to sell it on

the streets. These, in so far as they have come to my attention, have

been declared unconstitutional. For this I am thankful, for I know

once such laws are placed upon the books that they will be used by

people against us in certain sections of the country. I have met

people who would have invoked legal aid, if they had the power to do

so, to prevent us from preaching in certain places by means of the

tract. It seems to me that laws which might be passed and used against

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” could be easily used in the hands of vested

interests and tricky lawyers to rob the church of Christ of the

liberty of free speech.

Then, too, it would be easy for an intense patriot to label the

teachings of the New Testament, and thus of the church of Christ, as

subversive. They could point out that the New Testament teaches that—

1. Christians are kings and priests. (Rev. 1:6.)

2. That we are endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States

which is world-wide in its mission and which acknowledges as its

supreme ruler Jesus Christ instead of Washington.

3. That this kingdom has been antagonistic, to say the least, to some

governments of the past. (Dan. 2:44.)

4. That members of this kingdom believe that it was prophesied by

Isaiah, who said that, among other things, its members would beat

their swords into plowshares and cease to learn the ways of war. (Isa.

2:2-4.)

5. That they are not allowed to take vengeance. (Rom. 12:19.) From

this they could draw conclusions which would lead many people to take

steps to curtail our religious freedom.

For these reasons, if for no other, it seems to me that your article

in the Gospel Advocate for March 26, 1942, was unnecessary. It helps

encourage a movement which could easily result in opposition to the

gospel.

Of course I do not accept the peculiar doctrines of the “Jehovah’s

Witnesses.” I think we ought to teach them, among other things, Paul’s

teaching concerning the proper attitude to civil powers. (Rom.

13:1.)—James D. Bales.

Brother Bales surely has not thought this thing through. As I see it, if

“Jehovah’s Witnesses” are to be allowed unmolested to distribute their

literature of opposition to all human governments, neither should a

rabid German propagandist be molested in this country.

I made no effort to “oppose any move on the part of the government to

respect the conscience” of any citizen of this government. So far the

government has been as considerate as could be expected. But suppose a

citizen of Germany, one wholly loyal to his government, were doing

propaganda work on the streets of our cities, he would certainly be

conscientiously opposed to doing military service for this government.

Would Brother Bales think this government should so respect his

conscience as to let him go on with his subversive activities? He is an

individual, and he has a conscience, and he would certainly be sincere

in his devotion to his government. Brother Bales makes no exceptions

when he speaks of “the conscience of sincere individuals.” Do you say he

was speaking of citizens of this government? If so, he leaves “Jehovah’s

Witnesses” out, they themselves being witnesses, as a glance at their

teaching will show.

Both Russell and Rutherford taught that “the times of the Gentiles,” of

which the Bible speaks, is the time in which God permitted the Gentiles

to rule in the governments of the earth. Their language is too plain to

admit of any misunderstanding. Mr. Russell taught that the saints should

be submissive to Gentile governments up to the close of the times of the

Gentiles, or to the limit of their right to rule. With these people the

times of the Gentiles began “when the diadem was taken from Zedekiah,”

and lasted till A. D. 1914. In the 1912 edition of _The Time Is at

Hand_, Vol. 2, (“copyright 1889”), Mr. Russell says: “In this chapter we

present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the

Gentiles—i. e., the full end of their lease of dominion—will be reached

in A. D. 1914; and that date will be the fartherest limit of the rule of

imperfect men.” (Pages 76, 77.) “So, then, Gentile rule had a beginning,

will last for a _fixed time_, and will end at the time appointed.” (Page

78.) During the times of the Gentiles the saints were to “render to them

due respect and obedience,” but “to keep separate from the kingdoms of

this world as strangers, pilgrims, and foreigners.” That eliminates them

from citizenship in any government of the world, in so far as one can

eliminate himself. “Foreigners” are not citizens. And their submission

to Gentile governments was to end when the times of the Gentiles ended,

when this new order would enter in full force. In the “Finished

Mystery,” published in 1917, we have this: “Their united testimony is

that the times of the Gentiles have expired, the reign of Christ has

begun, all earthly potentates—civil, social, ecclesiastical, and

financial—must give way to the new order of things, and will not give

way peaceably, but must be ejected.” (Page 231.) This volume was written

and published after Russell’s death. After all the date setting for the

end of Gentile governments, we have this: “There is evidence that the

establishments of the kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten

years later than we once calculated.” (“Finished Mystery,” page 128.)

In “Our Lord’s return” Rutherford says: “The word ‘world’ means the

social and political order or rule governing the people.” (Page 35.)

