When a point is raised so important and far-reaching as to affect not only the proposition in the course of which it is mentioned, but all our propositions and the debate as a whole, it is surely not out of place to bring it up again in entering upon this new proposition. I speak of the question whether unfulfilled prophecy can be understood by uninspired man. It seems to me that this ought to be settled before we go on with any other matters depending for their settlement upon this question. If Brother Boles is willing (as he says he is) to discuss this point after we have discussed all else, why would he not be willing to discuss it now and here, where logically it ought to be discussed? I had no idea that he would take such a position in regard to prophecy, else I would have insisted from the start that this fundamental question be settled before all else. If he refuses to do this now, it will only mean that this matter will continually come up and be dragged along through the whole discussion, diverting time and space from the specific issues of all the following propositions. It ought to be settled first and once for all, if possible. Why should I go on quoting Scripture proofs for Brother Boles to set aside on the preassumption that they cannot be understood by uninspired man? If he can establish that, there will be no need whatever for us to go into the rest of the propositions. But if it is seen that unfulfilled prophecy can be understood, my respondent will be obliged thenceforth to accept the force of the Scriptures I present. Unless he does that, can it be called a debate at all?

      Brother Boles says that I feel the crushing burden of this argument (namely, that unfulfilled prophecy cannot be understood). But that is not an argument at all; it is merely a huge assumption. It is the begging of the whole question, and of all the questions raised in this debate, before ever a word is said. It is kicking clear out [94] of the traces. He says he cannot let me escape so easily. My impression of Brother Boles' position in this matter would be that he is trying to escape from the whole responsibility of giving my Scripture proofs serious examination, on the a priori assumption that unfulfilled prophecy cannot be understood at any rate. Nor am I trying to evade anything by insisting that he discuss this first; on the contrary, I am going after an essential point relating to this and all the rest of the questions before us.

      In connection with this, my respondent says that he is glad for the admission that all my proofs lie in the realm of unfulfilled prophecy. He knew that from the first. If we were discussing historical matters, for instance, all of my proofs would likely be taken from the field of history. Since the propositions, as agreed upon, deal with prophecy, whether it be fulfilled or unfulfilled, the proof texts must necessarily lie within that realm.

      When he says at the outset of his affirmative that his proof in this proposition depends not upon unfulfilled prophecy, but upon fulfilled prophecy, he again begs the question. For that is exactly the point at issue; and it is up to him to show that the smiting of the image by the stone is fulfilled prophecy, and it is my part to deny that particular point. But all prophecy, whether fulfilled or unfulfilled, is the word of God, and is to be accepted and believed by us according to the just meaning of its language. I did not at all wish to charge my brother with discrediting the Bible as a whole after the fashion of the Roman Church, but to point out that his position regarding our inability to understand unfulfilled prophecy is precisely the same as that which Rome holds toward the entire Bible. From this position he ought to recede, or else that point should be discussed and settled before anything else.

      However, it seems to me that Brother Boles does not consistently stick to that notion. On occasion he "interprets" prophecy with a high hand. First, he shows (and [95] quite correctly) that the vision of Nebuchadnezzar was a mystery until Daniel interpreted it. But even after Daniel had interpreted it and had reduced the symbolism of the image to plain speech, was it then still a mystery, and does it even then need more "interpreting" before it can be understood? My respondent seems to think so. "What does the smiting of the image by this stone mean?" he asks; and answers as follows: "This question is answered by the nature and mission of the kingdom of God. . . . It means that the kingdom of God would be of such a nature that it would render impossible any other universal kingdom; that the nature and principles of the kingdom of God would destroy in ever-increasing and expanding power and influence the principles of world powers." (Italics mine.) Here is certainly a sample of arbitrary "interpretation." But should he say that this is a fulfilled prophecy, I must again call attention to the fact that that is the very point to be proved. And even if it were a fulfilled prophecy, that fact would not license us to give it an arbitrary meaning to suit our preconceptions. It would be difficult also to imagine what advantage it would be if the kingdom of God merely put an end to universal human kingdoms, the while an endless succession of smaller ones, just as godless, cruel, and vicious as the universal, would go on flourishing through thousands of years.

      The proposition my respondent is to prove is that "the Scriptures teach that the event signified by the smiting and destruction of the image in Dan. 2:34, 35 and 44, 45 began to take place on the day of Pentecost."

