This is a very important proposition. A proper division of the Word of Truth demands that we know just when the kingdom of God began on earth. A failure to understand this leads to confusion. The establishment of the kingdom of God on earth is not a future event; it is a past event, and the proof of it is to be found among historical facts and not in the field of unfulfilled prophecy.

      It is the duty of the negative to follow the affirmative and answer the arguments which are presented in support of the proposition. About one-fourth of the negative's reply is irrelevant matter. Brother Boll seems to be dissatisfied with his efforts to prove his first proposition, and especially the argument which was made against his ability to interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecy. He seems to think that we ought to settle the question whether man, unaided by inspiration, can tell when and how unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled.

      The argument was made that man, unaided by inspiration, is unable to interpret unfulfilled prophecy with any degree of certainty. Brother Boll admits that the proof of his propositions depends entirely upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. Since this is true, the point was made that Brother Boll can never tell, and the reader can never know, whether Brother Boll has given the correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, and therefore be can never know, and the reader can never know, whether he has proved his proposition. This is no reflection on Brother Boll's ability or his integrity. It is not in man with finite mind, unaided by inspiration, to see the end of prophecy and tell how and when it will be fulfilled. The statement was made that "no proposition [103] which depends wholly upon the interpretations of unfulfilled prophecies for its proof can ever be established."

      The question is not, Can we understand unfulfilled prophecies? But the question is, Can any one who is unaided by inspiration tell when and how unfulfilled prophecies will be fulfilled? Brother Boll thinks that I have raised a very important question here and that it ought to be settled before we proceed with the discussion. He states that he is unwilling to continue the discussion until this point is settled. I suggested that it is better to discuss the propositions which we have already announced, and then we can take up this new proposition; but he asks: "Why would not the affirmative be willing to discuss it now and here, where it logically ought to be discussed?" It is true that Brother Boll cannot prove the propositions which he has agreed to prove until he establishes beyond a doubt this one thing--namely, Can finite mind, unaided by inspiration, tell when and how an unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled? Brother Boll is rather late in wanting to establish this point. He should have proved several years ago that he can give infallible proof that his "private interpretations" of unfulfilled prophecies are absolutely correct. What guarantee has he to give us now that his interpretations are correct? Why should the affirmative or any one else accept his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecies upon his ipse dixit? He has been teaching for years his private interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. All these years he has been teaching "on the preassumption" that his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy were infallible. Now let him prove this first, and then we can accept his interpretations as proof of his present proposition.

      Of course, the affirmative is not going to let him make such "a huge assumption" upon which his part of "the whole discussion" depends. Brother Boll says this "ought to be settled first and once for all, if possible." Truly, it ought to be settled--it ought to have been [104] settled by him twelve or fifteen years ago. I am glad that he sees the importance of settling that question now, or else all that he may offer as proof of his propositions will be of no avail. There is a definite and square issue between Brother Boll and me on this point--namely, he claims that he is able to give infallible interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy; I deny it. Since he insists upon discussing this new issue now, I am willing to pause with the present discussion and let him undertake to prove this issue which is so important in this discussion. To relieve him of any embarrassment, the affirmative states the issue as follows: The Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can understand how and when unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled. I await his first affirmation on this proposition, and the reader will bear patiently with us for a few articles on this.

      If Brother Boll fails to prove the above proposition, then he cannot prove any of the propositions which he has proposed to affirm. If he fails to prove the above proposition, he ought to announce to the public that the propositions which he has agreed to affirm cannot be proved by the Scriptures and that he is ready to withdraw all of his declarations and teachings which depend upon his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy.

      I accept all the Scriptures which he has presented. I believe all of these Scriptures--in fact, the entire Bible; but I do not accept his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy: It is one thing to reject man's interpretations of unfulfilled prophecies and quite a different thing to reject the prophecies themselves. The negative fails to discriminate here. The reader will please make the discrimination.

      But Brother Boll thinks that I violate this fundamental truth and says that I interpret prophecy "with a high hand." The affirmative does not attempt to interpret unfulfilled prophecies "with a high hand" or with any other hand. Even if the affirmative should [105] attempt it, what objection could Brother Boll have to it, since he claims to be able to interpret unfulfilled prophecy? Is he the only one who can interpret unfulfilled prophecy? How does be know that his interpretation is better than mine? It is well to agree as far as we may be able without sacrificing truth. I am glad that Brother Boll indorses nearly all that the affirmative has presented on the proposition now before us. Brother Boll and I agree on the following points: (1) That the church of our Lord was established on the day of Pentecost; (2) that the kingdom of God on earth began on Pentecost; (3) that the church and kingdom which began on Pentecost are one and the same institution; (4) that members of the church are citizens of this kingdom; (5) that the Lord Jesus is enthroned in heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords; (6) that he has all power and authority in heaven and on earth. These are all very vital truths and far-reaching in their effect on the present discussion.