“The end of the Gentile rule, therefore, would mark necessarily the

legal end of the present order; therefore, the end of the world”—that

is, the end of the “social and political order or rule governing the

people.” (Page 37.) “This does not mean the end of trouble, but it does

mean, according to Jesus’ words, that the old world legally ended in

1914.” (“Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” page 19.) Hence, according

to Rutherford, no government now has any right to exist; they are all

usurpers and in rebellion against the world’s rightful ruler. Who is the

rightful ruler? In passages too numerous to quote they tell us that

Christ would be the universal king when the times of the Gentiles ended

in 1914. But who is the Christ of Rutherford? “The Christ consists of

Jesus glorified, the head, and the members of his body, which constitute

the church.” (Page 76.) Russell taught the same. The church and Jesus

constitute the Christ, and they are now the rightful rulers of the

world; no other government has any right to exist. That is their

teaching. They, therefore, claim to owe no allegiance to any human

government, but are opposed to all human governments. If any of our

brethren who are conscientious objectors hold to positions similar to

the foregoing, then they should have registered as aliens, as should all

followers of Rutherford.

At the risk of making this too long, I wish to notice by number the

items listed by Brother Bales.

1. Read the American Standard Version on Rev. 1:6, then look at the

Greek. “Kingdom,” not “kings.”

2. I am not endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States.

3. I know not what Brother Bales means by “antagonistic”; that is a

strong word.

4. We have not space here to discuss this passage, (Isa. 2:2-4) but

trust to do so later.

5. No individual is allowed to take vengeance; even this government

forbids that. God takes vengeance through his appointed channel, the

human government.

Pointed Paragraphs:

Israel fell because of its own internal corruption, and so has many

another nation fallen. That is the greatest danger facing our nation

today. When God is ruled out of the educational, social, and business

life of a nation all sorts of corruption follows, and corruption means

decay and death.

THE NEW TESTAMENT WORD FLESH

In the New Testament the word _flesh_ does not always have the same

significance. Sometimes it refers to our material bodies, and sometimes

to the bodies of other living things. (1 Cor. 15:39.) It sometimes

refers to that state or condition in which the gratifying of the

appetites and passions of our bodies is our chief concern—strictly a

worldly life. (Romans 7:5, 8:6-9.) It is to mind the flesh—a contrast

with a spiritual life. And some times the word _flesh_ refers to a race

or nation, as distinguished from another race or nation. Paul speaks of

the Jews as “my flesh”. (Rom. 11:14.) “As concerning the flesh”, Christ

was of the fathers of the Jewish race—that is, as to his flesh he was a

Jew. After stating that Christ died for all, Paul adds, “Wherefore we

henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ

after the flesh, yet now know him so no more.” In Christ there are no

fleshly distinctions—no race discriminations. “For there is no

distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of All.”

(Rom. 10:12.) And as Christ is the savior of both Jew and Gentile, and

is Lord of all—king over all, we can no longer regard him as a Jew—we no

longer think of him as a Jew, or in any way identified with fleshly

Israel. Yet the future Kingdom advocates still identify him with fleshly

Israel and speak of him as “Israel’s Christ,” “Israel’s Messiah,”

“Israel’s King.” They encourage the Jew to glory in the fact that he is

a Jew. They would have the Jew to believe that the Jewish nation is even

yet God’s chosen people, a nation with glorious future, exalted above

all others subservient to them. But not so with Paul.

Some of the early professed Christians gloried in the Jewish nation with

all its traditions and every thing Jewish, and tried to bind these on

Gentile Christians. Concerning their attitude and his own ideal Paul

said, “For not even they who receive circumcision do themselves keep the

law; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in

your flesh. But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our

Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me,

and I unto the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor

uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as shall walk by this

rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Gal.

6:13-16.) These Judaizers gloried in the flesh, gloried in the fact that

they were Jews: and they were prototypes of those who now encourage the

Jews to glory in the fact that they are Jews; but Paul gloried only in

the cross of Christ, and pronounced peace upon all who followed his

rule. Disturbance and strife followed those ancient Judaizing preachers,

as it does those today who glory in the modern version of that nation.

The Judaizers did so much harm in the churches of Galatia where Paul had

done so much labor, that it so stirred Paul’s feelings that he said, “I

would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision,” or

as the marginal reading has, “Greek, _mutilate themselves_.” (Gal.

5:12.) Concerning this same class of men, he said to the Philippians,

“beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the

concision,” and then adds, “for we are the circumcision, who worship by

the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in

the flesh.” The context shows plainly that Paul had no confidence in his

Jewish flesh—no confidence in the fact that he was a Jew, even though he

had more grounds for such confidence than did the Judaizing disturbers.

“... if any other man thinketh to have confidence in the flesh, I yet

more.” And then Paul gives the grounds on which he might, if it were

worth anything, have more confidence in the flesh than his Judaizing

enemies: “circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the

tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews.” In his fleshly relations he had

all the advantages that any Jew could have had. “Howbeit what things

were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yet verily, I

count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of

Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do

count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him.”

(Read Phil. 3:2-11.) Paul gave up his fleshly connection and all that

pertained to it, as refuse, or dung, that he might gain Christ; he could

not gain Christ and justification by faith in him without so doing. And

yet all over this country, in the press, in the pulpit and over the

radio, men are teaching that to the Jew belongs the glory of that

supposed kingdom. In that kingdom only the Jews will be citizens; other

people will be subservient to them, and will have to come to the Jews

for favors! That really teaches the Jew to have confidence in the

flesh—to glory in the fact that he is a Jew. It cannot develop in him a

spirit of humility, and therefore hinders his conversion. He must, as

Paul did, give all that up, or he can never gain Christ.