      The task of the affirmative is not to prove that God has now and always has had a kingdom in one sense or another; nor that the kingdom in a new and different stage began with the establishment of the church on the day of Pentecost; nor that the church represents the [96] kingdom of God to-day; nor that the Lord Jesus is enthroned in heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords, having all power and authority in heaven and on earth; and that all who are in the church are translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son. On all this we are agreed. I not only admit and concede all that, but I avow and declare it. There is no controversy between us on these points. But it is the affirmative's burden to show that the event of the smiting and the destruction of the image took place, or began to take place, on Pentecost.

      My honorable respondent fails to keep the exact point at issue clearly before him. Perhaps he has been, and is yet, under a misapprehension in regard to it. I tried to make this clear in our correspondence when we arranged the propositions. He says that the proposition should have been worded, "Do the Scriptures teach that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 began on Pentecost?" If it had been so worded, I would not have taken the negative, because of its ambiguity. I am not at all denying the existence of the kingdom of Christ, or its beginning on Pentecost. On page 20 of my little book, "The Kingdom of God," I have this note:

      The statement that "Dan. 2:44 has not yet been fulfilled" does not deny that the Stone which smites the Image upon its feet already exists. Necessarily, the cutting out of the Stone "without hands" must precede its descent upon the Image. If it be contended that the words in Dan. 2:44, "In the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," has reference to the first preparation of the Stone, in the establishment of the church on Pentecost, we have no objection to offer. It is in harmony with that conception that Christ, descending from heaven at the head of his saints (Rev. 19:11-21), destroys the last world power and takes possession of the earth. This is the Stone which has been forming throughout the present age, and which in due time comes down to smite the Image and assume the control of the earth. But it is the latter point--the [97] establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth, in open manifestation and supreme power--which the catastrophe of Dan. 2:44 has especially in view.

      I tried to make all this clear to Brother Boles, and called his especial attention to that note in my book which is here quoted. Yet it seems that Brother Boles argues as though I were denying the present existence of God's kingdom, or its beginning on Pentecost.

      My respondent has written an able and well-worded article indeed, and with most of it I am in hearty agreement; but if he has undertaken to prove that on the day of Pentecost the stone smote the image, he has entirely failed to do that.

      He tells us correctly what kingdoms are represented by the different parts of the image--Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome. He also correctly tells us that the stone which smites the image is the kingdom of God. "Both the stone and the kingdom of God are to destroy one and the same thing," he says; "hence, they are one and the same." Now, if the stone "represents the kingdom which the God of heaven would set up," manifestly the stone existed before it smote the image. We can agree, therefore, that the kingdom of God, as it exists to-day, took its inception on Pentecost, while yet I deny that the catastrophe which is represented by the stone's smiting upon the image and utterly annihilating it has yet come to pass. And the affirmative has, so far as I am able to see, offered not one vestige of proof that this thing did happen on Pentecost. The negative does not deny that Christ is King now, that he has a kingdom, and that that kingdom began on Pentecost; but takes the position that that establishment and distinct manifestation of the kingdom in sovereign power on earth which is signified by the smiting of the image by the little stone (which itself is the kingdom of God, as Brother Boles says) has never yet taken place. Brother Boles has failed to prove that it has. Among the many good things which he says, this [98] one all-important point escapes his notice. This thing was not brought out nor substantiated by the word of God; and on this hangs the whole question. Will the kingdom of Christ ever openly clash in destructive force with the kingdoms of this world, and bring them down in utter and final ruin? If so, then that is the time when the stone (the kingdom of God) will smite upon the feet of the image, and will thereafter occupy the arena itself alone. Will Brother Boles show that the stone smote the image on Pentecost? Will he show that the image was broken up then, or that on that day it even began to be broken up, and its small fragments swept away so that no place was found for them?

      Between every prophecy and its fulfillment there must be a definite and recognizable correspondence, else it would be no prophecy. That is, the event must clearly embody what the prophecy foretold. But there is no correspondence between the prophecy of Dan. 2:35, 44 and Brother Boles' alleged fulfillment. The stone smites the image upon its feet--as Brother Boles says, "a huge bowlder loosing itself from a neighboring steep mountain and rolling down on the plain and striking the image with irresistible force and completely destroying the image." This is surely not a case of peaceful penetration. It would be a singularly inapt representation of the inauguration of the gospel message. The stone's descent upon the image is not a picture of grace, but of sudden and terrible judgment from on high.

