When the discussion began, Brother Boll and I agreed to write three articles each on "The Restoration of Israel." There was no agreement as to conforming to any rules of discussion. Each regards the other as a Christian gentleman; neither wishes any advantage over the other. The negative brought in new matter in his last, and Brother Boll asked for a reply to the new matter that was introduced. This request was cheerfully granted; hence, this additional matter is submitted to the public.

      The negative could let what Brother Boll has said pass without any reply whatsoever, because he has failed to prove his proposition and has failed to meet the arguments which the negative has presented. When Brother Boll interpreted his proposition to mean that Israel would be converted "nationally" to Christ and then "as a righteous nation" restored to Palestine, he shouldered a double burden. He could not carry either burden. He has failed to prove that the Jews are to be "converted to Christ nationally;" he has failed to prove that the Jews "as a righteous nation" are to be restored to Palestine after their conversion. So the negative could very well make no reply to this last brief affirmative. But, for the sake of clearness, a few comments are given in reply to his additional affirmative.

      1. The argument was made that two and one-half tribes were never located in Palestine, and therefore that portion of Israel could not be "restored" to Palestine. The additional argument was made that Brother Boll could not prove his proposition, since his proposition required that he prove that all Israel would be restored to Palestine. He replies by saying that Jehovah has promised land east of the Jordan to Abraham's seed. This is true, but the promise was conditional. (See 1 Sam. 2:30.) Israel never fulfilled the conditions, and therefore never [79] received as an inheritance all that was promised to Abraham. True, David and Solomon reigned over the country eastward to the river Euphrates, but Israel never received it as an inheritance. The nations which occupied it only paid tribute to David and Solomon. It is one thing for Jehovah to promise the land conditionally to Abraham's seed and quite another thing to promise to "restore" Israel unconditionally to a land which they had never inherited. Brother Boll fails to make this distinction.

      2. The argument was made that the northern kingdom, or ten tribes of Israel, had utterly been destroyed and that Jehovah had said: "I will . . . cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease." (Hos. 1:4.) Jehovah said also: "I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, that I should in any wise pardon them." (Hos. 1:6.) The northern kingdom of ten tribes should be destroyed (and was destroyed) and Jehovah would never pardon them. All traces and identity of the, ten tribes have been lost forever; Jehovah has caused them to cease and will never restore them. Paul says that Hos. 2:23 is fulfilled in Christianity. Hence, it cannot apply to the fleshly restoration of Israel. (Rom. 9:25, 26.) Fleshly Israel gives place to spiritual Israel. God's people, both Jews and Gentiles, are called "the Israel of God." (Gal. 6:16.) Abraham's seed who shall receive the blessings are those who have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. No Scripture teaches that the Jews are now to receive any special favors. God accepts all who believe in Christ as his children and calls them "the seed of Abraham." (See Rom. 9:6, 7; Gal. 3:7, 29.)

      3. Not only did the negative say, "The genealogy of the Jews has been lost," but also said that "Jehovah had instructed them not to keep up their genealogy;" that "genealogies, the means of identifying the Jews with fleshly Israel, have been abandoned by divine authority." (1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9.) So, if the Jews were to be [80] converted nationally and restored to Palestine, they would have to go back each one to his father's estate; and since all genealogies have been abandoned, the Jew would never know how to locate his father's estate should he go back. Brother Boll replies that this "difficulty is God's, not ours." Maybe so. But Brother Boll cannot get out of his difficulty by attempting to place it on Jehovah. This is a difficulty with Brother Boll in proving his proposition, and he has failed to meet this argument.

      4. The argument was made that Dr. Barclay, Jacob Creath, and Robert Milligan had all interpreted the same prophecies which Brother Boll has used in this discussion and had given them entirely different interpretations to that which Brother Boll has given. They interpreted these prophecies to mean that Israel, or the Jews, would be gathered back to Palestine first and then converted to Christ. Robert Milligan even fixed the date as the year 1922. Brother Boll replies--and that correctly, too--that the radical differences in the interpretations of these prophecies should not discredit the Scriptures. No, these brethren's differing widely from one another, and also differing as widely from Brother Boll in the interpretations of these prophecies, does not discredit these Scriptures, but their different interpretations do show one thing--namely, that man is unable to give a correct interpretation of prophecies which he claims have as yet not been fulfilled. What guarantee can Brother Boll give us that his interpretations are infallibly correct? How do we know whether to accept his interpretation or the other brethren's interpretations? We cannot accept all of them, because they contradict each other.

      5. Quotations were given from Brother Boll's former writings showing that he had occupied a different position to that which he now claims in this discussion. To this he replies, "I think I could easily justify all my former utterances on the subject," but he does not think that such has anything "to do with the proposition and the [81] issue before us." Well, it seems to me that it does have some bearing upon the proposition which is now before us. He is now claiming that the Jews are to be converted to Christ nationally and then "as a righteous nation" be restored to Palestine. He argued in Word and Work, 1919, page 37, that "the time referred to (Matt. 24:19-21) is the beginning of the unexampled tribulation that is to break upon the world, upon Judea and Jerusalem especially, just before the glorious appearing of Jesus Christ. (Matt. 24:29, 30.) The ones to whom the Lord gives this counsel of immediate flight are those believers in him who shall be residing in Judea at that time. When they shall see 'the abomination' (the idol-image) that maketh desolate standing in the then reconstructed temple, they must flee without delay. The country, being under control again of the Jews, regathered in unbelief (as we see them regathering to-day), would be under Jewish law; the Sabbath day, therefore, would offer little chance for quick departure," etc. Now, it will be interesting to see how Brother Boll can justify this utterance with his present contention. In 1919 he taught that the Jews are to be "regathered in unbelief;" in this discussion he contends that they are to be converted to Christ first and then regathered in Palestine. He may be able to see the consistency of these two contentions, but I do not. So closes the discussion on our first proposition. [82]

[UP 79-82]