Recently I heard David L. Cooper, who, Dr. Weber said, is the greatest

living Bible scholar, answer some questions in a radio speech. In giving

answer to a question as to the setting up of the kingdom, he said that

the spiritual kingdom which John announced as at hand was set up on the

first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, but that when Christ

returns to earth he will set up his visible kingdom, and that there

would be no peace on the earth till that was done. In answering another

question he said that Christ will not come till national Israel confess

their national sin of rejecting him. If this last statement is true,

then the coming of Christ is not imminent, but likely it is far in the

future, for there are no signs now that the Jews will ever make such a

confession. And if Cooper is right the Jews have the peace of the world

in their keeping; for according to him the peace of the world depends on

Christ’s second coming, and his coming depends on the conversion of the

Jews. So Christ’s second coming is not imminent, and the Jews hold the

destiny of the world in their hands! And I see no chance for the Jews to

act nationally in anything—how can they?

Pointed Paragraphs:

Here is one lesson that Israel never did learn, nor has the world yet

learned it: “O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself;

it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” (Jer. 10:23.)

FUTURE-KINGDOM DOCTRINES

A brother in Tennessee wants to know the difference, if any, between the

church and the kingdom of Christ. A brother in Florida writes an article

about long enough to fill my page, seeking to prove that the prophets

foretold a kingdom yet future. Occasionally a brother over in Arkansas

has written me along the same lines. The scheme argued by these two

brethren is along the same lines argued by other future-kingdom

advocates.

In its broadest sense the church is that body of people who have been

called out of sin into the service of Christ. As Jesus rules over this

body of people, it is his kingdom.

“Now when John heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent his

disciples, and said unto him, art thou he that cometh, or look we for

another?” In similar fashion let us ask, Is Christianity the scheme of

redemption that was to come, or look we for another? The future-kingdom

advocates have answered, No, we must look for another. On that point

they speak in no uncertain terms. It is argued that, though Jesus came

to establish his kingdom in Jerusalem and to deliver the Jews from

oppression, they rejected him, and he postponed the establishment of his

kingdom till the time of his second coming. On this assumption their use

of the prophecies is a puzzle. If the prophecies foretold the

establishment of his kingdom at his first coming, then they did not

foretell its establishment at his second coming; and the future-kingdom

advocates discredit the prophets by seeking to make it appear that their

prophecies can be shifted from one period to another. And yet they have

the audacity to tell us that if things do not work out according to

their theory, no dependence can be placed in what the prophets say.

Well, half of their theory has failed—the kingdom was not established,

we are told, at his first coming! Now they must shift the prophecies to

some future date.

Arthur Pink represents F. W. Grant as saying, in the “Numerical Bible,”

that Matthew shows, that because Israel rejected Christ, the kingdom of

heaven would be taken from them, “and assume the mystery form in which

it was unknown to the prophets of Israel.” (page 2). Again (p. 13) Pink

says, “But the Old Testament _knows nothing whatsoever of

Christianity_!” All future-kingdom advocates from whom I quote hold this

same idea. In fact their theory makes it necessary for them to deny that

any Old Testament promise or prophecy referred to the scheme of

redemption preached by the apostles. In the Word and Work (January 1945)

J. Edward Boyd says, “The prophets had clearly seen and foretold the

kingdom gloriously triumphant, all opposition crushed, universal in its

sway; but this present aspect of the kingdom, the church, although in

the mind of God all along, they had not been permitted to see.”

It is a well known fact that the Jews expected the old kingdom to be

restored and enlarged with the Messiah on the throne in Jerusalem; and

R. H. Boll says, “Their expectations and conceptions of the king and

kingdom had their origin in these Old Testament prophecies.” (Kingdom of

God, p. 25.) “They saw in him that promised Coming One of David’s line

who would free his nation from the Gentile’s yoke and reign over the

house of Jacob, and through it over all the nations of the earth. For so

it was promised.” (p. 26). “The Old Testament prophecies and promises of

the kingdom were the theme of our preceding studies.... By such

predictions as those was the kingdom-hope of Israel created; and that

most justly and nationally. When John the Baptist lifted up his voice in

the wilderness of Judea and announced ‘the kingdom at hand’ he used a

phraseology which was already common and current among the Jews, and

which was perfectly understood by all.” Read that again. If the phrase

“the kingdom of heaven” was “common and current among the Jews,” it was

a phrase of their own invention, for no Old Testament prophecy contains

the phrase. Matt. 3:2 is the first place it occurs in the Bible. Again

(p. 34): “But if the Jewish expectations had been utterly wrong (which,

as we have seen in our former articles, was not the case), even then a

sense of justice would suggest that God would not have left the people

under such misapprehension without a clear protest and correction.” Read

that again. Does he mean to say, that if God announced a kingdom

different from what the Jews expected without telling them so, he did

not have a proper sense of justice? Or does he mean that his own sense

of justice would suggest that God should have made the explanation

suggested? In either case, he crosses himself up; for he says that Jesus

began in Matthew thirteen to talk about the mystery form of the kingdom.