      The prophecy of Dan. 2:44 says that the God of heaven would set up a kingdom during the existence of the Roman Empire. Since the church, or the kingdom of God on earth to-day, began on Pentecost, which was during the existence of the Roman Empire, then it follows that the kingdom which began on Pentecost was the kingdom which Dan. 2:44 said the God of heaven would set up, or the God of heaven set up two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire. And since the Roman Empire has filled its mission and ceased to exist, the prophecy of Daniel now becomes history. Fulfilled prophecy becomes history after its fulfillment.

      The proposition resolves itself into the following question: Was the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 the same as the church or kingdom which began on Pentecost? If they are the same, then the smiting and destruction of the image began to take place on the day of Pentecost. Brother Boll made a fatal admission when be stated: [106] "We both believe in the one body, the church of our Lord Jesus Christ, established on the Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, which is God's kingdom on the earth to-day." The affirmative is claiming that this kingdom which Brother Boll says began on Pentecost is the kingdom which Daniel said the God of heaven would set up.

      One simple argument is enough to prove the affirmative's position. Daniel said that the God of heaven would set up a kingdom during the existence of the Roman Empire. Brother Boll and I both agree on this point. The God of heaven established his church or kingdom on the day of Pentecost. Again Brother Boll and I agree on this point. The day of Pentecost as mentioned in the proposition came during the existence of the Roman Empire. Again Brother Boll and I agree on this point. The Roman Empire has long since passed out of existence. Brother Boll and I agree on this point. Now it follows that if the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom established on Pentecost are not one and the same kingdom, then the God of heaven set up two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire. Brother Boll can never answer this argument. His admission was fatal to his position. He must now admit that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom which began on Pentecost are one and the same, or else he must show that God set up two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire. If he admits that they are one and the same kingdom, then he is admitting all that I claim in my position. He is in a dilemma--namely, either admit that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom which began on Pentecost are the same, or the God of heaven set up two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire.

      There is no Scripture in the entire Book of God which teaches that God would set up two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire. We will search in vain [107] for any Scripture which lends any encouragement to the position that two kingdoms were set up during the existence of the Roman Empire.

      As further proof that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom which began on Pentecost are the same, we submit this: "There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:14.) Brother Boll and I agree that the kingdom here spoken of is the same kingdom spoken of in Dan. 2:44. Hence, the kingdom of my proposition, the kingdom of Dan. 2:44, is the kingdom which was given to Christ. It is the kingdom over which Christ reigns; it is Christ's kingdom. Brother Boll made the fatal admission that the kingdom of heaven which began on Pentecost has Christ as its enthroned King. The kingdom of Dan. 2:44 was given to Christ as King; the kingdom which began on Pentecost was given to Christ as King. Hence, the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom which Brother Boll admits began on Pentecost are one and the same kingdom, or else Christ has been given two kingdoms. Again Brother Boll is in a dilemma--namely, either the kingdom of Dan. 2:44, which was given to Christ, is the same as the kingdom which began on Pentecost that was given him, or the God of heaven has given Christ two kingdoms. Which horn of the dilemma will he take? If he says they are the same kingdom, he admits the affirmative of this proposition; if he says that Christ was given, during the existence of the Roman Empire, two kingdoms, he takes upon himself a burden which he cannot carry, a proposition which he cannot prove.

      Now, Brother Boll must either concede the affirmative claim or face the embarrassing position of saying that Christ was given two kingdoms. Will he please tell us the difference between these two kingdoms? Who are [108] the subjects of these two kingdoms? What are the laws of these two kingdoms? What is the territory of these two kingdoms? Will Brother Boll tell us the difference between these two kingdoms? Brother Boll's position makes him teach that God has given Christ two kingdoms with but one throne, one set of laws to reign over the two kingdoms. May we ask if these two kingdoms which were given Christ during the existence of the Roman Empire are both now in existence? Does Christ still have dominion over both of them? These questions show the absurd position that the negative must take if he does not indorse the affirmative position.

      Brother Boll claims that the smiting of the image by the stone is a catastrophe. How does he know it is a catastrophe? Who has said it was? Daniel, in giving the interpretation of the dream, did not say it was a catastrophe. This is a sample of Brother Boll's "private interpretation."

