The study of these questions should do great good. I am sure that I want no victory over Brother Boll; I do not think that he wants any victory over me. We are both praying that in this investigation truth, divine truth, may prevail; that truth--the highest order of truth, Scriptural truth--may triumph over error. We are both yearning for such a victory.

      Brother Boll and I want to be fair with the issue and frank with each other and the public. The brotherhood in many sections has been disturbed for some time over these questions which we are now discussing. It has been claimed by some that Brother Boll's views on these questions have been misunderstood and consequently his teaching on these questions has been misrepresented in our religious papers. Brother Boll now has an opportunity to speak fully and freely on these disputed subjects. Fairness to himself and candor to the public demand that he now express his "most radical views," that he keep nothing back that he believes and teaches on these subjects. The tense situation brought about over these questions and the keen interest manifested in this discussion make it imperative that Brother Boll "out with everything" that he may believe and teach on these subjects, in order that his respondent may have opportunity to examine all of his views or teachings. The brotherhood and readers should have no occasion to say that Brother Boll did not present in the discussion all that be preaches. The greatest good may be done in this discussion in restoring peace and Christian fellowship by Brother Boll's exercising the greatest candor and fairness in presenting these much-disputed questions. I believe that Brother Boll will be perfectly frank and full in his expression on these questions. I believe that be has nothing which he desires to keep from the public, but is anxious for the public to know his honest position on all of these things. [42]

      The readers' attention is called again to the proposition. Brother Boll has very clearly interpreted his proposition to mean that the Scriptures teach that the Jews as a nation will be converted to Christ, and then, "as a righteous nation," be restored to Palestine. Again we call attention to the fact that this interpretation of the proposition makes it a double proposition. The first burden which the proposition imposes upon him is to prove that the mass of Jewry is to be converted to Christ; that is, "that the individuals constituting the nation will each and all accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and King." The second burden which he has is that after their conversion they are to be restored "as a righteous nation" to the land of their fathers. This double task weighs heavily upon Brother Boll. Has he met this double responsibility?

      Brother Boll has classed all of these questions and set them to one side, saying that they "do not affect any outward act of religious practice, any act of obedience in work or worship; in fact, they do not refer directly to the present, but have reference to the things that are to come." However, he claims that they are important questions and "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." Since these things belong to the future, we want to avoid making them a test of fellowship and not disturb the present with things which belong to the future. We may raise the question, How important are they? Or, How important may they be "at any time?" Who is to evaluate their importance? All divine truth is important; but does the issue of this proposition lie in the realm of divine truth? We both believe that brethren should not let these things "raise barriers between brethren;" but when "barriers" have been raised over them, what should be done with them?

      I am glad that Brother Boll has submitted three rules of study or interpretation of Bible questions. I commend them to Bible students. Just here permit me to restate [43] with an additional rule the ones which I have already suggested:

      1. No "private interpretations" should be given to any Scripture.

      2. The Scriptures must be interpreted by Scriptures; the Bible is its own commentary.

      3. Figurative language must always be interpreted by literal, or in harmony with nonfigurative Scripture. Dean Trench, in commenting on this rule, says that "from the literal to the figurative, from the clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of Scripture interpretation." ("Notes on the Parables," page 43.)

      4. In the interpretation of Scripture, we are to restrict ourselves to what is expressly revealed or declared in the Bible. (We are not to go beyond that which is written.)

      Now, Brother Boll and I have clear and definite rules to guide us in arguing this proposition. We should not violate these rules. We cannot be led into a fuller knowledge of revealed truth, neither can we guide the reader into truth divine, if we violate these laws of interpretation.

      The study of prophecy is a very interesting study. However, great caution should be had that we violate no plain, simple passage of Scripture in this discussion. It will help to clear the issue if we remember that there are two classes of prophecy in the Bible. The first class is fulfilled prophecy. A large portion of the prophecies in the Old Testament have been fulfilled. Such prophecies to us now have become history. Indeed, prophecy may be defined as history written before the events occur.