But Jesus did not give any hint, that as the Jews had rejected him, the

kingdom they expected was now postponed and an entirely new sort of

kingdom would be presented. And strange to say, he kept on using the

term “kingdom of heaven,” without telling them he was now using the term

in an entirely new sense. In fact the Jewish idea remained with the

disciples up to the ascension of Christ. Now, what about that sense of

justice?

AT HAND:—John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye; for the kingdom of

heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus preached, “The time is fulfilled,

and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:14, 15) This plain language

gives the future kingdom advocates a lot of trouble. According to John

R. Rice, they soon quit preaching “the kingdom at hand.” He presents

this question: “Is there a single time after tenth chapter of Matthew

... that they preached that the kingdom of heaven is at hand? I say it

isn’t there.” Again, “After Jesus was rejected definitely by the nation,

the kingdom was no longer at hand.” He argues that the kingdom was

postponed till the second coming of Christ. But he overlooked what Jesus

told the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:1-11). Verse 9: “The kingdom of God

is come nigh unto you.” Verse 11: “nevertheless know this, that the

kingdom of God is come nigh.” This preaching was done during the last

year of Christ’s personal ministry. So what Rice says “isn’t there,” is

there; and he would have seen it if he had been looking for truth

instead of proof to sustain a theory.

The following sentence from Brother R. H. Boll shows that he realized

the difficulty and tried to hedge against it: “If it be felt a

difficulty that the kingdom, though announced as ‘at hand’, has never

yet appeared, we shall find an explanation unforced and natural, and one

which will cast no reflection on the truth and goodness of God.” (K. p.

34). That statement shows clearly that he realized some explanation was

needed to keep his theory from casting reflection on the truth and

goodness of God; but it seems to me that his attempt at an “unforced and

natural” explanation helps not at all. Hear him: “Since the kingdom

promise was national, the preparatory repentance must of course also be

national: the rulers and the rank and file of the people to all of whom

the kingdom was dear, must now sincerely turn and return to God.”

Passing by his assertion that “the kingdom promise was national,” I call

attention to the “national repentance” idea. Nowhere is there even a

hint that John and Jesus told the people that the establishment of the

kingdom depended on “national repentance.” Neither said, “The time is

fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand, provided the nation repents;

otherwise it will be postponed to some future time.” But not a word

about national repentance, not a word about national rejection and its

results, not a word about postponing the kingdom; and yet in the absence

of any such warning, we are told that the kingdom was postponed. Now,

what about that sense of justice? Quoting again: “The announcement of

the kingdom thus became the basis of the call to repentance.” One motive

to cause them to repent was the promised kingdom. Vast multitudes were

moved by that promise to repent and be baptized. (Mark 1:5; John 4:1,

2). Multitudes did as commanded; and yet according to the future kingdom

advocates none of them received what was promised of them. It seems to

me that the explanation reflects seriously on their proposition, and

really charges that God did not make good on his promises. The

explanation does not explain. What about that sense of justice?

Paul preached the gospel to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Boll

says this was a terrible perplexity to all believing Jews. He adds:

“That the Gentiles were to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery;

_that_ had been previously revealed. But the observant reader of the

prophets will notice that it is always _after_ the national restoration

and exaltation of Israel, and always through restored Israel and in

subservience to Israel, that the Gentiles were to be blessed.” But why

quote more.

For a long time I have been preaching that all that the prophets said

about a plan of human redemption is fulfilled in the plan of salvation

preached by Christ and his apostles and is recorded in the New

Testament. I have offered to affirm this proposition: THE PLAN OF

SALVATION SET FORTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE SCHEME OF HUMAN

REDEMPTION FORETOLD BY THE PROPHETS; or, for _foretold by the prophets_

substitute _foretold in promise and prophecy_. Here is a fair

proposition that covers every point involved in the discussion of the

future-kingdom theory. When it is proved to be true, then the whole

future-kingdom theory is proved to be false. Why put in time showing

that the various phases of the theory are false when one proposition

fully established proves the whole theory false? Why show that their use

of this prophecy and that prophecy is wrong when you can with even more

ease show that the New Testament contradicts their use of the

prophecies?

Before giving the proof of the correctness of my proposition I wish to

mention another matter. Perhaps a few personal words will not be out of

place. When I was in the Nashville Bible School out on Spruce street, I

had a family—my wife and two children. We had very little money, but we

managed by much self-denial to pay rent on a little house, to buy enough

groceries to keep us alive, and to pay every dollar of tuition. My

youngest brother was with me, and he paid his part of board and rent,

and his tuition. Some of the able bodied boys (students) paid neither

board nor tuition.