      Brother Boll states that if the stone represents the kingdom of God, then the kingdom was in existence when it smote the image. He seems to intimate that the kingdom which smote the image was not in existence at that time. His attention is called to the fact that the image was in existence with all of its parts when it was smitten by the stone. Be it remembered, also, that Brother Boll and I agree that the composite image was made up of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires. Hence, according to Brother Boll, if the kingdom did not exist until it was ready to smite the image, then all of these kingdoms which compose the image must be brought back into existence in order that the future kingdom (as Brother Boll teaches) may smite them. His interpretation would call for a reëstablishment of the Babylonian government, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman, all at the same time, in order that a future kingdom may smite them and destroy them. God has not promised that there should be a fifth world power on this earth. The affirmative calls for the proof. [109]

      Mention was made of the five uses of the term, "kingdom of God." These are not "five aspects or stages" of the same kingdom, but they are five distinct kingdoms. They are: First, God's physical kingdom. His laws control all life, vegetable and animal. Second, his moral or ethical kingdom. (Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:25, 32, 34-36; Ps. 22:28; 93:2.) Third, his eternal kingdom, heaven. (Dan. 4:26; Luke 15:21; Acts 14:22; 2 Pet. 1:11.) Fourth, his kingdom of Israel. (2 Sam. 5:12; 1 Kings 9:3-7; 11:11.) Fifth, his kingdom, or church. These are distinct kingdoms and not "phases or stages" of the same kingdom. The kingdom of Dan. 2:44 cannot be identified with God's physical kingdom, nor his ethical kingdom, nor with heaven, nor with the kingdom of Israel; it can be identified only with the kingdom which began on Pentecost, which is the church of our Lord.

      Jesus took up the Old Testament conception of the kingdom of God and claimed to fulfill it; he claimed to be fulfilling the prophecies concerning the kingdom of God. All of the parables of the kingdom emphasize the fact that the kingdom which Christ was preaching was the kingdom which had been announced by the prophets. The parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26), the parable of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30), the leaven, the tares, etc., all show that the kingdom which Jesus was preaching was the kingdom which had been promised and the one which fulfilled the prophecies.

      For the sake of emphasis, further proof is given, showing that the church of the New Testament and the kingdom of God as used by the Savior are one and the same institution. The following facts are submitted: The church and the kingdom agree in the following points: (1) The head, (2) the laws, (3) the subjects, (4) the territory. The church and kingdom agree in all of these essential points.

      The Head of the church and the King of the kingdom are the same. Christ is the Head of the church. (See [110] Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18.) Christ is also the King of the kingdom. (See Acts 17:7; Rev. 1:5; 17:14.) Since Christ is the Head of the church and also King of the kingdom, the church and the kingdom are identified in the chief executive of each.

      The laws of the Bible furnish all things which pertain to life and godliness. (2 Pet. 1:3.) There cannot be different laws in the church and the kingdom, since the Scriptures pertaining to both church and kingdom are the same. So the two are identified in that they have the same laws.

      The members of the church and the subjects of the kingdom are the same. (Col. 1:13.) Every one who is born again is in the church. (1 Pet. 1:22, 23.) But those born again enter the kingdom. (John 3:3-5.) The members of the church are the citizens of the kingdom. (Eph. 2:19.) Christ does not have one thing on earth called the "church " and a different thing called the "kingdom." One cannot be in the church and not be in the kingdom; neither can one be in the kingdom and not be in the church. He who, is in the one is in the other; he who is out of the one is out of the other. That which introduces one into the church also introduces one into the kingdom. There are not two sets of acts, the one which puts people into the church and another one which puts them into the kingdom. So the kingdom and church are identified in the fact that they have the same subjects.

      The territory of the church is the territory of the kingdom. The Lord rules in the heart. "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to the which also ye were called in one body; and be ye thankful." (Col. 3:15.) Again: "I will put my laws into their mind, and on their heart also will I write them: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." (Heb. 8:10.)

      We may conclude, then, since the church and kingdom have the same head, laws, subjects, and territory, that they are one and the same institution. This identity of [111] church and kingdom is further emphasized by the language of Christ in Matt. 16. He said: "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Verse 18.) Speaking of the same institution, he said to Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (Verse 19.) In one instance he calls it "my church," and in the next instance he calls it "the kingdom of heaven." Thus Christ identifies his church and his kingdom as the same institution. Since the church began on Pentecost and the kingdom began on Pentecost, then the issue of the affirmative proposition is established. The church began its work when established; it began its mission on Pentecost. So the kingdom of God began its mission on Pentecost, and Daniel said it would smite and destroy all others. So the work of smiting and destroying began on Pentecost, which is the statement of the proposition.

      The body of Christ on earth and the church are one. (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:24.) The mode in which we become members of the body of Christ is the mode in which we enter the church and the mode in which we enter the kingdom. The body of Christ, the church of God, and the kingdom are one. They are not three different things, but one. They are not different phases of one and the same thing; they are one and the same thing. They are the same institution wearing three different names. This institution may be viewed either as a kingdom, as a church, or as a body. All that is true of this institution in any one of these views is true of it in either of the other two. The members of this institution, viewed with reference to Christ as their Head, are the body of Christ; if viewed in their collective capacity as an assembly or congregation, they are the church; but when viewed as subjects under law, with Christ as King, then they are the kingdom of God on earth. When the identity of the church and kingdom is established, then the proposition of the affirmative has been proved. [112]

[UP 103-112]