      The second class of prophecy is unfulfilled prophecies. Much of this class of prophecy is expressed in symbols and figures. "Symbolic prophecy" is difficult to understand. Unless Jehovah gives the meaning of the symbols, no one can determine their meaning. We cannot depend upon any "private interpretations" of symbolic language. No one can know the exact meaning of unfulfilled prophecy or how it will be fulfilled. Only God can see the end of prophecy. Hence, inspiration is needed for its [44] interpretation. Look how far all the scribes, doctors, lawyers, and even the whole mass of Jewry, together with the apostles, misinterpreted the nature of Christ's kingdom. Even prophets and kings and angels did not see the things which belong to the first advent of Christ. (See Luke 10:23, 24; 1 Pet. 1:10-12.)

      Now, with the prophecy of the Bible classified into the two great classes, fulfilled and the unfulfilled, we may determine to which class the prophecies which Brother Boll wishes to use in support of his proposition belong. From the very nature of the issue involved and the admission of Brother Boll, all of his proof texts are to be found in the class of unfulfilled prophecies. The best that can be claimed for Brother Boll's position is that his proof belongs to the class of unfulfilled prophecy. Since it is not in the power of man, unaided by inspiration, to know how an unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled, and since all of Brother Boll's proof texts admittedly belong to the class of unfulfilled prophecies, then he can never know, nor can the reader ever know, whether he has given the correct interpretation of the unfulfilled prophecies which he uses as proof of his proposition. No man can ever be sure that his interpretations of an unfulfilled prophecy is absolutely correct. Therefore, Brother Boll can never prove his proposition. No proposition which depends wholly upon unfulfilled prophecies for its proof can ever be established. The negative could let the matter rest at this point and be absolutely safe, because weak, frail man with finite mind, unaided by inspiration, can never establish a proposition which depends entirely upon the interpretation of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy for its proof.

      Brother Boll admits that some of his Scripture quotations do not prove his proposition. On this point we both agree. He says that "in regard to a number of texts" I am "correct, for they were not all intended as direct proof of the proposition." Now, by this admission we have two classes of his proof texts. One class, which was [45] not "intended as direct proof of the proposition;" and the second class, those which he intends as proof of his proposition. For the sake of clearness and to avoid confusion, it would be well for him to classify his proof texts and tell the reader which ones support his proposition.

      We notice again his proof texts, taking them in the order which he gives them.

      John 16:13. The context of this Scripture shows that Christ is here speaking to his disciples about sending the Holy Spirit to them after he ascends to his Father. Verse 14 makes this clear. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth, and all that the Holy Spirit taught after Pentecost belongs to those things which Christ said "are to come." Certain it is that the Holy Spirit said nothing about the national conversion of the Jews and then, "as a righteous nation," restoring them to Palestine.

      Mal. 1:2; 3:6. This may show God's "unchanging and unalterable love and care over Israel;" but these Scriptures do not say anything about the Jews' being converted as a nation to Christ and then "as a righteous nation" restored to the promised land. This Scripture is quoted by Paul in Rom. 9:12, 13.

      John 12:37, 38; Rom. 10:21. A simple reading of these Scriptures shows that not one word is said that can be fairly construed to support the proposition.

      Ps. 121:4. I quote this Scripture that the reader may see that it has no reference to the issue involved in the proposition under discussion: "Behold, he that keepeth Israel will neither slumber nor sleep."

      Jer. 30:11; 31:35-37. Nothing is said in these Scriptures which supports the proposition. The reader may verify this declaration by reading these Scriptures.

      Lev. 26:40-45. This Scripture is quoted in 2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 25:9, 12; 26:7, 8; 29:12, as being fulfilled in the Babylonian captivity and the restoration of the Jews from that captivity. [46]

      Deut. 4:27. This Scripture also was fulfilled in the Babylonian captivity.

      Deut. 30:1-10. This Scripture has reference to the restoration of Israel from Babylonian captivity and is so quoted in Neh. 1:8-10. It is applied by Nehemiah to the restoration of the Jew from Babylon.

