My dear brother says a number of things good and true in the exordium of his second negative, things with which I heartily agree--as, for example, that we are both striving for truth, not for victory, or, rather, that we both are striving for the victory of the truth. Amen. May the Lord hold us steady to this high aim. Also, that both want to be fair with the issue and frank with each other. I should be sorry if his admonition that I come "out with everything" that I believe and teach on these subjects, and that fairness to myself and candor to the public demand that I now express my "most radical views," should be understood by anybody as an intimation that perhaps I have not been frank or open, or that I hold and teach some dark, hidden doctrine which I might only breathe in secret. I want to assure the reader that such is not the case, and that surely Brother Boles meant to leave no such impression. What I have taught is open to all men. For nearly seven years on the first page of the Gospel Advocate, for more than eleven years in the Word and Work, I have spoken frankly, freely, all I believe the word of God to teach, as best I knew and could; and in secret spake I nothing. The public may be assured that in the present discussion I shall endeavor to bring out all I believe the Bible to teach on the propositions in hand. And I trust that Brother Boles will have no occasion to censure me for lack of frankness, unless by mistake he should think that I teach things which I never have believed or taught, and would expect me to "come out" with them. That I wouldn't promise to do. But I'll not shrink from bringing out "the whole counsel of God" to the best of my knowledge and ability as the proposition may demand. [53] All my desire for good will and harmony shall not prevent me from that.

      Another incidental matter deserves brief notice. Brother Boles makes repeated reference to a "tense situation" that has arisen. I have been trying to make it clear that there is nothing inherent in these questions that necessitates a tense situation, or any disturbance among brethren. I have endeavored to show that these issues, not directly affecting any fundamental of the faith or outward act of obedience or Christian practice, and having reference chiefly to the things to come--that differences on such questions may exist among brethren simultaneously with loving Christian fellowship and kindly tolerance. If they occasion trouble, it must be due to a failure of Christian love somewhere; and that is far more serious than a mistake in such matters as these. For "if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge. . . . but have not love, I am nothing." With Brother Boles, I deplore all dissensions, alienations, strife, disturbance among brethren over any of these matters, and would be ready to help prevent or remedy such to the limit of my ability. Brother Boles is wholly right when he says that such things should not be made a test of fellowship. I hold with him absolutely in this. And when he says that no barriers should be raised between brethren over such differences as these, he is right and only right. But what if the barriers have already been raised? he asks. Then let's tear them down. Whatever has been wrongfully done ought to be undone. That is the meaning of repentance. It matters not who they are, or where, that have done such things, they ought to repent and undo the wrong.

      In perusing the volumes of the Millennial Harbinger, I was deeply impressed with the freedom and frankness with which brethren of those days presented and discussed their findings in the Book of God, and that without a trace of mutual disparagement or diminution of love [54] and esteem one for another. For example, I could produce the whole affirmative argument on this proposition, the restoration of Israel, verbatim, from the columns of the Millennial Harbinger (as see, for example, the articles by J. T. Barclay, a man highly esteemed and commended by Alexander Campbell, in Millennial Harbinger, 1861, pages 61-69, and 121-128; or by President Milligan, in Millennial Harbinger, 1856, pages 569-571, and on the conversion of the Jews, pages 601-607, 664-667). Whatever dissent there may have been to such teaching among those great and worthy brethren certainly caused not a ripple of disturbance in the churches of Christ. Every man in those days felt that he was under no man's doctrinal domination. They were a free people. They proved all things and held fast that which was good, and, being agreed among themselves upon the foundations of the faith, they went along together in brotherly love. Such an attitude should be possible to-day.

