This closes the discussion on the first proposition. Three articles each were to be written on this proposition. The reader now has before him all the proof that Brother Boll has to offer in support of his proposition.

      In his last article no new argument is made, no new Scripture presented. All that is germane to the proposition has been answered, and I am willing to let the public be the judge as to whether the Scriptures teach that the Jews will be converted to Christ nationally and then "as a righteous nation" be restored to Palestine.

      I did not intend to intimate that Brother Boll would not be frank and fair in expressing himself on these questions. I regret it if any one received such an impression. In concluding the paragraph I said: "I believe that Brother Boll will be perfectly frank and full in his expression on these questions. I believe that he 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."

      One other point needs attention just here. "The tense situation" in the brotherhood is the cause of the keen interest now manifested in this discussion. This is very evident. It does not come within the scope of the duty of the negative to say who is responsible for the present disturbed condition. We both know that there exists alienation and disturbance in the brotherhood. We both deplore the strife and division which exist and are trying to discover the proper field for these questions. We have found that they do not "directly affect any fundamental of the faith or outward act of obedience or Christian practice;" that they "have reference chiefly to the things to come." Brethren should not be disturbed over these questions; churches should not be divided over them. I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that the Jews will be converted to Christ nationally and then "as a righteous nation" be restored to Palestine; Brother Boll [65] does believe this; yet this is no ground for our breaking fellowship with each other. Since these questions "do not directly affect any fundamental of the faith or outward act of obedience or Christian practice," they should not disturb any one; and "if they occasion trouble, it must be due to a failure of Christian love somewhere," or a failure to keep these questions where they belong. Brethren do wrong in letting these things disturb the peace of God's people. In matters of opinion, we should adopt this motto: "Let us agree to differ and resolve to love."

      I agree with Brother Boll that brethren differed seventy-five years ago as widely on these questions as brethren differ now on them; yet they esteemed each other then as brethren in the Lord and worked and worshiped in full fellowship with each other. Brethren should do the same to-day. Yet the older brethren recognized the danger of human interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy, for Isaac Errett said: "There is what Isaac Taylor calls 'the enthusiasm of prophetical interpretation;' of which we have a great horror, for we have seen much of its mischievous workings." (Millennial Harbinger, 1861, page 410.) He recognized that much harm could come from "private interpretation" of unfulfilled prophecy, and we should be warned to-day of "its mischievous workings."

      The negative has pointed out the fact that there are two classes of prophecy in the Bible-fulfilled and unfulfilled. It was further emphasized that Brother Boll must rely entirely upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy for the support of his proposition. Brother Boll now admits that all of his proof texts fall in the class of the unfulfilled prophecies. The statement was made that God only can see the end of prophecy; hence, inspiration is needed for a correct interpretation of it. Now, since it is not in the power of man, unaided by inspiration, to know how an unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled, then [66] no one can know whether a correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy has been given; no one can ever be sure that his interpretations of an unfulfilled prophecy are absolutely correct. No proposition which depends wholly upon interpretations of unfulfilled prophecies for its proof can ever be established. Therefore, Brother Boll can never prove his proposition.

      Brother Boll feels the force of this argument. He asks that I recede from this position. I cannot. I believe it to be true. If it be true, Brother Boll is correct when he says: "This must be settled, else all our work is in vain." If this be true, then he "has no ground left at all from which to reason." He proposes to drop his present proposition--in fact, the entire discussion--and take up this new issue and debate it. This shows that he feels the mighty, crushing force of this argument upon his proposition. But I am not willing to let him escape just here and discuss a new issue now. I shall be glad to discuss that issue with him later, if he so desires, but cannot let him now detour around an insurmountable difficulty. I cannot recede from this argument, neither can I let him escape from his present embarrassing situation. This is no time for mercy or leniency to be given to his proposition. Truth demands that error must surrender unconditionally. Brother Boll sees clearly and frankly admits that be cannot prove his proposition until he has proved another proposition. He admits that he has not proved the other proposition, but is now willing to stop and prove it. Since the proof of his present proposition depends upon the admitted unproved proposition, he thus admits that he has not proved and cannot prove his present proposition. Again we both agree.