      If the establishment of the church was signified by the impact of the stone upon the image's feet, it is strange that that fourth world power suffered no inconvenience from it. She was not in the least injured by it. She was not destroyed, nor did she even begin to break up, then nor from that day on; and that would be the least that might have been expected. On the contrary, Rome did not only stand as she had been before, but went right on growing and increasing. Any history will show that for [99] nearly a hundred years after Pentecost Rome continued in rapid territorial growth, and did not reach the fullest extent of her dominion until the reign of the Emperor Trajan (A. D. 98-117). When at last Rome began to decline, her decline and fall were not due to the moral influence of the gospel or of the kingdom of Christ, but to immorality, profligacy, luxurious and effeminate living--the same natural causes that undermined other kingdoms and which were responsible for the fall of some of the preceding world powers, before the church was established. No connection can be traced between the gracious influence of the gospel and the perdition of Rome. If there was any significance in the two legs, it would lie in the fact that the Roman Empire separated into two distinct dominions, the Eastern and the Western Empires. But there were no such legs until A. D. 395--more than three and a half centuries after Pentecost. Finally both parts played out--the Western, A. D. 476; the Eastern, not until A. D. 1453. Since then other kingdoms, most of them not a whit better than Rome, just as persecuting, as wicked and godless, have filled the face of the earth. What, then, has the stone done? Far from destroying the world power, the world power came near several times to destroying the church, at times by persecution, and even more by corruption. Where, we ask, is the resemblance between the prophecy and the fulfillment?

      But this is not all. According to the prophecy, the stone does not even begin to grow until the image is utterly destroyed, and all its fragments are clean swept away. The church, however, grew fastest in the first years after its establishment, while the Roman Empire as yet stood firm and uninjured. The church has had no steady growth since, but seasons of great decline, relieved by occasional revivals of the faith. When Jesus comes, it will be even smaller (Luke 18:8; 2 Tim. 3:1-8), and far from "filling the whole earth."

      Note, then, these points: [100]

      (1) The stone's impact upon the feet of the image signifies, not moral influence, but destructive force.

      (2) After the descent of the stone, the stone and the image do not at any time exist side by side. When the one comes, the other goes.

      (3) It is not stated nor indicated that the stone would permeate the image by its influence, or that the stone would gradually wear away the image.

      (4) The stone does not, by its growth and expansion, gradually crowd the image off the scene. The stone does not grow at all until the image is destroyed and the debris blown away.

      If the prophecy of the smiting and destruction of the image in Dan. 2:35, 44 foretells the establishment of the church on Pentecost, there is certainly no telling of what prophecy means before it is fulfilled, nor any accounting for it afterwards. With such views of fulfillment, it is no wonder that brethren should think that unfulfilled prophecy cannot be understood.

      If the difficulty be felt that in view of the fact that Rome has disappeared, that prophecy could not be fulfilled in the future at all any more; such difficulties can be left with God. We need not try to force his words into unwarranted agreement with the past because we think it has to be done. Especially not, since God has clearly shown us that there will be a final world power which the Lord at his coming with his saints will utterly destroy, after which the kingdom of the world will be his (Rev. 11:15) and he will reign with his saints (Rev. 13:1, 2, 7; 19:11 to 20:6). Since these things will be fully discussed in subsequent propositions, I do not enter into them more particularly now.

      A few special points deserve attention. I do not wholly accept the classification of God's kingdoms, or five aspects or stages of God's kingdom, as Brother Boles tabulates them. Yet I am glad that my respondent recognizes the fact that the kingdom of God may have [101] different manifestations and stages of existence. That facilitates matters. He refers to Luke 19:11, etc. That is a good reference, and pictures the situation comprehensively. The nobleman is Christ; the far country, heaven. Thither he has gone to receive for himself a kingdom. In the meanwhile his servants, surrounded by hostile and rebellious men, like the church in the midst of the world, administrate his goods. When the nobleman returns in power ("having received the kingdom"), he calls first his servants to account, and then appoints them a share in the government he has taken over; but his enemies he destroys. That fits the prophecy of Dan. 2:35, 44.

      I am glad also that Brother Boles recognizes the parallel between the prophecy of Dan. 2 and Dan. 7. The prophecy concerning the four beasts in Dan. 7 is an important side light to the prophecy of the four-part image of Dan. 2. And the final issue is the same in both prophecies. The last beast being destroyed, the saints, who up until that moment had been persecuted by the world power, receive the kingdom--not a kingdom up in heaven, but a kingdom "under the whole heaven," the same realm and sphere of government which up till then had been dominated by the beast. But from thenceforth the Son of man and his saints exercise that rule. (Dan. 7:13, 14, 21, 27.) This again sets forth in different terms that great and radical change which occurs in the world's affairs when the little stone smites the feet of the image. [102]

[UP 94-102]