      Brother Boles misunderstands my reasons for quoting from Campbell, Milligan, McGarvey, and others. I explained that I did not quote them for authority, as though their diction settled a matter. We have never called any man "rabbi." But it would settle this much: that great and good brethren have held such teachings and expressed them freely, and were not held chargeable for heresy or having "wrought folly in Israel." And when I said that my agreement with the brethren quoted was not to be assumed beyond the limits of my quotation of them, it was purely lest any man should charge that I tried to leave an impression that those brethren agreed with me in everything I believed and taught. They do in most matters, I think. But neither Brother Boles nor I accept any man in toto--not Alexander Campbell, not McGarvey, not David Lipscomb; though we very greatly respect them. However, as says Isaac Errett (Millennial Harbinger, 1861, page 411), "when great workers like the senior editor of the Harbinger, and Dr. Barclay, [55] undertake, as earnest, practical men, to lead us into such an acquaintance with the letter and spirit of prophecy as may confirm our faith, exalt our faith, exalt our hopes, and quicken our energies, we cannot but feel a deep interest in their communications."

      The most serious and far-reaching utterance thus far on the part of the negative is what was said to the effect that unfulfilled prophecy cannot be understood without special inspiration from God. This is so vital and radical as to demand all our attention. If that were so, we might as well drop the whole discussion right here. If Brother Boles believed this from the outset, he ought never to have entered into the discussion of these propositions at all. Indeed, if that is the case, if man cannot know apart from divine inspiration what the meaning of unfulfilled prophecy is, the negative certainly can rest its case right there, and the affirmative, too, and the whole thing may cease at once. If that was in Brother Boles' mind, he should have told me, for in that case there would have been but just one thing worth discussing with him, and that is whether unfulfilled prophecy can at all be understood by uninspired man; and I would have been ready, as I am ready right here and now, to drop everything else and to take the affirmative on this most fundamental question and discuss it to a finish; for apart from an agreement on this point all else we can say is utterly futile, a waste of time, words, and labor. This must be settled, else all our work is in vain; for if we are debating about a thing that, as Brother Boles holds, cannot be known and understood, we have no ground left at all from which to reason. Our propositions deal with unfulfilled prophecy, not with the fulfilled; and if a man cannot understand unfulfilled prophecy without being inspired, and since neither Brother Boles nor I am inspired, the discussion cannot go on, unless Brother Boles recedes [56] from this position. I await his reply to this. The rest of the discussion depends on it. If he cannot alter his position on this matter, we must take up this question first, before we go on to anything else. I depend on the simple, straightforward meaning of God's word in the prophecies for my faith as to these matters and for the proof of these propositions; and if that is all set aside to begin with, the discussion cannot go on, for there can be nothing to discuss about, or worth discussing, except only this question whether unfulfilled prophecy can be understood by uninspired man.

      The Church of Rome has for centuries discredited the Bible to the common people, virtually taking it out of their hands by telling them that only an infallible church (ultimately the infallible Pope alone) can say what it means, and that all the meaning common individuals can get out of it is "private interpretation," and worthless; that the infallible Book requires an inspired, infallible interpreter. I thought I had got away from that sort of thing when more than thirty years ago I left the Church of Rome and became a simple Christian, taking the whole Bible for my creed. If we should now take up with that Romanist idea, it would not leave us even an infallible pope's interpretation. We would be deprived of Scripture and interpretation both, and prophecy would be worse than a blank, for a blank would not lead any one astray; but God's word of prophecy, if uninterpretable by uninspired man, would lead any uninspired man that would attempt to understand it into error. I believed that all Scripture inspired of God is profitable for teaching and for instruction in righteousness, and that all of it is needed to furnish us completely unto every good work. Was I wrong? Has it come to the pass, as God foretold in his word, that "all vision is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot, for it is sealed: and the book is delivered [57] to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned?" (Isa. 29:11, 12.) Do we again excuse ourselves from God's word in such fashion? I trust not.