      I am glad that Brother Boll has narrowed, limited, and restricted his field of Scripture proof texts to the class of unfulfilled prophecies. He must now busy himself with interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy. What guarantee can he give us that his interpretations are [67]

      I believe in studying the Bible, the entire Bible; I try to teach the entire Bible; I try to teach the prophecies. I have never discouraged any one's studying any portion of the Bible. Brother Boll errs in his reasoning on this point. His fallacy is called "ignoratio elenchi"--ignores the point in dispute. I stated that finite man, unaided by inspiration, could never know when the correct interpretation of an unfulfilled prophecy was given. Brother Boll changes this point and leaves the impression that I claim that man is unable to understand the Bible without an inspired interpreter. The reader will see the difference in my claim for an inspired interpreter of unfulfilled prophecies, which are a small portion of the Bible, and inspired interpretation of the entire Bible.

      The prophecies concerning Christ's first advent were not understood until after their fulfillment; they were not even understood by the prophets who uttered them. Take this one for example: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and [68] bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isa. 7:14.) This prophecy was fulfilled in Christ; but no uninspired Jew who knew that the word of God abounded in metaphors and figures of speech could have told just how it would be fulfilled. No one could have detailed the visit of the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, his appearance to Mary, her espousal to Joseph, the trip to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and his manger-cradle. Even if he had foretold all of this in his interpretation of that prophecy, how would the people then living have known that it was a true interpretation? We know it now because inspiration has said: "Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet." (Matt. 1:22.) Again, take this prophecy: "Thus saith Jehovah: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuseth to be comforted for her children, because they are not." (Jer. 31:15.) The fulfillment of this prophecy was a real occurrence, but it was not fulfilled according to the natural import of words. Instead of its being in "Ramah," it was in Bethlehem; and instead of "Rachel," one woman, weeping, many mothers wept. Could any Jew without inspiration see hundreds of years beforehand that Herod would order all the male children under two years old in Bethlehem killed and thus fulfill this prophecy? The language of this prophecy is figurative, and no one could know of its fulfillment had not Matthew said: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet." (Matt. 2:17.) Many other examples could be given.

      God has seen fit to keep some things in mystery. He said: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end. . . . And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan. 12:4-9.) In commenting on Isa. 29:11, 12 as quoted by Brother Boll, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say: "Prophecy remained [69] comparatively a sealed volume until Jesus, who alone is worthy to open the seals." Truly, "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Rev. 19:10.)

      Brother Boll's reference to Luke 24:25; John 5:39, 46; and Acts 13:27 does not weaken this position. The difference between those mentioned in these Scriptures and us is that Christ with the apostles fulfilled the prophecies and pointed it out to those people and told them that Christ was fulfilling the prophecies, but they would not believe him. The prophecies which Brother Boll is using are not fulfilled, and his interpretation of their fulfillment is not guided by inspiration. If an inspired man were with us and telling us that these unfulfilled prophecies were being fulfilled and we refused to believe it, then we would be in the class with those mentioned above. They did not know Christ because they did not believe that he was fulfilling their prophecies; he was not fulfilling the prophecies as they understood them. Their rejection of Christ is stated here as the cause of their failure to understand the prophecies which were fulfilled in him.

      Brother Boll fails to distinguish between a promise and a prophecy. We can believe the prophecies will be fulfilled and yet reject "private interpretation" of prophecies. I do not class what is taught in the New Testament about heaven, hell, eternity, the judgment, etc., in the same class of unfulfilled prophecies to which the restoration of the Jews belong; however, all that we know or can know now about heaven, hell, resurrection, judgment, eternity, future life, and the second Advent of Christ must be learned only from inspired writers.

      1. His Scriptures quoted here were fulfilled in the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. He has not proved beyond a doubt that they refer to a future time. [70] 2. Rom. 11. The Jews who are converted to Christ are restored to his favor on the basis of faith in Christ as all Gentile Christians are. "All Israel shall be saved." If this means that the Jews are to be converted to Christ nationally, then "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" (verse 25) means that all Gentiles will be converted nationally. So we will have universal salvation. The ten tribes, as a nation, had no hand in the rejection and crucifixion of Christ; hence, they are not included in Paul's discussion in the eleventh chapter of Romans.

