I greatly appreciate the kindness and fairness of the opening remarks of Brother H. Leo Boles' first reply, and the courtesy and straightforwardness throughout his negative. He is wholly in the right when he says that brethren should study and investigate any question revealed in God's word for their own good and for the public welfare, and that in brotherly kindness and in loving fellowship; and he speaks my heart also when he voices his determination to maintain such attitude throughout the discussion and unto the end. Nor is he wrong when he says that such kindly feeling must not keep either of us from pressing the issue and keeping it clearly before the reader, each of us being faithful to his task, for truth and right's sake. It is by such means that Christians grow into a better and fuller understanding of God's word.

      I would like to forestall a misconception. It was not intended to leave the impression that because these matters under discussion concern future rather than present things, that they are therefore superfluous and might as well be ignored; but, rather, to show that differences on such questions should not raise barriers between brethren who in the foundations of the faith and in all principles and acts of obedience are at one. But I also pointed out that these matters are not unimportant--that they affect the spirit and motive and outlook of the Christian and thus may at any time come to have a great practical bearing. A man may get through without knowing these and many other things taught in God's word; yet Christian teaching should not therefore be restricted to the irreducible minimum of the faith: the whole word of God is the proper and God-given province of the Christian's study, faith, and teaching. (2 Tim. 3:16.) I would not [32] say that my proposition "does not involve faith on the part of any child of God in his acceptable obedience to the will of the Lord," lest some one get the impression that the part of God's word which deals with these matters is useless and worthless, and so come to despise it or feel that he ought to ignore it and cast it aside. As Brother Boles says, "divine truth is important." He is right also when he says that these matters should not be permitted to create disturbance. There is nothing inherent in these and such like differences which may arise between brethren in their study of the Word to necessitate a disturbance (in the sense of clash and alienation). With Brother Boles, I deplore all such disturbance, and any manner or attitude that would tend to provoke it. Might we not hope that this discussion may itself be a means to help brethren everywhere to study, weigh, and discuss these teachings without allowing them to disturb their harmony and love and Christian fellowship?

      Brother Boles suggests the need of proper rules of Biblical interpretation. Among some rules which in substance I first published in the Gospel Advocate of October 28, 1909, and have used all along in my own work and study, I have this:

      1. Interpret Literally.--The first presumption is always that God meant just what he said. The prophecies that were fulfilled were fulfilled literally and exactly.

      2. As to Figurative Language.--Make the same allowance for figures of speech in prophetic writings as in all other Scripture and literature. But consider nothing figurative without valid reason.

      3. Symbolic Prophecy.--The Scripture itself must give us the explanation of its symbols. But nothing is to be called "symbolic" as symbolic without clear reason. Be sure also that the "explanation" is true and Scriptural before you adopt it and rely on it.

      The rules which Brother Boles suggests are good within certain limits. I would not wholly indorse them. True, the Scripture must be its own interpreter. But that might [33] be taken to justify the bad practice of nullifying Scripture with Scripture. And, again, we may not rule a Scripture out of court because it seems obscure to us. A passage may be quite plain, and yet, because it transcends our present conception or clashes with our idea of things, we may think it obscure, set it aside, and fall back upon a Scripture that is more nearly to our notion. I do not at all say or mean that Brother Boles has done or would do that. But I would suggest that it is good to take up every passage in its context, and treat it according to its own fair meaning, as best we can, lest we be prejudiced beforehand against anything God has said.

      In a debate on Bible subjects it should probably not be demanded that either disputant should produce a passage of Scripture which states his position in incontrovertible terms, for in such a case there could hardly be a debate. When, for example, we affirm that the church was established on Pentecost, we are not required to bring forth a passage which directly says so. But in the present instance, one could come very near to doing even that, as may presently be seen. Yet, whether or not, I believe that the joint testimony of the Scriptures presented amply sustains the proposition in hand.

      My respondent takes up the Scripture passages I advanced, in order of the books of the Bible from which they were taken, and one by one declares that they do not say that Israel is to be nationally converted and restored to their land. In regard to a number of these texts he is correct, for they were not all intended as direct proof of that proposition. Let me run over some of them again in the order in which I gave them, and I will point out the purport of each.

      John 16:13 was quoted to show that the Holy Spirit revealed things that are to come; so that no one may think we are out of order or wasting time in studying and discussing such things, even though they do not deal with immediate practice and duty. [34]

      Mal. 1:2 and 3:6 were quoted to show Jehovah's unchanging and unalterable love and care over Israel, eternal as himself.

      John 12:37, 38 and Rom. 10:21 were cited to show that even Israel's rejection of Christ and of the gospel were foreseen from of old; yet the promises of the final conversion and restoration were made, and the assurances that Israel should not be cast off forever were given in full foreview of all Israel would do.

      Ps. 121:4 declares Jehovah's watchful care over that people, and explains why they have not perished and cannot perish as a nation before their restoration come.

      Jer. 30:11 was quoted for the same intent, as also the exceedingly emphatic passage, Jer. 31:35-37.

