Chapter VI: Part II: Discussions (1)

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.