In applying the lesson of the parable of the householder, Jesus said: “Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (See Matt. 21:33-43.) This nation is the new Israel of God, the church. Christians are now the circumcision. (Phil. 3:3.) Christians are now “Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” (Gal. 3:29.) The promises and prophecies that have not been fulfilled to fleshly Israel are to be fulfilled to the church, which is now God’s Israel.
It has already been shown that there is no ground for expecting the Jews to return to Palestine. Instead of finding any teaching to that effect in the New Testament, as we would expect to find if such is to take place, we find the weight of New Testament teaching to be against such an event.
The return of the Jews to Palestine, the rebuilding of the temple, and the restoration of the Jewish kingdom are all so interwoven in the program of the future-kingdom advocates that they stand or fall together. It is a significant fact that the prophecies relied on to prove the fore-going propositions were all uttered before the Babylonian captivity or during that captivity. The Babylonian captivity had often been foretold. Therefore, when any prophet spoke of the regathering of the Jews to Palestine and the rebuilding of their temple, every Jew of that time would understand the prophet to be speaking of their return from Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of their temple then. Ezekiel prophesied during the captivity, being himself one of the early captives. Of course, anything he saidabout the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the temple would be understood by every Jew of that time as referring to their deliverance from their present captivity. Without some special words of explanation they could not have understood it otherwise. But no such words of explanation were given. The prophets knew how the Jews would understand them, and yet they let it go at that. Are we to understand that God, through his prophets, deceived the Jews? Surely not. The prophets foretold the return of the Jews from captivity. The Jews would understand them to refer to their return from Babylonian captivity. What then? Sound principles of exegesis demand that these circumstances and conditions be taken into consideration in the application of these prophecies. This the future-kingdom advocates fail to do. But they tell us that some of the promises in these prophecies concerning the return of the Jews from captivity have not yet been fulfilled. But such an affirmation ignores the conditionality of God’s promises. It is the same blunder that is made by the advocates of the impossibility of apostasy. Even if it could be shown that some things promised to the Jews on their return to Palestine were never fulfilled, that would not prove that they will yet be fulfilled. The human side must be taken into consideration. Hear the Lord through Jeremiah: “Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.... And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” (Jer. 18:5-10.) This is God’s warningto Israel, but it has no weight with the future-kingdom advocates.
The Lord brought the Jews back from captivity and planted them in their land. They would have had God’s choicest blessings had they obeyed his voice; but they failed him, and plunged into the grossest sins. This criminality culminated in their murdering the Son of God and many of his saints. It was not the crimes of individuals here and there, but the deliberate crimes of the nation. Death is the punishment for deliberate murder. National murder demanded national death. The Jewish nation suffered that death in the destruction of Jerusalem.
When God sent his Son into the world, he did not send him to reorganize the Jewish kingdom, but to open up a way of salvation for sinners. He did not fail to accomplish what he was sent to do, as the future-kingdom advocates claim. Hear his own words: “I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.” (John 17:4.) That statement should settle a lot of speculation about the rejected king and the postponed kingdom.
When Jesus comes again, he will not come to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, but to render judgment. (Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Thess. 1:6-10.) His temple is here now. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matt. 16:18.) That church is his temple. “Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple ofGod is holy, and such are ye.” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17.) “Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:20-22.) In the old material temple, animal sacrifices and other material sacrifices were offered; in this new spiritual temple, spiritual sacrifices are offered. “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 2:5.) Can any one believe that we are to give up this glorious spiritual temple for the old material temple? this spiritual worship for the carnal ordinances of the material temple? If so, he has poor taste for the spiritual.
The temple in Jerusalem was but a type, a shadow, of this glorious spiritual temple. (Heb. 9:1-10.) This spiritual house is a “greater and more perfect tabernacle.” (Heb. 9:11.) Now, we are gravely told that in the millennium we will exchange this glorious spiritual temple for the material temple with its animal sacrifices, give up the substance for the shadow, give up the gospel of grace for the law of the temple, which means the law of Moses. That temple, we are informed, will be again sanctified by the blood of animals. Such material conceptions as this whole future-kingdom idea suits very well such materialists as the Russellites, but has no place in the thinking of one who glories in the cross of Christ and in his blood-bought church.
