A letter of some length from a good sister, Mrs. L. E. Jones, tells about some things that came up in a class of which she is a member. The teacher holds to the future-kingdom theory. The class is going through the book of Revelation. The letter mentions several things that came up in their study of Chapter 12, and from the letter I glean the following questions:
1. Is the accuser of verse 10 the devil? Is it because of this accuser that Christ intercedes for us? It was so stated by a member of the class, who also said that as God was not human, he did not know what Christ suffered. Is that true?2. Our teacher said that God was protecting and keeping the Jews, and that he had something special in store for them (something nice). I want you to answer in the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient.3. Does the woman of verses 1-6, 13-17 represent the Jews? That was our teacher’s idea.
1. Is the accuser of verse 10 the devil? Is it because of this accuser that Christ intercedes for us? It was so stated by a member of the class, who also said that as God was not human, he did not know what Christ suffered. Is that true?
2. Our teacher said that God was protecting and keeping the Jews, and that he had something special in store for them (something nice). I want you to answer in the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient.
3. Does the woman of verses 1-6, 13-17 represent the Jews? That was our teacher’s idea.
1. From what is said in the context it seems clear that the devil was before God as the accuser of the brethren; but as he was cast down from heaven to the earth, how can anyone figure out that he is now before God accusing the brethren? He is, however, doing all he can to lead them into sin. Hence, the admonition: “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8.) He is busying himself here on earth now. Jesus is our advocate with the Father, but I would not think he was before God engaged in a talk contest with the devil.
2. As God is no respecter of persons, how can any believer in Christ argue that a Jew, because he is a Jew, is yet to enjoy blessings that a Gentile cannot hope to receive, no matter how faithful he is, simply because he is not a Jew. The theory contradicts the fundamental principles of the gospel. Those who hold to that theory judge after the flesh—a thing Jesus condemned. (John 8:15.) The theory encourages the Jew to glory in his fleshly descent from Abraham—to glory after the flesh. Such glorying Paul said was foolishness. (2 Cor. 11:17, 18.) It teaches the Jew to have confidence in the flesh, his Jewish flesh. Paul had no such confidence; to him such relationship was but refuse. Or, as the King James Version has it, he counted such dependence on Jewish flesh as but dung. (Phil. 3:2-8.) Such is your teacher’s theory. Christ died for all. (2 Cor. 5:15.) Now notice the next verse (verse 16): “Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh.” Notice the force of the wordhenceforth—from now on. Yes, the Jews are still in the world; so are the Japanese and Chinamen. So what does that prove? The person who assumes to know what God knows or does not know is about like a worm assuming to know what Solomon knew and did not know.
3. Any theory about the woman of chapter 12 is merely a guess, for the record does not say who she was. Some commentators, perhaps the majority of them, say she was the church, the dragon was the Roman Empire, and the child was Constantine. I do not know. But if the woman was the Jewish nation and the child was Jesus, then she was a very unnaturalmother, for she killed her child! But that leaves the dragon out of the picture, and leaves us wondering about verse 6.
Sometime ago a Christian man asked a gospel preacher: “Why do we not have great gospel sermons like those we used to hear?” The reply was: “There is no demand for them.” Do that question and answer reveal conditions as they are? Have we reached the point where preaching is trimmed down to fit the demands of the times? Is preaching thus reduced to a matter of trade?
Some factories make only those articles that are in demand. But occasionally an article is offered for sale for which there had been no demand, but the makers of such articles proceed to create a demand. They do extensive advertising; they extol the uses and virtues of their article till people want it. And cannot we in the same way create a demand for the pure gospel in communities where there is no demand? We cannot do it by dealing in religious soup. There is a demand for the unadulterated gospel, for great gospel sermons; but the demand is not as extensive nor as intensive as it should be. Even in some churches of Christ there is not as strong demand for gospel sermons as there should be. When an elder can say, as some of them have said, “So far as I am concerned, I do not care whether our preacher can preach or not,” it is time we were waking up.