      Lev. 26:40-45 shows that though the worst come to the worst, Jehovah would not forget them nor the covenant he had made with their fathers; but in their repentance would take them up again, and would not abhor them nor destroy them utterly. That this had an application in the restoration from Babylon is not denied, but the promise was not thereby exhausted.

      Deut. 4:27-31 goes even further and declares that in the latter days they most certainly will repent and return to their God; and so, of course, God would be enabled to fulfill all those great promises to them. This is brought out still more fully in the next passage, Deut. 30:1-10, in which their repentance and consequent restoration are plainly predicted. I call attention to the fact that the promises given there have never as yet been fulfilled. Since their great captivity Israel have never again possessed their land. They lived in it as tenants and servants for a while (Neh. 9:36, 37); and since then, for more than eighteen centuries, they have been scattered abroad, in a dispersion worse than any previous one, hunted, hated, persecuted, robbed, and distressed, in all the earth. But Jehovah will cause them to return to the land that be [35] gave to their fathers, "and they shall possess it." (Jer. 30:3.)

      This same passage, Deut. 30:6, as well as Ezek. 36:26-28, foretells a profound spiritual change in the nation, which will insure their perpetual obedience. Therefore, 2 Sam. 7:10 and Amos 9:15 could predict their everlasting settlement in the land, for there will be no more occasion to remove them. (Comp. Isa. 54:8-10.) Nothing like this has ever come to pass. The contingent that returned from Babylon quickly declined again, as is shown in Malachi, their last prophet; and what their condition was when Christ came four hundred years later every one knows, as also what awful judgments befell them subsequently.

      Now, of the other passages I cited, Isa. 1:24-27 and 4:1-6 and chapter 60 show the destined cleansing, renewal, and exaltation of Jerusalem (the context showing that the reference is to the same city, that once was wicked and was destroyed); and such is the fashion of this promised renewal and exaltation that it would not be possible to refer these prophecies to anything that has ever occurred in the past. This, therefore, is yet to be accomplished. It was shown that the future restoration of the city, the land, and the people itself will be so tremendous an act of God as to eclipse the memory of their marvelous redemption from Egypt (so declares Jer. 16:14, 15)--such a demonstration of almighty power as to be comparable only to the impossible and supernatural feat of the assembling and reviving of a valley full of dead, dry bones (Ezek. 37).

      Now, I believe that these declarations of God's word have a bearing upon the question whether Israel is to be nationally restored, and that they afford complete proof thereof. Brother Boles frankly allows that "God will keep his promises to do good as surely as he will keep his promises to do good as surely as he will keep his his promises to do evil to a people." Well, then: "Like as I [36] have brought all this great evil upon this people," says Jehovah, "so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them." (Jer. 32:42.) "This people" is Israel. "All this great evil" came upon the nation of Israel, literally and fully. That is undeniable. In just the same way and with the same exactitude will all these promises of return and restoration, which are peculiar to the nation of Israel, be fulfilled unto them. From that there is no appeal, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

      In using the terms, "national conversion," I did not mean anything else than that the individuals constituting the nation would each and all accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and King. Whether they would be gathered in one place or whether they would accept him in their dispersion, whether within one day (as, comp. Isa. 66:8) or within some relatively short time, does not affect the question in any wise. It is not the time and place, nor the how and why, so much as the fact of the conversion of the entire nation," however or wherever accomplished, that is the essential point under consideration.

      This wonderful event is foretold in the New Testament also. "But the same fact [i. e., Israel's conversion to Christ] is plainly predicted by Christ and by the apostle Paul," says J. W. McGarvey. "Christ, in his lamentation over Jerusalem, said: 'Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.' (Matt. 23:39.) But no unbelieving city could welcome the return of Christ in these words. It is implied that when Christ comes again, Jerusalem will say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Jehovah,' and this necessarily implies that it will be occupied by a believing or a Christian population. Again, in predicting the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus said: 'Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' (Luke 21:24.) This latter clause implies that the time for the Gentiles to tread Jerusalem under foot [37] will come to an end, after which it will be no longer trodden under foot; that is, oppressed by a foreign foe. After that, it must be a Jewish city and a free city. These two predictions of our Savior, although not as specific on the main point as those of the Old Testament prophets, are, by implication, equally unambiguous." (Christian Standard, 1903, page 696.)

      In the eleventh of Romans, Paul tells of the rejection of the disobedient nation at the present time, and the hardening of their heart and the blinding of their eyes (verses 8-10); but is careful to point out (lest Gentile brethren become wise in their own conceit and lift themselves up against the Jews) that though Israel has stumbled, it was not unto a "fall," unto final ruin. In fact, it was because of their failure that salvation has gone out to the Gentiles, and that for the purpose of provoking Israel to jealousy. "Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?" Yea, Paul was the more diligent in his ministry among the Gentiles, that thereby he might have some little part in provoking Jews to jealousy. "For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? (Rom. 11:11-15.)