As a sample of the passages relied on to prove that the Jews are yet to be restored to Palestine and their temple rebuilt, read Ezek. 34:11-31; also chapters 37; 39:21-29, and to the close of Ezekiel. Remember, as you read, that Ezekiel prophesied while he and his nation were in captivity. In the temple of which Ezekiel speaks there were to be all the offerings and ceremonies required by the law of Moses. The blood of the animal sacrifices served the same purposes as the law specified. The priests were of the tribe of Levi. This cannot refer to the future, for no Jew now knows to what tribe he belongs. With the blood of animals atonement was to be made for the people. If a man can believe all this is yet future, he can believe anything that suits his fancy; facts will be no barrier to anything he wants to believe.
From Alabama comes this request: “Explain Ezek. 37, concerning the dry bones and sticks. When did this take place?”
The children of Israel were then in captivity; from that captivity they were to be delivered. (See verses 21, 22.) The dry bones coming to life represented their return from captivity. Their return would be as if they were coming alive from the dead. Their captivity was their burial; their return would be as if they were coming from their graves. They had been divided into two kingdoms. Joining the two sticks into one stick represented the joining of the two peoples into one nation after their return. Their return is told in Ezra and Nehemiah. After that return they were one people. And they would have had a glorious kingdom had they obeyed Jehovah. The prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the fate of the Jews in their disobedience are being fulfilled all down the ages.
Has the prophecy in Amos 9:13-15 been fulfilled?—Mrs. X, Detroit.
Amos 9:13-15: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land, which I have given them, saith Jehovah thy God.”
Amos had gone from his home at Tekoa to Bethel to prophesy against the kingdom of Israel, which had become very corrupt, and to warn the people of their coming doom. (Amos 1:1; 7:7-17.) They were to be sifted, scattered, among the nations. As Amos was speaking of their captivity, which they later suffered, it seems reasonable to conclude that the verses in question referred to their return from that captivity. All who wanted to return from that captivity to their own land had abundant opportunity. There is no evidence that the Jews will again be carried out of their own land into captivity, so as to be brought out of captivity in the future. All the prophecies that speak of a return of the Jews out of captivity have been fulfilled.One thing is sure: they are not now in captivity; therefore, they could not now be brought out of captivity, unless again carried into captivity.
“Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue.” (2 Pet. 1:3.) We are in the habit of saying that God has given us in the gospel everything that is essential to life and godliness; but Peter goes a little farther than that and affirms that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. There is a difference. To illustrate: There are certain things that are essential to an automobile; and there are other things that pertain to an automobile; but are not essential to it. When you have all things that are essential to an automobile, you can go to a supply house and purchase a lot of extras that pertain to an automobile. But suppose you have all the essentials of an automobile, and then you add all the things that pertain to an automobile, nothing else could be added that would make it any more complete. God has not only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but he has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.
But do religious people believe it? If so, why all these flummeries that God has said nothing about? If you will read the verse again, you will notice that he has given us all these things through the knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of Christ means the knowledge that has been revealed about him—the gospel of Christ. Hence, through the gospel God has not only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but all things that pertain to life and godliness. If there is, therefore, anything in your religion that did not come to you through the gospel, it does not so much as pertain to life and godliness. Is it not time to check up on our religion and see if we have anything that we cannot find in the New Testament? Any person of intelligence can do that for himself.
Please explain Matt. 16:28. I have to contend with the Boll theory. What I want to know is how the disciples were to “see” the Son of man coming in his kingdom.—W. C. Anderson.
Please explain Matt. 16:28. I have to contend with the Boll theory. What I want to know is how the disciples were to “see” the Son of man coming in his kingdom.—W. C. Anderson.
Matthew 16:28.