      2 Sam. 7:10; Amos 9:15. These Scriptures say absolutely nothing about the Jews' being converted to Christ as a nation and then "as a righteous nation" being restored to Palestine.

      Ezek. 36:26-28. This Scripture is quoted by Paul in 1 Thess. 4:8 as being fulfilled in Christianity. Nothing is said in support of the proposition.

      Zech. 12:10. This is declared to be fulfilled in Christ. (See John 19:37.)

      Isa. 11:1-12 is quoted as being fulfilled in Christianity. (See John 7:42; Rom. 15:12; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 5:5; 19:11; 22:16.)

      Isa. 14:1. Brother Boll said in Word and Work, 1918, page 65, concerning this Scripture: "The day of Babylon's fall and the destruction of Babylon's king is also the day of Israel's restoration and reinstatement." Hence, according to Brother Boll, this prophecy was fulfilled in the restoration from Babylonian captivity. When he now applies it to a time yet future, he contradicts his former interpretation of it.

      The restoration (if it may be called a restoration) of the Jews as presented in the eleventh chapter of Romans is the restoration of Jews to the favor and grace of God and not a restoration to Palestine. Israel as a nation was not cast off. (See Rom. 11:1-5.) John the Baptist had warned the Jews that they would be rejected if they did not accept Christ. (See Matt. 3:9, 10.) Paul tried to get them to accept Christ. (Verse 14.) The gospel is declared to be the power of God unto salvation, "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." There has never been [47]

      a time when Jews could not accept Christ. If "grafting in" means the Jews are to be converted nationally, then the "grafting in" of Gentiles means that the Gentiles are converted nationally; again, if "grafting in" means that the Jews are to be restored to Palestine, then it must mean that Gentile Christians are to be given a home in Palestine, for the Gentiles were "grafted in." According to this reasoning, all Christians are to get a trip to Palestine.

      Brother Boll gives quotations from Campbell, Scott, Lard, Milligan, and McGarvey, but he wants us to know that he is not to be held as indorsing all that these men say on other questions. We shall not attempt to get him to indorse what they say on other things. However, if these men, with their piety and scholarship, cannot be relied upon in regard to other propositions, by what reason or logic can we accept them on the point now at issue?

      We now examine the points in his summary which he claims he has proved.

      1. In his claim on this point he commits the fallacy of "petitio principii;" he merely begs the question.

      2. This point has not been sustained. The eleventh chapter of Romans states that they are not debarred from accepting Christ; but if they should accept him, they will be restored to his favor on the basis of faith in Christ, as the Gentiles are.

      3. This point is conceded. God will keep his promise to bless as surely as he will keep his promise to punish. But it has not been proved that God has promised to restore the Jews as "a righteous nation" to Palestine. This point must be proved.

      4. This point has not been sustained by the Scriptures.

      5. This point is only assumed and declared, but has not been proved.

      Brother Boll anticipates the negative and states that his proof texts may be controverted upon three grounds. [48] First that "it might be said that the promises to Israel are conditional, and that Israel never fulfilled the conditions." This is true in regard to some of God's promises and prophecies. (See Jer. 18:9.) The second, "that they found their fulfillment in the past, in the return from Babylonian captivity." This is true, as we have shown with some of his proof texts. (See Lev. 26:40-45; 2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 25:9, 12; also Deut. 30:3-10; Neh. 1:8-10; Zech. 12:10; John 19:37.) The third ground, "that they are to be taken figuratively, and spiritually applied to another people." Some of his Scriptures are controverted on this ground, as they find their fulfillment in Christ and Christianity when God's people are declared to he the seed of Abraham by faith in Christ.

      First, the affirmative has failed to show how the Jews are to be converted as a nation. They are now scattered among every nation under the heavens. The affirmative has failed to tell us whether they are to be gathered together and then converted or whether they will be converted in their scattered or dispersed condition and then brought together. In either case an insuperable difficulty is met. If they are to be converted in their present dispersed condition, then they are not converted nationally, but individually, and so his proposition falls.