      And if God's word of unfulfilled prophecy were not to be understood by uninspired man, why did the Lord blame Israel for not understanding it? For "because they knew him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath," they "fulfilled them by condemning him." (Acts 13:27.) It was then, as now, not so much a question of interpreting, but of believing what God had said. "Ye search the scriptures," said the Lord Jesus to the Jews, "and these are they which bear witness of me." (John 5:39.) And again: "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me." (Verse 46.) "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25.) The reason why priests, scribes, disciples, etc., had any misconceptions of Christ and his kingdom was not laid to their inability to understand, but due to their failure to believe in all that their prophets had spoken. Some things they did believe and had no trouble. For example, they told Herod instantly where the Christ was to be born; and although they were uninspired, and although they had nothing to show for it but an unfulfilled prophecy from Micah, and although they had no knowledge of any actual fulfillment of such a thing, they understood it perfectly, and their interpretation was entirely correct, because they took God's word at its plain meaning. (Matt. 2:4-6; see Mic. 5:2.) In certain other matters (for example, Christ's humiliation--Isa 53) they were not so willing to believe God's word of prophecy just as it stood, but fixed things up more to their liking. Hence their errors. But God's word of predictive prophecy was given to be understood and believed at its own fair meaning. Indeed, all that we know and believe and teach of the hereafter, of the coming of Christ, of our [58] resurrection, of judgment, of the inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, of heaven, of hell, of eternity, are matters of unfulfilled prophecy. And we have taken them very much as they stood. But if those statements cannot be understood by uninspired man, we are left in the dark concerning much that our hearts hold dear.

      Nor am I at all going to concede to my respondent that "much" of unfulfilled prophecy is "symbolic." Some of it is; but not all, nor even the most. Nor would I concede that even symbolic prophecy cannot be understood; for in most cases the significance of the symbol is pointed out to us in the Scriptures. If by "private interpretation" Brother Boles means arbitrary, irresponsible, lawless imputations of meanings which the language does not warrant, I am opposed to that as much as he is, and with all my heart. But I am not willing to wipe out any Scripture or class of Scriptures, a priori, as uninterpretable, and therefore as worthless for purposes of testimony.

      (Brother Boles will not, of course, make a point of his statement that "no one can know the exact meaning of unfulfilled prophecy, or how it will be fulfilled." We may know few things outside mathematics with absolute exactness; and no Scripture is known in all its infinite profundity; but we can know statements of unfulfilled prophecy with the same degree of correctness as we know other truths of God's revelation. And as to the how of fulfillment, that is of very secondary moment, though sometimes even that is revealed; but the first and most important thing we are after is the what of it.)

      I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that the debate must stop, or that I want it to stop; I do not, for it is a precious opportunity to bring out the teachings of God's word before many readers on points of great and growing interest. But this I say: before we can go on to anything else, this point must be cleared up. Brother Boles must concede that unfulfilled prophecy can be understood according to the common standards [59] that govern the interpretation of Scripture, and, indeed, of all language. I ask for no privilege of "private interpretation;" but I do insist upon an acceptance of God's word as testimony to the proposition, in accordance with the fair meaning of its statements. If that be denied, we have no standing ground left for further discussion of these subjects.

      This being my last affirmative on this proposition, I present once more the sum of all I believe I have established from God's word. The proposition was: "The Scriptures teach that Israel (fleshly descendants of Abraham through Jacob) shall be nationally restored."

      At the close of the first affirmative I stated:

      We have seen from the testimony of the Scriptures:

      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.

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

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

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

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

      On the first of the above items my respondent says it is a "petitio principii"--that is, "begging the question." Does he mean that no proof, or no valid proof, was offered? Here is the Scripture proof I presented:

      "For, lo, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will turn again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah [the ten-tribe kingdom and the two-tribe kingdom], saith Jehovah; and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it." (Jer. 30:3.) "He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock." (Jer. 31:10.) [60]

      Who scattered Israel? Who, then, shall gather him? To what land will he cause them to return? Shall they then possess it? Have they ever been so regathered? Have they ever possessed their land again since the king of Assyria and Nebuchadnezzar took it away from them twenty-five hundred years ago? Have these things ever been fulfilled? No--not on the return from Babylon nor at any other time. I challenge my respondent to show that they have. Unless he disavows the manifest meaning of these Scriptures which they bear on the face of them, he must admit that the first item of my summary is true.

      On the second item he says: "This point has not been sustained." Rom. 11 is the answer. There it is stated, not only that the Jew is "not debarred from accepting Christ," but that some day "all Israel shall be saved."