“Verily I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
In this verse it is stated that some wouldtasteof death—some of them wouldseethe Son of man coming in his kingdom.Tasteandsee—are these terms used literally? A little study of both words will help. “Oh taste and see that Jehovah is good.” (Ps. 34:8.) “Sweet are thy words unto my taste.” (Ps. 119:103.) “Tasted of the heavenly gift”; “tasted the good word of God.” (Heb. 6:4, 5.) If you makeseerepresent the actual functioning of one of the five senses, why not maketastedo the same? No man actually tastes death as he tastes food. The future-kingdom folks stress giving words their literal meaning, but even they will not say that a man tastes Jehovah, his word, or death, as he tastes food. So also the wordseehas a variety of meanings, or uses. To see often means to know. “Taste and see (know) that Jehovah is good.” To see often means to experience. We see joy and we see a good time; we see trouble and sorrow. Taste death—experience death, or suffer death. The parallel passages, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27, say: “Verily I sayunto you, There are some of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” “But I tell you of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.” To see the Son of man coming in his kingdom and to see the kingdom of God come with power and to see the kingdom of God are different expressions of the same idea. When the kingdom of God came with power, it was Christ coming in his kingdom. Just as certain as some of those standing by would die before the kingdom came, or the Son of man came in his kingdom, just that certain some would live till that event occurred. Ye—those standing by, not those of some future date—shall see the Son of man coming in his kingdom, or see the kingdom of God come with power, and they would see it before they died. The future-kingdom folks do not see that part of what Jesus said; they see only “see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” And yet no man literally sees a kingdom, as he sees a material object; for the “kingdom of God cometh not with observation”—that is, not in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes; i. e., in a visible manner. (Luke 17:20.) Jesus made that statement in answer to the Pharisees’ question as to when the kingdom of God would come. Hence, some of the disciples to whom Jesus was talking would see Jesus coming in his kingdom; yet they would not see with their eyes. Jesus himself declared that his kingdom would not come in that manner.
The future-kingdom folks put stress on the statement: “They shall see the Son of man coming on theclouds of heaven with power and great glory.” But notice the change in pronouns—“ye shall see,” “they shall see.” They tell us that this coming on the clouds will be when he comes in his kingdom. They also tell us that when he thus comes the wicked dead will not see him, for they will not be raised till the end of a thousand years. But there is a hitch in that. Certainly the high priest who condemned Jesus to death belongs in the class of the wicked dead yet Jesus said to him and to the court: “Ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Notice the wordhenceforth—from now on. Notice, too that this wicked court was henceforth to see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power. No man sees him sitting with his natural eye. The wordseehere has two objects,sittingandcoming; or, rather, the same persons shall see Jesus sitting and coming. Even a child should be able to see that the wordseecould not here mean a mental conception as to one of its objects and an actual seeing with the eyes as to the other object. A word may have several meanings, but it cannot have two meanings at one and the same time. As some of the disciples then living were to see Jesus coming in his kingdom and the Sanhedrin were to see him sitting on the right hand of power, the Lord came in his kingdom during the lifetime of these people.
The apostles were practical men. Some were fishermen; one, a tax collector. Both callings teach a person not to believe all he hears.
Matthew 19:28; 25:31; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. Please explain—Owen W. Smith.
1. Matt. 19:28: “And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read the context. The rich young man had refused to follow Jesus. Peter said: “We have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?” The reply of Jesus does not mean that they had followed him in the regeneration, for Jesus had passed through no regeneration. Luke says they had followed him in his temptation. Jesus was telling his apostles what they would have in the regeneration. The regeneration is that period of time in which people are being regenerated. The other passage in which the word “regeneration” occurs shows that people are being regenerated in this dispensation. (Tit. 3:5.) But it was during this time of regeneration that Christ was to sit on the throne of his glory and the apostles were to sit on thrones. Hence, both Jesus and his apostles are now on their thrones, for all were to sit on thrones at the same time. On Pentecost, Peter declared that God had raised up Jesus to sit on David’s throne and had made him both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:30-36.) Jesus himself declared that all authority had been given to him. Thosewho say that he has all authority, but is not exercising it, overlook thethereforein the next verse. Suppose Jesus had expressed that idea, it would have read something like this: “All authority has been given me, but I am not exercising it; and because I am not exercising it, go into all the world and make disciples of all the nations.” The command was based on his having all authority. Some have overlooked thetherefore. As Jesus is on his throne, so are the apostles on their thrones. But how are they judging? McGarvey says on this point:
This statement of Paul that “the saints shall judge the world” (1 Cor. 6:2) has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the sitting on the thrones are declared to be contemporaneous with the regeneration and with Christ’s sitting on his throne; and, therefore, they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this, of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom, and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones, because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all are the judgments of the entire bench.
This statement of Paul that “the saints shall judge the world” (1 Cor. 6:2) has led many to suppose that the judging here mentioned is to take place at the final judgment. But clearly the judging and the sitting on the thrones are declared to be contemporaneous with the regeneration and with Christ’s sitting on his throne; and, therefore, they must be regarded as now in progress. If we are correct in this, of which we entertain no doubt, the judging consists in pronouncing decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom, and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones, because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all are the judgments of the entire bench.