      3. This point was conceded, but it has not yet been established that God has promised to convert the Jews to Christ nationally and then restore them "as a righteous nation" to Palestine, and until this is done this point cannot be claimed to support Brother Boll's proposition.

      4. 2 Sam. 7:10; Amos 9:15; and Joel 3:17 do not teach this point. If this point could be proved, then it would prove the impossibility of God's children apostatizing or falling from grace. It would mean that fleshly Israel should continue in Palestine forever and forever. Then what about Peter's statement which says, "by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?" (2 Pet. 3:12, 13.) If Brother Boll could establish this point, it would destroy the possibility of "new heavens and a new earth," or else the "new earth" would have a province called "Palestine" filled with Jews. I do not believe that the Scriptures teach this.

      5. Rom. 11 does not prove this point, and Brother Boll has not written a dozen sentences trying to prove this point.

      Be it remembered that Brother Boll has interpreted his proposition to mean that the Scriptures teach that the Jews are to be nationally converted to Christ and then [71] "as a righteous nation" restored to Palestine. Attention is now called to the fact that two and one-half tribes of Israel never had an inheritance in Palestine; the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half tribe of Manasseh were never located in Palestine, they received no inheritance in Palestine, and therefore they never could be restored to Palestine. A people who had never been in Palestine, had never received an inheritance in Palestine, could not be "restored" to Palestine. So Brother Boll's proposition falls when he attempts to include all fleshly Israel in his proposition.

      Again, the northern kingdom or the ten tribes were completely lost when they were carried out of Palestine. They were never to be restored. The prophet Hosea said: "For yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and I will cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease. . . . For I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, that I should in any wise pardon them." (Hos. 1:4, 6.) The prophet continues and says: "But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them." (Verse 7.) "Maurer translates according to the primary meaning, 'no more will I have mercy on the house of Israel, so as to pardon them.'" (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.) So the ten tribes were destroyed; their kingdom was to cease; and Jehovah would never pardon them. Brother Boll cannot include either the two and one-half tribes which located out of Palestine or the ten tribes which constituted the kingdom of Israel in his proposition. Again his proposition fails.

      No Jew was entitled to any part of Palestine, except the portion of his father. The Jews were not permitted to transfer the inheritance of their fathers from one tribe to another. (See Lev. 25:14-17, 25-28.) This is emphasized in Naboth's refusing to sell his vineyard to King Ahab. (1 Kings 21:3.) When the Jews came out of Babylonian captivity, they observed this law and [72] sought out the cities and estates of their fathers. (See Ez. 2:70.) Ezekiel said to the Jews while they were in Babylonian captivity that Jehovah would restore them and cause each one to "inhabit after your former estate," or "after your old estate." (Ezek. 36:11.) Now, since the Jews have lost their genealogies, and as Christian Jews are forbidden to keep up their genealogy, then how can they be restored to Palestine and given their father's estate according to genealogies?

      The genealogy of the Jew has been lost. Where would he go should he return to Palestine? In 1919 Brother Boll taught that "the country, being under control again of the Jews, regathered in unbelief (as we see them regathering to-day), would be under Jewish law," etc. (Word and Work, 1919, page 37.) Here he teaches that the Jew will be gathered back to Palestine "in unbelief." Now be argues that they are to be converted to Christ first and then "as a righteous nation" restored to Palestine. Which position is correct? It will not do to try to make a distinction here between "gathered back" and restored.

      Dr. J. T. Barclay says: "That Israel, thus territorially reinstated, is to be also politically reëstablished and completely reënfranchised, is sufficiently obvious from the declarations of the Lord already cited." (Millennial Harbinger, 1861, page 13.) He then quotes the same Scriptures which Brother Boll has used in support of his proposition. Brother Boll interprets his unfulfilled prophecies to mean that the Jews are first to be converted to Christ nationally and then "as a righteous nation" restored to Palestine. Dr. Barclay used the same Scriptures and interpreted them to teach that the Jews will be "territorially reinstated" and then submit to the supreme authority of the King of kings. Which shall we believe to have the correct interpretation, if either?