During those days Brother R. H. Boll and I became good friends, and

continued to be so for years. He played the mandolin and his pal Robert

Mahan played the guitar. Frequently they would come to our little home

and entertain us with music. We enjoyed their music, and was glad for

them to come. I liked the two Roberts, but became more intimate with

Robert Boll. Some years later he began to write for the Gospel Advocate,

but a break came between him and the Advocate over what the Advocate

called his “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies.” Brother Boll

started up his Word and Work, but I did not see many copies of it. There

continued to be references to Boll’s “speculating about unfulfilled

prophecies.” I remember distinctly that I thought, “Well, if speculating

about _unfulfilled_ prophecies is all that is the matter with him, why

worry? What he said about unfulfilled prophecies might be as near right

as what any body else said. No one could be sure about an _unfulfilled_

prophecy. So why the fuss?” You cannot imagine my surprise when I began

to study his booklets to see what he did say. I found that “speculating

about unfulfilled prophecies” was not what was the matter with him at

all. With him the land promise to the Jews is yet to be realized, the

Jews are yet to return to Palestine, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 has not

yet been set up, that Christ has not been seated on David’s throne. To

say that his teaching is speculation about unfulfilled prophecy is to

concede the point. If his teaching that the prophecies concerning the

throne of David are yet unfulfilled is speculating about _unfulfilled

prophecy_, then Christ is not yet on David’s throne. If he is on David’s

throne, then Boll is misapplying prophecy instead of speculating about

unfulfilled prophecy. His trouble is speculating about fulfilled

prophecy—making prophecies that have been fulfilled apply to some

imaginary future scheme of things. Speculating about unfulfilled

prophecy indeed! You have an argument with him about prophecies that you

believe have been fulfilled, and he says they are yet to be fulfilled;

and then you virtually give up your contention by calling it an argument

about unfulfilled prophecy! It makes the heart sick. What unfulfilled

prophecies has Boll been speculating about? When a man seeks to prove by

the prophets that the Jews are yet to be restored to Palestine, that

Christ is yet to be placed on David’s throne, that the new covenant is

yet to be established, that Christ is to be a world ruler with the Jews

as citizens of his kingdom and all others as serfs, that the Gentiles

were to be blessed only through restored Israel and in subservience to

Israel, that Christ is now seeking to convert and train only enough

people to supply the needed number of rulers for a future kingdom, is he

speculating about unfulfilled prophecy? It seems to me that Boll does

very little speculating about unfulfilled prophecy compared with his use

of prophecies that have been fulfilled. How can intelligent people be so

dense?

In the early part of 1925 Brother C. R. Nichol and I made the first real

attempt that was made to review Brother Boll’s teaching. We worked

together, and no two men ever tried harder to understand exactly what

another man had written. And yet some people, who should have known

better, said we misrepresented Brother Boll and did much to hinder the

effectiveness of our work. An example: A few brethren were talking

together on the sidewalk in Nashville. An aged preacher of considerable

ability and fame charged that we misrepresented Brother Boll, and was

very caustic in his remarks. One of the group, a friend of ours, said:

“Did you ever read their review?” Critic: “No, no; I never read it.”

Friend: “Well, did you read what Boll said?” Critic: “No, no, I never

read it.” Friend: “Well, you are not in a position to say anything about

it.” And that ended the conversation.

No, we did not misrepresent Brother Boll. But herein is a peculiar

thing. Many who said we misrepresented Boll said they did not believe

his theories. If so, then they believed he misrepresented the

Bible—misrepresented God; and yet in the estimation of some of them he

was a very godly and pious man, even though he did misrepresent God. But

they fancied that we misrepresented Brother Boll, we greatly sinned! Can

you beat it? I can honestly claim that we were as sincere and honest in

dealing With Brother Boll’s writings as his most devoted friends can

claim honesty and sincerity for him in his dealings with the inspired

writings.

One of the strangest, if not the zaniest things in all this controversy

is that some brethren not only misrepresent themselves, but actually

contradict themselves. An example out of many: A written discussion was

had with Brother Boll in which Brother Boll contended that the land

promise to Abraham is yet unfulfilled, that the prophecies concerning

the seating of Christ on David’s throne are unfulfilled, and so on. Then

that debate was published in a book form with the title, “A Debate About

Unfulfilled Prophecy!” And thus unwittingly the whole issue was

surrendered, virtually saying to Brother Boll, “You are right; the

prophecies we have been debating about are unfulfilled.” Can you top

that?

Pointed Paragraphs:

If you are inclined to think that denominations are the branches Jesus

spoke of, a little reflection will show you how impossible that is. He

meant individuals, not denominations. And the diversity among the

denominations also shows that they are not branches of the vine. No

one ever saw a vine with branches so different as are the

denominations. They are not alike, and they bear different kinds of

fruit. It is impossible for them to be natural branches of the same

vine.

A PROPOSITION AND ITS PROOF

THE PROPOSITION: The plan of Salvation preached by Christ and his

apostles is the scheme of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy.

This proposition needs no defining. I am aware of the fact that some

future-kingdom advocates do not go so far as to say that none of the

prophecies referred Christianity; but the ones from whom I quoted in the

preceding article, as well as many others, boldly teach that

Christianity is unknown to the prophets. In so arguing they commit

themselves to the fact that only one scheme of redemption was foretold

by the prophets. On this point we agree. Hence, to prove that

Christianity was foretold by the prophets is to eliminate any other

scheme yet to be. In establishing my proposition I shall rely solely on

what is said in the New Testament, for Jesus and his inspired

representatives are the infallible interpreters of the prophets.