On thetwelve tribeshe remarks:
The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh; consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve tribes representing the church of God of which they were a type.
The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with the true Israel, and not with Israel according to the flesh; consequently, we are to construe the terms metaphorically, the twelve tribes representing the church of God of which they were a type.
In judging, the apostles declare who is free from guilt and who is condemned. This is made plain in John 20:23: “Whose soever sins ye forgive, they areforgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
2. Matt. 25:31: “But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.” This verse is incomplete, and is really explained by the rest of the chapter. He shall sit on the throne of judgment, and before him will be gathered all nations for judgment; but the people will be judged as individuals and not as nations. It is not a judgment of nations, or governments, as has sometimes been said. Even a little attention to the gender of the Greek words of the passage will show how ill-founded is that assumption. “Nations” is neuter in the Greek; it cannot, therefore, be the antecedent ofthemin verse 32, for it is masculine. And so isye blessedin verse 34, andye cursedin verse 41. Boththeseandthe righteousin verse 46 are masculine. It is, therefore, not a judgment of nations, as such, but of the people. The passage is in perfect harmony with 2 Thess. 1:6-10. Here he comes to take vengeance on the wicked and to be glorified in his saints. It is, therefore, the judgment at the last day.
3. Luke 22:28-30: “But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Read the context. They had just eaten the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. A contention had arisen between the disciples as to who would be accounted the greatest; and Jesus had told them that there was to be no one among them exercising lordshipover the others, but that service would be the thing that counted. The apostles had faithfully followed him in his temptation; he would, therefore, appoint them a kingdom, and they would eat and drink at his table in his kingdom. On account of the fact that they had just eaten the Lord’s Supper we naturally associate the Lord’s table with the Lord’s Supper. They, therefore, would eat the Lord’s Supper in his kingdom. But the Lord’s Supper will not be eaten after he comes again. But as they were to eat it in his kingdom, it is certain that they ate it in his kingdom while they lived. The kingdom now in existence is, therefore, the kingdom he appointed them. In Luke 12:32, Jesus said: “Fear not little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” The Father was to give this kingdom to the “little flock.” This cannot mean that he will give his kingdom to his followers at the end of this dispensation, when the little flock shall have swelled into “a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues.” (Rev. 7:9.) No; it was to be given to a little flock and not to a numberless host, and the language clearly shows that it was to be given to those who were then present. And that was the kingdom which he appointed to them, and in which they sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. On this last point, see comments above on Matt. 19:28.
4. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3: “Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?”
Commentators have had no end of trouble over these verses, and there is little agreement among them. In some sense saints judge the world and angels, but how? and when? It is a hazardous and foolish thing to build a theory on a difficult passage, especially when little, if any, light on the point can be gained from other Scriptures. But it does not seem possible that Christians will be judges in the last day, when all shall be judged. From Matt. 25:31-46 we learn that the righteous will be judged along with the wicked. Saints will not then occupy judgment thrones, but will be gathered before the judgment throne. They cannot be judges while being judged. After that they cannot judge the world, for the world will already have been judged. And there is no Scripture that teaches that the heavenly angels will then be judged by any one. But the gospel is God’s law, and every time it is preached sinners are judged as guilty, as are also the devil and his angels. And saints have this same law by which to judge among themselves. These are facts, whether the passage in question has that meaning or not. This view has the merit of not being out of harmony with the general teaching of the New Testament. But let us be sure not to build a theory on a difficult passage of Scripture, nor use it in support of a theory. We might be found wresting the Scripture to our own destruction.
Tell me: When, or how, did Christ offer the Jews the kingdom? What passage, or passages, or teaching as a whole do you think the earth-kingdom advocates rely on to prove the statement that the kingdom was offered the Jews?
Was the kingdom offered the Jews in any sense thatsalvationwas not offered them?
Did they reject the kingdom in any sense they did not reject salvation?
If the kingdom was offered the Jews, and they rejected it, and the Lord for that reason postponed the kingdom, why is it he did not also postpone the salvation offered?—X
Perhaps I might as well answer the foregoing questions as a whole as to answer each one separately. The querist has been doing some close thinking, and his questions open up a field for some profitable investigation.