      From this it appears as though Jews were deserving of very special attention, and as if the saving of Jews were the most practical and concentrated sort of missionary work, the most direct course toward the goal of worldwide blessing.

      As yet, it is only the remnant of Israel that is saved, and the nation on the whole rejected. But the apostle speaks of the ultimate receiving of the nation and the glorious result that will follow. The "receiving" of them will be like a resurrection to all the world. Will they some day be so "received?" Paul says: "I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part has [38] befallen Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved:¹ even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: and this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (Rom. 11:25-27.)

      "We are deeply penetrated," says Alexander Campbell (Millennial Harbinger, 1856, page 697), "with the idea that Christianity [by which evidently he means the present order of things] being a new dispensation of the Holy Spirit to Jews and Gentiles under Christ, a dispensation not of the letter, but of Spirit, must continue until the 'fullness of the Gentiles' be consummated. But this clearly intimates that it is not to be forever, or to the final consummation of the drama of Christianity. That the Redeemer shall come out of Zion and turn away 'ungodliness'--impiety, the fuel of unbelief--'from Jacob'--is an express oracle indicative of some special and glorious interposition of the Lord Jesus--which may usher in what we usually call 'the personal reign of Christ'--the subjection of all nations to him." He adds that "of the moral certainty of such an interposition we should not dogmatically affirm in advance of a most cautious and prayerful investigation of both the Jewish and Christian oracles;" and refers to the series of articles on prophecy from Professor Milligan as expressing views which he, Campbell, himself had "warmly cherished," and that "for many years;" and which indeed, as regards the destiny of Israel, I, too, heartily cherish.

      May I explain just here that quotations from Campbell, Scott, Lard, Milligan, McGarvey, and other honored and scholarly leaders in the church, are, of course, not meant for authority or for proof of the propositions in hand, but by way of side light and corroboration of the positions taken. Neither does the writer intend to leave the impression that [39] because he quotes from any of the great and good brethren that they necessarily agree with him on everything. No agreement is to be assumed other than the quotation justifies.

      Since Brother Boles does not think that I have established the items enumerated in the final summary of my first article, let us examine those points once more.

      1. That the nation of Israel, scattered by God's hand, shall by his hand be recovered and regathered and restored to their own land.

      This is stated in so many words in Jer. 30:3; 31:10; and Isa. 11:11, 12. (See also Ezek. 36:24, 28.)

      2. That they shall accept their Messiah, be converted and saved.

      This was shown from Hos. 3:4, 5; Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 26:26-28; and Rom. 11.

      3. That all the blessings and promises shall come unto that people just as surely and as literally as their predicted punishments have come upon them.

      Jeremiah 32:42 alone, in my judgment, settles that.

      4. That once so restored, they shall never again fall away or be removed from their land.

      This was brought out in connection with 2 Sam. 7:10 and Amos 9:15; Isa. 4:4, 5; Joel 3:17.

      5. That their national conversion and restoration will be a blessing to all the world.

      This is evident from Isa. 55:5; Isa. 60; and Rom. 11:15.

      These clear and definite Scriptures (and they are but a fraction of what might be quoted and cited on this subject) could be controverted, so far as I see, upon only one of three grounds.

      1. It might be said that the promises to Israel are conditional, and that Israel never fulfilled the conditions.

      2. That they found their fulfillment in the past, in the return from the Babylonish captivity.

      3. That they are to be taken figuratively, and spiritually applied to another people. [40]

      But such contentions are all forestalled in the promises themselves; for (1) the promises declare that the time is coming when Israel will turn to the Lord, and all conditions shall be met; (2) the facts show that these promises were not fulfilled in the return from the Babylonian captivity; and (3) that the good promised them will come upon them as certainly and exactly as their predicted evil has befallen them.

      Now a word as to Brother Boles' rebuttal arguments.

      The Jews' nationality will not be destroyed by their conversion. The Scriptures quoted and cited in this article show that converted Israel will be Israel, as before. Indeed it is true that in Christ national distinctions are now wiped out; for all have the same standing, access, and privilege, whether they be Jew, Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman, male, or female. But the gospel does not destroy the fact of their nationality, nor their peculiar position in the world, nor their station nor sex. There is nothing to prevent God from converting the nation of Israel and giving them a special place and function in the time to come, even as he promised.

      As for the land promise: It may not be evident to us why Israel should be restored to their own land, but whether we can or cannot see the use and purpose of reinstating converted Israel in the land of their fathers would not alter the fact that God has so promised. We would not discredit those prophecies and promises merely because we could not see the good of them. Sufficient that God swore this land to Israel's fathers and to their seed after them for an everlasting possession, and that he promised that Israel shall have it and shall dwell in it forever--while sun and moon and stars do shine (Jer. 31:35, 36) and the earth remains. And when the first heaven and the first earth are passed away, even in the new earth they shall have their peculiar place and special mention, for the names of the twelve tribes of Israel will be written or the gates of the new Jerusalem. (Rev. 21.) [41]

[UP 32-41]