      Jacob Creath used the same Scriptures to prove that [72] the Jews will first be restored to Palestine and then converted to Christ that Brother Boll uses to prove that they will first be converted and then restored to Palestine. (Millennial Harbinger, 1854, page 326.)

      Robert Milligan said in 1856: "The general conversion of the Jews may not be far distant; and from the chronology of Daniel, we are inclined to the opinion that it will take place about A. D. 1922, or sixty-six years from this time." (Millennial Harbinger, 1856, page 607.) He has the Jews gathered back in Palestine and then has them converted. (Millennial Harbinger, 1856, page 663.) Brother Milligan used the same Scriptures which Brother Boll has used in this discussion. He interpreted them to mean that the Jews would be converted nationally after their restoration to Palestine, and fixed the date in the year 1922. The year 1922 has passed and we are five years this side of that date, and Brother Boll is interpreting the same Scriptures differently, and must necessarily look to a different date for their fulfillment. Which interpreter shall we accept?

      I stand corrected by Brother Boll on his comment in Word and Work of 1918 on Isa. 14:1. But he does say that "Israel is back in their land just before the Lord's glorious coming; the temple is rebuilt; its service resumed." (Word and Work, 1917, page 387.) This shows that at that time Brother Boll taught that the Jews were to be brought back to their native land and that they would rebuild the temple and resume their worship; that this would occur just before the glorious coming of our Lord. In affirming his proposition, be has repeatedly stated that they are to be converted to Christ first and then restored to their native land. It has been pointed out that if they are converted to Christ by the gospel, they cannot go back to the temple worship without repudiating Christ. They cannot exist in Palestine "as a righteous nation" and at the same time reject Christ. [73]

      1. Brother Boll's proposition imposed upon him two heavy burdens: the first, to prove that the Jews were to be converted to Christ nationally; the second, that they were "as a righteous nation" to be restored to Palestine after their conversion. Has he sustained his proposition under these two burdens?

      2. The negative has showed that the gospel of Christ does not convert people nationally, but it converts people individually. Hence, Brother Boll fails to prove the first part of his proposition.

      3. The Jews are now scattered among all nations. It is impossible for them to be converted nationally without bringing them together as a nation. The affirmative has failed to tell whether they are to be converted before they are gathered together or after they are gathered into some rendezvous.

      4. The affirmative has failed to show whether the Jews will be restored to Palestine a few at a time or as one large colony transferred to Palestine. This is germane to the proposition, since he claims that they are to be restored "as a righteous nation" to Palestine.

      5. The New Testament teaches (Eph 2:14-17) that the "middle wall of partition" which separated Jews and Gentiles has been broken down, so that no distinction is to be made between Jew and Gentile Christian. If the Jews are converted to Christ, they are to be known no longer as Jews, but as Christians.

      6. Again, it has been urged that there is no more Scripture or reason for the converted Jew of to-day or to-morrow being restored to Palestine than there was for the converted Jews in the early days of Christianity to be restored to Palestine. Why should the Christian Jew of to-morrow have any advantage over the Christian Jew of Paul's day? The affirmative has failed to answer this.

      7. The argument was made on John 4:21-24 that Jesus [75] taught that the hour would come when locality would not be an essential element in Christian worship; hence, no advantage to be gained by going to Jerusalem or Palestine to worship. The affirmative has not even referred to this argument throughout this discussion.

      8. Again, the affirmative has been urged to tell what kind of government will be adopted by the Jews when they "as a righteous nation" are restored to Palestine. The Jews now speak no common language in their dispersed condition. If they go back to Palestine, what will be their common language? What will be their official language?

      Many insuperable difficulties have impeded the progress of the affirmative in this discussion. His other propositions depend upon the proof of this proposition. We let the reader judge if he has proved this one. [76]

[UP 65-76]