The querist evidently refers to the Jews as a nation, and not as individuals. It is claimed by the kingdom speculators that Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jewish nation on condition that the rulers and people alike repent, but the assertion is not backed up by any definite proof. The advocates of that notion arrive at such a conclusion by assumptions and deductions.They assume that the prophets foretold the restoration of the old kingdom of Israel, a kingdom that was born in rebellion against God and in rejection of him as King! They assume that Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jews as a nation, but they gave no proof that Jesus offered that kingdom or anything else to a national Israel. But as such a kingdom did not come into being, they conclude that both the king and his kingdom were rejected. Matt. 3:2 is quoted in this connection, but they do not show how that Scripture proves their contention. John was preaching to individuals, and not to the nation as such. The fact is that he never did go and preach to the rulers, nor did they come to him. They did send a committee to inquire into his work.
I see no way to separate the kingdom from salvation, nor can I see how one can exist apart from the other. Of course the old kingdom had citizens who were not in a saved state, but I do not see how that could be true of the kingdom of Christ. However, we are told that only Jews who are born again will be citizens of the kingdom which they suppose Christ will set up when he comes again. In that respect, as well as in many others, this supposed kingdom will not be like the old kingdom.
That the future-kingdom advocates realize they have no certain proof of their rejection and postponement theory is shown by the fact that they do not agree on any certain Scripture, nor as to the time of this supposed rejection and postponement. John R. Rice puts it in the tenth chapter of Matthew; Scofield, in the eleventh; R. H. Boll, in the twelfth. John R. Rice says the kingdom at hand was never preached afterthe tenth chapter; the offer was then withdrawn. He should have read what Jesus a year later instructed the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:11.) In a note on Matt. 11:20-24 Scofield says: “The kingdom of heaven announced ‘at hand’ by John the Baptist, by the King himself, and by the twelve, and attended by mighty works, has beenmorallyrejected. The places chosen for the testing of the nation—Chorazin, Bethsaida, etc.—having rejected both John and Jesus, the rejected King now speaks of judgment. The final official rejection is later. (Matt. 27:31-37).” On verses 28-30 he says: “The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejectingnationand offers not thekingdom, butrestandserviceto such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivotal point in the ministry of Jesus.” R. H. Boll says: “In chapter twelve the antagonism of the Pharisees, stirred to its height by his Sabbath healing, came to a terrible climax: they went out and took counsel against himhow they might destroy him. (12:14.) This was a great turning point.” As they find no Scripture which says what they claim, they depend on assumptions and deductions, and their deductions do not agree.
A PROPOSITION: The gospel plan of salvation is the scheme of redemption foretold in promise and prophecy.
A brother has presented to me a few questions for my consideration. The questions are about matters that are being much agitated these days. The first question indicates that somebody thinks the Lord refused some people the privilege of believing, lest he might get more followers on his hands than he needed for future rulers! But to the questions:
1. “Was there ever a time when God refused any one the privilege to believe in Christ, as indicated in John 12:39, 40? If so, has he revealed the purpose thereof?”
The passage mentioned says: “For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.” The quotation is from Isa. 6:10. In Isaiah’s day the people of Judah had become very corrupt, and were growing worse. To these people Jehovah said: “Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly! they have forsaken Jehovah, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are estranged and gone backward.” (Isa 1:4.) They had reached the point where they were utterly unfit to manage their own affairs of government. The great majority were beyond the hope of reformation. They would not even consider Jehovah, and were more senseless as to their own goodthan the ox or the ass. “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.” (Verse 3.) When people reach that stage, there is nothing to do but to hasten them on to their doom. Hence, Jehovah said to Isaiah when he sent him to prophesy to the people of Judah: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed.” (Isa. 6:10.) Isaiah could do this only by his teachings and warnings. They were so determined in their rebellion that the more Isaiah warned them, the harder their hearts became. Their sinfulness resulted in the Babylonian captivity. The Jews had again become so sinful that a worse calamity was soon to come upon them. The leaders rejected the preaching of John and dogged the steps of Jesus every move he made. They were so rebellious that the miracles and teaching of Jesus hardened their hearts instead of converting them. There was no direct operation on their hearts to keep them from believing. The things that made believers of some hardened the hearts of others. The Lord never did keep any honest heart from believing. The prophecy quoted in John 12:39, 40 is quoted by the Savior in Matt. 13:14, 15 in such a way as to show that the people were responsible for their hardness of heart. When people will not believe the truth, God sends them strong delusions that they may believe a lie and be damned. (See 2 Thess. 2:8-12.) The reason there are so many fool notions believed now is because people will not believe the truth. God will have all men to be saved, but they will not.