E. B. Taylor asks seven or eight questions on the twentieth chapter of Revelation. To give answer to all these questions would require an exegesis of the chapter. For me that is impossible. The chapter abounds in figures of speech. Many have read into that chapter things that are not in it. They also make some of it figurative and the rest literal, as the needs of their theory require. With them a day in some of the prophecies is a year, but they take the thousand years as literal. Yet they will not say that the devil is a real snake, nor that the chain is a literal chain, nor that the beast is a real four-footed animal. Here are some of the things in this chapter that I do not know: Who the angel is, what the key is, the great chain, why the devil is called a snake, what the binding means, the thousand years, when the thousand years end, the abyss and how it was sealed, length of the “little time,” who sat on thrones, what judgment was given them, the extent of that judgment, what the beast is, the image, mark of the beast, the war of verse 8, Gog and Magog, the camp of the saints, how devoured by fire, the lake, the beast of verse 10, who the false prophet is, nor how there can be day and night in eternity. Yet the chapter makes some plain statements.
We may not know who the martyrs are, yet it is affirmed of them, and of no one else, that “they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” When or where this reigning is, was, or is to be, is not stated.But it is stated in verse 6 that those who have part in the first resurrection “shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” Hence, they are to be priests and to reign at the same time—a royal priesthood. It is plain that they were to reign while they were priests, but Christians are priests now. Leaving outto be, words supplied by the translator, Revelations 1:6 reads thus: “He made us a kingdom, priests unto his God and Father.” Being kings and priests, Christians are a royal priesthood. (See 1 Pet. 2:9.)
In 20:12, John saw the dead standing before the throne.The dead, not a part of the dead. This is in perfect harmony with the Savior’s description of the judgment in Matt. 25:31-46. It is argued by some that this is a judgment of nations—kingdoms—instead of individuals. But nations in the Greek is neuter; but the pronounthemin verse 32 is masculine, and, therefore, refers to people, and not to nations as such. At the judgment, therefore, all—the small and the great—will stand before the throne. This is also made clear in 2 Thess. 1:7-10. There it is declared that Jesus will take vengeance on the wicked “when he shall come to be glorified in his saints.” And the last verse in the twentieth chapter of Revelations shows that some will be at that judgment, whose names are written in the book of life.
1. Do you believe in the “secret rapture” theory?
2. Will there be any life on the earth during the millennium period?
1. The wordraptureis from a Latin word that means “to carry off by force.” By some strange aberration some religious folks applied that term to the Lord’s taking saints from the earth, as if they will have to be forced to go or somebody or power will have to be forced to let them go—a sort of seizing and carrying away. But I could not believe in the “secret rapture” unless I had some evidence. That evidence is lacking.
2. I have found no evidence that there is to be a thousand-year period in which there will be no life on the earth. There is evidence, however, that there will be life on the earth so long as the earth continues. “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22.) A careful reading of 2 Pet. 3:1-14 will show that so long as the earth remaineth Christians are exhorted to be “looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” Any student can find other evidence to the same import.
But suppose one believes the affirmative of boththese questions, what is practical about such belief? If you hold to a notion that helps neither your faith nor your practice, why waste time with it? Why disturb others with it?
Jesus came to save sinners, not to make sinners. People were sinners before Jesus came, and they would have continued to be sinners had not Jesus come. If people do not believe in him, they continue sinning just as they would have done had he not come.
Though Jesus was moved with compassion at the sight of human suffering, his miracles of healing were not performed primarily to relieve suffering. If that were so, he would cure all sick folks even now, or cause that no one would ever be afflicted in any way. His miracles were performed as signs that God was with him.
Jesus put a higher value on man than on animals. “How much then is a man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day.” (Matt. 12:12.) There is something of vast worth in man, else God would not have been mindful of him.
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; butPeter 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.
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.
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 literalfulfillment 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 allthe 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—whereno 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.
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 prophecyconcerning 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 universaldominion 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 arguedthat 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?
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.”
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 theland-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 arecome 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.
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 wordafter—first to Abraham, then to “his seedafterhim.” Notice again this wordafterin 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 thenation 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 thetime 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.)
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 kingwhich 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 rebellionagainst 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.)
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, andanyerrormaylead to fatality. “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
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, andanyerrormaylead 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?Methodistwas 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 istrying 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 hemakes 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 Wordand 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 translateddelayethmeans “to linger,delay,tarry.”—Thayer. “To spend time;to continueorlast long,hold out;to perseverein 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?
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.