They tell us that Jesus, in Matt. 13, began to set forth a new plan, the

plan of which the prophets said nothing; yet in his speech Jesus said:

“But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.

For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men desired

to see the things which ye see and saw them not; and to hear the things

which ye hear, and heard them not.” (Matt. 13:16, 17.) Now how could

these prophets and righteous men have desired to see and to hear what

these disciples were then seeing and hearing if it had never been

revealed to them that such things would be?

Late in the day on which Jesus arose from the dead two of his disciples

went out to Emmaus. They knew that the body of Jesus was missing, but it

seems that they did not know he had been seen alive. Along the way Jesus

joined them, but they did not recognize him. They related to him what

they knew of recent events, and added: “But we hoped that it was he who

should redeem Israel.” (Luke 24:21.) They had hoped for freedom from

Rome—redemption for the nation from Roman rule. These are the opening

words of a speech that Jesus made to them: “O foolish men, and slow of

heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (verse 25). Does

not that virtually say that they, in thinking the prophets spoke of

political deliverance, had not really believed what Moses and the

prophets had foretold? They had believed that Jesus would give them an

earthly kingdom; they had not believed what Moses and the prophets had

foretold. They needed a better understanding of Moses and the prophets.

“And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them

in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” If we had that

speech!

In the great commission Jesus commanded the apostles to make disciples

of all the nations—to preach the gospel to the whole creation. This was

a demand for world-wide evangelism, regardless of race or nationality.

Had such evangelism been foretold by the prophets? What saith the Lord?

In Luke’s account of this commission he quotes Jesus as saying: “Thus it

is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead

the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be

preached in his name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are

witnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my

Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with

power from on high.” (Luke 24:46-49.) Notice what Jesus says had been

written in the prophets—his death and resurrection, and that repentance

and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations,

and that this preaching should begin from Jerusalem. So then, this

world-wide evangelism, which was commanded by Christ and preached first

by his apostles at Jerusalem, had been foretold by the prophets. And

this began to be preached on Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit filled

them with power from on high. Here a plan of salvation was preached, and

this plan had been foretold by the prophets. As only one plan was

foretold by the prophets, they foretold no other plan than the one which

began to be preached at Jerusalem.

In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter showed that Joel had

prophesied of that day. He also quotes a prophecy of David, which he

interprets to refer to the resurrection of Christ and his being seated

on the throne of David, and then draws this conclusion: “Being therefore

by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the

promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and

hear.” (Acts 2:33.) His argument was that Jesus had been raised up to

sit on David’s throne, and he concludes that he had, therefore, been

exalted. Yet Boll says: “To him, and to him exclusively, the throne of

David belongs by every right. But that he is now already occupying that

throne is precisely that which Peter does not say.” What, then, is the

connection between Peter’s argument and his conclusion? Peter’s argument

followed immediately by _therefore_ is significant. Can any one believe

that Peter argued from David’s prophecy that Jesus had been raised up to

sit on David’s throne, and conclude that he had _therefore_ been exalted

to something else?

On that day, and in the city of Jerusalem, repentance and remission of

sins in the name of Christ began to be preached, and Jesus tells us that

the prophets had foretold this very thing. Because he was now

anointed—made both Lord and Christ—things began to be done in his name.

Hear Boll again: “He is the anointed King of David’s line, the Christ

appointed for Israel. (Acts 3:20.) But neither is that saying that he

now sits and reigns on David’s throne. David had been anointed God’s

king long before he actually sat upon his rightful throne over Israel,

suffering indignities and persecution at the hands of Saul, and

rejection at the hands of the people; and he never took the government

until the people themselves willingly sought his rule and chose him and

submitted.” But Bro. Boll overlooks the decisive point. Nothing in the

kingdom was done in the name of David till he actually “took the

government.” When he actually became king, things began to be done in

his name and by his authority. If Boll could show that nothing is yet

done in the name of Christ, there would be some point in what he says

about David. The fact that pardon was offered the enemies of Christ on

the condition that they would repent and be baptized shows that he was

then actually the reigning king. In Boll’s theory Jesus is only the heir

apparent.

When Peter first preached to the Gentiles, he went against the

prejudices of all Jews, including himself. Could he quote any prophecy

to fit the occasion? He was preaching to the Gentiles independent of

Israel and against the prejudices of Israel, and yet he said: “To him

bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that

believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43.) This

inspired apostle understood that the prophets foretold the very thing

that he was then doing—namely, offering salvation to the Gentiles

independent of Israel. Hence, the only plan of salvation foretold by the

prophets was then in operation.

When the Jews of Antioch of Pisidia “contradicted the things which were

spoken by Paul, and blasphemed,” he said to them: “Lo we turn to the

Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee for

a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the

uttermost part of the earth.”

Hence, in preaching salvation to the Gentiles, Paul was carrying out the

prophecy of Isaiah. (Acts 13:44-47.)

Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles alike, and affirmed that there was no

distinction; and the people of Berea searched the Scriptures daily to

see whether his preaching was so. This led many of them to believe.