2. “Did the crucifixion of Christ depend upon the Jews’ rejection of him?”
Jesus came at a time when everything was ready for the working out of God’s plans. “But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” (Gal. 4:4). God was not experimenting to see if his plans would work out. He knew what would be done, and was not bothering his mind as to what he would have to do about it, if the Jews did not reject and crucify Jesus, for he knew what they would do. Then why should I worry my mind about it? I cannot entertain an idea that implies that God did not know enough to know when to send his Son, or that he did not know what would happen when he did send him. Why people raise such questions is a puzzle, for no one can do anything about it, no matter what might or might not have happened.
3. “Did God anticipate their acceptance universally?”
Suppose he did or did not, what can we do about it? People raise questions that, in various ways, reflect on God. Being the all-wise God, he knew that the Jews would not all accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus himself said that only a few would find the narrow way. Paul showed that the prophets taught that only a remnant of Israel would be saved. (See Rom. 10:16-21; 11:1-10.) But what gives rise to such questions? It grows out of the new speculation that Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom, or rather to restore the kingdom of Israel, but failed in his purpose because the Jews rejected him. God knew theJews would crucify Jesus. (See Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:27.)
4. “If they had, would he have set up an earthly kingdom?”
There is not the least indication that God did not accomplish what he intended to accomplish by sending his Son into the world, nor that the kingdom he set up was not what he intended to set up. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that he inaugurated the very system he had in mind, and which he had foretold through the prophets. To say that his plans did not work out as he intended is equal to saying that the things he foretold through the prophets turned out to be false. If it be replied that the prophets said nothing about what some call “the church age,” it only shows that some people have read the Scriptures with little profit. The evidence is abundant that the apostles and other inspired preachers and writers taught that Christianity, or the gospel plan of salvation, is exactly what the prophets foretold. On Pentecost, Peter referred to certain prophecies as fulfilled on that day. Again: “Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days.” (Acts 3:24.) In preaching the gospel of Christ, Paul said nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come. (Acts 26:22.) Paul also affirms that the gospel which he preached God had “promised afore through his holy prophets in the holy scriptures.” (Rom. 1:2.) But why offer more proof? The apostles knew what they were talking about, or rather the Holy Spirit, who spoke through them, knew. Yet the future-kingdom advocatesgenerally contend that the Old Testament prophecies center in an earthly kingdom, and say nothing about Christianity as revealed through the apostles. One writer said: “But the Old Testament knows nothing whatever of Christianity.” Ponder this question: If God did not set up the kingdom which they say the prophets foretold, but instead gave them something the prophets said nothing about, is it any wonder that the Jews rejected it? The wonder would be that any of them accepted it.
Notice the prayer of Asa; notice other prayers in the Bible. With the exception of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple and the prayer of Jesus on the night of his betrayal, all are very short. Notice the manner in which they addressed Jehovah. No endearing terms are used, but terms expressive of reverence for the power and majesty of God. Such expressions as “our dear heavenly Father” are not found in the Bible. Such expressions should have no place in our prayers today. Christians need to know how to pray, and a study of the prayers of the Bible will help us to pray as we ought.
“Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:19.) Here it is supposed that they agree on what to ask for before they pray. Would it not be a good thing for a group of worshippers to know what they are going to pray for, rather than for someone to lead out in a long, rambling prayer that is supposed to be appropriate to all occasions, and is, therefore, never appropriate to any occasion? Delivering an oration to the Lord, under pretense of praying, is not praying at all.
I wish you would give an explanation of Rom. 11. The part that I am the most interested in is the figure of the olive tree. Is there anything in this chapter, or in any other, that teaches that the Jews as a nation will ever accept Christ?—Oklahoma.
I wish you would give an explanation of Rom. 11. The part that I am the most interested in is the figure of the olive tree. Is there anything in this chapter, or in any other, that teaches that the Jews as a nation will ever accept Christ?—Oklahoma.
We cannot at present give space to a discussion of the entire chapter. The verses containing the olive-tree illustration read as follows:
But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that barest the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:17-24.)
But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that barest the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:17-24.)
Care should be used in dealing with another man’s illustrations and figures of speech. The language quoted is an illustration of God’s dealings with Jews and Gentiles. Because of unbelief the Jews had been severed from God’s favor; by faith the Gentiles had been brought into union with God. Neither Jew nor Gentile has any special favors from God; the standing of each depends on their faith. That is the point Paul is making,and to make his illustration do service beyond the point illustrated is to do violence to his language.