      The third item he concedes. Jer. 32:42 is crystal-clear and conclusive on that point. But he says that it has not been proved that God has promised to restore the Jews as "a righteous nation" to Palestine. Well, items one and two are sufficient for that. I note here my respondent's insistence that I explain whether the Jews are "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?" etc. But, what has that to do with our point? I contend only that the Scriptures teach that they will be restored, and that, in order to that restoration, they must first be converted and will be. Regathering in itself is not necessarily restoration. The Jews are regathering to their land now to a very marked extent; yet they are not restored nor being restored. "Have you not taught," Brother Boles asks me outright, "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?" I happen to have taught the exact opposite of that, as Brother Boles may [61] see by turning to my words in Word and Work, volume of 1926, page 229: "It should be clearly understood that no one claims that the present returning of Jews to Palestine fulfills the restoration promises made to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies."

      On item 4 he says: "This point has not been sustained by Scripture." That again depends on whether the passages adduced are to be taken at their manifest meaning. 2 Sam. 7:10 and Amos 9:15 and Joel 3:17 show that Israel's ultimate happy estate will be permanent. The very fact that they shall not be rooted up nor removed from their land any more forever shows that they will forevermore be true to their God. (Comp. Jer. 32:39, 40; Ezek. 37:23.)

      Regarding item 5 he says: "This point"--that Israel's conversion and restoration will be a blessing to all the world--"is only assumed and declared, but has not been proved." Here again the simple statement of Rom. 11:11, 12, and 15 is sufficient. Speaking of disobedient and rejected Israel, Paul says: "I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them 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? . . . 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?" The conversion of Israel therefore marks a turning point in the affairs of the world.

      I have reached or even exceeded the limit of my article. I would, in conclusion, point out that my respondent should not set aside any passage of Scripture as having nothing to do with the proposition because it does not bear directly on the issue. There is contributory evidence as well as direct. None of the passages I have quoted at [62] any time is without more or less vital reference to the proposition.

      A passage of prophecy may have application in many instances of analogous situation in past or present, but such applications do not do away with the full, fair sense of the prophecy. It is never finally fulfilled or exhausted until it is fulfilled in all its meaning.

      Brother Boles, referring to Word and Work, 1917, page 387, says: "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." My respondent seems to assume that the mere regathering, such as we are witnessing now, is the same thing as their "restoration." They may go back, indeed they are going, and to a greater extent, no doubt, will go back, in unbelief. But that is not the restoration. The latter involves their conversion, regeneration, possession of their own land by way of divine gift, and all the promised glory and blessedness. An examination of the connection from which he quotes me will show that I was speaking of unbelieving, not of converted and restored, Israel. In the preceding article on the same theme (Word and Work, 1917, page 354) the point is more fully set forth.

      In a similar way Brother Boles quotes me from Word and Work, 1918, page 65, as saying that Isa. 14:1 was fulfilled in the restoration from Babylonian captivity, and says that when I now apply it to the future I am contradicting my former interpretation of it. But the very next few words following say that "the time-note in Isa. 14:3 shows that this refers to nothing in the past;" and then I went on to show that it was not fulfilled in the return from Babylonian captivity. (Word and Work, 1917, pages 65, 66.)

      The Scriptures brought forward in Brother Boles' rebuttal argument please me well. I do believe that all [63] Christians have equal standing and access, and that we know no man after the flesh; that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, male or female; that Christ is all and in all. Yet this fact does not destroy the fact of race or position. Jewish brethren were recognized as such in the church, even specially honored in some regards (as see Rom. 15:26, 27); and bond servants in Christ were to be subject to their masters, all the more so when these were brethren (1 Tim. 6:2); and the husband was made the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and wives were admonished to be in subjection to their own husbands, as unto the Lord (Eph. 5:22, 23); and to each in his special relation special duties and privileges are assigned. If these things are true, and in view of the inequalities in the matter of advantages and position which have always existed among those who are Christ's from the first, and which do not conflict with the Scriptures referred to by Brother Boles, I would see no reason why God should not appoint a special place and function to the converted nation of Israel, especially since he has over and over promised to do so. [64]

[UP 53-64]