(Acts 17:10-12.) Now, if the prophets had said nothing concerning the

plan of salvation Paul was preaching, but had always foretold that

Gentiles would be blessed only through Israel restored and in

subservience to Israel, their searching the Scriptures would have led

these Bereans to the conclusion that Paul was wrong.

Paul was sent to preach especially to the Gentiles; he was the apostle

to the Gentiles. Not only did he preach to the Gentiles independent of

the Jews, but in spite of them. “For this cause,” said he to Agrippa,

“the Jews seized me in the temple, and assayed to kill me. Having

therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day

testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets

and Moses did say should come: how that the Christ should suffer, and

how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light

both to the people and to the Gentiles.” The gospel which he preached

was foretold by the prophets and Moses, and he preached nothing that had

not been foretold by them. Because of this he said to Agrippa: “King

Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.”

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated unto the

gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy

scriptures.” Paul’s call is recorded in Acts 26:12-20. Concerning this

call he later said: “But when it was the good pleasure of God, who

separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his

grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the

Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood.” (Gal. 1:15,

16.) And Paul fought hard to keep the gospel of Christ free from all

taint of Judaism and to maintain his right to preach the gospel to the

Gentiles; and he pronounced a curse upon those Judaizing Christians who

would corrupt the gospel by mixing it with Judaism (Gal. 1:6-9); and he

affirms that this gospel which he preached was the gospel which God

“promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures.” The whole

theory of the future-kingdom advocates, as well as some things they

boldly affirm, is an emphatic denial of what Paul here says. It is plain

to any thoughtful person that the plan of salvation which Paul preached

is the scheme of redemption foretold by the prophets.

Notice the _now_ in the following: “But now apart from the law a

righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law

and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus

Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.” (Rom.

3:21, 22.) This righteousness of God, which had now been manifested, was

to all believers without race or national distinction; and this

righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is witnessed by the law and

the prophets; and as the law and the prophets gave witness to only one

scheme of redemption, it is plain that the future-kingdom hopes have no

basis.

Paul shows that the promise made to Abraham is fulfilled in those who

are children of God by faith in Christ. (Gal. 3:22-29; 4:28-31.) And it

seems that the book of Hebrews was written to counteract the teaching of

the Judaizers of the church. That letter plainly shows that the types

and shadows of the law pointed definitely to the church—to this plan of

salvation through Christ. And in the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters

the writer shows that the new covenant, or New Testament, foretold by

Jeremiah is now in force; yet Boll says concerning the new birth: “It is

the universal requirement of acceptance with God, and characteristic of

the new covenant which now in its principle applies to the church, and

which the Lord will make with the house of Israel and with the house of

Judah ‘after those days’.” The new covenant now applies to us only in

principle—it is yet to be made! To what extremes people will go to

maintain a groundless theory! Jesus is now the mediator of a better

covenant, “which hath been enacted upon better promises,” not will be

enacted. “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By

which will we have been sanctified.” (Heb. 10:9, 10.) The man who can

read the book of Hebrews and not see that the types and shadows of the

law pointed to Christianity as we have it now simply does not see what

he reads. They desire to be teachers of the prophecies and the law,

“though they understand neither what they say, nor whereof they

confidently affirm.”

“Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently,

who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what

time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did

point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and

the glories that should follow them. To whom it was revealed, that not

unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now

have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto

you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.” (1 Pet. 1:10-12.) While

the prophets were foretelling the blessings that were to come, they were

“searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which

was in them did point unto.” Many of the future-kingdom advocates do not

profess to know the time of the fulfillment of what they say these

prophets foretold, but they, with one accord, profess to know exactly

the manner of the time—a thing the prophets themselves did not know!

They have that all figured out—oh, so much wiser than the prophets! They

tell us in no uncertain terms the manner of that time, as they have it

figured out. But Peter explodes their theory by telling us that these

prophets were ministering to us, and that the things they foretold had

been announced through them that preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit

sent forth from Heaven. As the prophets foretold only one scheme of

redemption, and that scheme has been announced through them that

preached the gospel by the Holy Spirit, it is certain that there will be

no future scheme in operation. Hence—

The plan of salvation preached by Christ and his apostles is the scheme

of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy. Nor have I relied on my

interpretation of the prophecies to prove the proposition.

FOOTNOTES

[1]For a full discussion of these questions, see “Doctrinal Discourses”

pp. 294-298.