      But Brother Boll says that he means by "national conversion" that "the individuals constituting the nation would each and all accept Jesus as their Lord and King." That this point may be cleared up, I should like for him to give attention to these questions: Are the Jews to be gathered in some rendezvous before their conversion, or are they to be gathered after their conversion? Are they all to be converted at the same time? How long are they to remain out of Palestine after their conversion before they are restored to it? Are they to be restored all at [49] one time, or are they to be restored just a few at a time? How are the occupants at the time of their restoration to be dispossessed of Palestine? Are other means to be used in their conversion than are used in converting Gentiles? Have you not taught that the Jews are to be gathered back to Palestine and then converted? (This position contradicts the present contention that they are to be converted first and then restored to Palestine.) Have you not taught that the present movement among the Jews to go back to Palestine, known as the "Zionist Movement," is a fulfillment of the prophecies which you have quoted in this discussion?

      Second, the affirmative has failed to recognize the double task which his proposition places upon him--namely, first to show that the Jews are to be converted nationally; and, second, to show that "as a righteous nation," after their conversion, they are to be restored to Palestine. The logic of the situation demands that the affirmative meet both members of his proposition.

      Third, the affirmative has failed to tell us what advantage is to be had by restoring the Jews to Palestine. He has failed to tell us what government they will inaugurate when they are brought back to Palestine as Christians. He has failed to tell us if they will attempt to rebuild the temple, restore the ancient worship with its Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices. He has failed to tell us why the Christian Jew should be separated from the Christian Gentile. He has failed to show why the Jew as a Christian should have special favors and blessings in Palestine, while the Gentile Christian is deprived of these blessings.

      Fourth, he has failed to meet the argument which was based upon the lesson taught by Christ to the woman of Samaria--namely, that under the Christian dispensation locality is not an essential to Christian worship, and [50] therefore no advantage is gained by the Jews' being restored to Palestine and Jerusalem.

      Paul teaches in 2 Cor. 5:16 that now "we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more." Since in Christ, or as Christians, we are to know no one after the flesh--that is, national distinctions in Christ are destroyed--then Christian Jews are not to be known as Jews, nor Christian Gentiles as Gentiles; they are to be known to each other as brethren in the Lord. But if Brother Boll's proposition is true, then the Christian Jews will be known "after the flesh," which contradicts Paul's statement. Therefore, Brother Boll's proposition contradicts plain, simple Scriptures and his interpretation of the prophecies cannot be correct.

      The chief things which made the Jewish race a peculiar nation were circumcision, the law, genealogy, and the covenant of the Messianic hope. (See Rom. 9:4, 5.) If these chief things are fulfilled or removed, then the Jews have nothing left to make them a peculiar people; or, rather, the peculiar features of their nationality have been taken from them. Circumcision of the flesh has given place to circumcision of the heart. (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11.) The law has been nailed to the cross. (Col. 2:14.) Genealogies, the means of identifying them with fleshly Israel, have been abandoned by divine authority. (1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9.) Christ has come and fulfilled the promises of blessing the world through Abraham's seed. Now, when the Jews are converted, the old marks of their nationality are done away, and they become simply Christians on a par with all other faithful children of God. If they are restored to Palestine, then they will have to violate the inspired instruction which was given to the Christian Jew of Paul's day. Again we see that the [51] interpretation that Brother Boll gives the prophecies violates New Testament teachings and, therefore, cannot be true.

      In Word and Work, 1917, page 387, Brother Boll says: "Israel is back in their land just before the Lord's glorious coming; the temple is rebuilt, its service resumed." This shows that Brother Boll believes, or did believe in 1917, that after the Jews are restored to Palestine they will rebuild the temple and resume the worship. If the Jews are converted to Christ by the gospel, they become Christians, and as Christians, if they go back to their former worship, they repudiate Christ and nullify Christianity. The book of Hebrews was written as a condemnation of those who would go back to the law and its ancient worship. Hence, again, Brother Boll's position contradicts the Scripture. We must know, then, that his interpretations of the prophecies quoted are fallacious. His proposition cannot be true. [52]

[UP 42-52]