But what is the olive tree? It is God’s favor. Read the connection. The Hebrews had been in God’s favor all along till they were broken off because of unbelief. Their fall, mentioned in verse 12, is the same thing as this cutting off. But now, to both Jews and Gentiles alike, God’s favor is manifested in Christ, and may be obtained by faith in him.
No people as a nation will or can accept Christ. Any people as a nation must act as an organized government; those in authority determine what shall be done. But no constituted authorities can decide that the nation shall accept Christ; that is an individual matter. But even if a nation could through its proper authorities accept Christ, the Jews could not do so, for they have no one with authority to speak for the whole people on anything.
It is hard for some to see that God totally and finally rejected and destroyed the Jewish nation, but did not irrevocably reject the Jews. Paul gives himself as an example that God had not irrevocably cast off the Jewish people. That he referred to himself as an example shows that he had in mind the Jews as individuals and not as a nation. His case shows that the door of salvation had not been closed against the individual Jew. And his olive-tree illustration shows that he was speaking of the individual Jew and not of the nation. Both Jews and Gentiles were grafted into the same olive tree, and both by the same process. Paul’s conclusion—“and so all Israel shall be saved”—hasbeen greatly perverted. The future-kingdom folks put the emphasis onall Israel; Paul put the emphasis onso.Sois an adverb of manner. He had been showing how the Jews might be saved, and not that the nation would be restored. He had shown that Gentiles were grafted in by faith—saved by faith in Christ. “And so”—in like manner—shall all Israel be saved. Peter had made the same point before the Jerusalem brethren: “But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.” (Acts 15:11.)
How many Jews may yet be converted to Christ, no one knows; but those who are converted to Christ will be in the one body with all converted Gentiles, “where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.” (Col. 3:11.)
Much is said about preaching the truth in love, and so it should be preached. But in love of what? The preacher should so love the truth that he will not sacrifice any of it nor pervert it, and he should so love people that he will not withhold from them even an unpleasant truth. He that does either of these things loves neither the truth nor the people. We frequently fool ourselves; we think we do thus and so to spare the feelings of others, when it is our own feelings that prompt us. “Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”
What does Paul mean in the expression, “Upon whom the ends of the ages are come”?—
The dispensations are referred to as ages. There have been the Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age, and also we now have the Christian age. The ends, or aims, of both the Patriarchal age and the Mosaic age looked forward to the Christian age. Christianity is the end of the ages—it is the last. Yet the future-kingdom advocates would have us believe that Paul was mistaken; that Christianity is not the end of the ages, but there will be at least two more ages. But Paul, being inspired, was right, and Christianity is the end of the ages. And that settles the future-kingdom claims. This is the ends of the ages.
“Here am I; send me.” To know the Lord and to realize our dependence upon him makes us willing, even anxious, to do whatever he wants us to do. There is something fearfully wrong with the heart of one who inquires concerning any duty. Will it pay? Is it pleasant work? Will I be thrown with the right sort of people? Will it enhance my reputation? Is the work below my dignity? The true servant of the Lord, like Isaiah, says: “Here am I; send me.” Like his Lord he can say, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work.” (John 4:34.) “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” (Ps. 40:8.)
Will you please give a scriptural answer as to who or what the four beasts refer in Rev. 4:6-9? Or give your idea as to what is meant by the four beasts.—Lee Chumbley.
The Scriptures do not tell us who or what the four beasts represent. Instead ofbeaststhe American Standard Version hasliving creatures. It could as well be translatedliving beingsorliving ones. But that does not tell us who or what they represent. If the querist will read on through the sixth chapter, he will find some of the things these living beings did. For one thing he will find that they had the power of speech. But the person who tells who or what they represent tells that which he does not know to be true. Brother Chumbley can find preachers who will tell him, and he will also find that they do not agree.
A tragedy, to have any unity of action when played on the stage, must be planned and written by one person—at least under the direction of one person. Imagine, if you can, a play written by several men, neither of whom knew what the other was writing, or that he was writing at all. Yet the tragedy of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus was so written by the prophets. And then the play—none of the actors in the drama, save Jesus, knew that the part he was playing had been written, yet each played his part according to the record. God knew what would be done, and had the prophets to write it down.