SCRIPTURE INDEX

GENESIS

Page

8:22 69

12:1-3 32, 84

12:7 85

13:14-17 32

15:7 85

17:8 85, 87, 88

25:23 89

26:2, 3 86

28:4 25

28:13 86

35:12 25

EXODUS

12:25 90

13:5 90

19:4-6 91

19:5, 6 23, 28, 32, 81

NUMBERS

21:4-9 83

DEUTERONOMY

6:3, 10, 18, 23 90

8:1 90

8:19, 20 33, 108

Chs. 27 & 28 33

28:15 108

30:8, 10 108

31:20 90

JOSHUA

21:43-45 26, 34, 86, 107

23:14 33, 87, 107

23:14, 15 90

I SAMUEL

Ch. 8 23

8:4-7 91

8:4-22 28

8:18-22 29

8:19, 20 92

10:24, 25 24

12:19 92

14:47 29

15:28 89

I KINGS

2:12 93

2:12, 24 27, 28

II KINGS

5:1-19 83

I CHRONICLES

12:23 24

29:23 28, 93, 111

NEHEMIAH

1:8, 9 108

PSALMS

22:12 77

37:1 125

34:8 43

40:8 62

89:34, 35 80

119:103 43

ISAIAH

1:3 10, 55

1:4 54

2:2, 3 78

6:10 54, 55

9:7 21

11:6-9 76

13:1-10 154

13:17-22 21

40:4 79

40:3, 4 75, 78

55:12 76

JEREMIAH

1:9, 10 158, 159

2:13 10

4:7 77

18:5-10 37

18:9, 10 30

20:7-9 11

30:7 151

Ch. 31 103

38:4 11

50:17 77

51:60-62 21

EZEKIEL

19:1-9 77

26:7-14 21

34:11-31 40

37:21, 22 40

Chs. 37 to 39:21-29 40

DANIEL

2:31-35 155

2:36-45 156

2:44, 45 159

2:44 163

Ch. 7 79

HOSEA

13:9-11 28

13:10, 11 24

13:11 93

AMOS

1:1 41

4:1 77

7:7-17 41

9:11-15 29

9:13-15 41

ZEPHANIAH

3:3 77

MATTHEW

3:2 52, 179, 180

3:3 76

3:10 109

7:15 77

10:16 77

12:43-45 35, 109

13:14, 15 55

13:16, 17 187

16:18 38

16:28 43

18:19 58

19:28 46, 49

20:20, 21 112

21:33-43 36

21:43 82, 110

22:24 146

25:31-46 38, 50, 68

25:31, 32, 41, 46 48

25:46 48, 84

MARK

1:5 181

1:14, 15 180

1:15 113

9:1 43

10:35-37 112

12:19 146

16:16 84

LUKE

3:4, 5 76

9:27 43

10:1-10 113

10:1-11 180

10:11 53, 180

12:32 49

12:42-48 98, 124

17:20 44

19:13-27 120

20:28 146

22:28-30 48

24:21 188

24:25 188

24:46, 47 103

24:46-49 112, 189

JOHN

3:14 139

4:1, 2 181

4:34 62

5:28, 29 143

5:40 84

6:44, 45 16

7:37-39 112

8:15 65

12:39, 40 54, 55

17:4 38

20:23 47

20:30, 31 118

ACTS

2:23 57

2:29-36 29

2:29-38 111

2:30-36 46

2:33 111, 189

2:35 31

2:38 112

3:24 57

4:1, 2 143

4:2 141

4:27, 28 57

7:5 86, 88

7:17 25, 86, 89

7:32 133

10:43 104, 191

11:13, 14 15

13:27 57

13:44-47 191

15:11 61

15:13-16 115

15:13-19 29

15:17, 18 115

17:10-12 191

17:11 104

20:29 77

23:6 144

24:15 141, 144

26:12-20 192

26:22 57, 104

26:22, 23 104

ROMANS

1:2 57

1:1, 2 104

1:16 15

3:21 22, 105, 193

6:13 139

7:5 173

7:1-6 22

8:6-9 173

10:12 173

10:16-21 56

10:19 105

11:1-10 56

11:12 60

11:14 173

11:15 140

11:17-24 59

11:20 110

I CORINTHIANS

3:16, 17 39

6:2, 3 49

15:22 144

15:26-28 31

15:39 173

II CORINTHIANS

3:4-18 22

5:14, 15 35

5:15 65

5:16 35, 65

6:2 110

11:17, 18 65

GALATIANS

1:6-9 193

1:15, 16 192

3:7 110

3:11-22 22

3:16 84

3:22-29 193

3:29 36, 110

4:4 56

4:21-31 22, 109

4:28-31 193

5:12 174

6:13-16 174

EPHESIANS

2:14-16 22

2:20-22 39

3:10, 11 114

3:21 115

PHILIPPIANS

2:13 15

3:2-8 35, 65

3:2-11 175

3:3 36

3:10-14 144

COLOSSIANS

1:13 113

2:14 22

3:11 61

I THESSALONIANS

4:13-5:11 134

II THESSALONIANS

1:6-10 38, 48

1:7-10 68

2:1 136

2:8-12 55

I TIMOTHY

6:15 113

II TIMOTHY

4:1-5 7

TITUS

3:5 46

HEBREWS

6:4, 5 43

Ch. 8 103, 193

Chs. 8, 9, 10 193

9:1-10 39

9:11 39

10:9, 10 194

JAMES

1:21 15

I PETER

1:10-12 74, 104, 194

2:5 39

2:9 68

5:8 64

II PETER

1:3 42

1:19-21 73

3:1-14 69

REVELATION

1:6 68, 172

1:17 132

3:10 151

3:21 111

4:6-9 63

7:9 49

Ch. 12 64, 65, 66

20:8, 10, 12 67, 68

Transcriber’s Notes

—Silently corrected a few typos.

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook

is public-domain in the country of publication.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by

_underscores_.